User talk:RJII
Welcome!
Hi RJII! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! --Flockmeal 06:13, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)
I read the page, and it's contents didn't match up with what I understood the concept to be--I had always thought of it as someone who starts their own venture in politics, essentially an activist who went to business school. For example, Wes Boyd of MoveOn would be a political entrepreneur. Google seems to back me up, and also gives only 977 hits for the term. Should this be deleted or rewritten? Thanks, Meelar (talk) 15:14, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
Did you get this term from the works of Burton Folsom? Please reply at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Political entrepreneur. Gazpacho 21:16, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've created Burton Folsom, Jr.. You're welcome to contribute. Gazpacho 09:25, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
In accordance with policy at WP:3RR, I am blocking you for 24 hours for reverting more than 3 times within 24 hours in this article. Please respect this rule in future.-gadfium 00:25, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I've been bad. I did a no-no. RJII 21:12, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Constitutionality
The Constitutionality article temporarily can't be deleted for technical reasons (see Ugen's modification). In the meantime, there are incoming links to this page, so we can't keep the deletion notice in it. -- Curps 21:21, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- It's discussed briefly here: Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion#.22contains_block-compressed_revisions.22; I read more detail about it somewhere else (village pump?) but can't remember where. Apparently articles whose histories are too old have "block-compressed revisions" and the software just can't delete them, pending a fix in "a month or two".
- In the meantime, "Constitutionality" has incoming links from other pages, so the page has to remain usable by Wikipedia readers; it shouldn't be blanked or have alarming deletion notices at the top of it. Perhaps you should just put it on your "to do" list. I realize that's a frustrating situation, but it does seem to be a genuine bug with Wikipedia software for the time being. -- Curps 21:19, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- -- Curps 21:19, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Capitalism doesn't belong where you put it
I challenge your addition to the Anarchism article which we have disagreed on. If you look back in the Talk archives (very recently), it was decided through much arguing against a small minority that had little knowledge on the subject they were arguing, that anti-statist capitalism is NOT a form of anarchism. This claim is dealt with in the article. The system is even briefly explained, and then it is also explained that it is a misinterpretation to call it part of anarchism, which it is not. Therefore, I do not see a purpose to further link to the subject when it's already been stated in the article that anarchism is anti-capitalist. In the other wikpedia article, which is linked to in the article, about anarchist critiques of capitalism, there is further discussion on the subject and explanation. If we were talking about something like, say, anarcho-syndicalism, then it would be obvious that there should be some outside links to that subject, which there are. But when it comes to anti-statist capitalism, there is no reason to further promote the idea when it has already been dismissed as something which should not even be mentioned in the article, it is however because it is necessary to get rid of a somewhat common misperception. So I challenge your statement then, that it was wrongfully deleted. If you're an anti-statist capitalist who just recently discovered the article, please look at the the very recent discussions about this subject, because it's been debunked before many times. --Fatal 02:56, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Judicial Review
I removed the paragraph about the greater frequency of U.S. "unconstitionality" rulings from the judicial review article on the grounds its unsubstantiated (see Talk:judicial review for more). I apologize in advance if I removed this in error. If this is the case, your original text is in Talk:judicial review. You can just copy and paste it along with your sources back into the original page. Take care. Queerudite 21:06, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Wrong person. My apologies. -- Queerudite 02:34, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Survey in Talk:Anarchism
I would like to see your answers to the survey questions so we can start resolving all these disputes and unprotect the article. --albamuth 08:11, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Please respond to my concerns about the nature of the Comte quotation on the Altruism page. PaulStansifer 15:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Down with bullets!
Hi, RJII. Do you agree with me that all three bullets are really speaking about the same thing, and that they can (and need) to be merged? The limitation of the current format is revealing itself as too great is what our series of edits reveals to me more than anything. I think we need an integrated narrative for the opening pargrpah which depicts (somewhat in this order): an economic system [originating from] a combination of economic practices [analyzed in] competing theories, and finally, what we do not have there at the moment, currently the dominant economic system on the planet. Once we have that, it's much easier to collaborate on how to shift what, what to include, exclude, etc., but the connection first needs to be made. Ultimately, I think the split opening is too taxing on the reader, lacking logical flow and relationality. I joined the discussion late in the day (and I never edited the article before), and to be honest, I didn't really read it that closely, so I'm not exactly sure where you, yourself, stand with regards to the bullets. Thanks for taking the time to read this, looking forward to your thoughts. El_C 01:32, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- An afterthought: I noticed you deleted mercantilism having been succeeded and superceeded by capitalism. I presume this wasn't because you disagreed with this being an historical fact (since you kept it in multiple edits), but rather, for the sakes of concision. I wanted to comment on this front that, unlike Simple Wikipedia, we should be a bit (though, of course, not excessively) expansive in the op. of such a broad and complex subject. More importantly, I think it's key for us to provide the reader with historical context (by virtue of even mentioning mercantilism, the article suggests that feudal economic relations didn't just change straight into capitalism, as Adam Smith could testify first hand). El_C 02:15, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I have a problem with the first bullet, too, I find it is out of place, but I think it can make sense within an integrated narrative. Goodpoint re: it being the dominant system viz. mixed economies, I would not go so far as to say it's POV, but it's clearly a reductionistic statement on my part. That said, I think there is a need to qualify that it is, nonetheless, the most dominant economic strain/influence/however we choose to call it/etc. For example, China has been moving through the decades towards capitalism and having capitalists, towards private ownership, etc., rather than the opposite. Likewise with respect to the diminishing of the Keynysian Welfare State's 'safety net' (even the Democrates in the US, for example, are not calling for a New Deal right now, but rather, slowing down the intensity of of privitization). And likewise with the Structural Adjustment Plans the IMF/WB promotes for the Third World which push for privitization and greater openness to private investment. The general thrust, then, in that sense, is towards capitalism, with the dissolution of the Soviet block (another factor that can be listed with the above) playing an important role in this historic shift to the right. Returning again to the United States as an example, recall that until the 1980s even the Republicans in Office promoted the Welfare State (it wasn't just FDR and LBJ, but Nixon, and Ford). So this tendency needs to be broadly noted alngside mixed economy qualifications. To what extent (and how) we can do so in the opening is one question, which I am confident we can arrive at through editorial collaboration so long as we can agree on the basic premise of such an economic-historical movement. I certainly agree with you that we need to tackle the issue head-on rather than confusing the reader with mixed definitions which do amount to non-social-sceintific mysticism. Honestly, I did not expect to get too involved in this article to such an extent, but now that I am, perhaps I should attempt such a merger. At the event, it sounds as if this is something that you welcome (a long the lines I outlined above, minus the dominant system bit, we can iron that item out, I'm sure), so I'm pleased to learn that. I'm not sure when I'll find the time to do this merger for the opening (hopefuly soon), but I, of course, will value any help and insights you could provide me with on this (and any other) front. Does that sound? P.S. My apologies for the length of this comment. El_C 05:46, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, I think we are making positive strides, but I still wish to persuade you against having the leading definition extend for only two sentence – I simply do not think it's tenable. Please review the article talk page where I elaborate on this point. Secondly, most of what we write is, by nature, definitional; I suspect you are refering to the leading sentence/s that attempt to provide the most holistic, broadest definition, so on that front, I agree. That said, while the bullets do have to go, we should nonetheless expect it to be a multifaceted one (I elaboarte on this also at the talk page, noting that fundamental commonalities should be used as a basis while the particularities mentioned in a way that effectively leads towards the more substantive discussion of these in the body – all in the intro though). I think this is the most reasonable way to proceed forward; I know you feel the same way I do with respect to a multitude of senseless minor edit changes and reversions over an awkward, caricature of an intro is a waste of time for all participants. But we should chart-out some principal consensus components for the bullets merger that either you, myself, or one of the other editors will write, a prudent contingency to avoid undue circularity. So please read my aforementioned comment and give it some thought. I am hopeful that you and the other editors can agree to approach I am proposing for the intro: moving on from there will most likely won't be easy, but with such an agreement, at least it can be made possible. El_C
Unfortunate developments
I noticed the unfortunate results of the exchage between youself and SlR. I attempted to chart-out an approach to the intro (which no one has yet to comment on as all of you seem to be engaged with another, more specific subject/section at the moment). I sorta lost track of the discusion, but do let me know if there is anything I can do to help (an identical comment was placed on SlR's talk page). El_C 23:50, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Hi. I seem to have overlooked your comment on my talk page, sorry bout that. I don't think it's true that SlR dosen't wish for it to be defined so much as him seeking to avoid one (set of) defintion(s) superceed the rest. The Left, the Moderate Left, the Moderate Right, and the Right all differ on their analysis of capitalism. So, I do understand and share SlR's concerns.
- That said, I also support your position in so far that we need a unified lead to the intro: that's where my aforementioned approach to the intro –start from the universal move towards the particular– really comes into play. Easier said than done though. As said, I got to think further on how to reconcile these fragmented sections accordingly. Perhaps it would help to start by listing the universal components first and trying to gain concensus for these. I already know how I want the leading sentence to begin: capitalism is an economic system... El_C 09:28, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Hi, RJII, thanks for your comment. I address your thoughts on my talk page here.
I'm back (somewhat)
Sorry for taking so long to get back to you, RJII, I was out of town for a few days and then took a break from WP. Unfortunately, I have a few outstanding issues to take care of so I don't know when I will get a chance to attend to the capitalism article, not right away I'm afraid, but hopefuly soon. I do feel bad that up until now I couldn't be of more (any?) help to you. As said, once these outstanding issues are taken care of, I am hopeful I can revisit the topic and our collaboration, and then, provide some actual help (for once). El_C 21:00, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Capita...cake!
I made the decision to withdraw from the article talk page. Sadly, I am rather confident that the intro will end up glowingly pro-capitalist, representing the views of the Right and Moderate Right, and underrepresenting that of the Left and Moderate Left (again, it should be expected under this socio-economic system called capitalism), as must be the case for such fundamental articles. I don't have the energy to fight a losing battle over this POV eventuality. Watch this flash video for further generic details. (this generic comment has been forwarded to User talk:RJII (that's you!), User talk:Luis rib, User talk:SlimVirgin, User talk:Slrubenstein, and User talk:Ultramarine ]
I am afraid I still find that your approach to the definition/intro employs original reserach in ways that it should'nt. And I continue to advocate (with a measure of futility) my Key to the Intro approach, which moves from the universally-agreed into the particular, while attempting to remain balanced with the four major branches of political-economy: the Left, M Left, M Right, and Right. In the case you wish to discuss any particular item, feel free to comment on my talk page. El_C 02:48, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hey, at least the bullets are gone :) RJII 02:55, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
great workDave 04:41, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
I agree about the statue of liberty. I tried to find one that was publicly available myself, but I decided it would be easier to use one from the statue of liberty article. So I did. Dave 04:58, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
I actually made the symbol on the Libertarian page gold so that we didn't use the same image twice, which I thought was sort of tacky. But it's not a big deal. The gold one does look better, so if you want to use it on both, that's cool. Dave 04:54, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
On the anarcho-capitalist talk page, I wrote the following to Kev:
- "Please make a greater effort to be civil. Calling edits "egregious" and accusing someone of selective use of evidence to support "personal bias" does nothelp the project. For the record, the vast majority of RJII's edits have been constructive and appreciated by everyone but you. If you assume good faith, I suspect you will find disagreements easier to resolve"
I don't know if it will do any good, but I wanted to help keep him off your back. Dave 05:41, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do with capitalism eventually. Until then, I think I want to avoid it. Even though "libertarian economics" probably should be renamed and slipped into the capitalism article as a subsection with, I dunno, "pure capitalism" or something as the header, for now I want to keep out of it. Thanks for the heads-up, though. Dave 04:54, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
I see you're on, so hopefully you can respond to this. What do you think we should do with that messy section about rights, property, and the kitchen sink? Dave (talk) 03:22, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
That sounds good, but what do we do with the section's contents? Do you want to discuss it on AIM or Yahoo! Messenger? It'll be easier than this talk page stuff. Email me your screenname if so. Dave (talk) 03:33, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Arbitration
Please respond to the questions at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RJII#Questions_to_RJII_by_arbitrators Fred Bauder 13:46, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
- I defended you. The whole thing looks dumb to me. Dave 06:44, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Someone had posted a Marxist definition that supported yours, but nobody paid any attention. I gave it a sub-sub-heading. Hopefully this can defuse the whole thing. Dave 07:17, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
Wow
I gotta thank you for your edits to the socialism articles, good stuff :) -- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 04:57, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Was it an april fool's joke though? :P-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 20:37, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
Tense is not Quantity
Theories valorize. That's a good sentence. Theory valorizes. That's also a good sentence. "Theories valorizes" doesn't work. I see that you eventually fixed this, but your summary comment establishes you still don't exactly understand the problem. You said you were fixing the "tense"! No. Quick grammar lesson, if I may. Tense concerns past, present, future. There problem above, though, was making subject and predicate agree as to quantity, not as to tense. Just for future reference. --Christofurio 02:59, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
Definitions of capitalism and socialism
Thanks. I've put a transwiki notice up on both of them. I think that articles could exist on both these topics, but the existing contents should probably be transwiki'd. Slac speak up! 02:45, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Human nature dispute on libertarianism
I think the paragraph you're trying to get in is an accurate description of libertarian views, but Kev is probably right that it sounds like preaching. I'm planning on replacing it with a quote that says the same thing when I have time (probably this weekend). If you want to beat me to it, it could probably de-fuse the dispute and improve the quality of the article. If not, try not to let the revert war get too nasty--I'll try to fix it myself in a few days, so it's probably not worth it. I recommend http://www.lewrockwell.com for finding a good quote, but [[Thomas Sowell], Ayn Rand, the Cato Institute, and Fulton Huxtable probably all have suitable material. I wrote a note to Kev telling him what's going on. Hopefully this helps. Good luck. Dave (talk) 16:23, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
Che
Your help and certification at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Che_y_Marijuana would be appreciated. Philwelch 05:47, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Anarchism
This is rediculous. Anarchism as a trend has always been anti-capitalist, "left-anarchism" is a word invented to mask that, and you know it. Why is this so hard?-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 04:43, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Not notable enough to be used in the intro of the anarchism article, and not notable enough to have its own article.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 05:35, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
Encyclopedia entries for Capitalism
I hope you don't mind about me redirecting/merge your "Encyclopedia entries for Capitalism" article to Definitions of capitalism. The reason why I decided to merge it because there is already a section for "Encyclopedia" in the "Definitions of capitalism" article and the "Encyclopedia entries for Capitalism" is an orphan article. --Chill Pill Bill 21:07, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Again, very good edit. Two completely different versions of the same page, and they both were great... lets see how long this one lasts ;) Keep up the good work!
Cheers, Sam Spade 00:24, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks man. RJII 00:25, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I replied @ User_talk:Sam_Spade#disambig. Cheers,
- Sam Spade 00:48, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- p.s. have you seen Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost#tabloid_wiki-story?
- Sam Spade 00:48, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Good edit
I was wondering what to do with the "victimless crimes" thing in the introduction. I think you nailed it in your last edit. Good work.
By the way, what do you think about submitting this as a featured article candidate soon? Dave (talk) 15:21, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
Cool. The other two sections I think still need work are the "libertarian movement" section, which is sort of crappy, and the "criticism" section, which is still choppy after being gutted last night. I'm going to (try to) cut down on my work here for the next couple of weeks while I (force myself to) study for final exams. I think if you could fix them up a bit, we could get it featured when I get back, which would be really great. Keep up the good work, Dave (talk)
There are two ways. If you want the standard small size [edit:like we had originally], you put in "thumb" where it currently says "frame." If you want a specific size, you have to do something involving the number of pixels, but I don't know the details. [edit:by putting the number of pixels (like 100) followed by "px" in addition to the "thumb" marker] I'll shrink the picture, but if you want to remove it, that's cool too. By the way, great edits to the economics stuff. My only quibble is that some footnotes were lost in the shuffle (e.g. on property and redistribution). If you could put them back in yourself, that would be cool, but overall, I'm really happy with what you've done. If you could look at the "libertarian movement" and "criticism" sections, that would be ideal. Dave (talk) 21:13, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
I just made some changes and submitted the article to FAC. Hopefully everyone will like it as much as we do. Thanks for all your hard work on the article. Dave (talk) 19:49, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
Smart Quotes
I noticed that in your recent edit to the CE debate you managed to replace every quote with a smart quote. Because en.wikipedia is currently ISO 8859-1 and not Unicode, the insertion of unicode where it is not strictly needed should be discouraged. Also, there were quite a few places where the incorrect symbol was used. I'm guessing you probably didn't intend to make this change, since your edit summary didn't indicate as much, but it was a result of whatever software you used to make the edit. In the future, please be careful to prevent this from happening. Thanks! --Gmaxwell 16:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
- I see you edited the CE debate page to fix some indentation that I goofed up and claimed you didn't insert smart quotes in the summary... Please look at the changes you made via the compare button on the history page. You changed almost every paragraph of text in the page. Although the change may not be visable to you, it is to people who are not using a unicode based browser. I've reverted your change, and fixed your indentation myself. Gmaxwell 16:43, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Good riddance
I feel that your "Good riddance" comment at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate will hinder rather than encourage discussion. Please consider removing it. --Theo (Talk) 16:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
- Ditto. It was obnoxious. --Leifern 17:32, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
Could you please add copyright info to this image? Mgm|(talk) 14:55, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
Libertarianism -- criticism, health care NPOV
i still think the further caveat is unnecessary, but i do like that last change much better. doesn't stick out at all. thanks. SaltyPig 23:05, 2005 May 30 (UTC)
Hi RJII, I cleared the copyvio tag from this image based on your assertion of fair use. I couldn't find the publication date of the postcard (I know, it says 1910-1915 in the title, but that may be when it was painted, not when it was published). There is a {{Fairold}} tag for images which are most likely PD but where the date can't be nailed down, seeWikipedia:Image copyright tags.
Also,
- Can you please tag the image?
- The image needs to be used or else there is no fair use rationale (so put it to use or it will be deleted).
- Can you add source information to the image page?
- You might want to move and re-factor you comments from the image description page to the talk page.
Thanks--Duk 14:48, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hi RJII, I don't agree with your removing of the copyright violation notice on this article, although I understand your frustration at its status WP:CP being unresolved for so long.
The main reason I don't think that you should clear this copyvio is because you are an interested party, being the article's primary author. Also, it's generally administrators who clear copyright violations.
You said in the edit summary that copyright violation not found. This is not true, I think the question is weather fair is appropriate. I didn't voice an opinion on this article's listing at wp:cp, but I've been thinking about it. And if I were to clear it today, I would delete the article. But, like I said, I'm still thinking about it.
You should revert yourself, restore the copyvio tag and let a non-involved party make the call.
--Duk 06:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I was hoping that you would be respectful of the copyright review process and restore the copyvio tag until the review is complete, but since you haven't, I did.
- Please read the copyright violation notice and pay particular attention to; Those who repeatedly post copyrighted material may be blocked from further editing. Even if this article spends the next six months on review at WP:CP without resolution you still may not remove the copyvio tag.--Duk 00:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I don't agree that this is a ridiculous case. The article has been deleted before, and I'd like to point out that the administrator who deleted it the first time has allowed this second review, instead of immediately deleting the reincarnation on sight. Which brings up a good point; you created the first article, noted its deletion, and then recreated the article. This is an offense that can get you blocked from editing. Please don't do it again.--Duk 01:08, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Voluntary racial seperation
Can you find any example in history of voluntary racial segregation OF THE KIND OF WHICH YOU SPEAK? If so, please provide a reference. I humbly suggest to you that the idea of "voluntary" segregation of a minority desired to be evicted is in practice NEVER "voluntary". Ask the Palestinians in diaspora. Ask the white farmers "voluntarily" seperated from their Zimbabwe farms, or the descendedants of the prior Black owners of that land (if any are still alive). In practice, it is never voluntary. NEVER. 4.250.168.67 04:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Ok, I'm not here to defend or oppose national anarchism. I'm just relaying what they say their position is in order to have an accurate article. RJII 04:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I reread the paragraph; I see your point; I feel that deleting "voluntary" makes sense since its a contradiction in terms; but I also believe "anarchism" is self contradictory. One more delusion in a delusional topic can't be too bad. I choose to leave it alone. And you're probably right in that if asked they would claim it to be "voluntary". The American Indians voluntarily sold us their land didn't they? 4.250.168.67 04:33, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Anarchism article
If you want to edit the good anarchism article, please edit Anarchism (anti-state). Anarchism (theory) is just a backup of Anarchism (anti-state), in case the latter gets deleted. We may need it in coming edit wars. Hogeye 07:06, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
lots of edits, not an admin
Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. If you're at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list, although there is certainly no guarantee anyone will ever look at it. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:28, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
RFM
You may feel that User:Albamuth has misrepresented you, but I don't see any reason not to get into mediation. To come to an agreement (no matter what that would entail) you'd need to talk, and it looks like bad blood is forming in this discussion. Mediation would simply mean a neutral 3rd party would try to facilitate and guide the discussion towards a conclusion all parties can live with. I strongly urge you to reconsider your position.
Sincerely,
Mediator chairman Mgm|(talk) 21:53, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
I'm leaving this plea on several talk pages. Some editors have been making significant changes to the lead section of Libertarianism and putting the justifications for their edits in the edit summary. I think this is somewhat inappropriate, because it means there will be relentless edit warring, and it is greatly disruptive to this featured article. Please concentrate on using Talk:Libertarianism to discuss changes before they are made, and use the edit summaries to explain what is being edited, not why. Thanks --malathion talk 17:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Individualist Anarchism
Please don't get the impression that I am just trying to antagonize you. In fact, I am a bit grateful -- because of our debate about I-A, I've read a lot more of Tucker and Spooner's work (esp. Tucker's responses to readers from Liberty), which I was only vaguely familiar with before, and only because of reading about mutualism. --albamuth 21:56, 23 July 2005 (UTC)