User talk:Libertatia

Abstraction

I deem unfounded the complaint (if you meant it to be directed specifically at me, as seems the case from the context) that I answer specific "historical accounts" with abstractions. I'm always happy to discuss historical accounts of capitalisms But on the Talk page of Anarchism just now I was countering the abstract claim of 88.152 and others that anarcho-capitalism is inherently contradictory with an equally abstract (but no more so) explanation of why it isn't. I wasn't 'countering' particulars with abstractions. I will always try to address anyone on the level of concreteness with which he addresses me. ----Christofurio 20:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was directed to the comment directly above. I'm agnostic about the label anarcho-capitalism, as those who fly that particular flag vary in important regards as to their actual politics. Libertatia 14:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few words more, because this is a lazy Sunday. You write, in the same passage I responded to above, "Now, traditional individualist anarchists also trade in the (semi-mythic) promise of a really-free market-to-come, but try to call it something different, to avoid confusion."

Something different from "capitalism," then, is apparently what you mean there. This task of looking for a "Something Different" name that would itself be immune from anybody's nitpicking seems unnecessarily burdensome. I'll continue to call it "capitalism" in the meantime, and let the nitpickers make of that what they wish. And this is why it risks no genuine confusion: capitalism as an ideal is continuous with certain aspects of capitalism as an existing force in the world. One of the contentions implicit in much anarcho-capitalist writing is that if and when that ideal free market does come about, the historians of that time will see the development of, for example, secondary markets in equity over the recent centuries as having been a positive step forward toward the world that they enjoy. They'll see the prosecution of "insider traders" in the late 20th and early 21st centuries as having been a hindrance to the coming-to-be of the world that they enjoy. The word "anarcho-capitalism" doesn't merely constitute a mooning after an imagined future ideal -- it connects that ideal with some factors in the present and the past. It means one takes the side of the "kulaks," rather than of their liquidators, in memory.

So the term "anarcho-capitalism" isn't merely internally consistent. It contributes to your goal of "avoiding confusion." --Christofurio 15:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really an issue of "looking for a ... name that would itself be immune from anybody's nitpicking." Sure, such a thing is impossible, and to the extent that these debates never rise above the level of semantics, they are essentially worthless. Constructions like "consistent Manchesterian," "unterrified Jeffersonian," and "free-market anti-capitalist" do, however, strike me as more initially thought-provoking than "anarcho-capitalist," in part because it has been so easy to appropriate that last term to describe the mafia-capitalism of the post-Soviet states. Then again, when I see Enron execs associated with "kulaks," and in a positive sense, perhaps you don't mind those associations. In that case, your use of capitalism is clear as a bell, and in line with historical usages. It's your definition of anarchism that remains open to question. Libertatia 14:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its a good thing I never associated Enron execs with the kulaks, then, isn't it? I associated myself with the kulaks, "in a positive sense," because I think their memory must be defended. I certainly imlied that some prosecutions for insider trading and related offenses have been, in my view, misguided. I'll give you some examples if you like, but for now let's say this has nothing to do with the Enron crowd. They're on trial (yippee!) for having violated their fiduciary responsibilities to their stockholders. A manager's fiduciary responsibility is to work to make the owners of the company -- which in this case was a category that overlapped with the category "employees" considerably -- a profit. And that means a real profit, one that would show up given honest accounting! Lay, Skilling, and crowd violated that responsibility. They failed the basic test of capitalist ethics. And I'll never call myself an "unterrified Jeffersonian," I assure you. Huh? The adjective fits, but the noun applies to me not at all. --Christofurio 03:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come join Project Utopia!

Well, it's not a project yet, just a proposal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Utopia But sign up and help make it a reality! Rabidwolfe (talk) 12:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the message on your page

"system which attempts to do without any practice of critical judgement and expertise on the part of the editors will...drive away expertise.." That's the point, don't you see? Self-proclaimed experts on Wikipedia are not to be trusted. That's exactly what the system is trying to prevent, "original research," and for good reason. Wikipedia is simply a central repository for already-published information. It is not the editor's place to judge the truth of the information, and selectively input what he thinks is true and censor what he thinks is false. That defeats the whole idea of Wikipedia, including the policy of NPOV. Operation Spooner (talk) 06:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, what you describe is not what Wikipedia pretends to be. If Wikipedia would acknowledge that truth is the first casualty of their policies, there wouldn't be a problem. But it really isn't a questions of "self-proclaimed" experts in the case of our most recent conflict. It's a case of poorly researched material overwhelming well-researched material, of baseless assertions naturally being unchallenged, since nobody who had a clue would have made the claim in the first place. Libertatia (talk) 19:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Preamble to a profile

Greetings, Mr. Wilbur. As you are no doubt aware, articles on anarchist and libertarian topics come under assault on Wikipedia every now and again as "non-notable". If they do not seem to have enough attention from reliable or notable sources, they risk deletion. I'm sure you remember Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roderick T. Long and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles W. Johnson (philosopher). As someone who thinks the encyclopaedia is very much damaged by the removal of quality material on such figures, I've tried to come up with ways to combat it. One problem is that your average Wikipedian (i.e. "twelve year olds, convenience store clerks and failed grad students") don't know much about the field, and can't recognise when someone is noteworthy. The matter then rests with the perceived quality/authority of the sources which cover the topic.

I've come up with two ways to better educate/influence opinion on Wikipedia about sources on anarchist/libertarian topics. One is to provide a guideline on which sources are reliable, with justifications based on our policy (this guideline recently started at WP:ANCITE, at which your expertise is more than welcome). The second method is to add or develop articles on anarchist/libertarian sources; in recent months I've added Todd May, Lewis Call, Spunk Library, Anarchist Studies, Alternative Press Review, Lawrence Jarach and Andrej Grubacic. Aside from the encyclopaedic value of these articles themselves, having an article on Wikipedia gives them credibility as sources; especially as self-published sources (i.e. web-based sources). By way of example, I wrote the (admittedly bare) Dyer Lum article, and had its nomination for Good article status (and the wider audience that confers) thwarted because most of it was referenced to a blog. Only because I was able to point the reviewer to our article on the author of the blog, Kevin Carson, was it accepted as a source.

I realise that you don't contribute to Wikipedia as often as before and you can't be expected to help out here with these efforts, but I do have one request. I did some looking around online, and am convinced that there is enough coverage of you and your work to merit an article here. If we had an article on you that established your credentials, your work – including blog posts etc. – could then be used to reference and expand other articles. This strategy has a cascading effect; "Carson is noted as an expert by the attention in the Journal of Libertarian Studies. Wilbur is a noted expert because his scholarship has been highly praised by Carson. Destutt-Tracy is notable because he has been given non-trivial coverage by Wilbur." However, given the possibility that articles can be used for slander, invasion of privacy etc., I wanted to make sure you don't object to Wikipedia having an article on you. If you don't mind the ego-massage, then I could use some help in one regard: basic biographical information. Although I could find plenty of scholarly references, I couldn't find a page with a few paragraphs on who you are and what you've done, your institutional affiliations and publication credits and so on. If you could put one up, on your blog or personal website perhaps, I could write a decent stub article in a couple of minutes. Let me know what you think of the idea.

Regards, Skomorokh 03:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Property is theft

Yes, it concerns me. We have got to a point where every one of our errors is made to look like it is supported by one or more published sources (your user page didn't say "not for stealing", you see...) However, I think doing the things you say will not be challenged. The reason we cannot is because of page protection, and the reason for page protection is an edit war, and the reason for the edit war has nothing to do with the fact that Proudhon or Marx is badly presented. Rather, the situation is as I have said on the article's talk page. --EmbraceParadox (talk) 19:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]