Talk:Anarchism

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.sim

A list of full list of talkpage archives can be found here:Talk:Anarchism/Archives

Explanation

I am continuously returning the ancap section to the issues section because that is where the majority of people seemed most comfortable with it before DTC and Thatshot arrived this weekend and began dispupting this article when everyone seemed to finally be approaching some kind of consensus. Also, i am deleting the "Communism" section in the issues section because it was added without discussion and is POV in the sense that the vast majority or worldwide anarchists do not have a philosophical issue with anarcho-communism. Before the ancaps start attacking me with allegations of pinko commie conspiracy i would like to reiterate that i am NOT an anarchist communist but rather an anarchist-without-adjectives. Obviously ancap needs to be included here but in the appropriate place. Additionally, there is the issue of DTC being a suspected sockpuppet, though i don't know that one way or the other. Piece, Blockader 18:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The communism section was added in violation of WP:POINT. The accusations of communist conspiracy are indeed a bit strange, since I am not an anarcho-communist, or communist of any kind, either. I support you in this matter. --AaronS 18:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I just checked up on what you said and in the straw poll above. There were 2 in explicit support for it up there in the individualist section. 1 with implicit support. And 2 against; just you and Aaron. 1 more *for* is me. That makes four people wanting it up there and two against. So you're wrong that the majority of people want it out of the schools section. Also, you have no reason to delete the communism section because it's sourced. Why can't you just stick to the policies and not ignore information that is cited? There is like 10 sources in the article saying anarcho-capitalism is individualist anarchism. Please do not say the majority wants it out of the schools section because it simply isn't true. Most people accept cited information. You should too. That'sHot 18:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Most of the editors who would disagree with you are absent at the moment, probably because of the sorry state of affairs that you and others have introduced. I don't really blame them. The communist section is clearly a violation of WP:POINT, and may very well be a violation of WP:OR, too. --AaronS 18:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I was not referencing the poll from yesterday but rather the consensus of most of the present editors at the end of last week after Cjames and others began cleaning up the layout. I don't know why so many regular editors are absent, Ungovernable, Blah, Cjames, Christfurio, etc, but Aaron is right that they have not been around. Until they get back those present must continue to push this article to a fair and appropriate middle ground despite the POV pushing that is going on. The fact is, whether ancap is a form of anarchism is a debated issue. Some scholars and anarchists lean one way others lean another. that is why it belongs in the issues section rather than after the american indiv section. further, placing a "communism" section in the issues section was done in an inappropriate manner. Blockader 18:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Most scholars regard it as a form of anarchism, individualist anarchism to be precise. Therefore it belongs in the schools of anarchism section under individualist anarchism. If some scholars dispute it then just note that. But to segregate it as if the majority view is that it is not anarchism is POV. The weight of the evidence in scholarly sources says that it is a form of anarchism. The fringe view is that it is not. And no the communism section is not inappropriate. Obviously individualists have issues with communism, with many of them saying it is not a form of anarchism at all but a form of authority over the individual disguised as anarchism. The definitely deserves a section in issues. DTC 18:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

"Most scholars regard it as a form of anarchism, individualist anarchism to be precise." Tosh, and you know it. "Most scholars ancaps like to quote" perhaps. But bringing 50 cited works to the table is hardly impressive considering the thousands of texts written about anarchism and the fact that most of them are approaching useless. POV of the worst kind. --Marinus 02:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

So there is a 5th editor, DTC, that wants it in the schools section. So please stop the claims about us being in violation of consensus. Thank you. That'sHot 19:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

So you have a gerrymandered snap poll that is supposed to immidiately contradict a few years of established practice? Hardly good faith, no? --Marinus 03:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

And the strawpoll stood at 2 against and 1 discussion till I cast my (opposing) vote. This is ridiculous. --Marinus 03:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

They are sock puppets, and puppet master took a vacation. :-) -- Vision Thing -- 19:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Taking a break

I'm taking a break from these articles. There is far too much sock puppetry going on. Those involved might find it amusing, for whatever reason, or might believe that they're spreading the Truth, but it's actually quite silly. I've never understood why so many evangelicals were attracted to Wikipedia, as if people came to Wikipedia to do scholarly research, rather than the leisurely perusal of articles for their own enjoyment. But, people are strange. I had my fun with this article, but I feel no need to engage in the kinds of games that some people here, and their sock puppets, seem so fond of. Engaging in arguments for the sake of argument, or to keep track of points, and engaging in hot-headed Internet disputes, are two things that I grew out of at the end of high school. --AaronS 19:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

In your break, you might want to leaf through the stuff about personal attacks and assuming good faith. MrVoluntarist 19:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Snark, snark, snark. So full of venom. Get a life, child. Is that what you're talking about? --AaronS 19:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Aaron, please. MrVoluntarist 19:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I hope I don't find you peeping in the window at me one of these days. Your obsession with me, although flattering, is a bit creepy at times. I can't believe that, after all of these years, you still haven't gotten over my intellectual lambasting of you on ASC. I mean, really, I was in high school at the time -- it couldn't have been that bad. --AaronS 19:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of sockpuppetry, is Blockaddr taking a break too? DTC 19:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm done too, but I am certianly no ones sock puppet. If these ancaps want to POV push on here than so be it. They are just sad that they don't have a real movement or extant community. It really makes me sad but after Intangible threatened me with 3RR despite his cronies having violated the same rule ten-fold in the same time span (i assume he didn't threaten them) I really don't think i care to associate with certian people editing this page. Luckily, we have a powerful and diverse collective in Atlanta that will continue to do real and important work from a multitude of anarchist perspectives. I'm gonna go make some whiskey now, Blockader 19:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Good luck reversing the ever progressing trend toward complete global capitalism. And please have a drink on me. DTC 19:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

DTC, respect WP:AGF, WP:CIV and WP:NPA, please. --Marinus 03:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Yes, my adorable little acolyte. And you're quite right, Blockader and I are sock puppets. I commute to Boston from Atlanta every day. It's a beautiful drive. --AaronS 19:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Lopsided article

Now now, children, play nice. Not to be rude but this is one of the most lopsided articles I've seen yet on Wikipedia. Absolutely leaning so far over to one side it may topple over onto the article directly to the left of it. Maybe we could clean it up by balancing it out a bit. Whiskey Rebellion 04:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Lopsided in what fashion? It's actually pretty good - certainly worth keeping/salvaging --Marinus 05:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a note, although I'm technically taking a break, I am sticking around for sock puppet patrol *cough*thewolfstar*cough*. --AaronS 13:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Marinus, this article is certainly worth keeping. I was not implying otherwise. Please know this. It just seems like there is so much Russian and European and not so much of Africa, South America or North America. Whiskey Rebellion 23:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Latin-American gap especially is a major shortcoming, but I think that we should try to devolve articles - Anarchism in the United States is an example of the application of a theory being removed from a discussion of the theory (and a fine article, barring the usual AnCap vandalism) --Marinus 00:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey Aaron, I see you've come down with a cough too! How surprising. *cough*sockpuppet*cough*[1] Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 23:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by AnCap vandalism, Marinus? Do you mean AnCaps vandalised this article? Whiskey Rebellion 02:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Pretty aggressive and conscious POV massaging - vandalism, in my books. Usually done by ill-lettered young men who badly slight the AnCap movement by their presence and unwillingness to have another POV exist. --Marinus 05:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, everybody, I have an idea. Let's have a section on Thomas Jefferson. --AaronS 03:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Hows Thomas Jefferson got anything to do directly with anarchisme? I dont know, and i dont know much about him. Do you have some kind of source?--Fjulle 19:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Changes

Would it be too much to ask that moving sections around be done in a separate edit from content changes? 68.98.158.194 04:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Considering that this is a controversial article, and that you show some knowledge of what's going on behind the scenes, could you care to log on? Anonymous edits are suspicious. If you can study the talk page it won't be too much trouble to create an account, would it? --Marinus 05:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Something I've been meaning to bring up

Many scholars have identified anarcho-capitalism as a form of individualist anarchism [...] Er, aren't there a lot of scholars who also say it isn't a form of anarchism? I don't happen to have a long list at this point, but perhaps we should do the same thing and have references for anarchists and scholars who refute it's place within anarchism. Someone willing to work on that? Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 08:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

There are just as many scholars who say that communist anarchism is not a type of anarchism. It's a downright contradiction in terms. And yet the dominant pov in this article is communist and collectivist. It's really a shame to destroy a wonderful concept like anarchism by confusing it with communism. Is there some reason for this domination and control? Whiskey Rebellion 09:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there some reason why you refuse to just stop coming back? We all know your a sock. Anyways, seeing as encarta seems to think anarcho-communism is a form of anarchism and devotes a lot of their article on anarchism to it, I think it's safe to say it's a recognized form of anarchism by neutral sources. The online American Encarta doesn't mention an-cap in the anarchism page, and the three page long online UK encarta gives it one sentence. You clearly have the minority viewpoint that few people will agree with (and just because you can create a bunch of sockpuppets doesn't solve that). Stop wasting our time. And I find it ironic that you supposedly like Woody Guthrie, you know he's a socialist, right? Sorta like how you really liked the socialist George Orwell? [2]. Let me guess, you don't buy that Guthrie was a socialist, huh? Oh, and I know that that was your bush/hitler image. I don't have to like you to like the image. Now go get yourself blocked already so we can continue working on this page without a bunch of sockpuppets. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 09:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Was that long and considerably nasty rant directed at me, The Ungovernable Force? First, I don't have any idea what you are talking about. Second, I don't have any idea what you are talking about. Third, you should work on your anger and the way you attack people. You call me a sock. I've been called all sorts of things, but a sock wasn't one of them. Perhaps you are a set of drawers or an old sweatshirt. I'm wasting your time? Apologies for that! I know that Woody Guthrie was a socialist and what has that got to do with anything? And how did George Orwell get into the picture? I didn't edit the George Orwell article. What 'bush/hitler image' are you talking about? The Ungovernable Force, could it be that you are losing your grip on reality? Please don't attack me like this again. I have read the policies and personal attacks are expressly forbidden. Maybe you need to take a break from wiki for a while and then come back. Then you could possibly learn to talk to people with more civility. Please be nice. Thank you. Whiskey Rebellion 18:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, you're a brand new user who has never once been banned from wikipedia before. I guess it's just a coincidence that you have the exact same pov as that person, and seem to have all the characteristics of that user. My bad, I guess I should have just given you the benefit of the doubt. I mean, I almost put this template on your talk page. I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings new user. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 21:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Whiskey may be a sockpuppet or he may not. I have no clue. But lets not assume that everyone that is pro-anarcho-capitalism or anti-communism is a sockpuppet. I have my suspects of anti anarcho-capitalists editors here that are sockpuppets. DTC 21:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

There are many anarcho-capitalist editors who many of us get along quite well with. I only accuse people who act like sock puppets of being sock puppets. Namely, you, That's Hot, and Thewolfstar, here. Hi, guys. --AaronS 23:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is (almost) everybody, (almost) all the time, talking more about who is or who is not a sockpuppet? Its almost always the same problem when people stop arguing reasonable in exchange for pointing out why you shouldnt trust one or the other. When its this far out, its allready to far out. You cannot save a discussion going against fallacies, when it first happens you might as well stop arguing.

What about a strategy which is more coherent than all this voting about this or that, meaning you really cant vote when anybody can make a alias on a different IP adress or behind a proxy and vote twice or thrice og whatever. What about fx getting somebody from the outside of the contest to look through the arguments and the sources? After all the majority might just as well be wrong as the minority, especially when it comes to pointing out why you cant trust someone or the other.--Fjulle 19:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that claims about sockpuppets are strategic. If you don't like what someone puts in an article, you claim he's a sockpuppet, hope others believe you, and agree with you that since he's a sockpuppet the information he put in the article should be deleted. It's kind of a shady way to play the game. It shouldn't matter whether anyone is a sockpuppet. Don't blame the messenger. The information stands on its own merit. DTC 01:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Most of us, who edit Wikipedia for fun and not to foment a revolution of pimply-faced libertarians, don't treat it like a competition, so strategy isn't really necessary. Regardless, as I and others have already pointed out, there are many self-avowed anarcho-capitalists who are great editors, and who have not had trouble editing this article. There is no "game" for most of us. We have real lives with real and much more interesting games. Calm down your inflammatory rhetoric; all this talk of conspiracy is just plain silly. --AaronS 02:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Communism section

Kill with fire. Neutral scholarly sources always recognize anarcho-communism as a form of anarchism. This is an extreme minority viewpoint. Besides, you guys keep saying that since neutral scholars say an-cap is anarcho capitalism, it should stay in, and you keep getting rid of the fact that most collectivists dispute it's place. How is this different (other than the fact that it's a minority view point, which gives it even less of a reason to be here)? Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 20:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anybody getting rid of the fact that collectivist anarchists dispute that it's a form of anarchism? It's right there in the Capitalism section under the Communism section. DTC 20:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't notice that, but it keeps getting removed from the anarcho-capitalism section. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 20:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Further, the fact that "communism" keeps being placed above capitalism in the issues section is ridiculous. far more scholars/anarchists dispute ancap than ancom. even if it were alphabetical it would still be after ancap. blatant POV pushing if you ask me. thats why i keep removing it. Blockader 23:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Ungovernable Force said, "Neutral scholarly sources always recognize anarcho-communism as a form of anarchism. ". Which neutral sources say this? Can you list some of them here? Thanks. Whiskey Rebellion 23:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I've read several (probably between 4 and 6) encyclopedia articles on anarchism (including an in depth political philosphies encyclopedia) and they all give a lot of consideration of anarcho-communism. The online US encarta article even says that anarchism is "basically anticapitalist". The online UK encarta article has a long section on anarcho-communism and has one sentence on an-cap within the Indiv anarch section, and that one sentence makes it sound like it might not really be anarchism. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 23:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for answering my question. I have some thoughts on these answers, however, too. One thing is that encyclopedias are not the only source of information. And another thing. How come you refer to Encarta? Encarta is product of Microsoft. Microsoft is a huge corporation. And Microsoft is a very big supporter of George W. Bush. From your page, (I looked, please forgive me if impertinent), you don't like Bush. I don't understand. Why would you look to Encarta and Microsoft for information about anything never mind anarchism? Most likely they hate and fear anarchism. Whiskey Rebellion 00:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Christ Allmighty. Are you trying to get into WP:BJAODN. (I'm pretty sure I broke a WP policy somewhere with this comment, but bloody hell). I frankly don't think Encarta has enough agency to make stuff up. Why don't you find me a neutral source that gives half the coverage to AnCap that is given here, hmm? How about Encyclopedia Brittanica? Or Colliers, or Collins? Oh, wait, they don't... --Marinus 02:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, why would I look to what you say either, you hate and fear anarchism as well (since anarchism as far as I'm concerned requires the abolition of capitalism)? Encarta is viewed as a relatively neutral source, far more neutral than any you've presented. Of course, nothing is compeletely neutral, but most people would recognize an encyclopdedia as relatively neutral and scholarly. And of course they're not the only source of information. What do you want me to do, find something written by an anarchist? I could do that in an instant, but then you'd say "Oh, well they're a collectivist, of course they'd say that". This really isn't the issue though. The issue is that relatively neutral sources have always included anarcho-communism as a major part of anarchism. And I don't think Microsoft is a huge fan of the government considering all the trouble the courts have caused them (I could of course be wrong). This seems unimportant though. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 02:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

You are ridiculous WhiskeyRebellion, or should i say Lingeron? When you are corrected based on facts you merely make insidious and inflammatory statements that make everyone here question your Good Faith. Blockader 16:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Archive40

I archived the talk page (at a mere 221kb) to Talk:Anarchism/Archive40. It seemed a good time to do so. --Marinus 03:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. FYI, I'm putting some of the more recent threads back on this page, since some of these issues may not be resolved. It's usually best to not archive a discussion that may still be active, and only archive the stuff that is higher up and long dead. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 03:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

A proposed guideline to capitalism and an-cap in Anarchism article

Now, Wikipedia is a consensus based operation. We need to work towards an agreement. There are a number of us (through the years) who are unenthusiastic about anarcho-capitalism's status within this article. We consider an-cap to be a fringe movement, as the overwhelming weight of the anarchist tradition shows. I myself believe that to believe anarchism can be non-socialistic shows a lack of knowledge of and appreciation for history - "anarchism" was synonymous with "socialism" up until one K Marx changed the rules relatively recently in political history. But that is my view - Wikipedia isn't my soapbox, nor is it for those who believe that the anarcho-capitalist movement is of (at least) equal bearing to the centuries of social anarchism (with its revolutions, mass movements and people for whom martyrism was more extreme than lacking a university tenancy). But, most importantly, Wikipedia is not Speaker's Corner - no arguments as to the merits of philosophies will take place here. No pamphleteering, no attacks on opposing theories. Each movement shall have it's WPspace where the details of it can be expounded at length, including its differences with other theories. I am sick to my back teeth of the disruptive POV pushing of this one minority. The anarcho-capitalism page doesn't suffer the type of disruption and outright vandalism this one does - that's because the rest of the anarchist tradition are perfectly happy to keep our disputes to the proper channels (an-cap's place in the Anarchism portal and especially its treatment in this article). I want this to end, I want a meaningful standard to be set which certainly won't make all of us happy but will serve Wikipedia in its interest as a storehouse for knowledge which allows the reader to come to his own conclusions without our clear statement of the facts in hand. So I prupose:

• Anarcho-capitalism being given its place in "Schools of Anarchist Thought". It will be given a mention on par with that of the American individualist anarchists - I think this is immensely generous but the an-cap community is well-represented here on WP and I think it's justified. However, the contentious nature of an-cap's place as "anarchist" school must be mentioned, as well as how it markedly stands distinct from the rest of the tradition, being only linked with the American individualists, who are removed from the individualists (Stirner, Proudhon, Godwin, etc, all fervent anti-capitalists). It is because these things are facts and any other representation is a misrepresentation and a distortion of POV.
• That mention being the only one of anarcho-capitalism in the article. That is where the individual particular schools are mentioned and the interested reader guided towards more fuller explanations of the theory. AnCap claims to be one of those schools, it obviously has some influence on WP so it must be humoured, but its influence on the majority trend in anarchism approaches zero - its marginal views will not be repeated. If all these differences must be crammed into their "Schools of Anarchist Thought" entry, making that section a bit larger than might be fair, so be it.
• Both "communism" and "capitalism" be addresses in "Issues in anarchism" - the anarcho-capitalists are not the only people in the broader anarchist tradition to distrust communism. However, because of the overwhelming view amongst anarchists, rejection of capitalism must clearly be shown as the more popular view in anarchism.

What is attempted through this scheme is to give anarcho-capitalism a fair representation in the Anarchism article, allowing those who might be interersted in it to view the extensive and well-written anarcho-capitalism article, but not to let an-cap hijack the article as it has continuously since the very beginning. I am not as naїve as to believe that Anarchism will suddenly become a stable article, but we need a more-or-less consensual agreement - a peace-treaty of sorts - to allow this article and this section of Wikipedia to function.

Until we have reached some sort of agreement, I ask that edits be held at a minimum. I've tweaked the article into a format I believe is provisionally broadly acceptable to all parties, except people who love quotefarming.

Sincerely yours, --Marinus 03:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

First off, thank you for taking the time to think up and, more importantly, lay-out a plan. Although I disagree that they should be given space merely because they are here on wikipedia, I do agree with your proposal. It is fair and balanced (lol, am I the only one who is thinking about Faux News?). I agree that including a section on why anarchists dislike state socialism/communism is a good idea--my main problem with the communism section was that it was clearly pushing a minority view within anarchism that doesn't have much place (as you agree). I also don't care if an-cap is placed in the schools, but it has to be very, very, very, very clear that most anarchists reject it's claim of being a form of anarchism, and as I stated above, we should find more neutral scholarly sources that also dispute it's place within the tradition, and make a big long reference like they did. And actually, the one small thing I might disagree with, is that it be given a section on par with American indiv anarchism. I think it should be a sub-sub-section of the American indiv anarchism sub-section. Other than that, great proposal. I back it 100%. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 04:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It can't be very clear? It must be very, very, very, clear? I don't think it's even a little clear. Whiskey Rebellion 04:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC) Oh, sorry, I forgot the last very. It has to be very, very, very, very clear. Whiskey Rebellion 04:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it must be very, very, very, very clear. Possibly even very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very clear. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 04:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. --Marinus 03:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Lol. (o) _ (o) Whiskey Rebellion 06:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Can I interpret your silence on the actual issues as consent to this proposal? Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 06:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Bunchofgrapes suggested that I stay away from this article because of all the controversy, but in all politeness I suppose I must answer. I don't care for it at all. It's still the same attitude that is reflected in the article itself. This was just stated by the proposer (Marianus, I think), that anarchism is socialism except that it isn't state socialism or something to that effect. I don't agree to that. The an-caps don't agree to that. The individualists don't agree to that. I don't think that giving the anti-communist anarchists a piddly little bit somewhere is fair at all. I'm sorry. This is how I feel. I'm not a capitalist or a communist anarchist and don't put any qualifications on my brand of anarchy. Anarchism or the concept of it has been around for a long, long time. Since the Greeks came up with it. It came long before the concept of socialism came. History shows, if anything, that freedom cannot exist with any sort of pressure from any authority, corporate or communist. On the other hand there have been other types of anrachy like in the U.S. or Africa that are barely mentioned here. As long as a group of editors hold control of the editing of anarchism nothing will ever change. Policy says not to do this. I just read it yesterday. Whiskey Rebellion 07:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

First, when did the Greeks come up with Anarchism? I ask in all seriousness because i have never heard that claim before. The word root may be greek but i thought that was a later development. Second, my problem with the "communism" section is that it references anarcho-communism as much as it references state communism, which are entirely different. "Some individualist anarchists, especially in the American tradition, have historically denied that anarcho-communism can be truly anarchistic. They believe that it is inherenrly authoritarian by submitting the individual to the authority of the community. Proudhon opposed the state-socialist Louis Blanc for these reasons; other notable exponents of this view are Benjamin Tucker as well as the anarcho-capitalists." What does Proudhon's rejection of a state socialist have to do with ancom? I would agree to this compromise though I don't think these ancaps will ever be satisfied till the entire idea of anarchism is coopted for their own purposes. I truly believe that a balanced portrayal of historical and contemporary anarchism would include ancap in the issues section but i guess balanced portrayal is too much to hope for here. Blockader 16:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I put in the reference to Proudhon, and I did so out of fairness: Proudhon was very, very suspicious of communism, and while the movement (the Blancists, who were an important movement till Marxism swallowed all state-socialists up whole) was state-socialist (and Proudhon had more than one problem with them) the language he uses doesn't differentiate between state-socialism and communism as an an-com would describe it. I think the book I read this in was (Richard Vernon's?) The Life and Thought of PJ Proudhon, but that was some years ago. The Anarchist FAQ also mentions this fact. --Marinus 03:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the word root is Greek points to the ancient concept of it. If people invented the word than the thoughts were present. There is a reference to Christian anarchism which shows that anarchist Christians believe that Jesus was an anarchist, and in the origins section it says something about Taoism, which is older yet than Christianity. I agree that the concept of anarchist communism is different than state communism. Obviously there is a difference between state capitalism and anarchist capitalism. It's looking more and more to me that this confusion from both sides is where the problem lies. I don't see the ancaps or individualists asking for anything more than an equal representation in this article. That equal representation is what is being denied. Then there is another thing that is not being allowed in here: The accurate history and development of anarchism. Freedom as a reality -- not just a concept -- began in the United States. The early U.S. anarchists and rebels are crucial to anarchism as a whole. Their beliefs and their bravery speak for themselves. And yet, astoundingly, they are not even mentioned in this article!!! I would love to see a balanced representation. Has that been suggested? If so that would be great.

Whiskey Rebellion

17:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, Lingeron. The problem with equal representation is that historically and contemporarily, anarchist movements and ideas as well as anarchists themselves have almost overwhelmingly been anti-capitalist. If you don't understand this then you do not have a clear picture of history/reality. I believe your concept of "balanced" is more than slightly skewed. Did the Greeks invent the word anarchism? I honestly thought that some scholar termed the phrase long after the fall of Hellinic civilization due to the fact that Greek and Latin were the primiry languages of scholars until last century. I don't know though. Lingeron, did freedom begin in the United States for slaves? For black people until 40 years ago? For American Indians? For women? Whose freedom are you referring to? If you are going to look at anarchism in a society then there are plenty of indigenous/aboriginal ones that come far closer to actual anarchist tenants then the United States.Blockader 18:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

That's actually tenets, if anybody cares. EbonyTotem 22:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Marinus' suggestion sounds good to me. DTC 20:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

What happened to "Only minor edits"? Also, if you are going to cut and paste from an older version, make sure that the result is still readable. Especially if that version is objectionable. --Marinus 03:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

My question refers to your edits on "Communism" in the "Issues in Anarchism" section.

Not sure what your complaint is. You changed the line that was sourced, but what you changed it to the source didn't say. The source said Proudhon opposed both state communism and utopian communism. ALso, you also said that the individualist anarchists opposed state communism but the sources were about them denying that anarcho-communism was a true form of anarchism. DTC 01:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The 'anarcho'-capitalism section under individualist anarchism doesn't mention the fact that it is usually not seen as anarchist, so I'm going to add this sentence: "Anarcho-capitalism, however, is not viewed as an anarchist philosophy by the majority of anarchists." I think that's fair, no? Also, as for the argument above, there are many words that are based on Greek words that weren't invented by the Greeks - take television, for example. 'Tele', meaning far, is added to vision. Yet the word only came about in the last century. Collins' Dictionary gives the etymology of anarchy as "16th Century: from Mediaeval Latin, from Greek, from 'anarkhos' without a ruler, from AN- (without) + 'arkh-' leader, from 'arkhein' to rule." So the word first came into being somewhere between 1500 and 1599, not in the time of the Greeks or Jesus. And, in its first published form (that I know of), 'An Enquiry Concerning Political Justice' by William Godwin, tends toward a socialist-style viewpoint. So the first anarchists (and, oh, 95% or more since then), was socialist/non-capitalist. Supersheep 11:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I think Godwin is considered closer to individualist anarchism. Godwin said "everything understood by the term co-operation is in some sense an evil." Yes Godwin opposed capitalism but he would also oppose mutualism and the anarchism of the American individualist anarchists if it was around in his time, because he was against markets altogether. He was also against communism because he supported private property. DTC 01:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but the early individualists were still socialists. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 04:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

DTC, have a look at Book 8, Chapter 3 of Political Justice. It seems to me (admittedly from a brief reading) that he is opposed to the then current system of property holding and unequal distribution of property. While he obviously is no Communist, there are certain socialist undertones there. Also, someone reverted out my edits to the an-cap section, including the grammar changes. Please comment on the talk page if you are going to do this, and give a reason. If it's a source thing, say so, and I'll include a source for the Anarchist FAQ; here's the link now, as a matter of fact: http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secFcon.html. Of course, seeing as both edits were by IP addresses and not users, I doubt there will be anything here, but I shall add it again. Supersheep 07:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

infoshop.org's Anarchist FAQ is not an reliable source, it is highly pov propaganda written by socialist, please provide an reliable scholarly source, or i'll revert again.203.84.69.69 09:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually Plato uses the concept you might use the word anarchy as a name for in his discussion of the four types of degenerate states (degenerate compered to his utopia). This is taken from "The Classical Mind" written by W.T.Jones and stands like this: "These then, and such as these, are the features of a democracy, an agreeable form of anarchy with plenty of variety and an equality of a peculiar kind for equals and unequals alike. ...". Maybe what youre talking about is the english word anarchy compared to the greek anarkhos. I would say its to words, one concept, and the concept was used as well as the greek word who names it, also by others than Plato in the old greek city states. Ill go check my sources for that last statement, but iam worried its only available in danish without me looking away from my own books, so it might take some time. --Fjulle 08:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

An English dictionary is going to cite the first year it can find a word being used in English. Nobody's claiming that the English word anarchy is a different word from the French anarchie or the Latin anarchia or the Greek αναρχία. It's all the same word, and it goes back to ancient Greek. The words anarchist and anarchism are different from the word anarchy, were created more recently, and were not used with a connotation of approval, to describe anything positive, until the early 19th century, a few years after the word socialism was created. The assertion, “Anarchism or the concept of it has been around for a long, long time. Since the Greeks came up with it. It came long before the concept of socialism came,” is false. EbonyTotem 10:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually i was responding to the statement made by Supersheep not Whiskey Rebellion. Next time ill make sure its explicit which statement iam refering to. My point was that anarkhos isnt an word like television thats later been put together. On top of that Antiphon also used the term (http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Antiphon.html). --Fjulle 13:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Apologies. I was referring to the word anarchy in its technical sense - that is, political or philosophical anarchy - rather than the common sense - chaos, disorder, and so on - which I think is better translated as anomie. As far as I know, the Greek philosophers used the word in the latter sense, whereas the former is what we are talking about here. Supersheep 12:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Questions?

Is the Catholic Workers Movement actually anarchist? It wasn't clear from their site but i don't know much about them otherwise.

Shouldn't there be some mention of the IWW in the anarcho-syndicalism section? While the group is not explicitly/officially an-synd, many or most of its members have been and are.

Maybe a short section on anarchism without adjectives? Don't know where it would go though or i would just write it and cite de cleyre.

Thats it. Blockader 18:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC) Template:Polytonic

Is everybody in agreement? I'll leave another week for comment, then we can move to make this suggestion "policy" for this article. --Marinus 02:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Blockader's comments

Blockader said, "Lingeron, did freedom begin in the United States for slaves? For black people until 40 years ago? For American Indians? For women? Whose freedom are you referring to? If you are going to look at anarchism in a society then there are plenty of indigenous/aboriginal ones that come far closer to actual anarchist tenants then the United States."

I don't know what Lingeron means. Is that a Wikipedia term that I need to learn? As for the rest. NO. There was and still is no freedom for American Indians. As horrendous as this is, there probably never will be. Not in this plain of reality anyway. I don't personally believe there is freedom for blacks yet as I don't believe in the phony tricks our (US) government pulls. The prison industrial complex is testimony to this. Europe, the Dutch, French, etc, engaged heavily in the slave trade and slavery can be traced to the middle east, so what's your point on slavery? Women fought hard for equal rights and gained many of them. This is still a world run by filthy rich white men. (The whole world is run like this, not just the U.S.) At the same time, the American Revolution, though in many ways was a Bourguois revolution, was also fought by and for regular poor men who were royally pissed when they were badly abused by the very same wealthy (bastards) who promised them freedom. There was a second American revolution. There were also many actual statesmen who backed up and supported the rights of the every day schmuck like you and me. The American revolution was an unheard of event at the time. And although things were far from perfect a seed of freedom was planted, both here, and all over the world. Among other things, Blockader, you who accuse me of not understanding history, you might check this out:

"The Society for the Relief of Free Negroes Unlawfully Held in Bondage was the first American abolition society, formed April 14, 1775, in Philadelphia, primarily by Quakers who had a strong religious objection. It ceased to operate during the Revolution and the British occupation of Philadelphia; it was reorganized in 1784, with Benjamin Franklin as first president[4]. Benjamin Rush was a leader, as were many Quakers. African Slavery in America was one of the earliest calls for abolition; it appeared in the Pennsylvania Magazine and some scholars believe Thomas Paine wrote it." Abolitionism#Abolitionism_in_United_States Abolitionism#Notable_opponents_of_slavery

I do understand history. It is perhaps you who does not understand it. Please don't insult me. Thank you.

Whiskey Rebellion

21:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read Kropotkin's Mutual Aid and not respond to people highlighting questionable things in what you say with ill-informed baiting. Assume good faith, after all. --Marinus 03:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? Ill-formed baiting? I believe it was Blockader who was doing the baiting and again, don't insult me and call what I say "ill-informed." I was told that I didn't understand history. Perhaps you should read American history. I tell you what. I'll read Kropotkin's Mutual Aid if you read some American history. Specifically, some American history that wasn't written by a communist. Yes and thanks for the suggestion of assuming good faith. You might do that also.

Why not just respond to what I say rather than trying to skirt around the issue with what actually is baiting?

Whiskey Rebellion

13:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea why you are ranting like you are and I wish you'd stop. I don't see an issue to address. --Marinus 02:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism and individualist anarchism

DTC/RJII, you can't just delete my references and then claim that there is a consensus among academics as to whether or not anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism. Scholars, as well as anarchists, disagree. As such, this article should not present the matter as if there is a consensus, and anarcho-capitalism certainly does not belong in the individualist anarchism section. It belongs under the issues section because, well, it's an issue in anarchism. Namely, the issue is: can anarcho-capitalism be considered anarchist; if so, is it a part of the anarchist tradition? To pretend that there is no debate surrounding these questions is quite preposterous. Further, simply reverting my edits (and deleting relevant information that had nothing to do with moving the section) without any discussion is childish, counterproductive, and disruptive. There's no point to it, because your reverts will simply be reverted back in due time. In the end, what we are presented with is a silly edit war, or game, that has really lost its novelty for most of us. While I understand that edit warring was one of RJII's preferred methods of editing (he said so himself), a great many of us do not consider Wikipedia to be a battleground. --AaronS 16:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC) For the time being, I've tagged the section with a {{POV-section}} tag for the above reasons. --AaronS 16:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

There is little debate among scholars on the matter. The consensus of scholars agree that it is one of several forms of anarchism. The story is different among anarchists because a large number of anarchists are opposed to capitalism, but even then they are defining capitalism in terms of a state. They think capitalism and the state are inseperable. So that really isnt even a criticism of anarcho-capitalism. Anarcho-capitalism is not capitalism as most anti-capitalist anarchists define it. With that said though, I have no problem with you mentioning that anarcho-communists say that ancap is not a form of anarchism. BUt scholarly opinion in what matters the most, and most scholars say that it is. DTC 17:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Most scholars don't have an opinion of the matter, because they do not even mention anarcho-capitalism in their assessment of anarchism, or only mention it as a side note. Those who do disagree. There is no consensus. --AaronS 17:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Not true at all. Any scholarly overview of anarchism mentions anarcho-capitalism. Of course you're not going to find it mentioned in much in texts written prior to say 1975 because it was still very new then. DTC 17:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Tosh and double-tosh. Cease and desist your POV malarky with all due speed. Please. --Marinus 02:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Any reason why all of my changes to the section on anarcho-capitalism were removed in a manner that made it seem as if there were a consensus amongst scholars on the matter? Probably not. I'll stick them back in. --AaronS 13:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Please verify source

It says at the end of the anarcho-capitalism section: "It is not, however, viewed as an anarchist philosophy by the majority of anarchists, with anarcho-capitalists differing from individualist anarchists in the latter's strong mistrust of capitalism and advocacy for mutualism." The source given is "Colin Ward. Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2004". Where in that does it say that? What is the quote? DTC 17:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The quote is:

"[Murray Rothbard is] the most aware of the actual anarchist tradition among the anarcho-capitalist apologists... [he is] aware of a tradition, but he is singularly unaware of the old proverb that freedom for the pike means death for the minnow... [individualist anarchists] differed from free-market liberals in their absolute mistrust of American capitalism, and in their emphasis on mutualism... [and were] busy social inventors exploring the potential of autonomy[, whereas] American 'libertarians'... inventiveness seems to be limited to providing an ideology for untrammelled market capitalism."

-AaronS 17:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

So "[individualist anarchists]" was put there by you? What does the author actually put there? DTC 18:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

"Bogey men." Seriously, though, I'll have to get my hands on the book, again. In the meantime, you'll just have to assume that I'm not one of the spooks. --AaronS 13:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Read it yourself and find out - it's easily verifiable. I can give you a dozen references that say the same thing, but you dismiss them all as POV because it was written by socialists. Almost all anarchists are socialists, which you deny because you don't think it's sourced, and you reject almost all sources on anarchism because it's written by socialists? Not very clear-thinking, if you ask me.--Marinus 02:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If you think that's my position, then you're wrong. I welcome sources from socialists. In fact, several of the sources I presented saying that anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism are from anti-capitalists. What I have a problem with it sourcing the famous anarchists themselves, unless they're writing in a scholarly context. For instance, Murray Rothbard shouldn't be accepted as a source for the article claiming that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. Likewise, Benjamin Tucker shouldn't be accepted as a source for the article claiming that anarcho-communism is not a true form of anarchism. If a credentialed scholar just happens to be an anti-capitalist, I have no problem with using him as a source. I provided Ulrike Heider as a source who says "as much as I am opposed to anarcho-capitalism.."; he is able to be objective and says that anarcho-capitalism is a modern form of individualist anarchism. An anti-capitalist scholar saying that, I think, holds more wait than would a pro-capitalist scholar. If there are anti-capitalist scholars that say ancap is not anarchism, great. Add them to the article. But, of course, it might hold more weight if you found a pro-capitalist scholar that said it's not a form of anarchism. I supply and welcome scholarly sources from anti and pro capitalists. DTC 02:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

He is also just one source, one you are privileging. You can find 20 sources that agree with him, I can find 200 that don't. I can also, and this is critical, quote the majority consensus opinion amongst the community of practicing anarchists, which, BTW, this article is supposed to represent. You have at times explicitely revealed your POV imbalance, in talk pages and (heaven forbid) inside the articles itself - I don't particularily care for what you consider POV. --Marinus 02:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course you can quote the majority opinion from anarchists on what they think, if you can survey them all. But, you can't use the opinion from anarchists on whether a particular form of anarchism is true anarchism or not. You see, the majority of anarchists have no scholarly credibility. They're just people on street, or on the internet. Sources has to be reliable. This opinions presented in this article should not be held hostage to the POV of any particular set of anarchists, but to scholarly opinion. It is Wikipedia policy. DTC 02:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

While scholars, removed from the tradition (and, of course, without any personal politics at all) have their eyes open to the way things are? Are you privy to some revealed truth hidden from those who have studied the matter the closest? And if you say that Kropotkin or Bookchin or Chomsky have no scholarly credibility, you are obviously a twit. --Marinus 03:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If they're writing in a scholarly context of course Kropotkin and others can be cited as seconday sources. For example, Kropotkin wrote the Anarchism entry for the 1911 Enclopedia Britannica. The antiquity of it presents some problems though. DTC 03:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

And Wikipedia is here exactly to give the majority opinion, not the opinion of the majority of people you like. --Marinus 03:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

No Wikipedia is not here to give the majority opinion. You don't understand Wikipedia if you think that. It is here to give the majority opinion of reliable sources. DTC 03:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

And your concept of a reliable source is POV. Instead of trying to strike opposing opinions from the map (and again I beg of you to work to agreement - I'm not trying to wipe an-cap from Wikipedia or even this article) we should attempt a clear, concise and neutral compilation of such views, as expressed by secondary sources. The Anarchist FAQ is an exemplary secondary source, but a polemic one. --Marinus 04:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not a reliable sources. It is self-published and according to Wikipedia policy a self-published document is not a reliable sources. Anyone can self-publish and claim to be an expert on things. DTC 04:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It is also recognised as the source par excellence for anarchism by thousands upon thousands of anarchists. --Marinus 04:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it. Maybe it is, but that's not saying much. Wikipedia is not even a reliable source according to Wikipedia policy, but it's more reliable than that thing, becaues it has a policy against original research. Just because a bunch of people who use the internet and call themselves anarchists think the FAQ is a great source, doesn't mean a thing. It could very well just be dishing out B.S. to people who don't know any better. Or worse yet, written by those uneducated anarchists themselves. DTC 04:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"I doubt it" - don't display your ignorance. You don't seem to show understanding of what I'm saying, and you treat the FAQ - something that has existed (and been criticised, verified and peer-reviewed) for many, many years, like a personal blog or a quick-fire pamphlet. Do a quick survey of practicing anarchists and tell me what they say to you regarding the FAQ. It's not only approved but pushed by Infoshop (that alone contradicts a number of your claims), as well as a plethora of anarchist movements, organisations, etc. It's even become an item of ridicule how slavishly many (especially new) anarchists follow the FAQ. --Marinus 04:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Peer reviewed by a bunch of uneducated self-proclaimed "anarchists" on the internet means nothing. It is not a reliable source. Stick to the policy if you want to work on Wikipedia. DTC 04:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Find me an anarchist who will reject the FAQ as a faulty representation of the field. Infoshop, one of the largest anarchist organisations online, advocates it. --Marinus 05:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You still don't get it. It doesn't matter what some no-name anarchist says about anything. The only opinions that matter are those from reliable sources. From scholars. DTC 05:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

An_Anarchist_FAQ#Influence has something to say on the quality of the FAQ(citing sources) as well as saying that the FAQ has been accepted for publication. --Marinus 05:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so it has been given a little credibility from a couple published books or articles. And supposedly AK Press is going to publish it. That remains to be seen. Another problem with it is that it's liquid. It's always subject to change. Supposedly anyone with no qualifications can come along and put info in it. If you want, put it up for discussion in a Request for Comments. I doubt very much that the Wikipedia community would agree that it is a reliable source. I'll continue to challenge it. DTC 05:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The FAQ isn't a wiki, people don't come in and substantially change it. Instead a stable (and identified) community of editors handle new contributions. Also, stable versions exist (like those included with Debian distributions). Perhaps you can give me a reason, concidering the support that has been noted, why I shouldn't concider the FAQ as a source? Not unreservedly, of course, but give it enough credence to not wipe it off the map, like you want to do. --Marinus 06:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't written by professional researcher(s) writing with their field of expertise. The policy says that the exception to the rule against self-published sources is if "a professional researcher writing within his field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own names, and not a pseudonym." DTC 06:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I should say, having read Ward's book, that it supports the view it references. It is also the view of (at least) the Encarta and Brittanica encyclopedia's, as well as historically the view of everybody worth mentioning in this regard that anarchism is essentially anti-capitalistic(except the an-caps).

Prove it. Provide a quote. The point is not whether most types of anarchism are opposed to capitalism. That's a given. We all know that. The point is whether anarcho-capitalism is a type of anarchism. Even if it's true that most anarchists are opposed to anarchism, that has nothing to do with whether anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. DTC 05:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit this again substantially (and baselessly) changing the meaning of the article while we are busy discussing the point and I will move to have you banned as a disruptive POV pusher. --Marinus 04:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You must be joking. You are the one doing most of the editing: [3] You say that you can edit but I can't? I'll edit whenever I want to edit. DTC 05:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Almost every one of my edits, as well as those of AaronS and tUF are to remove contentious content you introduce. We also do things like copyediting, improving style, maintaining references, all of which you gleefully ignore. And, as you know, to make a substantive edit to a section while we are discussing what the section should say is bad faith. --Marinus 05:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't introduce contentious content unless it's sourced. I also do copyediting, improving style, maintaining references. I'll edit the encyclopedia whenever I damn well please. You're editing it as well while we're discussing Don't hassle me for something you're doing yourself. DTC 05:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Our problem is exactly that you give undue weight to some sources and far too little to others (ie any that disagree with you). Anyway, I've got a newer version up, which keeps the meaning it had before this little altercation erupted, and addresses your concerns. Any problems? --Marinus 05:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

That is a completely untrue. I am open to any source that is reliable under Wikipedia policy. The problem is I have simply been providing more sources to show that it is a form of anarchism than you or anyone else has been providing to show that it is not. I think the reason for that is clear. Most scholars regard it as anarchism. In regard to what you just added, you are confusing "most anarchists" with most types of anarchism. Yes, anarcho-capitalism is the ONLY type of anarchism that supports capitalism. Why is that an issue? That's a given. You can't make a claim about what "most anarchists" think from the sources you're providing. Did someone conduct a poll of all anarchists? If not, can you at least find one reliable source that makes a claim about "most anarchists." DTC 05:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I gave you two: the Encarta and Brittanica encyclopaedic entries on the topic.

DTC, you violated WP:3RR, perhaps inadvertedly. Perhaps you'd like to correct your damage? --Marinus 05:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't violate the 3RR. I've been doing modifications, not reversions. DTC 06:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I recommend you read the policy on this - it's quite clear in that regard. You have reverted (through your edits) the section to a point before AaronS added a concrete statement concerning the contentiousness of an-cap being considered anarchistic. This also, might I add, goes against my proposal for this article that you gave your support to. --Marinus 06:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I know the policy and I didn't violate it. The source Aaron quoted did not say anything about "most anarchists." DTC 06:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

And I disagree with you on that regard. Well, both regards. And to prevent individuals single-handedly holding editing wars, WP:3RR exists, which you did violate, though it seems inadvertently. I'll ask again: will you repair your indiscretion? --Marinus 06:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't violate the 3RR. So, I'm not going to "repair" anything. You, on the other hand, have been edit warring and uncivil. DTC 06:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Strange. I thought I was trying to work towards an agreement. You have had some unreconciliable strange views, though, like trying to claim that despite making up one tenet of anarchism that an-caps are not in the minority of anarchists (if anybody can make that claim, it's anarcho-communism). But anyway. --Marinus 06:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally attacking someone by calling them a "twit" is not working toward an agreement. And condemning me for editing the article during a discussion while you're doing the same thing, is not working toward an agreement. I don't know if ancaps are the minority of anarchists. I think they're probably the majority in the United States. I'm not sure about other countries. So I don't want to make any claims who the majority is without reliable sources. But I intend to look for a source and I'll put one in when I find one. DTC 06:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Style in this article

Keeping with Wikipedia's conception of good style, can we avoid he-says-she-says discussion inside the article? Claims and counterclaims and the like. We are here to provide clear, neutral, concise information as much as possible, not a blow-for-blow. I know that we're probably to a man political trainspotters, but Wikipedia isn't where we indulge in discussing the minutae of personal disagreements among theorists. Quotefarms are a definite no-no: they are not only ugly but also subtly influence the POV of the article. We should strive to not have a single quote in the article proper, especially not where there are a near-infinite number of opinions on anarchism, within the movement and without. Most of them are terrible. I'd also appreciate it if we can leave blatantly POV (and false) statements concerning consensus out of the article. Thanks --Marinus 02:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Could we also strike the use of the word "however" from this article? However hard that might be... --Marinus 04:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The Anarchist FAQ as a source

I myself consider the Anarchist FAQ (wrongly linked with Infoshop - they only host it, it's older than and independent from Infoshop) an excellent source - beautifully referenced, mind-bogglingly comprehensive, well-argued, even-handed, etc. It also, and this is of great importance, nicely documents the majority consensus opinion amongst anarchists. It isn't the work of a single expert but the collective creation of a group of practicing anarchists, with input from hundreds and the approval of thousands upon thousands of anarchists. Reasons we shouldn't just rewrite the core of the FAQ here are: (1)it's too long (2)it would deprive us of hours of delightful arguments (3) it is polemical (or, as we say on Wikipedia, POV). So I say editors should be welcome to use it as a reference without taking over the polemical tone (for instance, it wouldn't be very nice of us to mirror the FAQs view on anarcho-capitalism, which can be summarised as "kill with fire, salt the earth it stood on, burn effigies of it forever more, use as a bogeyman to scare generations of children into collective action") but we should feel welcome to refer to its quite impressive arguments (and reams of citations) when making statements in this article. Any disagreement? --Marinus 02:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Anyone can write a FAQ and claim to be an expert on anarchism. That's like a group of us getting together and writing a Anarchist FAQ and posting it on the web and then referencing it here. It would have no credibility. Wikipedia has a policy for reliable sources. DTC 02:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand how the Anarchist FAQ came about. I recommend you take a look at it, or even just my above comment, again. Your comment, I shouldn't need to say, is simply false, the first sentence a platitude, the second and third plainly false and the fourth a non-sequitor. --Marinus 02:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I know how it came about. People on the internet arguing over anarcho-capitalism. The managers of the FAQ transcribe the arguments from forums and such over to the FAQ and put their own two cents in. It's not valid as a reliable source at all. DTC 02:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Why not? It's referenced to the roof. I don't deny that it's polemic. I question your ability to evaluate evidence. --Marinus 03:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all because it's not a reliable source according to policy. See WP:Reliable_sources. Secondly, the writer/editor(s) provide their own interpretations of the writings of anarchists. It might be a good place to go look for quotes from the writings of famous anarchists, but their interpretations of anarchist writings is not reliable. It just regular people on the internet who call themselves anarchists. What credibility does that give them? What qualifications to they have to interpret the sources? That's the reasoning behind the Wikipedia policy on reliable sources. DTC 03:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, I think it's a reliable source. I think it should be our primary source. The part which solidifies my faith in it is that it's factual views are independently held by other secondary sources (like every recognised encyclopaedic entry I've seen on the matter). Pray tell how it falls short? --Marinus 03:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not a reliable source. Reliable source is a matter of definition. Read the policy. If you think it has views held by reliable sources then why don't you use those sources? DTC 03:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I do. But it seems that you are able to raise an objection, but unable to qualify it. DTC, with every comment you make my patience for you decreases: if you are going to make accusations, you should be able to back them up. I do not see how the Anarchist FAQ fails as a reliable factual source. I ask you to explain it to me, you insist that it simply isn't and that I'm ignorant. Not very nice at all. Will you work towards an agreement? --Marinus 03:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If you're losing your patience, that's not my problem. I gave you the link for the reliable source policy. Apparently you didn't read it. It says "A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites, and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions to this may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own names, and not a pseudonym....Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources. That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website, or author of the book. The reason personal websites are not used as secondary sources — and as primary sources only with great caution and not as a sole source if the subject is controversial — is that they are usually created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or even insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world. Only with independent verification by other sources not holding the same POV is it possible to determine the difference..." DTC 03:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You're calling the Anarchist FAQ a personal webpage? Unbelievable. The source policy makes allowance for online secondary sources, which it is. --Marinus 04:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm calling it a self-published document. The writer(s) publish it themselves, meaning they compile the document and circulate it. Self-published sources are not allowed as sources on Wikipedia. The only exception is "well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own names, and not a pseudonym." DTC 04:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

As you should well know, "self-published" refers to one-man-and-his-dog outfits, pamphlets and the like, not the collective effort of dozens with input from hudnreds, approved by thousands and thousands and offered by many, many organisations as a primer to a field. It passes all the conciderations for a reliable source - it isn't perfect, but it sure as hell is reliable. It backs up every claim, it has undergone extensive peer review amongst practicing anarchist (who it represents!). Your objections are silly. --Marinus 04:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

No, self-published does not mean one person. It means it was published by the writers. It wasn't submitted to an independent journal or publishing house who make the decision whether it's credible enough to be published. And "peer review" among "practicing anarchists" is useless if those practicing anarchist have no academic qualifications or esteemed reputation to interpret the work of famous anarchists. Wikipedia policy is very clear that it is not a reliable source. DTC 04:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

And allowance for such souces are made. It has been independently verified, unless you want to deny the same of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (published by Stanford). I'm also specifically excluding the interpretations, but want to use the FAQ as a comprehensive overview of primary sources, for which purpose it is sourced to high heaven, easily verifiable (and verified by everybody that matters).--Marinus 04:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

An article in a self-published The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy would be a reliable source if the writer of the article is known. The policy says, "Note that unsigned Encyclopædia Britannica, World Book, and Encarta articles are written by staff, who may not be experts, and the articles may therefore not have the same level of credibility, but they are regarded as reliable sources for Wikipedia's purposes." The policy makes an exception for the major encyclopedias but, as you can see, you should exercise caution if the article is unsigned. There are no exceptions for FAQ's. The Anachist FAQ is self-published and not permissible as a source on Wikipedia. DTC 05:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Does anybody else share DTC's view, or are they those of a vocal, disruptive minority? --Marinus 04:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems that most objections of DTC's has shown to have no real basis in reality: An Anarchist FAQ#Influence. --Marinus 05:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

According the WP:Reliable_sources the only exception for self-published sources is if "a well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own names, and not a pseudonym." Various junior anarchist from around the internet writing a FAQ is not well-known professional researchers. DTC 06:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, the Anarchist FAQ is ten years old, and has been edited by numerous anarchists. Secondly, the entirety of its arguments are based upon those of the famous anarchists. Thridly, and most importantly, the FAQ is being published as a book next year, by a reputable publisher. Therefore, it is obviously a proper book and its use as a source is obviously valid. Supersheep 12:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I personally disagree with using the "FAQ" as a major source. I have writen the authors and publishers of the "FAQ" numerous times with questions and corrections, and requests for sources (plenty of the accusations and assertions are unsourced) always to no avail. The fact that it is "respected" by plenty of dilitante college "anarchists" doesn't make it any more reputable than whatever pamphlet happens to be widely circulated currently. I, however, do recognize that it's a great resource for finding sources and quotations, however the actual FAQ itself should not be referenced as a reputable source because it's makes liberal (in degree, not political 'alignment') interpretations of the sources, and also fails to take into account sources which are contrary to the agenda of its authors and supporters. —Two-Bit Sprite 14:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could give an example or two, because I have yet to come across any such examples in the FAQ? (Please do not interpret this as a personal attack - merely that I have only read part of the FAQ) Nonetheless, the FAQ is being published, so it seems to me that it now fits into the category of a good source. Supersheep 14:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

At this point in time, I tend to agree with Sprite. Until the FAQ gets edited and published, I don't think that it can be used as a neutral reference. Editors who view the FAQ as a good source should use it as a conglomeration of good sources; in other words, as Sprite suggests, it can be a wellspring of good references, both primary and secondary. --AaronS 14:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is an example. Do you see any sources allowed in that FAQ that say anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism? Obviously not, since their whole intent is to perpetrate a lie that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism. An informative FAQ would include sources from both sides. There are a multitude of sources from scholars that say anarcho-capitalism is anarchism. That'sHot 15:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

There's also the fact that it pulls Rothbard way out of context in a lot of cases. I.e. it attempts to strongly imply that Rothbard thinks that the land stolen from the native americans is legitimate, which he specifically refutes. Another example: the quote "Now what should be the reply of the libertarian rebels to this pert challenge? If they are consistent utilitarians, they must bow to this subterfuge, and resign themselves to living under a regime no less despotic than the one they had been battling for so long. Perhaps, indeed, more despotic, for now the king and his relatives can claim for themselves the libertarians' very principle of the absolute right of private property, an absoluteness which they might not have dared to claim before." [Op. Cit., pp. 54-5] is meant to imply that Rothbard believes in this Randian "libertarian" view, which is not true at all; they intentionally confuse Rothbardianism with Randianism for the sake of erecting a straw man. I have contacted the authors about this before, with no response. — Two-Bit Sprite 15:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it seems like more people are in favour of not using the FAQ, so I will accede there. Still, it's very frustrating to know something (that proper anarchists don't consider anarcho-capitalism anarchism) and not be able to prove it... Grrrr!!!! On reflection, the whole anarchist schools of thought needs a bit of a workover - not knowledgeable enough to do it, though... Supersheep 17:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about presenting what is verifiable, not about presenting what is true. That said, the FAQ can still be used as a source supporting the claim that many anarchists do not consider anarcho-capitalism to be a form of anarchism, although it would be good if it could be supplemented with something else. --AaronS 17:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

indiv anarchism and profit

Marinus, why did you remove this: "It is important to note though they though profit was unnatural and exploitative, they supported the right to profit. They would not interfere with it by coercion. Tucker pointed out, "In defending the right to take usury, we do not defend the right of usury." He simply believed that usury (profit) would disappear by increased competition if the state stopped interfering with the economy." Tucker is saying there that he defends the legal right to profit, but does not defend the moral rightness of profit. The 19th century individualist opposed using coercion. They believed that the state is what made profit possible by reducing competion by protecting the banking monopoly. DTC 03:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Because those facts had already been stated in the section, because it's claim-counterclaim and because that section is already too long. --Marinus 03:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Rothbard pic

Can someone please explain why the Rothbard pic is such an eye sore that it must be removed? —Two-Bit Sprite 14:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I simply have aesthetic reasons, but if you disagree, that's fine with me. I don't really mind one way or the other at this point. --AaronS 14:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well... we'll call it a compromise... I let you hide the anarcho-capitalism section way down in the issues section, and you let me put the pic there... deal? :) —Two-Bit Sprite 14:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me. You can even make it 5000px, if that's the case. :D --AaronS 14:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

That just won't do. Too many sources say anarcho-capitalism is anarchism. Any contemporary mainstream overview of anarchism is going to agree that anarcho-capitalism is one of the many forms of anarchism. That'sHot 14:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Too many sources don't mention it, or contradict you. Please stop pretending that there is a consensus on the matter. --AaronS 15:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell there is a consensus on the matter among scholars. There are a whole string of sources in that section saying that it is a form of individualist anarchism. All you and other opponents can come up with is one or two sources saying that it's not. And those are from anti-capitalists. Not that that's not a legitimate source, but it doesn't hold as much weight as a more neutral party saying that it's not anarchism. The anarcho-capitalists have provided sources from netural parties as well as sources from anti-capitalists that say anarcho-capitalism is one of the many forms of anrachism. That'sHot 15:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Removing a pic because someone doesn't like it? It's becoming more and more evident to me that there is something really corrupt going on here. And the fact that this corruption runs deep is clear by the overpowering domination happening here. This is an encyclopedia article not a place to air one's personal feelings about anything.

Whiskey Rebellion

15:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thewolfstar, if you keep making disruptive and counterproductive comments like this, I'll take the time to present the case for your sock puppetry. I really don't like relying on silly administrative channels, which is why I'm being patient with you, but, so far, you haven't really provided me with any reason to. --AaronS 15:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Whiskey, don't let him intimidate you. That'sHot 15:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not intimidation. I'm giving her a chance. She's been banned from Wikipedia so many times that, maybe, she has learned how to play nicely with others. --AaronS 16:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You are right lingeron, there is a terrible communist wikipedia conspiracy dedicated to corrupting the image of all six existing anarcho-capitalists. damn, we must have a mole! also, whiskey rebellion is obviously lingeron/shannon and should also be earmarked (sic) as a sock. Blockader 15:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring

That'sHot, please stop edit warring. There is no point to it. No matter how many times you revert my edits, someone, including me, will just put them back, and vice versa. Instead of edit warring, which is disruptive, perhaps you could explain how there can possibly be a consensus about anarcho-capitalism being a form of individualist anarchism when there is explicit disagreement, even amongst anarcho-capitalists, on the matter. --AaronS 16:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

That's the funniest thing I've heard all day. You're telling someone else to stop "edit warring" but you're edit warring. You say there's not point in reverting things but you're reverting things as well. Why don't you listen to your own advice and let everyone else do something pointless? As far an anarchism being anarchism, there is not one anarcho-capitalists who disagrees so I don't know what you're talking about. Rothbard said he wanted to call his philosophy as "individualist anarchism" but was afraid it would be confused with Tucker's individualist anarchism so called it "anarcho-capitalism." That doesn't mean it's not a form of individualist anarchism. Most scholars agree that it is a form of individualist anarchism. You've provided no sources that says it's not. All you can do is provide sources showing that early individualist anarchists were opposed to capitalism (profit) but that's not in dispute. The scholars who say anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchist know that early individualists were opposed to capitalism (and communism) but say that anarcho-capitalism is a capitalist form of individualist anarchism. The people that have been providing sources in support of anarcho-capitalism being included as anarchism are giving sources not simply from those in support of anarcho-capitalism but those opposed to it and those neutral in the matter. There are a whole slew of sources. All you can do is provide one or two sources from anti-capitalists saying that it is not real anarchism. The consensus of sources from scholars is that anarcho-capitalism is one of many types of anarchism. That'sHot 16:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I have provided sources, namely Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction, part of Oxford University Press' well-known "Very Short Introduction" series. The author categorically denies that anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism, and strongly criticizes any such claim. There are also a great many assessments of anarchism that do not even mention anarcho-capitalism, or brush it off, or mention it merely as a side note. Your response, thus far, has merely been to contend that these sources are not comprehensive enough. That's begging the question, because you're assuming, as the very basis of your argument, your conclusion. Consensus is unanimity, and there is nothing even resembling unanimity on this issue. --AaronS 16:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Your source does not say that. It says that the early individualist anarchists didn't trust capitalism. That's not in dispute. Your source doesn't say that anarcho-capitalism is not a modern form of individualist anarchism. Also keep in mind that in looking for sources you should find more neutral sources. Colin Ward is an anti-capitalist anarchist, so while it may be a legitimate source, it doesn't hold as much weight as a more neutral source. That'sHot 16:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

His politics don't matter when he's writing for such a well-respected series, and being published by such a universally-respected press like Oxford University Press. These books are the kinds of handy references that are being used by students and being included in course syllabi in universities all around the world. If his editors believed that his politics were getting in the way, they wouldn't have published it (this is why a book published by Oxford University Press can be cited in an academic paper, whereas Wikipedia cannot). The source does deny that anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism, heavily critiquing any such argument, and labeling those who make it "apologists." Regardless, the burden of proof is on you. All anybody needs to do is show you a source that makes no such claim; it does not need to explicitly deny it. A textbook on biology that makes no mention of Intelligent Design does not imply that Intelligent Design is a good theory simply because it does not explicitly say that it is a bad theory. Further, it does not mean that the textbook is not comprehensive enough -- I've already shown you where that logic fails. Anybody who has studied the philosophy of biology knows that scientists refused to even discuss Intelligent Design because they believed that that would imply that it was worth discussing. --AaronS 16:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Did you not read what I wrote? I said he is a legitimate source. I just said that his opinion has to be taken with a grain of salt because he's an anti-capitalist anarchist. But aside from that, he is not saying that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism. I saw the quote you provided above. He is saying that the early individualist anarchists opposed capitalism. That doesn't mean that to be an individualist anarchist you have to oppose capitalism. I don't see him saying any such thing. Maybe you can find a better quote. Also keep in mind that you have to overcome a lot of sources saying that it is. One or two sources does not make a lack of conensus. There are huge number of sources (including from neutral sources and anti-capitalists) that anarcho-capitalism is anarchism. That'sHot 16:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did read what your wrote, so I don't understand the need for condescension. In fact, I responded to what you wrote, indicating that his politics don't matter in assessing this particular work of his, since it's published by a highly-reputable press that has strong incentive, in order to maintain its reputation for excellence, to make sure that what it publishes is scholarly. I don't know how much more explicit this can be:

"[Murray Rothbard is] the most aware of the actual anarchist tradition among the anarcho-capitalist apologists... [he is] aware of a tradition, but he is singularly unaware of the old proverb that freedom for the pike means death for the minnow... [individualist anarchists] differed from free-market liberals in their absolute mistrust of American capitalism, and in their emphasis on mutualism... [and were] busy social inventors exploring the potential of autonomy[, whereas] American 'libertarians'... inventiveness seems to be limited to providing an ideology for untrammelled market capitalism." (emphasis added)

In this section, Ward denies the anarchist pedigree of anarcho-capitalism, and especially criticizes and contradicts the claim that it is a form of individualist anarchism. He claims that such an argument displays a lack of knowledge with regard to the tradition and history of anarchism. Please stop mincing words, here. Aside from this source, there are many sources that either (a) do not say that anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism or (b) deny that any such thing is the case. --AaronS 17:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Pedigree??? You don't have to have "pedigree" to be an anarchist. If Colin Ward argues that anarcho-capitalist don't have "pedigree" that's another issue. Obviously they are the only anarchists that support free market capitalism. They have no "pedigree" in that respect. So what? That doesn't make them not anarchists. Pedigree is not a requirement of being an anarchist. That'sHot 17:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"Anarchist" is not a simple adjective, it's a word that describes someone who supports "anarchism," which is a pretty well-defined political philosophy. If you're going to claim that something is a part of that philosophy, then you need to show how. Again, you're mincing words. Ward is quite explicit in his opinion with regard to anarcho-capitalism. He contends that it is nothing more than unobstructed free-market capitalism with a fancy name, having nothing to do with anarchism the political philosophy. He suggests that those who argue that it does fall under the anarchist tradition lack an understanding or awareness of the anarchist tradition. Some of your sources disagree with him. This is why I argue that there is no consensus, but rather disagreement, on the matter. Do you disagree? --AaronS 17:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Offshoots or Related Ideologies

Perhaps a compromise can be reached at allowing a small subsection of anarcho-capitalism in the schools section, and then also having a Anarchism and Anarcho-capitalism in the issues section. While it is true that anarcho-capitalism is an issue in anarchism, it is also a school, however much it is refuted. For example, most christians I know reject "christian science" as a form of christianity, yet it is still listed in Christian denomination... Just a thought, I'm not going to participate in any edit wars, I'm just thinking out loud hoping to add to the debate. —Two-Bit Sprite 17:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe, even better, we can have an offshoots section, or related ideologies section which would list anarcho-capitalism, and maybe even communist anarchism (not sure if there is enough consensus for this one though). —Two-Bit Sprite 17:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Or (and maybe this is a stretch) we could change the whole Schools section into Philosophies claiming to be anarchists or Schools of thought related to anarchism... then it wouldn't be questionable where ancap would go, they'd all go together, each also with thier respective criticisms... ? Again, I'm just throwing out some ideas. —Two-Bit Sprite 17:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)