text:
Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 9

'''DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.'''

This archive page covers approximately the dates between April 2005 and May 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See How to archive a talk page.)

Please add new archivals to Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive10. Thank you. Saswann 15:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Origin of the term anarcho-capitalism
Considering the term was not used before 1950 or so, shouldn't a section or statement be added by who coined the term and when? Then any peculiarities of the person's meaning for the term could be stated as well. Was Murray Rothbard the father of the term? Just a guess. Someone else can research, please. Carltonh 17:22, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Murray Rothbard obliquely claimed credit for inventing the term "anarcho-capitalist" in the July 1988 edition of Liberty (page 53) in an article titled What’s Wrong with Liberty Poll; or, How I Became a Libertarian.

I've been unable to lay hands on the issue of Liberty but the relevant portion is quoted in this periodical from the Mises Institute: The Anarcho Capitalist Poltical Theory of Murray N. Rothbard in its Historical and Intellectual Context(check out page 8 and footnote 38)

Quoting the above linked article, which itself quotes the article in Liberty: "Rothbard himself relates that in the winter of 1949/50, in the course of a conversation with some left-wing students, he realised that it was impossible for him to support the free market in all fields and at the same time be in favour of a State police force, “my whole position was inconsistent [...], there were only two logical possibilities: socialism, or anarchism. Since it was out of the question for me to become a socialist, I found myself pushed by the irresistible logic of the case, a private property anarchist, or, as I would later dub it, an anarcho-capitalist.'" It seems likely that the terms "anarcho-capitalist" and "anarcho-capitalism" evolved simultaneously.

On the other hand in this interview Samuel Konkin seems to believe the term was invented much later by one Jarrett Wollstein. "In theory, those calling themselves anarcho-capitalists (I believe Jarrett Wollstein, in his defection from Objectivism, coined the term back in early 1968) do not differ drastically from agorists"

I think Rothbard has the better claim.--Matt Apple 00:49, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Individualist Anarchism and Capitalist Anarchism
I have put Wendy McElroy on the page a couple of times only have to it taken down. I believe the objection is that it is self-advertising (it couldn't be objected that it is factually incorrect), so I should clarify that I am Randall McElroy and no relation to Wendy. If I wanted to self-advertise I'd talk about Catallarchy. (I get asked about this at conferences all the time, so I understand the confusion.) This being the case, please tell me here what other objection there could be. If there is none, I'll put that part back.

 * Yep, that is why I asked who you were when you first started editing. Anyway, I don't think McElroy is significant enough to list on the page, but if she is going to be listed it definitely should not be as an individualist anarchist.  First, if she is really an individualist anarchist, why are we listing her on the anarcho-capitalist page at all?  Second, though she considers herself an individualist anarchist, she said some time ago that if the individualists of the past were alive today they would all be anarcho-capitalits.  In other words, by her own logic, she is an anarcho-capitalist.  That she considers this compatible with individualist anarchism is a side point really, since she would be recognised first and foremost as an anarcho-capitalist both by the anarchist individualists of today and by the anarchists collectivists.  Kev 09:51, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, Kev, it's only a side issue to you because you apparently don't consider anarcho-capitalism a subset of individualist anarchism. That's exactly how the vast majority of anarcho-capitalists see themselves, though -- as the culmination and most rigorous iteration of individualist anarchism. Now, both you and those who disagree with you have the right to see things through their own ideological prism. Presumably, with regard to editorial calls about the page on anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-capitalists ought to generally have their say on the matter.

Criticism Section
Many elements of the "criticism" section are good, but they need to be reworked. I think I'm going to start moving some of it to the libertarianism article (as discussed above with some other sections) if no one objects because they apply more broadly than just to anarcho-capitalists Dave 19:58, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

 * Right, because there is no reason to critic libertarianism again in an anarchy article. --Alfrem 17:37, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Definition
I have an important point.

The Article tells us at first:

 * Anarcho-capitalism is a branch of libertarian political philosophy which calls for a society without state government, and a form of free market where private property exists (see capitalism). Anarcho-capitalists favor voluntary relationships, which they see as including property rights, rather than involuntary political relationships, such as the territorial monopoly of states. The difference between anarcho-capitalists and other libertarians is largely one of degree: other libertarians, called minarchists, wish to reduce the size and intrusiveness of the state, but unlike anarcho-capitalists, retain what they consider to be vital functions that the private sector cannot provide, like police, courts and the military. -- version from 2005-04-08

I think this is a misleading description by factoid. Anarcho-capitalism is an other word for Market-Anarchism. (It had come up as a new word in approx. 1960. Not clear from whom for what.) Market-Anarchists wish a free order for themselfs. But that doesn't mean a pure libertarian system. Of course Market-Anarchists favor Libertarianism as philosophy but this is no presupposition or result for a free order in anarchy. In anarchy would also come into being that some groups or individuals make their moral claims by violence since they could enforce it. And this is for ancaps ok because it is a result of competition of forces.

Opposite views? --Alfrem 17:32, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree with your basic point. However, I disagree that anarcho-capitalism is synonymous with "market anarchism".  First, the referance to anarcho-capitalists as "market anarchists" is a relatively recent phenomena, in comparison with the use of the term by other ideologies.  Individualists anarchists and mutualists were and are market anarchists, they described a free market in their time and are today described at times as market anarchists both by traditional anarchists and by anarcho-capitalists.  The free market system they advocated rejected several institutions essential to capitalism as antithetical to the free market, so their "market anarchism" was not one and the same as the capitalist "market anarchism".  If anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism at all (and there is controversy over this point alone), then it is a subset of market anarchism, not the same thing as market anarchism.  And I think the origin of the word anarcho-capitalism is pretty obviously from Murray Rothbard, at least I've never seen a cited source of a previous use of the term.  Kev 20:33, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Good critic. But I have new questions. Maybe I dent my head on terms.

Historical root of the term

 * First to the root of "anarcho-capitalism": On anti-state.com someone wrote: "Now if anyone knows who invented the term "Anarcho-Capitalism" I would like to know. I've found a footnote where Rothbard obliquely takes credit for it and I've found an interview of SEK3 where he claims some other guy I've never heard of coined the term. Both agree that it was coined in the late 50's or early 60's."
 * --Alfrem 09:40, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * And here is an other evidence from

 * "As John Kelley writes, Rothbard became an anarcho-libertarian immediately after he began to attend von Mises s seminars in 194934. Von Mises was not an anarcho-capitalist, indeed he was convinced that the anarchists were basically ingenuous and that it was necessary to have a monopoly over the exercise of force there will always be individuals and groups of individuals whose intellect is so limited that they are unable to understand the benefits of social co-operation.35 But after von Mises had demonstrated that  laissez-faire policy leads to peace and higher standards of living for all, while statism leads to conflict and lower living standards ,36 according to Rothbard,  defence and enforcement could be supplied, like all other services, by the free market 37. Rothbard himself relates that in the winter of 1949/50, in the course of a conversation with some left-wing students, he realised that it was impossible for him to support the free market in all fields and at the same time be in favour of a State police force, "my whole position was inconsistent [...], there were only two logical possibilities: socialism, or anarchism. Since it was out of the question for me to become a socialist, I found myself pushed by the irresistible logic of the case, a private property anarchist, or, as I would later dub it, an anarcho-capitalist" 38.
 * Rothbard developed his anarcho-capitalist theory during the 1960s when American politics increasingly concentrated on the increase in welfare and defence spending"
 * --Alfrem 11:51, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Kev: I disagree that anarcho-capitalism is synonymous with "market anarchism".

 * In fact it is not clear to most users on anti-state.com that there should be a difference between this terms. If you are right anyhow and anarcho-capitalism is a subset of market anarchism then the most content in this article must move to market anarchism. And here in anarcho-capitalism is only needful to explain the additions of anarcho-capitalism against market anarchism. --Alfrem 11:30, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I said "if anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism," and I certainly don't think wikipedia is the place to make that determination. Anyway, since when does anti-state.com get to erase history and decide the meaning of words for people whose ideology they openly revile?  Kev 22:51, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Def. Revisited
Anarcho-capitalism is a branch of libertarian

 * This is not essantial. Maybe the most thinkers argue so in their theory, but there are also Ancaps who don't use the libertarian meta-philosophy. It is no branch. Ancaps prefer merely the libertarian view for their norm system.

political philosophy

 * anti-political

which calls for a society without state government,

 * not essaintial, too. Most ancaps argue in "dont threat on me" or "right to secede" or "right to ignore the state" or "without me". They dont want change a whole country or "society" to anarchism. They want freedom for themselfs, they say why, and that's all.

and a form of free market where private property exists (see capitalism).

 * This is inexact. A state with "limited government" could deliver also capitalism and private property. But that is not what ancaps want. Furthermore the case of "property" is not so easy. Property must get defined. A government could do this in same way, and the ancap would say: "well, that's what I need, fine work". This is rather improbable. But the point is that ancaps reject the one-side-decision-finding and not necessarily the result. Ancaps want consent to get property norms. And these norms are not always unique.

Anarcho-capitalists favor voluntary relationships, which they see as including property rights, rather than involuntary political relationships, such as the territorial monopoly of states.

 * force monopoly is a ko-criteria for ancaps, they dont favor rather than.

The difference between anarcho-capitalists and other libertarians is largely one of degree: other libertarians, called minarchists, wish to reduce the size and intrusiveness of the state, but unlike anarcho-capitalists, retain what they consider to be vital functions that the private sector cannot provide, like police, courts and the military.

 * ok --Alfrem 18:20, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So I want to change the defintion:

Anarcho-capitalism or Market Anarchism is an anti-political attitude ("movement" would be overdone) of people who reject government. They consider state as not better than a compelled service like a monopoly of shoes. Anarcho-Capitalists respect that other people want a state but they refuse by moral and econonic reasons that they have to take part in state only due to this public demand.

Anarcho-capitalists often prefer arguments of the libertarian meta philosophy and Austrian School.

The difference between anarcho-capitalists and other libertarians is largely one of degree: other libertarians, called minarchists, wish to reduce the size and intrusiveness of the state, but unlike anarcho-capitalists, retain what they consider to be vital functions that the private sector cannot provide, like police, courts and the military.

--Alfrem 15:45, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I've already explained, many times, why the "or market anarchism" bit isn't going to fly. Anarcho-capitalism is not synonymous with the free market or with market anarchism, no matter how many anarcho-capitalists want to change reality to make it so.  Further, "people who reject government" is imprecise, it implies that anarcho-capitalists reject government in all forms, when in fact they reject specifically the state.  The rest is fine, though your referance to a monopoly of shoes sure sounds odd.  Kev 22:56, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree that market anarchism is a little misleading because the classic understanding comes from some other people. Therefore it shouldn't mentioned in this first section. Anyway it is fact that it is in plenty use of ancaps to describe what they mean and this is a valid additional term today. OK? --Alfrem 10:23, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * "monopoly of shoes sure sounds odd" is true. We should this put on hold because it is only wording. --Alfrem 10:59, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Improvement or not
Alfrem, I'm afraid I have some qualms about your proposed definition. Let's address the points 1 by 1. You say, "but there are also Ancaps who don't use the libertarian meta-philosophy." Can you give an example of what you're thinking of? It seems to me that all ancap thinkers I am aware of are libertarians of some sort, whether moralists, consequentialists, Randian egoists, or Stirneroid egoists. You say its "anti-political", which is true, but it seems to me that a "political philosophy" is a philosophy about politics, not necessarily in favor of it, and it's clearer to describe it as such. You say opposing the state is inessential "Most ancaps argue in "dont threat on me" or "right to secede" or "right to ignore the state" or "without me". They dont want change a whole country or "society" to anarchism. They want freedom for themselfs, they say why, and that's all." It seems to me that opposing the state is the sine qua non of AC. If you are really looking only for freedom for yourself, then you are not really a political philosopher, just a rebel (which is not a bad thing). Any group of people without a state is a stateless society. You write: "[a form of free market where private property exists] is inexact. A state with "limited government" could deliver also capitalism and private property. But that is not what ancaps want." I would say that the above is a necessary but not sufficient condition; a limited government could provide it, but AC by definition requires both "a form of free market where private property exists" and statelessness. You continue "Furthermore the case of "property" is not so easy. Property must get defined." Yes, but not in the intro, please. Lastly, you comment, "force monopoly is a ko-criteria for ancaps, they dont favor rather than," and I'm afraid I don't know what that means. Therefore, I cannot see your proposed new def as an improvement. - Nat Krause 09:45, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, at first you criticize my arguments, and not my new defintion. Therefore I make it short.

 * You say, "but there are also Ancaps who don't use the libertarian meta-philosophy." Can you give an example of what you're thinking of? It seems to me that all ancap thinkers I am aware of are libertarians of some sort, whether moralists, consequentialists, Randian egoists, or Stirneroid egoists.

 * Not all are libertarians. It is a point of view who you want to consider as "libertarian". David Friedman for example don't call himself as libertarian. He likes this philosphy, but that doesn't mean, that one must pigeonhole evrybody. Also Friedman is no Austrian. He is a purely economist. Also you find on anti-state.com people which speak from the Non-Aggression-Principle as a doctrin of hard-core-libertarians. Further it is thoughtable that you are a very good bank-robbery and think that anarchy delivers a good economy also for bank robberies. Also in Stirner is no hint that he deny basically crime. And I do also because I know that libertarainism is only an ideal theory and nothing what can be copied to reality.

 * You say its "anti-political", which is true, but it seems to me that a "political philosophy" is a philosophy about politics, not necessarily in favor of it, and it's clearer to describe it as such.

 * I am not clear what you mean as "political". It is a point of view again. Of course, there is a lot of ideology critic and there it deal with politic. But what is political? It means for me to do so in public affairs. Even Rothbard did it sometimes. But most ancaps disavow things like Libertarian Party and Freestate Project.

 * You say opposing the state is inessential "Most ancaps argue in "dont threat on me" or "right to secede" or "right to ignore the state" or "without me". They dont want change a whole country or "society" to anarchism. They want freedom for themselfs, they say why, and that's all." It seems to me that opposing the state is the sine qua non of AC. If you are really looking only for freedom for yourself, then you are not really a political philosopher, just a rebel (which is not a bad thing).

 * Again, what is political? Is reading Rothbard's books political? Is thinking about political? I don't think so. Of course ancaps have minds and this minds come to public. But who is political? Ancaps reject state for themself. Statists demand state for all. This problem is not resolvable. Ancaps know that. Statists know what would be the consequence of ancapism and ignore it. So "opposing the state" is point of view. "opposing anarchy" would be the same.

 * Any group of people without a state is a stateless society. You write: "[a form of free market where private property exists] is inexact. A state with "limited government" could deliver also capitalism and private property. But that is not what ancaps want." I would say that the above is a necessary but not sufficient condition; a limited government could provide it, but AC by definition requires both "a form of free market where private property exists" and statelessness. You continue "Furthermore the case of "property" is not so easy. Property must get defined." Yes, but not in the intro, please.

 * What is a "form of free market"? What is "property"? You use popular terms with unclear contents to muddle up cause and effect. Stateless society means there is no potent force monopoly. What then comes up is called free market and what there comes up is called property norms and people define property or reject it so long as they want it.

 * Lastly, you comment, "force monopoly is a ko-criteria for ancaps, they dont favor rather than," and I'm afraid I don't know what that means. Therefore, I cannot see your proposed new def as an improvement. - Nat Krause 09:45, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * with my remarks above it should be a little clearer. Sorry for my bad English. --Alfrem 12:42, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First sentence
I've now reverted two different editors' versions of the first sentence today, so I feel an explaination is warranted. In the first case, Nat's version implied that anarcho-capitalists reject all forms of government, and that they accepted "the" free market as if there is only one conception of what a free market is. I repaired both of these errors only to find myself reverted because, according to Nat, the first sentence is not the place to explain this. I reverted it back due to the fact that no explaination was occurring, rather I was simply leaving the language open for the possibility of such an explaination, given that in Nat's version any such explaination was already ruled out.

This, my first revert, was then changed by RJ. He left the government part alone but tied in the affirmation of property to the free market, which I think unnecessarily clouds the issue, and then also inserted the description of AC affirmation of the free market as the "common" one. This attribution of the "common" use of the term free market is nothing more than an attempt to load the sentence toward the bias that the market prefered by capitalists is in fact free. As such, I reverted for the second time back to my original change of Nat's edit. Kev 02:36, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Can you explain what this other kind of "free market" is, which the normal conception seems to differ from? RJII 02:52, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * No, because your idea of the "normal" conception of a free market is not in fact the "normal" conception of a free market, but rather a particular conception based on your own ideology. There are a number of different variations on market economics commonly refered to as "free markets" and your attempt to conflate them all into one and call it "common" while drawing a false comparison to a single other conception by calling it "obscure" isn't helping anything.  Indeed, I doubt I can explain much of anything to you RJ, your POV warrior attitude would block any attempt.  Kev 04:44, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Wow, what an attitude. Given your defensiveness I suspect you aren't able to answer the question. If you want the sentence to distinguish the free market that anarcho-capitalists believe in from others, then you should be able to explain what other conception of a free market there is. Otherwise, the rest of us are left to wonder just what the hell your point is. RJII 04:51, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * The problem with saying "state government" out of context is that it will lead readers in the US and those familiar with US politics to believe that anarcho-capitalism is focused on abolishing those things we have instead of provinces. As for the free market, I'm not sure what Kev has in mind as far as free markets which have property but which are opposed by A-Cs. - Nat Krause 04:59, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Well saying that anarcho-capitalists oppose the state could also lead to such confusion, yet the article says that in several places. Maybe a section should be created to clear up any confusion between "the state" as a form of government and "states" as a mode of government.  I will try to think of another wording to account for this possible confusion.  As to ideologies that believe in the free market and property but are opposed by A-Cs, that would be the vast majority of modern day capitalists, who consider forms of monopoly allowed by AC to interfere with the proper functioning of the "free market".  They believe that the "free market" requires government intervention at some level, because a "free market" requires "free competition" and they define such to not include forms of monopoly that ACs do include.  The attempt by some AC sympathizers to redefine the "free market" as the absence of state intervention is insincere, and it flies in the face of how the term is defined and how it is used not only by state capitalists, but even by many minarchist libertarians who believe that certain state interferance allows a "free market" to exist in the first place.  Kev 05:27, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * What does "free competition" mean? It means freedom to compete, doesn't it? A monopoly is defined as a situation where one firm is the only provider of a particular kind of good or service. Just the fact that this state of affairs exists doesn't mean that the freedom to compete is not there. It could just be that no one has gotten around to offer a competing product yet. That's why there is a term called "coercive monopoly" which is one that is prohibiting other firms from competing by using coercion, either on its own or though government action. Both anarcho-capitalists and minarchist libertarians are against anti-trust. They don't believe government should interfere with monopolies unless they engage in coercion ( physical force, the threat of it, or fraud) to prevent others from competing. There is no difference in their conception of a free market. A free market is one where no coercion exists. RJII 05:38, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not here to argue the point with you RJ. The fact that there are other conceptions of the free market remains regardless of your view of the merit of the position.  The fact that some libertarians argue that a market with a monopoly is not a freely functioning market is not changed by the fact that you disagree.   Kev 08:35, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't know of any libertarians who have a problem with monopolies unless they're coercive monopolies. Libertarians like free market monopolies. RJII 16:08, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Heh, then you obviously don't know very many libertarians. Oh well, are you ever going to actually educate yourself on these subjects RJ, or do you just enjoy torturing others by spewing out ignorant statements like this?  I know!  Why don't you try reading this article to see if no libertarians have a problem with so-called "non-coercive" monopolies.  Kev 17:53, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I really don't understand Kev's critique here. The article states that A-Cs are against the state and for free-markets-with-property. Certainly, there are lots of people who only believe in one but not the other, and those people are not A-Cs. - Nat Krause 05:56, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * My only concern is that it be clear that "free market" is not necessarily a market with property, and that the "free market" embraced by capitalism is not "the" free market but "a" free market. What is so hard to understand about this basic NPOV?  Kev 08:35, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * My version of the intro says that the A-Cs support property and the free market. It does not say that one requires the other, and, in fact, it would be redundant if it did. "The free market" is the normal phrase when talking about a general system; "a free market" is okay, but accomplishes no other purpose than to make the sentence less euphonious. Incidentally, the claim that capitalism is not "the" free market is itself a POV. - Nat Krause 11:12, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Well it does have one slight result other than making the sentence less "euphonious", it also makes it NPOV. You know, if you care about little things like that.  And yes Nat, the claim that capitalism is not the free market is a POV, which is precisely why I have included no such claim in the article, even while the language you have used implicitly includes a claim that anarcho-capitalists do support "the" free market. Kev 18:02, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * In my opinion, "the free market" and "a free market" are synonyms. The only difference is that the former is what is usually used in this sort of context. - Nat Krause 05:09, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What do you buy and sell in a free market if there is no private property? It doesn't make sense. What are you talking about? Without trade there is no market.RJII 17:56, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm not here to educate you RJ. I've already refered you to all the sources you need to educate yourself properly on this subject.  I did so in this very talk page, with direct links to online books you can actually *shudder* read to inform yourself on this topic.  That you are asking this kind of question months later can only indicate that you have decided to continue to edit articles on the subject of anarchism while knowing next to about it.  Kev 18:02, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Funny, I was going to say the same thing about you. It looks to me like you just don't know. RJII 18:10, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Yeah, that must be it. I mean, not like I ever gave you any links to Proudhon or Tucker.  Not like Proudhon ever made explicit the difference between property and possession and why one was coercive while the other was not.  No, nothing like that, after all, RJ is knowledgable on anarchism, right?  So, are you ready to admit that you are nothing more than a troll?  Kev 18:14, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought. You can't offer a simple explanation of what this alleged other conception of "free market" there is. RJII 19:11, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Don't you remember how you had to eat your words the last time you said that? Kev 22:59, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * No, I don't. Refresh my memory ..that is, if it's relevant to "free market." RJII 02:03, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Okay, let me put it in economic terms. My explaining all of this to you, that is an investment for me.  Now, whether or not that investment is worth the opportunity costs associated with it depends on the outcome.  What do I get out of taking my time to explain the fundamentals of anarchism to you one by one?  Certainly it won't be that you will stop making bad edits, nor that you will stop making biased edits, so what is the positive outcome that will make this worth my while?  Kev 02:21, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You'll give me more things to dispute. But, all I'm asking for is what other kind of free market there is. You're stalling. Go do your research then get back with an explanation. RJII 02:47, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * My research? lol, if you question my knowledge of the subject matter you need only look at the archive of this very talk page, where I have already laid out in full explaination for more than one person the answer to the exact question you are asking, and yet you said that -I- need to do research?  You are no longer worth my time troll, I will simply revert you whenever I feel there is a need.  Kev 02:58, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It's more evident than ever that you haven't the faintest idea of what you're talking about. I have no problem explaining basic concepts. All you can do is dodge and stall on this issue. RJII 03:03, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

WTF?
"anarchism (dismabiguation)." does not exist. What the fuck is "dismabiguation"? Deleted. - Virgin Molotov Cocktail

leftist anarchist versus anarcho-capitalist dispute in the Intro
Why is there a second paragraph in the intro that just consists of arguing about whether anarcho-capitalists are true anarchists? Why is that even there? Shouldn't that be somewhere in the body of the article in a criticism section? RJII 02:37, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Nah, I think it belongs there. We might want to rephrase it, but it's important to differentiate ancap from leftist anarchism from the outset. Philwelch 02:40, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see it moved. It's a long rambling paragraph that sounds like two kids arguing over who is the real anarchist and who is the poseur. That kind of thing doesn't belong in the intro of an encyclopedia article. RJII 03:13, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The answers to following questions seem to be variable based upon one's POV:

 * 1) Are anarcho-capitalists anarchist?
 * 2) Are anarcho-socialists anarchist?

As such, I think pseudo-factual references to any individuals or groups as "anarchist" should be replaced with more specific references to which of the varying opposed schools of anarchism is being talked about for purposes of NPOV. Philwelch 03:32, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The funny thing is, this opposition to anarcho-capitalists calling themselves anarchists is coming from the "true anarchists" who are supposed to be against people imposing themselves on others. It seems to me that real anarchists would allow an anarcho-capitalist article to say that anarcho-capitalists are anarchists. Sounds "hierarchical" to me. Just a thought. RJII 04:14, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See, it's that messed up definition of anarchism that gets us here in the first place. You don't think the Spanish anarchists were imposing when they blew up the churches? Or when they took the factories?--    Revolutionary Left   |  Che y Marijuana 04:48, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

 * Phil, in regard to your statement above, my opinion is that anarcho-socialists and anarcho-capitalists are both anarchist, but in different senses of the word "anarchist". That's why the solution is disambiguation. However, this is just another POV. You're right that it would be ideal to use more specific terms when there might be confusion. - Nat Krause 05:13, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * A disambiguation thing might be good. RJII 05:26, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Disambiguation in this case is simply catering to a minority fringe that seeks to subvert anarchism. But be that as it may, if disambiguation is to occur it will at least not be in the form selected specifically by ancaps to put their philosophy in the best possible light while minimizing the overwhelming roll of those who actually challenge authority rather than simply prefering one form over another.  Kev 07:32, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I think this article is written in a pretty NPOV way. If you think this article puts anarcho-capitalism in "the best possible light" maybe it's just that you find the philosophy attractive. Maybe you think that exposing it in full is going to turn up something ugly or sinister that's just not there. RJII 16:36, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * There will be no more pandering, anarcho-capitalism and "left anarchism" are not equally legitimate as anarchist ideologies unless you ignore historical facts. The reality is, all the original anarchists were anti-capitalist. All the historical anarchist successes and movements have been anti-capitalist. It is just straight fact that anarchism is anti-capitalist.--    Revolutionary Left   |  Che y Marijuana 17:50, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Your reasoning is kind of strange. Because the "original anarchists" were anti-capitalist, it logically follows that some modern anarchists can't be pro-capitalist? Looks like a non-sequitur to me. And, that since "historical anarchist" movements have been anti-capitalists that some modern ones can't be pro-capitalist? Looks like another non-sequitur. Usage of words evolves, and it looks to me like usage of the word "anarchism" has been the process of evolving.. It seems like you're trying to hold on to a strict historical usage that may no longer hold, or is in the process of no longer holding. The quest to retain exclusive ownership of it seems futile to me. Personally, I don't know why anarcho-capitalists would care one way or the other whether it's proper to label themselves "anarchists" ..it's just semantics. To me, the argument doesn't seem significant enough to even discuss in an encyclopedia entry.

 * Maybe because that isn't his reasoning, but only a straw-man you've attributed to him? First, people have been saying "original" anarchist because we already gave too much ground to anarcho-capitalists by refering to them as anarchists in the first place, simply because they insisted on the title.  Second, it is not the fact that the original anarchists were anti-capitalist that makes modern anarchists anti-capitalists, it is the fact that the original anarchists helped define a movement that stood for more than just preferance of one form of domination over others, that stood for freedom for all human beings, and such a movement cannot be erased in the blink of an eye just because a few capitalist apologists begin misusing the word in an attempt to co-opt anarchism.  This is not "a quest to retain exclusive ownership", that is a stupid argument that only a capitalist mentality could even concieve, how could anyone possibly own a word?  This is an attempt to ensure that the word "anarchism" does not become totally meaningless by using it to refer to the very ideologies it most blatantly stands against.  It would be just as legitimate as challenging attempts by individuals to refer to slavery as freedom in the same kind of Orwellian process that anarcho-capitalists are engaged in on several front in their attempt to import some small degree of moral legitimacy to an abhorrent ideology.  Kev 18:20, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * You know, anarcho-capitalists certainly believe that they too "stand for freedom for all human beings", and many of them find socialism to be an "abhorrent ideology" that substitutes "one form of domination for another". *Dan* 12:46, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Then it appears to me that they have two choices. First, they can call themselves something other than anarchists, since anarchists have always been socialists.  Second, they can decry any domination when it arises in both socialism and capitalism, rather than prefering one form to the other, as they in fact do.  Kev 13:36, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)  Opps!  I forgot a third choice.  Attempt to subvert a pre-existing political movement and redefine its terms in a crass attempt to co-opt a small part of its message while at the same time mostly just supporting the status quo.  Odd that I would forget the choice that most anacho-capitalists go with.  Kev 13:38, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

All of this bickering and re-edits over the usage of the terms "anarchist" and "anarchism" by both camps are not getting us anywhere, and it is wasting a great deal of time for all parties involved. Can we not agree to just call anarcho-capitalists "anarchists", since that is what they wish to be called, as long as we include a healthy caveat that anarchists traditionally have not considered themselves such? I realize that anarchists bridle at the usage of "their" term by the ancaps, but they must realize that it is a looser definition of the term and has little to do with the anarchist movement of Proudhon and Tucker from the 19th century. It has far more to do with the American tradition of anarchism as espoused by people like Thoreau - in which anarchism simply means "no government" rather than the more involved definition with elimination of all hierarchies. I am certain that classical liberals would be just as irritated at American Leftists co-opting their term to mean something almost entirely different, but the fact is that words can have multiple definitions and uses. At least in this article, can we simply use the terms like "socialist anarchists" or "traditional anarchists" when referring to the one kind, and "anarcho-capitalists" or "free market anarchists" to refer to the other, as long as we keep the anarchist critiques in the "Critiques" section? Or is this really just too simple of a solution, that you'd all rather keep editing and re-editing each others' edits till Judgement Day? Academician 18:03, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * It is interesting that you cite Thoreau as an example, given that he was also a contemporary of the 19th century like Proudhon and Tucker, yet he never called himself an anarchist and did not consider himself to be one. The reason is fairly simple, anarchism is and has always meant more than mere anti-statism, until the day that Rothbard decided it didn't about 50 years ago.  The fact that anarcho-capitalists consider themselves anarchists is fine support for indicating that they consider themselves anarchists on wikipedia, it is not sufficient to actually refer to them as anarchists on wikipedia however, as that would be a violation of NPOV.  Anyway, I am personally happy to refer to one camp as "traditional anarchists" and the other as "anarcho-capitalists," in fact that is what I've been doing all along because each is based in fact.  However, "socialist anarchist" and "free-market anarchist" are both unacceptable, for reasons I've repeated many times on this talk page.  Refering to one group as "socialist anarchists" heavily implies that there is a type of anarchist that is not socialist, which may or may not be true.  "Free-market anarchist" not only implies that anarcho-capitalists are the only anarchists who believe in a free market, which is not true, but also that anarcho-capitalists actually believe in a free market, which is a point of contention with individualists.  Kev 23:18, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I am aware that Thoreau did not call himself an anarchist. However - that is how he is referred to in a great deal of published literature, and he was an influence of many anarchists, of both the socialist and capitalist varieties, even though he was not a socialist.  And I think you give far too much credit to Rothbard for the definition of "anarchism" as meaning "anti-government" - in lay circles, this is what it has meant for a great deal of time.  Before I read anything about either anarchism or anarcho-capitalism, I thought that "anarchism" simply meant "anti-government" - and, indeed, the dictionary backs that up (and shouldn't a dictionary definition usually be a good example of NPOV?).  At the very least, the brunt of the connotation (AND denotation) of the term is the focus on the abolition of the state; the abolition of capitalism is, at best, a secondary or tertiary implication.  This is why I do not believe it is so great of a deal that Rothbard and the anarcho-capitalists "co-opted" the term, and why this whole debate seems so childish to me.  Obviously, there is a type of "anarchist" that is not socialist - that type where "anarchist" merely indicates "anti-state" or "anti-authority", and does not consider property a form of authority.  This definition pervades the public consciousness, and it is only inside the limited circles that traditional anarchists frequent that it has this other, much more precise definition.  As far as most people - and the dictionary - are concerned, it is NPOV.

 * Not that it matters, of course, but I am neither an anarchist or an anarcho-capitalist - but I've done my homework and find the arguments on the part of anarchists here more propagandist than substantial. You do not like that someone else uses "your" term in a way that you did not authorize, and hence you seek to essentially exert a claim of intellectual property over them on behalf of the 19th century anarchis movement.  That hardly seems anarchist to me.  That said, I also think that a lot of the anarchi-capitalists' edits have been unfairly NPOV as well, so at least you are even.  But how about one of you be the bigger persons? Academician 00:40, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Incidentally, Acamedician, I can't speak for anyone else on my "side", but I have for some time seen this exclusively as an issue of different uses of the same word, meaning that I quite agree with your points. The only question should be how to make the distinction as clearly and effectively as possible. I believe Kev has said he agrees with this in principle, although he thinks my past efforts to disambiguate had a pro-capitalist skew, while I think his had the opposite problem. Thank you for your attenion, Acamedician. - Nat Krause 04:46, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * You definitely are importing some kind of biased perspective if you think the dictionary definition you cited backs up the idea that anarchism is mere anti-state. It says, quite explicitly, that anarchism rejects -all- forms of government.  Prisons, judges, military, all of these things are forms of government by any standard conception, yet they are all accepted by one or another anarcho-capitalist as legitimate.  Anarchism decries all forms of government, not merely the state.  The fact that you thought of anarchism as merely anti-government (and somehow conflate that with anti-state), means nothing at all to me as far as evidence for common meaning.  You are a single individual, I don't even know how old or how well read you are, so you certainly are not a case study in and of yourself.  Why is it so obvious that there is a type of anarchist that is not a socialist, because you say so?  If by socialist you mean "endorsing everything Marx ever said, we love communes a la Silverback's description of them", then hey, yeah, I agree.  But for Tucker socialist meant little more than "not capitalist", and from what I can tell there has never been an anarchist that was a capitalist, in no small part because anti-capitalism is integral to any basic understanding of anarchism.  That you don't recognise this is not evidence, to me, that anti-capitalism is not integral to anarchism, only evidence that your understanding of anarchism is either lacking or biased.  Anyway, you go ahead and insist that the dictionary definition is both NPOV and most common (of course I doubt you would insist this with all terms, but hey whatever), cause it just so happens that the dictionary definition doesn't meet your claims.  As for trying to excert some kind of property claim to the word anarchist, that is a tired, old, and ridiculous argument.  That I don't accept it when someone tells me yes means no or that 1 equals 0 do not mean that I am trying to "own" the words or even the concepts, it merely means that I recognise that when we lose common groun in recognizing that 1 does not equal 0 it soon becomes impossible to communicate.  The anarcho-capitalists will stretch the words related to anarchism (anarchist, freedom, government, etc) to no end in order to maintain their claim to the tradition, even going so far as to insist that when Tucker said he opposed capitalism he "didn't mean the same thing we mean when we say capitalism" and that when Proudhon asserted that property was both theft and freedom he was somehow upholding a propertarian ideal.  Unfortunately, I can't just stand by and watch this twisting of logic, because it happens to be doing real harm to a philosophy and tradition that is much older and much more meaningful than anarcho-capitalism ever will be.  Kev 09:15, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Kev, you write "Prisons, judges, military, all of these things are forms of government by any standard conception," This is an important point. What leads you to believe this? I suspect that, for most people, these articles of "government" as you term it, are things that derive exclusively from the action of the state. It's hard to believe that most people draw any clear conceptual distinction between them. Surely you have noticed that, with a lot of people, once you start trying to explain the benefits of anarchy to them, the first they worry about is, "But where will all the prisons, judges, and militaries come from?" I could be wrong, but I suspect that most people, reading "all forms of government" would think "all forms of government, like monarchy, democracy, dictatorship, etc." Thus, the dictionary definition, depending on how you take the word "government" can mean two different things, the same as "anarchism" can mean two different things. Personally (although, as you say, this is highly anecdotal), long ago before I knew anything about politics, I always thought "government" meant "state" and "state" meant, well, "province".

 * And by the way, what do you think most people would make of an anarcho-syndicalist syndicate? - Nat Krause 09:55, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Nat, again you seem to be speculating a great deal about what people commonly think of. Nothing wrong with this speculation, but I don't see any hard evidence anywhere to base claims made in these articles on.  Do people think that judges govern because they "just happen" to be integrated into institutions of government today, or because judiciary in itself is a form of government?  I don't really know, and you can I can speculate, but I don't think you know either, and at some point all we are doing is splitting hairs and talking semantics.  It is hard to deny that a judiciary is considered by most people to be a governing insitution, I think we both agree on that, but I'm sure if we try hard enough we can come up with some element of one definition or other than is easier to deny.  Like, for example, to deny that most people think "all forms of government" means literally what it says rather than "all modes of government" or "all types of government representation".  That one is easier to deny, because it is harder to know, I frankly have not the first clue what most people interpret that as, and again, I doubt you do either.  However, all of this is a tangent, my only point here is not to make some call to universal knowledge and indicate that Acamed is wrong and I'm right, but rather to give some indication that the "oh so obvious" evidence he is citing is far from obvious indeed.  It is not at all obvious that the dictionary supports the anarcho-capitalist interpretation of anarchism, anymore than it is obvious (imho) that dictionaries are a good example of NPOV.  Further, the interested third party and therefore closer to NPOV position he is trying to imply he holds is no such thing, and I would think this would be obvious enough that he wouldn't try to claim it.  Regardless, we all have POVs, we all have an axes to grind, and the sooner we admit that the sooner we can try to come up with language that allows for multiple POVs, which is the only hope NPOV has on wikipedia.

 * As to what people would think of an anarcho-syndicalist syndicate, I suppose it depends. I have seen a few functioning examples that I would never imagine would be thought of as government, whereas I've heard of a few examples that I would personally say were a form of government themselves.  My response to the latter is simple, they were not anarchist, and their examples are one of the reasons I've always been wary of syndicalism myself.  But being wary of syndicalism doesn't mean I need to alter the facts and pretend that anarcho-capitalism is a part of the anarchist tradition or that socialism is incompatible with anarchism.

 * Along these lines, it is the hesitation of most anarcho-capitalists to admit the same of many insitutions they champion that makes me wonder if in the end anarchism really means anything to them at all, if it is anything more than an attempt to claim moral legitimacy to institutions they know are abhorrent. Anarchism is an ideal that humans can attempt and fail to attain, that I will readily accept.  Anarchism is an ideal that some can claim to attempt while actually trying to do something else, that much seems obvious and unavoidable.  But it frankly disgusts me when "anarchism" becomes nothing more than a slogan used to gloss over the aspects of a given political/economic system that we don't like to think about.  When it is attached to capitalism, it becomes exactly that, imho, in the same way that neo-nazi's and state communists try to cover up their less palatable ideals by latching onto anarchism.  Kev 11:48, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For both Kev and NatKrause: Privately funded defensive forces are not governing anyone but protecting people from being governed by those who initiate coercion. Now, if these things are funded through taxation, then that's when they start taking the character of a government since the act of taxation is coercive. Private defense forces amount to the same thing as you defending yourself against another individual that is coercing you --does that make you a government? Of course not. It's you defending yourself from being governed. It's the opposite of government. THe essence of government is that it initiates force. Now if privately-funded courts, and police, etc stepped over the line and began initiating force then they would take the character of a government. But, they need not. RJII 14:54, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On determining which arguments are ludicrous and which are not
In removing content from this page in the form of an example Aca said the following: "This is a ludicrous and unworthy straw-man. The description as-is states the argument sufficiently."

Unforunately, while I can agree that the idea is ludicrous and unworthy, it is not a straw-man. Not only is the argument that one could attempt to claim ownership of the air in a particular locale completely in keeping with the criticism that definitions of property may be molded in order to justify any kind of claim, but it also has precedents with several other necessities of life already claimed as owned by propertarians. What is more, this page lists as an example of an anarcho-capitalist society the one depicted in the book "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" by Robert Heinlein. It just so happens that in that society, which is described on this very page as anarcho-capitalist, the oxygen is owned and individuals must pay to breathe it. Horrible isn't it, all the more so because it is true. As such, I'm putting the sentence back in, even if you find it hard to look at. Kev 09:26, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Opps, in the time since I last waded through this entire monster someone has taken out the literature section and moved it to another article. Anyway, it is still linked to from this article and still contains the relevant evidence. Kev 09:31, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fact, POV, and acceptable verbiage
Fact: The traditional "anarchist" movement that overwhelmingly claims the title is an anti-capitalist movement separate from anarcho-capitalism. Anarcho-capitalist POV: Anarcho-capitalism is anarchist. "Traditional" anarchist POV: Anarcho-capitalism is not anarchist.

Those are the facts and those are the points of view presented. In order to preserve NPOV, Wikipedia must not pass judgment on whether anarcho-capitalism is anarchist. In order to preserve factuality, Wikipedia must make the factual distinction I noted above. In the latest versions of the articles anarcho-capitalism and anarchism this is the case. Since "anarchist" is the best (only) term to describe the anti-capitalist anarchists ("left-anarchist" would be a neologism and Wikipedia can't make up neologisms), I now have no problem with leaving "anarchism" as it is and disambiguating. Similarly, libertarianism disambiguates between the originally and predominantly American ideology of "libertarianism" and libertarian socialism. I offer this as a resolution to the POV dispute of the past few days.

Philwelch 10:28, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Left anarchism
I noted that "traditional anarchistm" is called "left anarchism" in the Intro, especially by pro-capitalists. This is a true statement. Do not delete it. Just noting this to preempt what I think will inevitably be objected to if I don't. RJII 17:12, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Individual anarchists - private property - Kev deleting
Spooner believed in private property and business. I put more details in individualist anarchism. Kev is reverting documented research there as well. RJII 20:42, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * So, out of curiosity, since Spooner was reportedly opposed to wage labor, how exactly did he operate his businesses such as the American Letter Mail Company? Did he personally deliver all the letters by hand, himself, or did he violate his own professed principles by hiring workers to do it? *Dan* 20:51, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

All individualists believed in business, that doesn't make them capitalists. Spooner did not believe in private property as entitlement as capitalists do, he upheld possession, again as all individualists did. But I will make both of you a deal, you guys actually do some friggen research for once in your lives and back up your claims with quotes from Spooner himself, and I will properly put them in context and demonstrate that none of your supposed evidence means what you interpret it to mean. Kev 20:57, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Nobody is claiming that he was a capitalist or supported everything about capitalism. I put in quotes from Spooner and other research in individualist anarchism with you deleted because it conflicted with your previous understanding of individualist anarchists. RJII 21:06, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Spooner's support of the free market is a rejection of capitalism, not support of aspects of it. The only way to claim that is to call individualist economics capitalist after the fact, to define something like say, owning a business, as capitalist even though the individualists explicitly rejected capitalism while advocating business ownership.  And no RJ, unlike you I've actually read Tucker, so you have yet to present anything new to my understanding of individualist anarchists.  In fact, you have yet to present anything I haven't heard from anarcho-capitalists before, perhaps because you are only using their old recycled arguments.  If you doubt this, please feel free to look at the archives of this very talk page, or the archives of flag.blackened.net, or the a-list.  You could also check the archives of the ifeminist page and anarchism.net, except they didn't keep archives.  Kev 21:16, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, nobody is calling Spooner a supporter of capitalism --capitalism is not one idea, it's a combination of conditions. By the way, this is about Spooner, not Tucker. RJII 21:45, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, noted Scottish left anarchist Iain MacSaorsa says that "Spooner's ideas seem to fall somewhere between those of modern Libertarians and Socialists" and notes Spooners position on private property. No one is saying Spooner was a capitalist. RJII 22:38, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree that Spooner's ideas fall between libertarianism and socialism. Ever heard of libertarian socialism?  So long as the text makes very clear Spooner's repeated rejection of institutions essential to capitalism, I not only have no objection to expanding on his philosophy (especially on in his own article, rather than trying to leech legitimacy from him he), but I encourage it.  Kev 22:54, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * MacSaorsa is not talking about libertarian socialism. He's talking about modern capitalist libertarians. RJII 13:36, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Article needs section on Individualist Anarchism influence on the origin of Ancap
This article needs a section on the influence of individualist anarchism on the development of anarcho-capitalism. Right, now it's only mentioned in the "conflicts with anarchism" section, from a left anarchist perspective and is not accurate. RJII 22:10, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * That section used to be in the main article, but was moved to the criticism section after it was balanced by the individualist anarchist position. And the current criticism section is mostly accurate, certainly a lot better than the historical revisionism you are currently peddling.  Kev 22:33, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Acted on my own advisement and put one in. RJII 21:06, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Passage re-added
The following discussion of terminological differences was deleted by Che. It has been re-added because there was frankly no discernible purpose whatsoever in the deletion. Che claims that it is false that the differences are purely terminological. Of course he's right, but the passage never claims that the differences are purely terminological. It's purpose is to clearly delineate where the differences between contemporary anarcho-capitalists and 19th century individualist anarchists lie.

 * Some of the difficulty here here may be understood as terminological: anarcho-capitalists typically use the word "capitalism" to mean the free market, i.e., an economic order based entirely on voluntary association, free of intervention from the State. Socialist anarchists, on the other hand, typically use "capitalism" to identify a system of specific economic practices prevalent in historical and modern markets. One can be an advocate of capitalism in the first sense without being an advocate of capitalism in the second sense; indeed, some anarcho-capitalists argue that government intervention creates many problems in the "capitalist" marketplace today. On the other hand, there are substantive [...]

This is a simple matter of fact about how words are typically used in two different schools of thought. It's also an important point to clarify in trying to understand how far "capitalist" a-c's of the 20th century and "socialist" individualist anarchists of the 19th agree and wherein they differ. If you have reasons to object to the way that the two sides of the terminological distinction are set up, feel free to edit the passage to reflect something more accurate, but simply deleting it in order to play up the contrast that follows it is editorially irresponsible. Radgeek 06:54, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree and added some sentences on the terminology of "socialism." The individualist anarchists did not define it as it is defined today. It was about wage labor, not collectivism. (at least for the American anarchists ..i'm not familiar with the Europeans.) RJII 18:23, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Defense agencies and monopoly
The paragraph in this section that begins "Anarcho-capitalist also seem to think that their society would have little internal violence" is odd. If it's an ideal ancap society where no one initiates coercion against anyone else, then there's going to be absolutely no violence. But, I don't see ancaps thinking this possible. I don't think they deny human nature and proclivity to violence --that's why they are in favor of business that protects people from coercion (police, courts, etc) ..because they recognize human nature. It's not that they think violence will stop. But, it is in a Criticism section so I suppose it's ok ..it's just a bit misguided. RJII 00:25, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

individualist anarchism and wage labor
Che requested a source. Here's one:

Not accurate or neutral
This article is bloated and wordy, yet doesn't even begin to explain anarcho-capitalism. There's a link to Noam Chomsky in the first paragraph (advertising?), but David Friedmen is never mentioned. The editors don't seem to be particularly interested in the subject. Mirror Vax 01:25, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * You're right. It's not a very good article. It's been warred over on minor points so much that nobody has time to improve the general content of the article. A lot of people are scared off from having anything to do with it at all. - Nat Krause 05:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Contemporary individualists
The article currently says the following: "The anarcho-capitalist claim to individualist tradition is rejected by many individualist anarchists" (present tense) and "Contemporary individualist anarchists believe that explicit support for capitalism places one outside of the individualist anarchist tradition." Who exactly are these contemporary individualist anarchists? Someone like Wendy McElroy would claim that the contemporary individualists are anarcho-capitalists. - Nat Krause 07:06, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Wendy McElroy is fringe. She claims that the original individualists, who all considered themselves anti-capitalists, would be anarcho-capitalists were they alive today. Which makes here individualism dubious.--    Revolutionary Left   |  Che y Marijuana 02:44, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

 * Fine, but who are the non-fringe contemporary individualists? - Nat Krause 03:18, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 9


text:
Field Marshal Montgomery Pipe Band

The Field Marshal Montgomery Pipe Band is a competitive grade one pipe band from Lisburn, Northern Ireland named in honour of Field Marshal Viscount Montgomery of Alamein. The band has won the World Pipe Band Championships 13 times, making it the third most successful competing pipe band in history behind the Strathclyde Police Pipe Band and the Shotts and Dykehead Caledonia Pipe Band.

History
The band was founded in 1945 in the townland of Drumalig, a few miles from Carryduff on the outskirts of Belfast. A group of farmer’s sons had decided to form a band and name it after Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery. The youths wrote to Montgomery to ask for permission to use his name, and as well as allowing them to use his name he donated ten shillings to their funds. In the years to follow, the band successfully worked its way through the lower grades, led by its first pipe major Billy Maxwell, who later became band president, and later by Sandy Cumming.

Around 1970 Field Marshal merged with Raffrey Pipe Band to become Freymont, which played in Grade 3, but in 1976 it was decided to reform the band as Field Marshal Montgomery under the leadership of Ricky Newell owing to the balance of players in Freymont. The band achieved promotion to Grade 2 under Newell's leadership, but in the middle of 1981 Newell left after a disagreement and Richard Parkes became pipe major. Field Marshal was promoted to Grade 1 at the end of 1985, won its first Grade 1 Major Championship at Cowal in 1990, won its first World Championship in 1992, and then won every Major Championship in 1993.

From 2000 to 2009, the band won 28 major championships, including four World Championships and five runners-up awards. In 2004, Pipe Major Richard Parkes suffered a stroke, and the band was led by Alastair Dunn until Richard recovered and led the band to win the last three majors of the season. Parkes was awarded an MBE in the 2004 Birthday Honours for services to pipe band music in Northern Ireland.

The band has won the World Championships in 1992, 1993, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2016, 2018 and 2022, becoming the first band to win all the Major competitions in a single year more than once adding Grand Slams in 2011 and again in 2013 to their maiden Grand Slam in 1993. 2013 was also the first year that the Drum Corps won the world title.

Honours
the band has won a total of 70 major championships, namely 16 Scottish Championships, 13 World Championships, 12 Cowal Championships, 12 European Championships, 12 British Championships, and 5 United Kingdom Championships. Further, the band has won 25 Ulster Championships, 26 All-Ireland Championships, and gained 15 RSPBA Champion of Champions titles. Since its first Grade 1 prize at a major championship in 1990, the band has never been out of the top six at any major championship in which it has competed, finishing in the prize list in 152 championship competitions.

The Field Marshal Montgomery Pipe Band became the last band to win the Cowal Championship and thus Argyll Shield whilst it was still accredited RSPBA Major championship status.

Pipe Majors

 * William Maxwell (1945-1970)
 * Sandy Cumming (1970-1975)
 * Ricky Newell (1975-1981)
 * Richard Parkes MBE (1981- present)

Leading Drummers

 * Donald McKay (1945-1950)
 * Jim McMinn (1950-?)
 * William Russell (?-1964)
 * Jackson Shaw (1964-?)
 * Harry Russell (?-1975)
 * Richard Coffey (1975-1979)
 * Gordon Parkes (1979-1998)
 * Andrew Scullion (1998-2002)
 * Keith Orr (2002-2022)
 * Gareth McLees (2022-present)

Discography

 * Debut (1991)
 * Live In Concert (1996)
 * Unplugged (2002)
 * Re:Charged (2007)
 * IMPACT (2016)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Field Marshal Montgomery Pipe Band


text:
Lacus Gaudii

Lacus Gaudii (Latin gaudiī, "Lake of Joy") is a small lunar mare in the Terra Nivium region of the Moon. It is located at 16.3° N, 12.3° E and is 89 km in diameter.

title: Lacus Gaudii


text:
Lake Lanao

Lake Lanao (Maranao: Ranao or Ranaw) is a large ancient lake in the province of Lanao del Sur, Philippines. With a surface area of 340 km2, it is the largest lake in Mindanao, the deepest and second largest lake in the Philippines, and counted as one of the 15 ancient lakes in the world. Scholars have been pushing for the lake's inclusion in the UNESCO World Heritage List. The lake's native people call themselves the Maranao or Meranaw. Their name was derived from the name of the lake, meaning "the people living around the lake".

History
In 1965, Lake Lanao was renamed to Lake Sultan Alonto by Republic Act No. 4260, which was later repealed by Republic Act No. 6434 in 1972.

The lake has great hydroelectric potential due to its 700 meter elevation, and as such, in 1950, the Philippines National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR) began the construction of a series of hydroelectric plants titled Agus I – Agus VII along the Agus River system, which generates 70% of the electricity used by the people of Mindanao. In 1978, the Marawi Lake Regulation Dam (MLRD) was constructed at the mouth of the Agus, and five power plants were commissioned shortly afterwards (Agus I, II, IV, V, and VII). Notably, Agus I is not located on the river, but directly on the shoreline of the lake, in the heart of Marawi City. While the MLRD does not affect the function of the four downstream dams, the construction of Agus I effectively turned the lake into a reservoir, sparking significant backlash among the Maranao. In October 1990, the Maranao publicly demonstrated as Agus I was finishing construction, leading to the birth of the Save Lake Lanao Movement (SALAM), which intended to obstruct NAPOCOR's progress in building Agus I. SALAM contended that the dam would act as an artificial, alternative outlet to the Agus that is deeply unnatural and would result in a 9 meter fluctuation of the lake level. Conflict between SALAM and NAPOCOR resulted in the creation of the Task Force on Agus 1 by Aquilino Pimentel Jr., which subsequently delayed the commission date of the plant to January 14, 1992. In the two months following Agus I's operation date, President Corazon Aquino declared the Lake Lanao watershed as a reservation and established the Lake Lanao Watershed Protection and Development Council (LLWPDC), a policy group with both SALAM and NAPOCOR representatives. Despite these efforts, NAPOCOR has since not made any major concessions to the Maranao. SALAM and the Maranao continue to protect the Lanao watershed from environmental degradation.

Section 22 of Article XIII of the Bangsamoro Organic Law does not include this lake as being under the jurisdiction of the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao; certain sectors of the Maranao people had sought the inclusion of this lake into the Bangsamoro Organic Law.

In October 2006, a study from the Mindanao State University discovered massive algae contamination in Lake Lanao. Initially, poor sewage and agricultural waste management were seen as the culprits of the contamination. However, the Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources stated that soil erosion from indiscriminate logging and extensive land use and farming are the problems that caused the algae contamination.

Physical characteristics
The lake was formed by the tectonic-volcanic damming of a basin between two mountain ranges and the collapse of a large volcano. It has a maximum depth of 122 m, and a mean depth of 60.3 m. The basin is shallowest towards the north and gets progressively deeper towards the south.

The lake is fed by four rivers, the Ramain, Taraka, Gata, and Masiu. Its only outlet is the Agus River, which flows northwest into Iligan Bay via two channels, one over the Maria Cristina Falls and the other over the Tinago Falls.

Four islands can be found in the lake:

 * Balutmaito Island
 * Balutmasla Island
 * Nusa Island
 * Salungan Island

Biodiversity
The lake is (or was) home to 17 endemic species of cyprinid fish in the genus Barbodes (most were formerly in Puntius), as well as the near-endemic B. tumba. These fish are suggested to be a species complex descending from the widespread common barb, B. Binotatus. This would represent an explosive evolution rate of the fish, presumably migrating in from the Sundaland and speciating throughout 10,000 to 20,000 years as the Philippines became isolated.

However, an investigation in 1992 only managed to locate three of the endemic/near-endemic fish species, and only two (the endemic B. lindog and the near-endemic B. tumba) were located in 2008. In 2020, 15 of the endemics were regarded as extinct, while B. lindog and B. sirang were regarded as possibly extinct. It is believed that overfishing, pollution, and competition from introduced species caused the extinctions. The lake also supports a large waterfowl population, and the freshwater crab Sundathelphusa wolterecki (Parathelphusidae) is endemic to the lake region.

The 18 endemic/near-endemic cyprinid species of Lake Lanao (B. binotatus also occurs, but it is a widespread species):
 * Barbodes amarus Herre (pait; dipura)
 * Barbodes baoulan Herre ** (baolan)
 * Barbodes clemensi Herre (bagangan)
 * Barbodes disa Herre ** (Diza)
 * Barbodes flavifuscus Herre (tumba)
 * Barbodes herrei (Fowler, 1934)
 * Barbodes katolo Herre (katolo)
 * Barbodes lanaoensis Herre (kundur)
 * Barbodes lindog Herre ** (lindog)
 * Barbodes manalak Herre ** (manalak)
 * Barbodes pachycheilus Herre (Bongkaong)
 * Barbodes palaemophagus Herre (bitungu)
 * Barbodes palata Herre ** (palata)
 * Barbodes resimus Herre * (bagangan sa erungan)
 * Barbodes sirang Herre sirang; (Tumaginting)
 * Barbodes tras Herre (tras)
 * Barbodes truncatulus Herre (bitungu)
 * Barbodes tumba Regan (tumba)

Notes: * — Biggest native species in Lake Lanao ** — Species of high commercial value

Other native species:
 * Ophicephalus striatus (aruan)
 * Anguilla celebensis (kasili)

Anguilla celebensis has historically been present in the lake, apparently making its way in from the sea through subterranean waterways inaccessible to other fish. However, it has rarely been reported in fisherman surveys since 1990, suggesting that the species is extant but extremely rare.

Introduced species:
 * Hypseleotris agilis (katolong)
 * Glossogobius giuris (kadurog)
 * Glossogobius celebius (kadurog)
 * Oreochromis mossambicus (tilapia)
 * Oreochromis niloticus (tliapia)
 * Trichogaster pectoralis (gourami)
 * Anabas testudineus (popoyo)
 * Chanos chanos (bangus)
 * Clarias macrocephalus (katipa)
 * Clarias batrachus (katipa)

In a 2008 fish landing survey, Hypseleotris agilis (sleeper goby) comprised 66.6% of the fish caught by weight. The gobies, including G. giuris and G. celebius, were found to prey on small fish, and as such, are considered the primary cause of the endemic species' decline.

In culture
Lake Lanao is home to many important myths and legends of the Maranao people. A Maranao myth describes the formation of the lake. Long ago, in what is now the lake was the prosperous sultanate of Mantapoli. The people of the polity increased in population due to advancements in many fields. Because of the sudden growth in population and power, the equilibrium between sebangan (east) and sedpan (west) was broken. This problem soon came to the attention of archangel Diabarail. Afterward, Diabarail went to heaven and told Allah the news. Sohora, the voice of Allah, advised Diabarail to go to seven regions beneath the earth and seven regions in the sky to summon the angels. Sohora also said that when Allah fully establishes the barahana (solar eclipse), they will remove Mantapoli from its location and transfer it into the center of the world. When the angels were summoned and the barahana made, Mantapoli was soon teleported into the Earth's center, leaving a vast hole in its former location. The hole eventually filled with water and turned into a deep, blue-colored lake. When Diabarail saw the tides of water, he immediately went to heaven to report to Allah. He told Allah that the waters may drown the people. Hearing this, Allah commanded Diabarail to summon the four winds (Angin Taupan, Angin Besar, Angin Darat, and Angin Sarsar) to blow the excess waters and establish outlets where these waters will flow. After three trails, the winds succeeded and the Agus River was formed.

title: Lake Lanao


text:
User talk:Timboe

Welcome!
Hello,, Welcome  to Wikipedia! '''I hope you like working here and want to continue. If you need help on how to name new articles, look at the Guide to layout, and for help on formatting the pages visit the Manual of Style. If you need general help, look at Help and the FAQ, and if you can't find your answer there, check the Village pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions). There's still more help at the Tutorial and the Policy Library. Also, don't forget to visit the Community Portal — and if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on my New-Users' Talk Page.'''

Additional tips:
 * Here are some extra tips to help you get around Wikipedia:
 * If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills, try the Sandbox.
 * Click on the Edit button on a page, and look at how other editors did what they did.
 * You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too. Always sign comments on Talk pages, never sign Articles.
 * You might want to add yourself to the New User Log
 * If your first language isn't English, try Contributing to articles outside your native language
 * Full details on Wikipedia style can be found in the Manual of Style.

Happy editing! Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 16:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Timboe


text:
Dwarkanath Kotnis

Dwarakanath Shantaram Kotnis (10 October 1910 in India – 9 December 1942), also known by his Chinese name Ke Dihua, was one of the five Indian physicians dispatched to China to provide medical assistance during the Second Sino-Japanese War in 1938. Known for his dedication and perseverance, he has been regarded as an example for Sino-Indian friendship and collaboration.

Along with the Canadian Dr. Norman Bethune, he continues to be revered every year by the Chinese people during the Qingming Festival, a day used by the Chinese to commemorate the martyrs.

Early life
Dwarakanath Kotnis was born to a middle class Marathi Deshastha Rigvedi Brahmin family in Solapur, Maharashtra, he had two brothers and five sisters. He studied medicine at the Seth G.S. Medical College of the University of Bombay.

Indian medical mission
In 1938, after the Japanese invasion of China, the communist General Zhu De requested Jawaharlal Nehru to send some physicians to China. Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, the President of the Indian National Congress, made an appeal to the people through a press statement on 30 June 1938. He arranged to send a team of volunteer doctors and an ambulance by collecting a fund of Rs 22,000 on the All-Indian China Day and China Fund days on 7–9 July. Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose also wrote an article in Modern Review on Japan's role in the Far East and announced the assault on China. The key aspect of this mission was that it was a helping hand from a nation itself struggling for freedom, to another nation also struggling for its freedom. The mission was reinforced with Nehru's visit to China in 1939.

Dwarkanath Kotnis, born in a middle class Maharashtrian family from Sholapur on 10 October 1910, had then graduated from the Seth G S Medical College, Bombay and was preparing for post-graduation. He asked permission of his family to volunteer for service abroad. Dwarkanath's younger sister Manorama recalls that her brother wanted to travel around the world and practice medicine at different places. She said "most members of the family knew little about China at that time. We only knew that people used to come and sell Chinese silk," While his father Shantaram encouraged young Dwarkanath to venture out, his mother was very sad because he was going that far and worse, in a war zone.

A medical team of five doctors (Drs. M. Atal from Allahabad (who was also the leader of the mission), M. Cholkar from Nagpore, D. Kotnis from Sholapur, B.K. Basu and Debesh Mukherjee from Calcutta) was dispatched as the Indian Medical Mission Team in September 1938. All, except Dr. Kotnis, returned to India safely.

The team first arrived in China at the port of Hankou, Wuhan. They were then sent to Yan'an, the revolutionary base at the time in 1939, where they were warmly welcomed by Mao Zedong, Zhu De and other top leaders of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), as they were the first medical team to come from another Asian country.

The 28-year-old Doctor came as a part of the five member team and stayed in China for almost 5 years working in mobile clinics to treat wounded soldiers. In 1939, Dr. Kotnis joined the Eighth Route Army (led by Mao Zedong) at the Jin-Cha-Ji border near the Wutai Mountain Area, after his efforts all across the northern China region.

His job as a battlefront doctor was stressful, where there was always an acute shortage of medicines. In one long-drawn out battle against Japanese troops in 1940, Dr. Kotnis performed operations for up to 72 hours, without getting any sleep. He treated more than 800 wounded soldiers during the battle. He was eventually appointed as the Director of the Dr. Bethune International Peace Hospital named after the famous Canadian surgeon Norman Bethune.

In 1940, Dr. Kotnis met Guo Qinglan, a nurse at the Bethune Hospital. They first met at the inauguration of Dr. Norman Bethune's tomb and Guo was immediately attracted to the Indian doctor. Kotnis could write and speak Chinese, which amazed her. The couple got married in December 1941. They had a son on 23 August 1942, who was named Yinhua – meaning India (Yin) and China (Hua), at the suggestion of Nie Rongzhen.

Dr. Kotnis wrote letters to his family regularly. "He sounded very happy in the letters. People used to come to thank him for his help. He was telling the good part," says Manorama. Every place he went in China, he described it in detail in his letters home. The whole family found them to be great fun because what he described was so different from the life in India.

The hardship of the stressful job as a front-line doctor finally started to take its toll on him and severely affected his health. Only three months after the birth of Yinhua, epilepsy struck Dr.Kotnis. A series of epileptic seizures killed him on 9 December 1942, leaving behind his widow Guo Qinglan, and the baby son.

Dr. Kotnis was buried in the Heroes Courtyard in Nanquan Village. At that time, Mao Zedong mourned his death by observing that "The army has lost a helping hand, the nation has lost a friend. Let us always bear in mind his internationalist spirit."

It is said that he joined the Chinese Communist Party on 7 July 1942, just before his death, but could not be verified.

During his mission, he was also a lecturer at the Dr. Bethune Hygiene School of the Jinchaji (晉察冀) Military Command, and the first director of the Dr. Bethune International Peace Hospital, Yan'an.

Tribute

Upon his death in 1942, Mao Zedong mourned his death by observing that:The army has lost a helping hand, the nation has lost a friend. Let us always bear in mind his internationalist spirit.

Madame Sun Yat-sen said, concerning his role in the revolution, that "His memory belongs not only to your people and ours, but to the noble roll-call of fighters for the freedom and progress of all mankind. The future will honor him even more than the present, because it was for the future that he struggled."

The Martyr's Memorial park in Shijiazhuang city of the Northern Chinese province of Hebei is a famous attraction point. The north and south sides of the park are dedicated to the veterans of the Korean and the Japanese wars. The west side is dedicated to Dr. Norman Bethune, who fought for the Chinese, and the South side to Dr Kotnis. There is a great statue in his honour. A small museum there has a handbook of vocabulary that Kotnis wrote on his passage from India to China; some of the instruments that the surgeons used in their medical fight for life, and various photos of the doctors, some with the Chinese Communist Party's most influential figures, including Mao.

Kotnis is among the "foreign friends of China" that Xi Jinping cites in his foreign policy discourses in an effort to recognize the contributions of other countries to China's national liberation.

Memorial in Solapur, Maharashtra
A memorial of Dwarkanath Shantaram Kotnis is installed in his birthplace in Solapur on 1 January 2012. The memorial, at his old residence, has been built by Solapur Municipal Corporation with efforts of Sushilkumar Shinde, who was Union Power Minister during the installation ceremony. Maharashtra Chief Minister Prithviraj Chavan was present at the function.

Family
In November 1941, about a year before his death, Kotnis married Guo Qinglan, (, born 15 September 1916 in Fenyang County, Shanxi Province) a nurse at the Bethune International Peace Hospital. Kotnis and Guo had a son on 23 August 1942. At the suggestion of Nie Rongzhen they named the boy "Yinhua" combining the Chinese characters for "Yin" for India and "Hua"  for China. Yinhua died aged 24 in 1967 shortly before he was to graduate from medical college. His death has been attributed to medical negligence. In 1949, Guo remarried to a Chinese man with whom she had a son and a daughter. Guo Qinglan has been an honoured guest at many high-level diplomatic functions between China and India, such as the banquet Dalian Mayor Bo Xilai hosted for then Indian President K.R. Narayanan in June 2000 and during the visit of then Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee to Beijing in June 2003. In November 2006, she accompanied Chinese President Hu Jintao on a state visit to India. She died on 28 June 2012 at the age of 96 in Dalian, in Northeastern China.

In film

 * The story of his life was the subject of a Hindi film with the title Dr. Kotnis Ki Amar Kahani (1946, English: The Immortal Story of Dr. Kotnis), scripted by Khwaja Ahmad Abbas, and directed by V. Shantaram, who also portrayed Kotnis in the film.
 * His life was also the subject of a Chinese film Kē Dì Huá Dài Fū (1982, Dr. D.S. Kotnis), with a screenplay by Huang Zongjiang.

Honours
Both China (1982 and 1992) and India (1993) have honoured him with stamps.

The Chinese government continues to honour his relatives in India during every high-level official trip. His relatives (primarily sisters) were visited in Mumbai by:

 * the then Premier Zhou Enlai in 1950
 * the then President & CCP General Secretary Jiang Zemin visited India in 1996, he sent flowers to the Kotnis family.
 * the then Premier Li Peng in 2001
 * the then Premier Zhu Rongji in 2002
 * the then President & CCP General Secretary Hu Jintao in 2006
 * the then Premier Li Keqiang in 2013
 * The current President Xi Jinping – who also holds the positions of General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party and Chairman of the Central Military Commission, making him China's paramount leader – met Dr Kotnis' sister Manorama during Sept 2014.

Dwarkanath Kotnis is commemorated together with Dr. Bethune, and Scottish missionary and athlete, Eric Liddell in the Martyrs' Memorial Park (Lieshi Lingyuan) in Shijiazhuang, Hebei province, China. The entire south side of the memorial is dedicated to Dr. Kotnis, where there is a great statue in his honour. A small museum there contains a handbook of vocabulary that Kotnis wrote on his passage from India to China, some of the instruments that the surgeons were forced to use in their medical fight for life, and various photos of the doctors, some with the Communist Party of China's most influential figures, including Mao.

In 2017, China presented University of Mumbai a restored handwritten condolence note written by Mao Zedong to Dr. Kotnis' family in 1950 upon his death.

title: Dwarkanath Kotnis