Still working to recover. Please don't edit quite yet.
Difference between revisions of "Talk:Anarcho-Capitalism"
From Anarchopedia
(response) |
|||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
::::::::::::::::::How is what you added in the last few months (altering what was there before, which clearly rejected the capitalists claims on this ANARCHIST web site) not a "rant" or an "opinion"? I used references that exist (though mentioned casually) to back up my arguments and examples. I don't think you even read what I have to say. Stop pretending you don't know what is going on. A fundamental class-based disagreement is different from what you are accusing. And if you want to talk about overhauling, why did you overhaul articles yourself? Who are you to say what is a POV or opinion, how do we know it isn't just yourself agreeing with the capitalists and wanting to push their propaganda? You ignored what I said about it being a fact that anarchism was overwhelmingly anticapitalist, and people like Caplan, Donald, and Friedman came here (to the Internet, USENET, and the web) and accused anarchists of being stalinists and murderers and liars for opposing capitalism, then made-up a fake anarchism based on people who were NOT anarchists and NOT libertarians. They NEVER used the terms to describe themselves, and it is revisionism to try to do that now. Misus, Ayn Rand, Bastiat - these people simply were not libertarians or anarchists by any measure. They only seem "libertarian" in comparison to *authoritarian* socialists and the monarchists (which, surprise-surprise, the capitalists sided with in the Russian and Spanish Civil Wars), which is ridiculous and a straw man when they try to claim they are libertarian compared to anarchists. Also, format is less important than the accurate gist of an entry. If the general gist of something I write is accurate, then replacing it with a "Scholarly Sounding Lie" is not acceptable (this has been Bryan Caplan's strategy and basically it sucks. The confining walls, the prisons, and the bullets of smiling scholars and economists kill the workers and the poor just as much as the bullets of thugs and brutes.) The argument that I "write it better" is an invalid one. What if I don't have time? Are you really, honestly saying that the reasons capitalists deserve to be called anarchists, and everyone else (such as we anarchists) should be called authoritarians and have all our words and ideas stolen is because we aren't writing in some form that is perfectly acceptable to you? Are lives, happiness, and freedom worth less because they are not given a footnote? --[[User:KropotkinInBlack|KropotkinInBlack]] 6:08PM EST January 13 2008 | ::::::::::::::::::How is what you added in the last few months (altering what was there before, which clearly rejected the capitalists claims on this ANARCHIST web site) not a "rant" or an "opinion"? I used references that exist (though mentioned casually) to back up my arguments and examples. I don't think you even read what I have to say. Stop pretending you don't know what is going on. A fundamental class-based disagreement is different from what you are accusing. And if you want to talk about overhauling, why did you overhaul articles yourself? Who are you to say what is a POV or opinion, how do we know it isn't just yourself agreeing with the capitalists and wanting to push their propaganda? You ignored what I said about it being a fact that anarchism was overwhelmingly anticapitalist, and people like Caplan, Donald, and Friedman came here (to the Internet, USENET, and the web) and accused anarchists of being stalinists and murderers and liars for opposing capitalism, then made-up a fake anarchism based on people who were NOT anarchists and NOT libertarians. They NEVER used the terms to describe themselves, and it is revisionism to try to do that now. Misus, Ayn Rand, Bastiat - these people simply were not libertarians or anarchists by any measure. They only seem "libertarian" in comparison to *authoritarian* socialists and the monarchists (which, surprise-surprise, the capitalists sided with in the Russian and Spanish Civil Wars), which is ridiculous and a straw man when they try to claim they are libertarian compared to anarchists. Also, format is less important than the accurate gist of an entry. If the general gist of something I write is accurate, then replacing it with a "Scholarly Sounding Lie" is not acceptable (this has been Bryan Caplan's strategy and basically it sucks. The confining walls, the prisons, and the bullets of smiling scholars and economists kill the workers and the poor just as much as the bullets of thugs and brutes.) The argument that I "write it better" is an invalid one. What if I don't have time? Are you really, honestly saying that the reasons capitalists deserve to be called anarchists, and everyone else (such as we anarchists) should be called authoritarians and have all our words and ideas stolen is because we aren't writing in some form that is perfectly acceptable to you? Are lives, happiness, and freedom worth less because they are not given a footnote? --[[User:KropotkinInBlack|KropotkinInBlack]] 6:08PM EST January 13 2008 | ||
| − | For a start, I've rewritten and expanded sections that because they were either a)immature or b)mere summaries. On most I expanded on information that was already there and added new sections. Unlike yourself '''I did not delete anything.''' I'm not talking about 'over-hauling', I'm talking about you deleting entire articles because ''you'' disagreed with their presence here. Even when you didn't delete an article, you merely edited the article to reflect your own personal bias against the position. I have so far refused to engage with you on a discussion about 'Anarchism and Capitalism', because this is not a place for theoretical Anarchist debate. As you probably already know this was intended to be a encyclopedia project, that also provides a refuge for those fed up with deletionist wikipedian editors. Just to place emphasis on something you haven't picked up yet, '''I am not arguing that Anarcho-Capitalism is Anarchism''', however I ''am'' arguing that censorship and bias have no place here. You arbitrarily delete articles '''because you don't like what is being said''', that is ''censorship''. I believe you have plenty of time to put more effort into what you write. You seem to have the time to write extremely long responses arguing points that aren't being addressed, perhaps you could channel that time into writing something constructive.--[[User:RoyceChristian|RoyceChristian]] 03:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC) | + | :::::::::::::::::::For a start, I've rewritten and expanded sections that because they were either a) immature or b) mere summaries. On most I expanded on information that was already there and added new sections. Unlike yourself '''I did not delete anything.''' I'm not talking about 'over-hauling', I'm talking about you deleting entire articles because ''you'' disagreed with their presence here. Even when you didn't delete an article, you merely edited the article to reflect your own personal bias against the position. I have so far refused to engage with you on a discussion about 'Anarchism and Capitalism', because this is not a place for theoretical Anarchist debate. As you probably already know this was intended to be a encyclopedia project, that also provides a refuge for those fed up with deletionist wikipedian editors. Just to place emphasis on something you haven't picked up yet, '''I am not arguing that Anarcho-Capitalism is Anarchism''', however I ''am'' arguing that censorship and bias have no place here. You arbitrarily delete articles '''because you don't like what is being said''', that is ''censorship''. I believe you have plenty of time to put more effort into what you write. You seem to have the time to write extremely long responses arguing points that aren't being addressed, perhaps you could channel that time into writing something constructive.--[[User:RoyceChristian|RoyceChristian]] 03:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC) |
== IP == | == IP == | ||
Revision as of 03:13, 14 January 2008
I disagree with the current introduction of the article. I think it is controversial to portray anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism, when it isn't usually recognized as such. Here is my proposed introduction: Anarcho-capitalism is a political philosophy and doctrine that integrates or attempts to reconcile capitalism, as defined in classical liberalism, with Anarchism and anarchist themes such as opposition to the State and individual freedom. ~Rev 22 08:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Although i agree with you (on the opinion that capitalism and anarchism are in the direct opposition to each other. I believe that each movement must be described by its members, and then possibly we need to have some sort of critique of that movement from other positions. So i'd open up saying that ancaps describe themselves as this, and try to give explanation of their belief system, and then provide the rebuttle from anarchist movement. Beta_M (VolodyA! V Anarhist) Talk 15:11
- While I think it is useful to show the opposing point of views on the subject, I think it is important to try to reach a common, minimal definition. The definition implied in the current introduction is broad but substantially different from the ones given on Wikipedia [1] (certainly not an anarchist or socialist source) or the one used in An Anarchist FAQ. ~Rev 22 15:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with first poster here. The definition as it currently stands seems to be misleading. Many anarchists do not agree that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. Sturkster 15:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- If the definition is incorrect, which I believe the current one is, it needs to be changed! I think that Rev 22s definition is a better more accurate one. Sturkster 14:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that each section should be represented by its own respective supporters. It makes no sense, not to mention will make the entire site biased towards one view, if those holding differing opinions speak on behalf of a group they disagree with. Though I am not an Ancap, I disagree that Anarcho-Capitalism and more classical Anarchist theories are not outright opposed to each other - though there are areas of contention. I think it should be of utmost importance to present both sides without bias, as there is already enough bad blood between opposing camps. No one needs a 'ANCAP v ANSOC' screaming match. Secondly, there isn't just one all encompassing form of Anarcho-Capitalism, there are different rifts (as has been mentioned below about intellectual property). Anarcho-Capitalism is merely a subcategory of 'market Anarchism', as not all Anarchist who support free markets are, agree or identify with Anarcho-Capitalists. Though I agree the definition needs to be changed, I'm cautious of the definition by Rev22. --RoyceChristian 02:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, we cant realistically follow this strategy in this case, because it has been the strategy of the capitalists to use our own desire for fairness and liberty in this specific case against us to undermine our own work, and to make us unwittingly carry their own propaganda and negate ourselves and our work. If they were not calling themselves anarchists or libertarians it would be another story, but in this case, it simply is a fact that we who run this site - and we who do anarchist work, who fight for the poor and oppressed and the over-worked - must take responsibility for it. If capitalism were not the dominant ideology of our time some could say then this wouldn't matter... but both today, and in a future society not ruled by capital, there is nothing stopping the capitalists from setting up their own web sites. Ever since Bryan Caplan started this whole mess, the strategy has been to replace any talk of anti-capitalism as a central tenant of anarchism with those who advocate capitalism under the guise of "anarcho-capitalism", "agorism" and "objectivism". It is no surprise that after initially using some of our own libertarian socialists against us (such as scouring the works of Tucker, Warren, Woodworth, etc. for seemingly pro-capitalist statements) .. these figures dissapear from the capitalist websites and are replaced with Rothbard, Rothbard, Rothbard, Misus, Misus, Misus, Bastiat, Bastiat, Bastiat, Ayn Rand, Ayn Rand, Ayn Rand... and even campaigning for Ron Paul surfaces and dour images of the statue of liberty, doller signs, and the color gold replacing green or red. It is simply ridiculous. There are many "slippery slope conspiracies" that are nonsense, but this one clearly is real. If Anarchopedia is not based on definitions by anarchists, then why does it exist? It should be abolished and we should be perfectly happy with the wikipedia entries, which already repeatedly undermine anarchism's anti-capitalist character because authoritarians of various stripes (marxists, capitalists, fascists) are constantly rewriting them. It is a very bad idea to allow capitalists, fascists, religious fundamentalist people, authoritarian marxists, scientologists, and so on to define anarchopedia entries. They have their own sites.. the only possible reason for them to want to come here is to try to trick us into carrying propaganda that is actually attacking us in order to give it "more legitimacy" - they hate seeing the word liberty used in other contexts than theirs. They want to crush us under their boot while we smile back at them, and this is how they do it - by redefining language. . I understand perfectly how you feel, but this debate has also been waged on IndyMedia, with right-wingers like Fliipside in Bo ston claiming to have the right to present any news they wish, even quasi-fascist and racist positions and slanders and attacks on poor people and the mentally ill, and then turning around and saying they have every right to even if they have no interest in the beliefs of the founders and maintainers of the web site. . The wikipedia entries have mostly been allowed to be distorted by capitalists on the basis that "if it has a citation, it's legitimate"... so pretty much any quote, any statement can be allowed so long as it has a footnote - so the whole idea of a position, a standard vision or movement or concept, is rendered impossible by one of the built-in rules of the system itself (perhaps the Internet will in this way destroy liberty utterly some day? More likely our laziness will.) If anarchopedia and indymedia are to exist and be effective, they must be based on the work of the people who created them, the people who support them, and the general historical thrust of the movement they stand for. There are many cases of conservatives who simply change their labels to "left libertarian" (which is rightfully an anti-market, anti-capitalist label - they want to deny us even the possibility of calling ourselves libertarian because we are opposed to capitalism as egoists) and they then infiltrate organizations like Students for a Democratic Society - yet when you go to their web sites you see nothing but advocacy of economic domination schemes, private property, and no admission that class differences exist, or that the liberty of workers might in some even remote way be different from the liberty of the bosses. We do not even know if all of the people who are claiming "the people who define a category should be advocates of it" are in fact right wingers who adore private property who simply make themselves seem "nice" by smiling and "dressing down" (is Apple Computer a "nice" corporation but Microsoft or IBM is not, because they do this?) That Bryan Caplan, Murray Rothbard, and Rupert Murdoch all present themselves on the Internet with photos of them smiling enigmatically or smugly, talking in a "nice" way, and saying they are not connected to Latin American death-squads or work camps in China does not make this not the case. Either anarchism is serious as a movement, or it is just an empty and weak philosophy that capitalists and authoritarians can infiltrate and walk all over and crush the true desire for liberty, individualism, egoism and social freedom that all humanity must be allowed in defiance of capital's grip on the mind and the world. .. If we anarchists are expected to support and help run this specific system, and if it is to have any anarchist-specific purpose, then what is the point of allowing capitalists, fascists, and leninists to define it? Either abolish it and admit it is an impossibility, or allow we anarchists to run our own affairs. We are not telling them they can't have their own sites, where they may say whatever they wish, and nothing has stopped them from altering wikipedia. -User:151.204.254.237 Jan 9, 2008 (Switching identity to user "KropotkinInBlack")
- So you entirely censoring out information is not propaganda? I suppose it is justified because it is fighting the 'capitalist conspiracy to weaken and attack your movement'? Being a former Anarcho-Capitalist, I can say you clearly have very little understanding as to what they propose and are censoring out any reference to them based on your inherent fear that there is some conspiracy to devalue your own beliefs. I can guarantee that there is not. If you don't like them, fine. I really don't care, that is your decision and you have probably come to it for your own unique reason that I'm sure is quite valid. If you don't like Anarcho-Capitalism, include your criticisms in the article so that others may decide they agree with you while being allowed to explore the issue with an open mind. There is no justifying deleting an entire article because you don't like what is being said.--RoyceChristian 03:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- I find it interesting that somebody wants to limit who can do something, in the name of anarchism. Isn't that kind of contradictory? Zazaban 16:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- I find it interesting that you think fascists, stalinists, capitalists, or religious fundamentalists could do and say anything they like about what anarchism is and you just act like it's perfectly ok, even if this is a site set up by and run by anarchists who are clearly opposed to those things. --KropotkinInBlack Fri Jan 11 16:18:41 EST 2008
- Well, I don't know what you think freedom of speech means. Zazaban 02:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Do you know what freedom of speech means? Why is there no freedom of speech in the capitalist workplace? Why is there no "freedom of speech" for we anarchists who oppose capitalism on all the web sites run by capitalists? Why do you define freedom of speech to mean only your opinion (allowing capitalists to define anarchism here in an anarchist forum and gloss over other opinions and perspectives and most importantly: facts) but its perfectly ok for you to delete my own writing? Do you even care that you deleted writing by me and fellow anarchists from months ago? Do you? Wasn't it censorship when the previous version of it was altered and the text moved elsewhere where it is less likely to be seen? Wasn't it censorship when popular opinion among anarchists was simply changed to "a dispute"? And what of the way the capitalists treated us anarchists in the 90's when we begged people like Caplan and Donald not to lie about us or characterize us as murderers and liars (especially the Spanish Civil War anarchists) and plaster this opinion all over the Internet? Why did they ignore the fact that in 1994-1996, if you went to any library or bookstore or historical archive, the overwhelming history, opinion, and verifiable facts were that anarchism was anti-capitalist, yet on the Internet, people like Caplan, Donald, Friedman, etc simply chose to erase that history, characterize the anarchists of Goldman, Tucker, Bakunin, Kropotkin, etc as liars and steamroll over our history? Who speaks for us when we suffer in minimum-wage jobs, or when we are put in jail for taking bread when we are starving? Who speaks for us when taxes are cut for the rich, and social programs destroyed, and when we anarchists try to replace them with mutual aid societies like free labor unions and cooperatives and federations we are smashed by the police or by armed private property-owners and their thugs and goons? Do you even realize that anarchists may not consider people like L. Susan Brown to actually be an authority on what "individualist" means at all, because her claim to "individualism" only applies favorably to people who seek wealth and private property? (The view of Wendy McElroy.) I suppose that perspective just doesn't matter, and you can smile and annihilate it forever because you always have to get your way, because you believe capitalism is always right, always innocent? Also, why is the link to the podcast here? Doesn't that imply that the podcast is pro-capitalist (simply using terms like "individual freedom" instead of "capitalism" to hide the truth), and if so, what purpose or reason is there for an anarchist web site to advertise/link to it? Why can't it be linked to from any number of right-wing pro-capitalist web sites? Do you have any idea how humiliating it is for us to have to carry the "gold and black flag"? (or the ridiculous dollar sign one) .. are you so insensitive that you don't even care about how anarchists would feel about this kind of action? From our perspective, we are talking about survival and basic human dignity. From a capitalist perspective, it's all about getting worked up over taxes or whether they can control more land this year than last year, squeeze more wealth out of us this year than last year, or force us to call capitalist behavior "liberty" or "individualism" even if we see that it is not. Why do you presume anarchists would simply have no problem with what you have suggested and implied: which is that even though we anarchists have set up and run this site, we have to bow down to the opinions and perspectives of non-anarchists? Why is it that so many of the entries written by you 3 people include references to names of people who are not even anarchists, but are economists and theorists who don't belong to anarchist organizations and do not write for anarchist publications or spend time in prison around the world from fighting capitalist and state-power domination and cruelty? Are you really so poor in your judgment? Do you really just not give a damn, and that is why you can simply wipe out/delete writing by a person like myself without a second thought?--KropotkinInBlack Sat Jan 12 17:08:20 EST 2008
- So, what I'm getting from you is, we should do as they do? Stoop to their level? Zazaban 02:24, 13
- Kropotkin, we would not oppose your edits so if you didn't over haul entire articles and make them your personal rants against ideas you don't like. Add to this that you delete entire sections that others have put together - on the basis that you don't believe those ideas have a place here - and replace them with merely your own opinion. You rail against a supposed Anarcho-Capitalist conspiracy to defraud Anarchism, but you are just as guilty of propaganda, censorship and misleading statements. We understand you don't like Anarcho-Capitalism and are entirely to oppose to the ideal. Instead of deleting the entire section, why not professionally and objectively rewrite the criticism of Anarcho-Capitalism?--139.168.218.63 03:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- How is what you added in the last few months (altering what was there before, which clearly rejected the capitalists claims on this ANARCHIST web site) not a "rant" or an "opinion"? I used references that exist (though mentioned casually) to back up my arguments and examples. I don't think you even read what I have to say. Stop pretending you don't know what is going on. A fundamental class-based disagreement is different from what you are accusing. And if you want to talk about overhauling, why did you overhaul articles yourself? Who are you to say what is a POV or opinion, how do we know it isn't just yourself agreeing with the capitalists and wanting to push their propaganda? You ignored what I said about it being a fact that anarchism was overwhelmingly anticapitalist, and people like Caplan, Donald, and Friedman came here (to the Internet, USENET, and the web) and accused anarchists of being stalinists and murderers and liars for opposing capitalism, then made-up a fake anarchism based on people who were NOT anarchists and NOT libertarians. They NEVER used the terms to describe themselves, and it is revisionism to try to do that now. Misus, Ayn Rand, Bastiat - these people simply were not libertarians or anarchists by any measure. They only seem "libertarian" in comparison to *authoritarian* socialists and the monarchists (which, surprise-surprise, the capitalists sided with in the Russian and Spanish Civil Wars), which is ridiculous and a straw man when they try to claim they are libertarian compared to anarchists. Also, format is less important than the accurate gist of an entry. If the general gist of something I write is accurate, then replacing it with a "Scholarly Sounding Lie" is not acceptable (this has been Bryan Caplan's strategy and basically it sucks. The confining walls, the prisons, and the bullets of smiling scholars and economists kill the workers and the poor just as much as the bullets of thugs and brutes.) The argument that I "write it better" is an invalid one. What if I don't have time? Are you really, honestly saying that the reasons capitalists deserve to be called anarchists, and everyone else (such as we anarchists) should be called authoritarians and have all our words and ideas stolen is because we aren't writing in some form that is perfectly acceptable to you? Are lives, happiness, and freedom worth less because they are not given a footnote? --KropotkinInBlack 6:08PM EST January 13 2008
- Kropotkin, we would not oppose your edits so if you didn't over haul entire articles and make them your personal rants against ideas you don't like. Add to this that you delete entire sections that others have put together - on the basis that you don't believe those ideas have a place here - and replace them with merely your own opinion. You rail against a supposed Anarcho-Capitalist conspiracy to defraud Anarchism, but you are just as guilty of propaganda, censorship and misleading statements. We understand you don't like Anarcho-Capitalism and are entirely to oppose to the ideal. Instead of deleting the entire section, why not professionally and objectively rewrite the criticism of Anarcho-Capitalism?--139.168.218.63 03:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- So, what I'm getting from you is, we should do as they do? Stoop to their level? Zazaban 02:24, 13
- Do you know what freedom of speech means? Why is there no freedom of speech in the capitalist workplace? Why is there no "freedom of speech" for we anarchists who oppose capitalism on all the web sites run by capitalists? Why do you define freedom of speech to mean only your opinion (allowing capitalists to define anarchism here in an anarchist forum and gloss over other opinions and perspectives and most importantly: facts) but its perfectly ok for you to delete my own writing? Do you even care that you deleted writing by me and fellow anarchists from months ago? Do you? Wasn't it censorship when the previous version of it was altered and the text moved elsewhere where it is less likely to be seen? Wasn't it censorship when popular opinion among anarchists was simply changed to "a dispute"? And what of the way the capitalists treated us anarchists in the 90's when we begged people like Caplan and Donald not to lie about us or characterize us as murderers and liars (especially the Spanish Civil War anarchists) and plaster this opinion all over the Internet? Why did they ignore the fact that in 1994-1996, if you went to any library or bookstore or historical archive, the overwhelming history, opinion, and verifiable facts were that anarchism was anti-capitalist, yet on the Internet, people like Caplan, Donald, Friedman, etc simply chose to erase that history, characterize the anarchists of Goldman, Tucker, Bakunin, Kropotkin, etc as liars and steamroll over our history? Who speaks for us when we suffer in minimum-wage jobs, or when we are put in jail for taking bread when we are starving? Who speaks for us when taxes are cut for the rich, and social programs destroyed, and when we anarchists try to replace them with mutual aid societies like free labor unions and cooperatives and federations we are smashed by the police or by armed private property-owners and their thugs and goons? Do you even realize that anarchists may not consider people like L. Susan Brown to actually be an authority on what "individualist" means at all, because her claim to "individualism" only applies favorably to people who seek wealth and private property? (The view of Wendy McElroy.) I suppose that perspective just doesn't matter, and you can smile and annihilate it forever because you always have to get your way, because you believe capitalism is always right, always innocent? Also, why is the link to the podcast here? Doesn't that imply that the podcast is pro-capitalist (simply using terms like "individual freedom" instead of "capitalism" to hide the truth), and if so, what purpose or reason is there for an anarchist web site to advertise/link to it? Why can't it be linked to from any number of right-wing pro-capitalist web sites? Do you have any idea how humiliating it is for us to have to carry the "gold and black flag"? (or the ridiculous dollar sign one) .. are you so insensitive that you don't even care about how anarchists would feel about this kind of action? From our perspective, we are talking about survival and basic human dignity. From a capitalist perspective, it's all about getting worked up over taxes or whether they can control more land this year than last year, squeeze more wealth out of us this year than last year, or force us to call capitalist behavior "liberty" or "individualism" even if we see that it is not. Why do you presume anarchists would simply have no problem with what you have suggested and implied: which is that even though we anarchists have set up and run this site, we have to bow down to the opinions and perspectives of non-anarchists? Why is it that so many of the entries written by you 3 people include references to names of people who are not even anarchists, but are economists and theorists who don't belong to anarchist organizations and do not write for anarchist publications or spend time in prison around the world from fighting capitalist and state-power domination and cruelty? Are you really so poor in your judgment? Do you really just not give a damn, and that is why you can simply wipe out/delete writing by a person like myself without a second thought?--KropotkinInBlack Sat Jan 12 17:08:20 EST 2008
- Well, I don't know what you think freedom of speech means. Zazaban 02:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- I find it interesting that you think fascists, stalinists, capitalists, or religious fundamentalists could do and say anything they like about what anarchism is and you just act like it's perfectly ok, even if this is a site set up by and run by anarchists who are clearly opposed to those things. --KropotkinInBlack Fri Jan 11 16:18:41 EST 2008
- I find it interesting that somebody wants to limit who can do something, in the name of anarchism. Isn't that kind of contradictory? Zazaban 16:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- So you entirely censoring out information is not propaganda? I suppose it is justified because it is fighting the 'capitalist conspiracy to weaken and attack your movement'? Being a former Anarcho-Capitalist, I can say you clearly have very little understanding as to what they propose and are censoring out any reference to them based on your inherent fear that there is some conspiracy to devalue your own beliefs. I can guarantee that there is not. If you don't like them, fine. I really don't care, that is your decision and you have probably come to it for your own unique reason that I'm sure is quite valid. If you don't like Anarcho-Capitalism, include your criticisms in the article so that others may decide they agree with you while being allowed to explore the issue with an open mind. There is no justifying deleting an entire article because you don't like what is being said.--RoyceChristian 03:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- For a start, I've rewritten and expanded sections that because they were either a) immature or b) mere summaries. On most I expanded on information that was already there and added new sections. Unlike yourself I did not delete anything. I'm not talking about 'over-hauling', I'm talking about you deleting entire articles because you disagreed with their presence here. Even when you didn't delete an article, you merely edited the article to reflect your own personal bias against the position. I have so far refused to engage with you on a discussion about 'Anarchism and Capitalism', because this is not a place for theoretical Anarchist debate. As you probably already know this was intended to be a encyclopedia project, that also provides a refuge for those fed up with deletionist wikipedian editors. Just to place emphasis on something you haven't picked up yet, I am not arguing that Anarcho-Capitalism is Anarchism, however I am arguing that censorship and bias have no place here. You arbitrarily delete articles because you don't like what is being said, that is censorship. I believe you have plenty of time to put more effort into what you write. You seem to have the time to write extremely long responses arguing points that aren't being addressed, perhaps you could channel that time into writing something constructive.--RoyceChristian 03:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
IP
do any Anarcho-capitalists support intellectual property? It seems contradictory, as intellectual property is based on licensing that is protected by the state. --Cerpntaxt 08:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- I spoke to some of them, and it seems to be an issue of division amongst an-caps. ~ Beta_M (VolodyA! V Anarhist) Talk 2006 November 22 20:33 (UTC)
Most don't believe in patents and copyright. However most believe in a free-market system trademarks will be a valid form of IP. That is if I make a product I need to ensure that people know that it is me that made it and not a cheap ripe of. So I would put my label on it and If someone tried to copy that label they would be basically be triing to trick customers into thinking that they are actually buying my product. However all other forms of IP would probably not be considered property
