text:
Talk:Anarchism/Archive 24

A bit off the subject but...
does it strike anyone as funny that a straightforward definition of anarchism is taking longer than 3 years to hammer out? Wikipedia is by its very nature anarchist, so this seems to me to point out some reasons why anarchism and a strict adherence to consensus process work best on a small scale. Anarchists, if you want to show that anarchism works, lets get it together and move forward on this article.Pedant 2005 June 30 19:13 (UTC)

 * This has demonstrated the instability and hopelessness of collective ownership - that's for sure. It's pretty clear that the Wiki article on anarchism will never have the quality of e.g. the privately owned Anarchist Theory FAQ, simply due to the controversial nature of the topic.  Private ownership, of course, solves problems such as this by providing clear jurisdiction.  It took Josiah Warren two years at Robert Owens' utopian community to figure out that individualism and private property were where it's at.  Here we've demonstrated the same thing in under a month! Hogeye 30 June 2005 19:57 (UTC)

 * I'd disagree. I'd suggest that it demonstrates only that, to survive, any community must have a way to prevent vandals from wreaking their will.  There will always be a small group of anti-social people who gain enjoyment from destruction and the imposition of their will on others.  That doesn't really impeach the idea of communal ownership at all.  Communal ownership is voluntarily practiced by over 700M people throughout the world as of 1995--more than twice the population of the USA.  And it works fine for us.  If you want to see an example of communal ownership that has endured for at least 300 years, look back through the issues of National Geographic.  You'll find an article about a communal irrigation and farming system in New Mexico.  Every year the village allocates land, and on an agreed day everyone turns out to de-rubbish the canals.  The elderly and infirm have their equal allotment, and the rest of the people take care of it for them as a matter of course.  It's very nice.  Many peoples living a pre-industrial life successfully practice communal ownership because the people around them depend for their lives, too, on mutual respect and talking things out. Katzenjammer 1 July 2005 12:26 (UTC)

 * You are right, Katz, that remote desert aboriginals can make collective ownership work. Why will that work, but not Wiki collective ownership?  Mainly due to the closed system and the common values.  Probably a stranger to the culture would have great difficulty joining the tribe.  In fact, very few outsiders want to participate in such primitive lifestyles, so the question rarely comes up.  Similarly, the few successful utopian communities limited themselves to like-minded religious cultists, and were typically very stict on who could join.

 * Constrast that with Wiki, where anyone can join, and where the commons is open to anyone and everyone, and is easily accessible from any computer rather than in a remote desert. Sure, Wiki could make its commons work - if it severely restricted who could become editors, and protected its property with passwords and such. Hogeye 1 July 2005 16:42 (UTC)

 * Thus completely destroying most potential of a wikipedia freely edited by all users, and most of its spectacular growth over the last couple years. Kinda like propertarianism and its effect on the economy, sacrifice most of its potential in order to strictly control what little you have left.  Good analogy Hogeye, very informative of authoritarian views.  Kev 1 July 2005 17:21 (UTC)

 * [giggle] I'm not sure I'd call US citizens living in New Mexico with all the trappings of modern industrial life 'remote desert aboriginals'. :-)  You seem to have a much more gloomy view than I of human willingness to cooperate.  Yet it's been demonstrated that, except for the few psychopaths under the tail of the distribution, most people respond to their socialization by becoming cooperative.  It's only later in their lives, because of the split-personality nature of Capitalism (it rewards competition in school, then demands cooperation on the job while rewarding pseudo-cooperative competitiveness) that people's socialization starts to break down under the strain.  We get what we reward. Katzenjammer 1 July 2005 20:13 (UTC)

 * Katz> "You seem to have a much more gloomy view than I of human willingness to cooperate."
 * I wouldn't say that. I would say that I have a much broader view of what cooperation among humans is.

 * Katz> "Most people respond to their socialization by becoming cooperative."
 * I agree. People have achieved an amazing amount of cooperation in production by use of division of labor and private property.  This capitalist cooperation has already brought much of the world out of starvation and poverty.

 * Katz> "It's only later in their lives, because of the split-personality nature of Capitalism (it rewards competition in school, then demands cooperation on the job while rewarding pseudo-cooperative competitiveness) that people's socialization starts to break down under the strain."
 * I find it rather bizarre that you use schools, heavily dominated by government, to be an example of capitalism. I see the government schools as statist indoctrination centers - the enemy of capitalism.
 * Frankly, your implicit premise that people are motivated primarily by competition vs. cooperation is mistaken IMO. People are motivated by self-interest, as they perceive it.  They are much more interested in whether an action is in their interest than whether it is cooperative or competitive. I consider both cooperation and competition to be natural and good. Most actions have elements of both.

 * Kev> "Thus completely destroying most potential of a wikipedia freely edited by all users..."
 * The so-called potential is undermined by a fact of reality: overuse. This is the classic tragedy of the commons.  Either Wiki gets overgrazed (edit wars and semi-permanent freezing of articles), or it must limit the number of users.  All successful communes (e.g. the family) are small.  Small is beautiful. Wiki's growth is precisely what will make it unworkable. Hogeye 1 July 2005 21:58 (UTC)

 * Well, this little OT discussion has been fun and I wouldn't mind continuing, but I'm feeling a little too guilty about doing it in this context, so I'll stop here. Katzenjammer 1 July 2005 22:30 (UTC)

Using your analogy, it's more accurate like this: the local community consensus agrees on one thing, and then a guy flies in from out of town, who doesn't even believe in consensus, and runs into the room screaming "I'm being excluded!  I'm being censored!  CONSENSUS!! INCLUDE ME!!!" essentially ruining the original consensus of a community they were never part of. It's like a republican coming into an anarchist festival and demanding that everyone adhere to their love for "america" and capitalism because they are personally offended by the black flags and revolutionary literature. I don't think I ever met an anarchist that believed consensus should be used on a scale of hundreds of millions. Consensus is something that supposed to be used in groups no bigger than a community or neighborhood, given that almost all decisions that are important can be made locally, when the need for larger opinion is needed, they don't negotiate in one larger meshing of the two, they decide what their collective decision is in their community and tell the other, and yes it makes a huge difference. To debate using consensus, you first have to actually believe in consensus, and to debate anarchism you have either be an anarchist or know what the fuck you're talking about and know about anarchism, two requirements that hogeye and the other vandals on here DO NOT HAVE. --Fatal 30 June 2005 19:59 (UTC)

 * Fatal> "Using your analogy, it's more accurate like this: the local community consensus agrees on one thing, and then a guy flies in from out of town, who doesn't even believe in consensus, and runs into the room screaming "I'm being excluded!"
 * That's not a bad analogy, Fatal. It recalls the Puritans of Massachusetts in the 1600s.  The local community consensus was no Sabbath-breaking, strict dress codes, puritanical codes of conduct and work, and that everyone should be a good Puritan.  Occasionally a Quaker or Baptist would wander through.  These heretics would be imprisoned, beaten, mutilated, or "whipped through town."  This latter was popular - you remove  the shirt of the Quaker (man or woman), tie them to the back of an ox-cart, and whip the shit out of them in every town on the way to the border.  Then dump them in the atheist hell-hole of Rhode Island.  Of course, in the virtual world, your whip is replaced by mere pixels on a screen.  It's going to be hard to whip the blasphemers through town with mere pixels.  You might have to share the commons; either that or have a commons war. Hogeye 30 June 2005 21:33 (UTC)

 * The concept of consensus is grounded in the idea that those joining a group that seeks consensus in decisions will also seek consensus, not purposefully join in order to disrupt consensus. Your analogy to Puritanism is entertaining, but misplaced. --albamuth 1 July 2005 03:57 (UTC)

Responding to the RFC
I'm a pro-social anarchist (and currently embroiled as such over in the misnamed 'libertarianism' page). I believe that the bare term 'anarchism', like the bare term 'libertarian', is too general to be colonized by any sectarian group. In other words, I see no reason why the pro-Capitalism sect can't have equal room under the anarchism umbrella. This implies that the 'anarchism' page itself be a pure portal/distributor/disambiguator page, and that each of the sects settle for having a page with a fully-qualified/disambiguated title.

I'm arguing that same position over at 'libertarianism', and plan to lodge an RFC on Monday as the first step in the conflict-resolution process. Since the pro-Capitalism forces are taking the same stand here that I am taking over there (I found that wonderfully ironic, needless to say), can we count on having your support for making that page, too, be a disambiguator rather than the highly partisan POVful page it is now? Katzenjammer 1 July 2005 00:01 (UTC)

 * I can't speak for any of the other pro-capitalists, but I just might be willing to go along with a compromise position that gives more "balance" to the "left" and "right" varieties of libertarianism (notwithstanding that pro-capitalist libertarians such as myself don't actually consider ourselves "right wing", as we reject the one-dimensional political spectrum altogether), provided that a similar thing is done with respect to anarchism. *Dan* July 1, 2005 00:39 (UTC)

 * That's what I'm talking about. I think the most NPOV solution that can be reached is to 'demilitarize' the small-l/small-a terms, and cede the big-A/big-L terms to the pro-social and pro-Capitalism groups respectively as proper nouns/terms of art that have somewhat settled associations (in the case of Anarchism, going back more than a hundred years) Katzenjammer 1 July 2005 11:43 (UTC)

 * I would not mix the issues with of one article with another. --albamuth 1 July 2005 03:54 (UTC)

 * I think they're mixed naturally--don't you find the terms to be synonyms in practice? I certainly do. Katzenjammer 1 July 2005 11:43 (UTC)

Katz> "This implies that the 'anarchism' page itself be a pure portal/distributor/disambiguator page, and that each of the sects settle for having a page with a fully-qualified/disambiguated title."

I take it you mean something like this Neutral Disambiguation Page? That was suggested here (by me) early on - but every single one of the ansoc partisans rejected it out of hand. (And even got the sub-pages deleted.)

Yes, I do think the libertarianism article would be more NPOV were it to have a similar "portal/distributor/disambiguator page." E.g.

Libertarianism in its most general sense is a philosophy holding liberty to be the primary political value.

Libertarianism may mean:

 * Libertarianism (capitalist) - the a political philosophy favoring personal and economic liberty or freedoms to the extent that they do not infringe on the same freedoms of others.

 * Libertarianism (socialist) - political philosophies dedicated to opposing coercive forms of authority and social hierarchy, in particular the institutions of capitalism and the state.

Also see Libertarianism (metaphysics) - a conception of free will.

Hogeye 1 July 2005 02:42 (UTC)

 * Yes, that's what I'm talking about. I like your proposed disambiguator pages, too.  I'd probably urge some tweaks, especially in your proposed anarch page (e.g. everyone is anti-state), but nothing really major. Katzenjammer 1 July 2005 11:43 (UTC)

 * I would split those into individualist and collectivist, or right and left (left and right is probably the most common use). RJII 1 July 2005 02:48 (UTC)

 * I think you'd have to define 'collectivist' before I'd know what to say about your suggestion. The meaning I have for that term doesn't seem to fit. Katzenjammer 1 July 2005 12:46 (UTC)

 * Why not talk about libertarianism on the appropriate talk page? ;) --albamuth 1 July 2005 03:54 (UTC)

 * I don't think we're so much talking about libertarianism as we are about both l. and anarchism and how to resolve the conflicts that are mirrors of one another. Katzenjammer 1 July 2005 12:46 (UTC)

IMHO does the current disambig (This article describes a range of political philosophies that oppose the state and capitalism. For other uses, see anarchism (disambiguation)) a good an NPOV job. // Liftarn

 * I disagree completely with Katzenjammer. I think the current disambig scheme in both Anarchism and Libertarianism is the way to go.  The Libertarianism page has already been through a RFC, and multiple people have come and gone trying to get liberatrian socialism on that page.  It never works!!!  At least try learning from past mistakes.  My biggest problem is what other word would you use for non-anarcho-capitalist anarchism, and what would you call non-libertarian socialism libertarianism?  To rename both would require us to basically make up a new term.  Unlike what was said above, not all non-individualist/non-capitalist anarchism is anarcho-communism (anarcho-syndicalism and post left anarchy are completely different).  The best word to use might be social anarchism, but that word was originally used as a contrast to individualist anarchism, and may not include some newer variants.  In short, anarchists use the word anarchism (with no qualifiers), anarcho-capitalists, use the word anarcho-capitalism.  Let them have their page, and point to that page where nessecery in this article, just as libertarianism points to libertarian socialism whenever it might be mentioned.  There's no need to reproduce info. in several articles just to appease some people who haven't been here to see these same edit wars ad nauseum. millerc 1 July 2005 13:02 (UTC)

 * Perhaps you misunderstand what Dan, Hogeye, and I are suggesting? We're not talking about 'get[ting] libertarian socialism on that page'.  We agree that 'it never works'...or certainly is unlikely to work as long as people believe their needs can only be met by a zero-sum solution.

 * We're talking about letting every sect have their own page both there and here, letting each sect define the small-letter term 'libertarian' or 'anarchism', parenthetically qualified, entirely as they please. We could probably increase the NPOVness by also allocating rebuttal pages to every sect so that, for example, the pro-Capitalist anarchists/libertarians could complain about the shortcomings they find in the corresponding pro-social pages and vice versa.

 * Our presumption is that everyone wants to get their understanding of the term anarchism or libertarianism published in a way that doesn't make it seem as though their definition is less valid or central than any other definition. Can you agree with that characterization of people's goals?  Katzenjammer 1 July 2005 13:57 (UTC)

 * I think you're the one who misunderstood. I have no problem with describing different political philosophies.  What doesn't work is trying to label non-anarcho-capitalists as something like "socialist-anarchist" or someother BS, since they call themselves anarchists (no qualifiers).  In fact, the best solution I've heard so far is the historical approach advocated by albamuth.  Its what worked for the liberalism article, which seems to have achieved as much of a NPOV as a political article can.  But this has already been suggested in the past (see the archives)!  No one else's idea of anarchism or libertarianism or liberalism is being pushed aside.  'Libertarian socialism' is seen as a valid term by libertarian socialists, but there is no corrosponding valid term for what I would call right wing liberatrianism.  The same is true for anarcho-capitalism and anarchism...  millerc 1 July 2005 16:13 (UTC)

 * Perhaps you're right and I do misunderstand. But let's see whether we can come to an agreement about what people's goals are.  Can you agree with the statement I made, above?  If not, would you please say in what respect you think it's in error?

No New Arguments?
Since I made the Summary of Arguments above, I've noticed that no new arguments not on that list have popped up. Is it really that simple? Have all the relevant arguments been made? Does anyone have any new insights arguments to add? Why not let this go to mediation, then? Or failing that, arbitration? --albamuth 1 July 2005 04:04 (UTC)

 * Wouldn't it be more true to our pro-social beliefs, as Pedant implied above, to agree a cooperative solution in which everyone gets a fair share? Katzenjammer 1 July 2005 12:08 (UTC)
 * Everyone having their "fair share" does not entail that a handful of people in a town of 10,000 should get half the representation, over and above even more significant factions such as primitivists and individualists. Currently the article is already disambiguated, there was only one single group which wanted it disambiguated and it was done just for their sake.  This should be all that is necessary.  Then the anarcho-capitalism section was added back in, which is redundant when it is already disambiguated since this page is no longer supposed to be about their selective definition.  I'm happy to go with either of these solutions (rather than both), and either is completely "fair" given both the controversial nature of their claims to our tradition and their relative insignificance historically, they are getting their very own page to detail their views, and either way a method by which to link from this page to their own.  To do what the anarcho-capitalists are attempting to do, have this page both disambiguated and introduce anarcho-capitalism, -plus- change the definition to suit their bias, and add in a bunch of misleading charts combined with over-simplified comparisons, and rearrange categories to make it appear that wikipedia itself supports their claims, and put in tons of links to their own factional books, is certainly not in the realm of "fair".  Kev 1 July 2005 17:10 (UTC)

 * Kev still doesn't grok the difference between disambiguating different definitions of "anarchism" and links to particular schools. Well, Katz, you see the problem.  Not a single partisan anarcho-socialist supports the neutral disambituation idea.  I suspect that some may come around in the long run, but only after months of edit warring (and/or article protection) when it will become apparent that they will never regain absolute control over the article. It seems to me that so long as the ansoc faction sees the possibility of "winning", either via binding arbitration or edit warring, they will not come to the table willing to negotiate. Hogeye 1 July 2005 17:44 (UTC)

 * Kev, have we been sufficiently clear about what we're proposing? Your description makes me feel that we haven't.  We're talking about a bare-bones page that points to sectarian pages.  That would mean that this current page would no longer be required to have any  pro-Capitalist content at all, not even links.  It could be made 100% pro-social, with all negotiation limited to like-minded people.  All NPOV-ness would be encoded in the tree structure of the pages, not in the content of any page.  This page, under our proposed solution, could become the 'Anarchism' page rather than the 'anarchism' page.  The 'anarchism' page would be the neutral, bare-bones page that would point to all the second-tier pages.
 * How do you feel about that? Katzenjammer 1 July 2005 19:32 (UTC)

 * Now I'm not clear. I think Wikipedia ignores capitalization of the first letter. Are you sure it's possible to have both an anarchism and an Anarchism article? I was thinking we'd have to have something like anarchism (anti-state) and anarchism (anti-state  + anti-capitalist). Hogeye 1 July 2005 20:12 (UTC)

 * You might well be right, I've been too busy to do any experimentation to see how it works. In fact, now I come to think about it, you almost certainly are right.  It might even force capitalisation of the page title, for all I know. But I've been assuming all along that, even if the linkage can't be flagged to be case-sensitive, we can achieve the goal in an honest way editorially. Katzenjammer 1 July 2005 20:29 (UTC)

 * Alba, if all relevant arguments have been made then mediation is useless. In any case, as you see there is still a lot of discussion of the Neutral Disambiguation Page, and about enlarging the discussion to include a deal concerning the libertarianism article.
 * I just don't understand your insistence that mediation would help. Is there some brilliant mediator you have in mind that would come up with a magic bullet to change your mind about the definition of anarchism?  Who would you like to be mediator?  As for arbitration: I prefer continued attempts to convince people than giving the decision to some unknown arbiter.  Furthermore, I question what mediation or arbitration means in Wikiworld, since every new editor overrides all previous decisions. Hogeye 1 July 2005 16:14 (UTC)

 * Hey Hogeye, the libertarian party called, they're missing one of their members.

 * Reason #37 why LPers don't like me: Tweedledee or Tweedledum. Hogeye 1 July 2005 22:51 (UTC)

 * Not to mention, the people who get bored of debating (like me) and wait for you guys to come to a consensus then come back and start editing. This whole procedure of coming to a consensus is a sham. I'm convinced this protracted lockdown is POV based to keep the article from being changed. I suggest that anyone who wants the article to be unlocked, stop debating. Official Wikipedia policy says pages shoulnd't be locked for very long. It's going on a month now. . This lockdown is in violation of policy. We're just playing into the rogue adminstrator's hands by dragging out these debates so he can keep the article locked. RJII 1 July 2005 22:31 (UTC)

 * I wonder what the record is for lockdown time? Hogeye 1 July 2005 22:51 (UTC)

 * I have an argument I though I'd raise. It seems to me that a group can't be anarchist unless they're happy using that term alone to describe themselves. But it seems to me that "anarcho-capitalists" have to specifically call themselves anarcho-capitalist so as to distinguish themselves from other anarchists. This implies to me the acknowledgment of a certain degree of separation from anarchism at large.

 * In short then, I would argue: Anarchists are content with using that label alone; as anarcho-capitalists need specifically to specify themselves as such, they cannot be considered a branch of anarchism, because to be a proper subcategory a group must be able to fully identify with what they are branching off from. Sarge Baldy 08:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

So, which way is this site biased?
A little bit of Googling yielded these two statements regarding the Wikipedia page on Anarchism:

...the Wikipedia entry on "anarchism" is controlled by right wing libertarians...

Leftist anarchists (or "anarchists") have that article pretty well staked out, and it'd be no good trying to edit it to reflect more capitalist viewpoints.

So, which is correct, or can they both be? *Dan* 01:54, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

 * To be frank, this article is in amazingly good condition considering the sorts of users involved, and the quality of debate on this talk page. My guess is that the majority are more biased towards article quality than anything else, and thus the article has been allowed to at least struggle along as a moderately useful overview. More time should be given to the rampant racism, nationalism, and terrorism of anarchist thinkers, but hey, theres only so much you can expect from an article dominated by adherants. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 04:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The sorts of users involved, you simply cannot refrain from characterizations, can you, SS? "To be frank."El_C 05:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Avoid personal remarks, I did. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 05:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Pot. Kettle. Black. Directly above, SS. El_C 05:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry, that makes no sense. I specifically avoided mentioning names. Please take your personality politics to the appropriate policy page. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 06:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

 * That is disingenuos, I find. Please avoid editorial personalization, period, SS. El_C 06:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

RJ
RJ continues to complain that I revert his edits "wholesale". He ignores the fact that I'm one of the only editors who continues to retain edtis built from other versions of the article, and of course he ignores the fact that his pal Hogeye (a banned user whose versions RJ continues to build off of, using the fact that Hogeye violates the 3RR to his advantage) also reverts his edits at times. So, here is an explaination of why I am about to revert all of RJs edits this time, as each and every one is either POV, false, or simply mistaken:

RJ inserted this: "Traditional individualists support private ownership of capital, with an important exception: they oppose property titles to unused land,"

First, his attempt to distinguish between "traditional" individualists and individualists in general here is an attempt to bias the article toward the anarcho-capitalist position that anarcho-capitalists are individualist anarchists. Given that all the "traditional" individualists flatly rejected capitalism, I do not think it is appropriate to use the language of those subverting their movement to describe them. Second, this statement is simply wrong. Individualists rejected interest above cost from capital, so obviously their "private ownership of capital" support was limited in more ways than just "unused land". In fact, their general rejection of normative wage, of interest, of rent, and of property entitlement beyond posession, means that their support of private property was (while very strong), directly toward a highly specific a limited form of it. RJ already knows this, he has already heard the arguments and already seen the quotes, but he continues to act as though he hasn't.
 * A lot, if not all, contemporary anti-capitalist individualist anarchists regard anarcho-capitalism as a non-traditional individualist anarchist.
 * I can think of two contemporary anti-capitalist individualists anarchists who see it this way, that makes "a lot, if not all"?

 * So, they traditional ones should be dilineated as such. Simple logic. About ownership of capital, why would opposition to profit make them any less supportive of private property than anarcho-capitalists?
 * Because the generation of profit requires private ownership of the means of production. Kev 16:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes it does. But, according to the individualists, private ownership of the means of production is also the solution to reducing or eliminating the possibility of profit --through competition. It's not the private ownership of capital that's opposed but the state-backed monopoly on who may go into banking and issue currency (and state protection of vacant land) that's opposed because it's unjustly consolidating capital in the hands of a few, when it could be in the hands of many. 17:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I did not say that individualists oppose private ownership of capital. I said that their support of private ownership is limited in more ways than just unused land, and one of those limits is on the use of the means of production to generate profit for its owners.  Kev 17:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by a "limit"? It may be a moral limit, but certainly not a coerced one.
 * You keep making this false distinction. No anarchist places a coercive limit on property. Kev 06:34, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

 * They would not stop individuals from entering into a contract that involves a profit allowance. They don't like profit; they think it's exploitative, but they think it's only made possible by government-backed monopoly.
 * Not true, and you already know that this is not true. Tucker said that the monopoly conditions can continue to exist even in the absence of government once vast concentrations of wealth have been created.  Kev 06:34, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

 * To them, if there is no government then there is little or no opportunity left to profit, due to competitive forces. Government is subverting "cost the limit of price," and thereby giving individuals, given man's nature as a self-interested being, the opportunity to obtain profit (tucker's argument). Anyway, it already says that profit is opposed. So I don't see what the problem is. They say they support private property and say they oppose profit. So does the article. There is no problem. RJII 17:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You are right, there is no problem, once it is made clear that the type of property ownership they support is limited relative to the kinds of property ownership supported both by historical and modern day capitalists, and supported by anarcho-capitalists. Kev 06:34, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't you realize what private property means? It means that which an individual has exclusive right to, against all others individuals. It already says that they oppose profit in the section, so I don't know what your complaint is. You're just going off on a vacuous tirade. RJII 16:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, I am trying to respond to your complaints about my reversion of your bad edits. But if you want me to stop responding, please just say so, I would be happy to oblige.  Maybe you just like complaining to hear yourself complain.  Kev 17:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

"Christian anarchists do not favour or oppose any specific economic system, but do believe in personal freedom and choice."

This sentence is unnecessary. Not only does it not reveal anything, but it is not supported by any source. It is speculation at best.
 * Of course it's necessary. Every other type of anarchism mentions economics. It's definitely a question of interest. RJII 16:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Then source it. Kev 16:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

''* Encyclopedia entry on anarchism from Columbia Encyclopedia
 * Encyclopedia entry on anarchism from the MS Encarta Encyclopedia''

I see no reason why an encyclopedia should referance another encyclopedia just for the sake of doing so. Not only that, but RJ has been sloppy about it, and the MS encyclopedia is now listed twice. Anything that this wiki article can't source directly ought not to be put in the article, this is not a collection of encyclopedias but an encyclopedia itself.

I'm guessing RJ inserts these edits because he wants to "balance" the kropotkin 1911 entry. However, the Kropotkin 1911 entry is there for two reasons. First, it is of historical relevance. Second, and much more importantly, it is written by an anarchist. I think this qualifies as worthy of inclusion on those grounds, as a primary source of what peter kropotkin, the most prominent anarcho-communist in history, defines anarchism as. However, if it blows RJs mind to think that there can be valid exceptions to reasons not to spam the article with encyclopedia entries as he is doing, then it would be better to remove all of them than to have him list one after the other in some misguided attempt to "balance" (i.e. skew) toward his perspective.
 * What are you talking about? I agree with the definition of anarchism in the 1911 Encyclepedia. It's an NPOV definition. I was just adding other encyclopedias, since they also have NPOV definitions. I'm hoping the editors of this article will get some inspiration and see that everybody else can come up with NPOV definition of anarchism. Why can't they? Putting links to encyclopedias gives visitors who would like a better written articles easy access to them. RJII 16:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

"*An Anarchist FAQ is written from the perspective of the traditional anarchist movement"

This link, like one of the encyclopedia ones RJ spammed twice, is already there.
 * I don't know what your point it here. So, I accidently left the MS Encarta link when I was moving it to another location. Big deal. You think that was intentional? Wow. RJII 16:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was intentional. I said I was explaining why I am removing your edits in the process of reverting so that you stop moaning about it as though I'm not even paying attention to them.  Kev 16:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Finally, I would like to note that RJs hypocricy is showing once again. While he complains about my "wholesale" reverting, despite my salvaging of many edits (on the rare occasion that his are neutral I even save those), both his own reversions and the Hogeye reversions he builds off of do in fact revert a large number of neutral spelling, grammar, format, and link edits that he does nothing to salvage himself. As such, while I will continue to salvage edits built off the wrong version as I have done in the past, I'm not going to bother justifying myself to RJ on this talk page any longer until he shows some dignitiy and allows for some reciprocity. Kev 05:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

 * LOL! What a tirade! Get ahold of yourself. RJII 16:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Its responsed like this that make me think that ignoring your complaints is the best path. Kev 16:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I would just like to say that RJ has continueously struck me as an editor who i can trust. I have dilegently compared his version to those who revert him, time and time again, article after article, and I have to say, its pretty safe to assume he is right when others revert before discussion. I'll mention once again, please, everyone, Avoid personal remarks,. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 05:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to hear that, but don't trust me too much. I do make mistakes. RJII 03:55, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes yes sure right MrSS. Of course, if you stand that on it's head you might be nearer the truth! In fact compromise has been sought.. We should wrap up the Indi anarcho conflict and move on to the subarticles.. Then all the school kiddies can look up Anarchism and see what a insightful, hybrid baby we have born dem. But for some reason RJII ignores the opportunities presented to him and tries to fight an unwinnable edit war -max rspct 13:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Sam, your endorsement of RJ is about the greatest possible attack on his credibility I've seen yet. I mean, yes he is a horrible editor, but he isn't so bad as to deserve an endorsement from someone like you. Kev 16:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * A personal attack from someone the likes of you I'll take as a compliment. RJII 03:55, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey, I was just trying to salvage what little credibility you have from Sam's attack. Sorry, next time I'll just let him do the damage.  Kev 06:34, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Individualism and property
RJ claims that individualists support an absolute form of private property and thus reverts my edits stating that they supported a limited form. He is simply wrong, again. First, like the liberals, individualists do not believe that private property claims can be maintained to human beings. But this is a normative conception of property, so it need not be described as limited. However, individualists also believe that private property claims cannot be maintained to unused land, which is non-normative. They also believe that private property cannot be used to generate profit from the labor of others, either through skimming profit form wages or from earning interest above cost from investments, which are both limitations on the normal scope of property rights. Kev 18:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * "individualists do not believe that private property claims can be maintained to human beings." What the hell is that supposed to mean? Of course they do. Who else is going to maintain them --dogs?
 * *sigh* Try reading that sentence again RJ.  Kev 19:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * "individualists also believe that private property claims cannot be maintained to unused land." Duh. That's why I wrote in the article that unused land was an exception, since land itself is not the product of labor.
 * Yes, and you will notice that I continued. Kev 19:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Find an individualist anarchist that believes that it's ok to prevent people from contracting for profit.
 * Find any anarchist who believes it is okay to prevent people from contracting for anything. I know of many anarchists who would resist attempts to enforce contractual relations on people in various circumstances, including individualists, but I don't know any who would interfere with voluntary contracts being made, especially when neither participant seeks outside aid at any time to break the contract.  Kev 19:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * They think it's exploitative but they aren't going to intervene in the contract of others. Contract is law, for them. As I explained earlier, what they oppose is government-backed monopoly and banking and protection of unused land. That is what makes profit possible. Without it, due to competitive pressures of everyone lending out capital, it would become impossible to eke out much of a profit. Government is what makes the profit exploitation possible due to its subverting liberty. If you need a quote saying that private property is absolute right over a thing, then here you go. This is Spooner: "...the principle of individual property... says that each man has an absolute dominion, as against all other men, over the products and acquisitions of his own labor."

RJII 19:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * This does not contradict my edit, as the scope of his property claims is still limited relative to normative property claims today. Kev 19:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No it's not. If you want to see limited property rights go to Cuba. :::: In Cuba limitations on proptery rights are enforced by the state government.  No anarchist seeks to enforce anything through the state government, but yes, individualists do believe in basic limitations on property rights, like the ability to own others, the ability to own unused land, the ability to profit from the ownership of the means of production, or the ability to profit from the onwership of unused capital.  You don't like the fact they those are limitations, fine.  But they are limitations, and you saying they are not over and over again isn't going to change anything.

 * For individualists, private property entails absolute right. The fact that they oppose ownership of unused land does not mean that private property does not entail an absolute right of that which is allowable as private property. It just means unused land is not private property. For instance, if one can't own land that one is not using, then rent is impossible. It's not a limitation on what one can do with his property, but on what is allowable as property. RJII 19:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, you continue to ignore all the evidence that obviously goes against your assertion, focusing only on those elements which support or are ambiguous to it. Its a fine way of justifying yourself, but it isn't very compelling.  Kev 09:32, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

 * You continue to ignore what I am saying. Okay, fine.  If there are no limitations on their form of private property, I can legitimately lend it out at any interest rate an they would not object in any way, right?  I can pay my employee a wage reduced from the value of his labor due to the fact that he is using my capital to produce his product, right?  No?  Ah, well then these are limitations.  Kev 20:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * They'll tell you it's exploitative, but at the same time it's your private property and that you have a right to dispose of it as you see fit. If someone agrees to work for you and trade part of his produce to you as payment for that job, that's a sacrosanct contract. No individualist is going to intervene --contract is the law. It's like someone who supports freedom of speech saying that saying the word "nigger" shouldn't be done, but at the same time he's not going to stop you from saying it since free speech is the higher law. If you offer to lend out 10 dollars on the condition that he who wishes to borrow it offers to pay 11 dollars back to you, individualists are not going to stop you --they know that no one has to accept it your offer --you're not coercing anyone. It's absolutely allowable --you have an abolute right to private property. Government is the one doing the coercion by regulating banking. They'll object to it as a violation of "cost the limit of price." But they'll be the first to defend you if anyone tries to stop you. They're anarchists, afterall. Someone who believes in free speech may think particular kinds of speech are abusive but he's still in support of free speech. Likewise, an individualist believes that lending money out at interest is exploitative, but they believe you have should have a right to do it. That's why Spooner says "All legislative restraints upon the rate of interest, are arbitrary and tyrannical restraints upon a man's natural capacity amid natural right to hire capital, upon which to bestow his labor" They believed you should have a right to do it, but at the same time the government should let everyone go into banking and issue private money. Their position is to allow everyone to issue and lend money by getting government out of banking, assuming that the result will be competition so intense that any profit than can be gained from it will become negligible. Competition in lending out money is exactly what they want, and after government is gone, competition entails a gradual lowering of the rate of interest by competing lenders. RJII 04:26, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * This quote from Tucker might help to explain. Tucker thinks everyone is a usurer. Even if you have any money in a savings account, you're a usurer. He doesn't want to ban it. He wants to ban government from making it possible by regulating banking. "The banker is a usurer; the manufacturer is a usurer; the merchant is a usurer; the landlord is a usurer; and the workingman who puts his savings, if he has any, out at interest, or takes rent for his house or lot, if he owns one, or exchanges his labor for more than an equivalent, - he too is a usurer. The sin of usury is one under which all are concluded, and for which all are responsible. But all do not benefit by it. The vast majority suffer. Only the chief usurers accumulate: in agricultural and thickly-settled countries, the landlords; in industrial and commercial countries, the bankers. Those are the Somebodies who swallow up the surplus wealth. And where do the Somebodies get their power? From monopoly. Here, as usual, the State is the chief of sinners. Usury rests on two great monopolies; the monopoly of land and the monopoly of credit. Were it not for these, it would disappear. Ground-rent exists only because the State stands by to collect it and to protect land-titles rooted in force or fraud. Otherwise the land would be free to all, and no one could control more than he used. Interest and house-rent exist only because the State grants to a certain class of individuals and corporations the exclusive privilege of using its credit and theirs as a basis for the issuance of circulating currency. Otherwise credit would be free to all, and money, brought under the law of competition, would be issued at cost. Interest and rent gone, competition would leave little or no chance for profit in exchange except in business protected by tariff or patent laws. And there again the State has but to step aside to cause the last vestige of usury to disappear." RJII 04:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, he clearly is stating that everyone is a userer, but he is also clearly stating that all usery can and should be done away with. I can say that everyone participates in maintaining the state today and still advocate that the state should not exist.  Your argument that the individualists would "allow" exploitative contracts to exist when neither participant challenges it does not hold, because ALL anarchists of any strip would "allow" relationships to exist when neither participant challenges it, including S&M, usery, assisted suicide, and any other form of voluntary relationship.  The question is not what is allowed or permissable, for short of involuntary coercion anything is "permissable" for all anarchists regardless of their economic platform.  The question is when will individualists intervene when someone rejects their contract, when someone seeks defense against enforcement of an illegitimate contract.  I don't see any evidence that any anarchist, individualists included, would stand by and allow an illegitimate or exploitative contract to be enforced upon an unwilling participant.  I see no reason to believe that they would consider enforcement of an eviction upon squatters who arrived upon unused land that was previously claimed to be legitimate.  I see no reason to believe that they would consider the enforcement of rent due to ownership title legitimate.  I see no reason to believe that they would think it legitimate to kill, imprison, or otherwise harm someone who refuses to give up more than the value of their labor just because they have a contract stating that they would, since they clearly believe that taking such labor is at least exploitation, and at most outright theft.  You are offering up evidence that says nothing to support your conclusion.  The individualists believe in possession of property, they reject property entitlement as it is supported by capitalists, either in modern times or historical times, and they were quite specific in saying that they rejected captialism.  Relative to capitalists today and in history, the private property that individualists support is limited in both its legitimacy of claim and its legitimacy of enforcement.  Kev 06:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * That's simply untrue. Private property, for individualists, is absolute ..there are no limits whatsoever on what one may do with his property, and how he may dispose of it. If you contract to pay me interest in trade for me lending you money, for individualists, it's just that ..a contract  ..private law. You're kidding yourself to think that individualists anarchists would regard it morally permissible to to break that contract by only returning the principle --that position would be the renunciation of the notion of contract itself.
 * I see. So if someone made a contract on a person's life.  You know, starving person A and have water owned by starving person B if A agree to serve B as an indentured slave for 20 years, or even for life, the individualists would say "hey, A can't break that contract just because the conditions of it are immoral and exploitative."  Well if that is your position RJ, I'm afraid I'll need to see a quote by an individualist reflecting this supposed fact that under no condition, regardless of the legitimacy of the contract itself, do they believe that a contract can be legitimately broken. Kev 21:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * A contract *is* legitimate. In fact, it's the only basis of legitimacy for egoists such as Tucker, there are no rights without contract (no natural rights). Listen to Tucker's student, Swartz: "Fundamentally and elementally, of course, there is only one right-the right of might. To talk about "natural" rights and "inalienable" rights is to talk about something  that does not exist. To speak of natural rights implies that there is an  unquestioned or an indisputable right of some kind that is inherent in the  individual when he is born..since  there is no right superior to that of might, all other rights, of whatever  nature, exist only by sufferance; in other words, by contract or agreement." He got this from Tucker who got it from Stirner. Contract creates rights. RJII 22:24, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * "A contract is legitimate" is a claim irrelevant to this discussion. Yes, of course they believe that some contracts are legitimate.  Yes, of course they believe that some contracts are not legitimate.  I know you like to see things as absolutes, they either believe that all contracts are legitimate or non are, but that isn't the way it works.  If you can come up with a quote of Tucker saying he supports contracts on slavery, I'd be happy to drop any objections I have and crawl in a hole since I would clearly be entirely mistaken on individualism.  But since he would not under any conditions support such a contract, the fact remains that the individualists do NOT believe that all contracts are legitimate, and they expressly indicated many times that contracts involving the sale or renting of unused land are problematic, that contracts involving unequal rent for equal labor and interest are exploitative, and that all such contracts are backed by coercive institutions (like the state).  Kev 09:32, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Tucker, and the other egoist individualists believed that all contracts were legitimate. Once he was asked about a situation about a scenario where someone came upon a drowning man and promised to save him only on the condition that he would give his rescuer everything he owned. Tucker maintained that it was a legitimate contract under Anarchist principles. But, he added that no one is under obligation to enforce the contracts of others, and that it would be up to how individuals had contracted beforehand to decide what kind of contracts would be enforced. So, you would be right to assume that they would not actively enforce the contracts of others if they thought they were particularly and patently exploitative, but you're wrong to think they they didn't think exploitative contracts were legitimate. All contracts were legitimate unless they were made under the coercion of one of the contracting parties (which of course would mean it wasn't a contract at all). They would not hold that the rescuer of the drowing man was coercing him, but only that he was exploiting him. There is a difference. Exploitation by contract is still a legitimate contract. But would you expect others to go out of their way to enforce the contract between the two? No. 17:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * While the lender and the lendee "violated" the cost principle, it's a mutual agreement to violate it. Contract is the higher law. When you put your money in a savings account that pays interest, Tucker says you're engaging in usury, but he's not going to come down on you for it. What the individualists are concerned with is the special privilege --those who have privilege and at the same time are violating the cost principle is where the problem lies. Joe Farmer making a profit selling his goods in the market for a profit is no big deal and the guy putting his money in a savings account is not big deal, because they have no privilege. This is the idea he's putting across in Capital, Profits and Interest And, the individualists assert that the only reason anyone is able to reap a profit is because of the lack of competition in the marketplace due to government intervention.

 * Not true. Again, you already know this isn't true.  Tucker himself indicated that vast concentrations of wealth can also restrict competition in the marketplace and lead to the same kinds of privilege.  Why do you keep making blanket statements you know aren't true, is it because you can't understand expections, or because they paint a picture you don't want to present?  Kev 21:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You still don't understand Tucker. He doesn't think that "vast concentrations of wealth" can come about without government-backed monopoly on banking and land. You've got it backwards. RJII 01:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I did not claim that he believed that vast concentrations of wealth could arise without government backed monopolies. I do claim that he believed that vast concentrations of wealth would inhibit the free flow of the economy and allow coercion and privilege to exist in the absence of the state, regardless of how they formed.  Kev 09:32, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * People are going to try to get as much as they can out of a trade, regardless ..that's human nature

 * This is a fine argument (I mean, you could justify mass murder this way), but it is your argument, not that of the individaulist. Kev 21:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

RJII 22:24, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I guess you didn't know that most individualist anarchists were egoists. And, I'm sure you didn't know that Tucker was living off money invested in an interest-bearing annuity. RJII 01:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It is quite possible to be an egoist without making referances to "human nature". Take Stirner, for example.  Kev 09:32, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * --it's just that they won't be able to get profit anymore when government-backed monopoly is eliminated (for instance, "Upon the sentimental grounds for believing in the evanescence of economic rent it is perhaps not worth while to dwell. I have an aversion to definite speculations based on hypothetical transformations in human nature. -Tucker"). The same goes for employment situations --individuals would not have to contract to give up some of their produce to get a job, since jobs would be more plentiful due to the release of capital from the monopoly when government was abolished (another way of saying that is that the cost of buying a job would be reduced due to an increasing supply). Regarding "squatters" on unused land, of course they wouldn't eject them since unused land is not private property. Again, that's not a limitation on property ...it's just not property in the first place. It's an "absolute right" of private property --they say so themselves. Don't think for a second that they didn't know what "absolute" meant. RJII 21:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You can say this isn't a limitation on private property by accepting the individualist definition, sure, but the NPOV violation in the text occurs when you then compare this to anarcho-capitalist support of private property (which you have done in several articles) constantly, as though the use of the terms were the same. But it isn't, and you know that it isn't, and you are trying your best to ensure that the comparisons sound as soft in regards to capitalism as possible.  Kev 21:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Traditional individualists do not have a different definition of private property than anarcho-capitalists. You're trying as hard as you can to make private property mean different things to different people, but it doesn't. Private property is, as Spooner says, "absolute dominion." Absolute means absolute ..not limitations. RJII 22:24, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Once you show me that individualists support rent and sale of unused land, unequal payment for equal labor, and profiting from unused capital by way of interest, I will happily accept your constant repetition of the claim that they place no restrictions on the use of property. Kev 09:32, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Listen you, if anarchism is voluntary and noncoercive, then how the fuck am I supposed to have shelter (which is recognized universally as one of the few basic human necessities) when I have to fucking pay a landlord and capitalist to live in a shitty little space they dug out for me? You know what's coercive? A fucking store manager guarding the food and water I need to live and refusing to hand it over until I work for him or one of his capitalist compadres until I am deemed that I've worked enough to live. And that's just the tip of the enormous iceberg that this ship of a planet is crashing into head-on. If you want to defend those actions and other shite, go ahead and be a fuck, but don't attach a movement for the full liberation of animals, humans, and the planet to your argument against them all. As Mikail Bakunin said, "When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'The People's Stick'." Call oppression whatever you want, words aren't as important as their meaning, and oppression is oppression no matter what happy-go-lucky name you give it. I wouldn't step into a wood chipper if it was named a flower bed, I'm not blind.

Anarcho-hypocrisy
Note: this was posted earlier but got wiped out by the bug. Okay, the socialist anarchists here seem to have a huge problem with labeling de Molinari as an anarcho-capitalist directly (if you ask them where his beliefs diverged from ancaps, they're a little light on details, but that's another story), because the term "anarcho-capitalist" was created long after his time. Yet, the current article labels several feminist anarchists and a feminist anarchist group as "anarcha-feminists" even though, as the anarcha-feminism article states, that term was not created until the 60's. If you want to argue that the article doesn't explicitly state that Emma Goldman, et al. were anarcha-feminists, it's very misleading to have EG's picture right there. Unless this inconsistency can be reconciled, I plan to either reference de Molinari as an anarcho-capitalist in all relevant places or change the references to the feminist anarchists to merely "influences" on anarcha-feminism, the way de Molinari is treated with respect to anarcho-capitalism. 24.162.140.213 23:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I've been having this kind of problem with Kev about the term "anarchist." He says that to be an anarchist that you have to call yourself an anarchist. He says that Godwin, Stirner, and Warren were not anarchists because they didn't use the word, even though they opposed the existence of government. (That's why he recently modified the Godwin note). Ever heard of such bizarre reasoning? What makes someone an anarchists is their philosophy. I agree with you, and so does every sensible person. RJII 00:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * reference de Molinari as an anarcho-capitalist in all relevant places. I second this. Two-Bit Sprite 01:24, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

 * This analogy does not hold. First, the anarcha-feminist section does not directly state that Voltairine and Goldman were anarcha-feminists, it states that they are associated with anarcha-feminism.
 * Well, I've fixed that so it makes it clear they were "influences"; "associated with" is ambiguous.
 * Second, both Goldman and Voltairine considered themselves to be both feminists and anarchists, and there is nothing in anarcha-feminist theory that is not described by the combination of feminism and anarchism. This is relevantly different than Molinari.  Molinari did NOT consider himself an anarchist (and in fact probably would have rejected the title outright), so while it is completely neutral to refer to him as closely associated with anarcho-capitalism (and in fact he is already listed as an influence on anarcho-capitalism in the article), directly calling him an anarcho-capitalist would not only be following a different standard than is being used for anarcha-feminists, but would also entail a different result.
 * Goldman probably would have rejected the "anarcha" ("a" instead of "o") as being sort of silly, so the analogy does hold. I think it's more reasonable to compare the content of their views rather than what label they would have erroneously rejected.
 * Erroneously rejected? I see, so it is your definitions that individuals in history must conform to, rather than their own.  Fine, just understand that your perspective is not appropriate for a wikipedia article, which is supposed to be neutral on the matter.  Kev 21:10, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It is my opinion that when deciding whether or not historical figure Y was an X, we should compare Y's beliefs with the content of ideology X. This is in fact your opinion, since you insist on comparing the content of the anarcha-feminist ideology (which would be the intersection, not mere addition of anarchism and feminism as you claim - learn your set theory) with the content of Goldman's beliefs.  And by the way, "neutral" doesn't mean ambiguous.  If Goldman wasn't an anarcha-feminist, it should say so, not say she was "associated" whilst crossing our collective fingers that people won't take that to mean she was one.
 * To refer to Molinari as an anarchist would not only go against what Molinari himself would probably have believed, but more importantly it implicitly supports a particular definition of anarchism that is being upheld by the anarcho-capitalists themselves.
 * Yeah, damn those dictionaries! Damn them all! 24.162.140.213 19:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The dictionary at no point supports the anarcho-capitalist contention that anarchism is nothing more than absence of the state, in fact all the dictionaries I have ever read indicate that it is considerably more. I do appreciate the attempt at being smug though, all the more satisfying when the individual is wrong.  Kev 21:10, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Read the archives. I recall someone (probably Hogeye) listing numerous random dictionaries, almost all of which agreed with the ancap definition and almost none of which agreed with the socialist definition. I do appreciate the attempt at being smug though, all the more satisfying when the individual is wrong. 24.162.140.213 00:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * In other words, in order to accept referance to Molinari as an anarcho-capitalist we not only have to engage in historical revisionism and label him according to a term that didn't exist in his time, but we also need to already accept the anarcho-capitalist position that anarchism is -nothing- more than anti-statism. If you want this analogy to hold, refer to Molinari as an anti-state liberal.  Like the anarcha-feminists above, who believed themselves to be feminists and anarchists, Molinari did consider himself both a liberal and anti-state.  Calling him an anarcho-capitalist according to this evidence is a rhetorical slight of hand.  Kev 06:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Format and article length
Hello all,

I have nothing to do with editing this page; I just came across it, interested in some more information on anarchy. But after a few minutes of reading, I still don't have a very clear picture. I think the introduction is fantastic, but going through all the types of anarchisms on the main page is a bit much! Isn't there any way you can move those to a separate "Types of Anarchism" page, and provide us with a SHORTER article that gives us briefly, in a couple of paragraphs, the main distinctions between the types of anarchy, and even more importantly, anotehr couple of paragraphs talking more about anarchy's relevance TODAY? You include links to current pros/cons of anarchy, talking about violence as an issue, but then just have external links to some critiques! I think that content deserves a more thorough treatment on the main page, after all it is what matters TODAY! After all, a newbie coming to this page, like me, wants to know: why is anarchy good? Why is anarchy bad? This will be the central question for most readers. I think this article really needs more overview on the different areas of anarchy and much less detail on the schools of thought. Just my $0.02

Michael

Anarchism
"What are the essential convictions of anarchist thought? Anarchism is revolutionary in that it desires a new social order based on libertarian socialist ideas. There is a principled opposition to most forms of imposed, centralized or hierachical authority. Institutions and organizations and structures of thought and art in culture that embody such forms of authority are criticized and rejected because they are seen to inhibit, control or repress the creative and productive abilities of people." From Anarchism by Sean M. Sheehan (2003) ISBN 1861891695

I thought I would paste this up from a second chapter book I have. It maybe the very latest one published on the topic (at least in the en lang) -max rspct 18:29, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Tothebarricades.tk
Tothebarricades.tk, you said in your edit summary that Christian-anarchism opposes capitalism, as justification for you putting in that anarchists oppose capitalism in the intro. Do you have a source for this claim about Christian-anarchism? RJII 17:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Here's a source
 * The voluntary poverty of Jesus, his comments on the corrupting effects of wealth and the Biblical claim that the world was created for humanity to be enjoyed in common have all been taken [by Christian anarchists]as the basis of a socialistic critique of private property and capitalism...
 * Like all anarchists, Tolstoy [a major Christian anarchist] was critical of private property and capitalism. Like Henry George (whose ideas, like those of Proudhon, had a strong impact on him) he opposed private property in land...
 * Tolstoy argued that capitalism morally and physically ruined individuals and that capitalists were "slave-drivers." He considered it impossible for a true Christian to be a capitalist, for a "manufacturer is a man whose income consists of value squeezed out of the workers, and whose whole occupation is based on forced, unnatural labour" and therefore, "he must first give up ruining human lives for his own profit." [The Kingdom Of God is Within You, p. 338 and p. 339] Unsurprisingly, Tolstoy argued that co-operatives were the "only social activity which a moral, self-respecting person who doesn't want to be a party of violence can take part in." [quoted by Peter Marshall, Op. Cit., p. 378]
 * For the record, the article also states "While there is a tendency for individuals in both camps to claim that the proposals of the other camp would lead to the creation of some kind of state, the differences between individualists and social anarchists are not very great. Both are anti-state, anti-authority and anti-capitalist" (though individualist anarchists may support some kind of market mechanism).
 * Dave (talk) 17:54, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

 * Wow thanks. Finally someone was able to confirm this. I had initially assumed Christian anarchism was anti-capitalist and was trying push that in the Christian-anarchism talk page. But, no one in there, including me, could find an explicit source for that and I was told that Christian anarchists have no views on economic systems. RJII 18:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I just googled "Christian anarchism" and capitalist, excluded everything from Wikipedia, and it was the eleventh hit. Dave (talk) 18:12, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, hold on a second. Some things need to be taken into account here.  Tolstoy, after writing Kingdom became a pretty serious Georgist, and demanded that his government implement the statist version of it.  Like I said earlier: "Leo Tolstoy, whom the article considers an anarchist, believed communities should rent out their land, since he was a Georgist. Of course, that's a bit ambiguous because it can be argued that he only wanted that as an intermediate step on the way to anarchism, though he would probably advocate non-violent resistance to those who refused to pay the ground rent in a fully anarchist society." Georgism is a heavily capitalist system: you can even own land you're not using, as long as you pay the ground rent.  Now, in all his clamoring for the tsar to implement Georgism, he was asked to reconcile this with his anarchism.  His response was that people aren't ready for anarchism, and (statist) Georgism is the next best thing.  I think it's pretty clear though that his preferred economic system would be capitalist, but with non-violent resistance to those who broke the law or refused to pay their ground rent.  Yes, non-violent enforcement makes it not capitalist, but the point is that after being influenced by Henry George, he saw nothing wrong with, say, employing people for a wage or offering loans at interest - he just thought it would be unlikely in a Georgist system (statist or otherwise).  This is what I'm basing this off of. 24.162.140.213 00:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Opposition to the "Others" category
I will be deleting the "Others" category --not the contents, but the title. The reason being, it ostracizes all the other kinds of anarchism for no apparent reason. It's suspiciously hierarchical. Either the "others" are anarchism or they're not. If they are anarchism then they're not "others" any more than any the forms above the line are "others." RJII 21:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --Tothebarricades 01:43, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

National anarchism
Calling national anarchism a "School of anarchist thought" makes about as much sense as calling anti-Semitism a "School of Jewish thought." I would suggest to the trolls that you stop adding it here. There's not even a consensus as to whether the page should exist at all (see vfd debates), much less have a prominent position on an oft-viewed page. I am unwilling to compromise on this, and I'm sure the same is true for most editors of this page. Not including it is in no respect a violation of any policy, as it has next to no importance or influence, and I feel the only impetus for its inclusion is a desire to disrupt this article and create conflict. --Tothebarricades 22:07, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, that's unfortunate that you're not willing to compromise your POV. Because, I'm not willing to compromise the NPOV policy. I'm going to continue putting national anarchism in. RJII 23:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Would you kindly please state the specific positions advocated by national anarchists that place them outside what you consider anarchism? Let me save us a little back-and-forth: racists can be anarchists.  Proponents of voluntary segregation can be anarchist. 24.162.140.213 23:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Perhaps the name is confusing to some, but the more descriptive 'municipalist racial separatist anarchism' is too clumsy.

 * That national anarchism is a foolish, oxymoronic and wholly non-anarchist point of view is obvious and needs no explanation. I'm not going to give one, because you already know what I'm going to say and you know that it's correct - but the troll by definition has no concern for such factual niceties. A simpler reason for not including it is that it is the epitome of non-notability. The fact that it's vote for deletion page is one of the top google results for "national anarchism" speaks volumes. --Tothebarricades 01:38, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * That doesn't say anything; Wikipedia gets high results for many searches on Google. And I've asked you before: which specific belief of national anarchists places them outside of anarchism?  Just because I know what you're going to say and have a response doesn't make me wrong.  You really can't say that just because they're racist they can't be anarchists.  Proudhon was racist.  Bakunin was racist.  And you can't say that because they want radical decentralization they're not anarchists.  Bookchin advocates that.  I'm not a troll.  I registered (finally) and I've been working on constructive improvements for the unfree labour article and several others. Please, justify your position. MrVoluntarist 02:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

True anarchism
'''"It's an odd feature of the anarchist tradition over the years that it seems to have often bred highly authoritarian personality types, who legislate what the Doctrine IS, and with various degrees of fury (often great) denounce those who depart from what they have declared to be the True Principles. Odd form of anarchism." --Noam Chomsky''' RJII 07:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I prefer this quote: "Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if ever implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few counterparts in human history. There isn't the slightest possibility that its (in my view, horrendous) ideas would be implemented, because they would quickly destroy any society that made this colossal error. The idea of "free contract" between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke, perhaps worth some moments in an academic seminar exploring the consequences of (in my view, absurd) ideas, but nowhere else." - Noam Chomsky. Shall we use it as a header to the anarcho-capitalist section? --Tothebarricades 19:54, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

 * To be an analagous quote on the anarcho-capitalist article, it would have to ridicule people who claim to own the term "anarcho-capitalism". Btw, we're still waiting for your precise specification of what national anarchism doesn't count as anarchism, which courtesy of course dictates that you provide before removing it from the article. MrVoluntarist 20:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and for anyone interested, I'm the old 24.162... MrVoluntarist 20:23, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

 * And the older someone else, I would wager. --Tothebarricades 01:43, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * Have someone trace my IP if you must, Kev. Hogeye is in Costa Rica somewhere.  I'm in Texas. MrVoluntarist 02:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Socialism
"Socialist anarchists tend to deny..." vs. "Anarchists that oppose private ownership of the means of production tend to deny..."

It seems to me that the latter is wordy and inelegant. After all, socialists are people who oppose private ownership of the means of production. I understand that you are concerned with the individualist anarchists who called themselves "socialist," but they used an antiquted definition of socialism - "cost is the limit of price." The modern definition of socialism has to do with ownership of the means of production. Using modern definitions, ind-anarchists are more capitalist than socialist.

 * Ok, that's fine then. I guess I just anticipating an objection by someone not familiar with the two different uses. Maybe "social anarchists" would be better? RJII 16:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Well I changed it to socialist anarchists and it was immediately reverted by Max_rspct. There you have it. RJII 17:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

 * What is Max's problem with the phrase "socialist anarchist"? Very puzzling, indeed.
 * Maybe "socialist" is an insult now? RJII 00:47, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

 * No, it's simply a neologism. All anarchists oppose capitalism, it is a contrivance to then call them "socialist anarchists" as opposed to "anarcho-capitalists." If we are going to give attention to anarcho-capitalists, we at least have to do it without a wholesale revision of history, categorizing people based on anarcho-capitalist doctrine. --Tothebarricades 19:45, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Anarcho-capitalists oppose capitalism as well -as it's defined by individualist anarchists. Contemporary individualist anarchist Larry Gambone says that individualist anarchists define capitalism as "gained wealth from the use of governmental power or from privileges granted by government" and notes that anarcho-capitalists oppose that as well. Apparently the "socialist anarchists" aren't able to see a distinction between an economic system from a political system when it comes to capitalism. Contemporary individualist anarchists that oppose capitalism, however, can see the distinction, and therefore do recognize anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism. That's why this issue arose. We can't say that all anarchists say that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. So what kind of anarchists are those that say that? Apparently everyone that is not an individualist anarchist. What are they called? Socialist anarchists? Social anarchists? RJII 00:10, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

What NPOV is not
Wikipedia has no obligation to serve as a platform to any lunatic with a website and a wingnut point of view. The perverse trend on Wikipedia to cater to trolls in a feeble attempt to avoid conflict has an obvious problem, in that we have come to have little concern for the encyclopedic value of the content we put into articles. A dialectic is created: Well-established point of view, opposed by crazy, non-notable point of view, leading to a synthesis of the two. The synthesis, of course, is a piece of shit article like the one we have here every time I'm away from the computer for a few hours. It is time to realize that one webpage does not a "School of anarchism" make. I absolutely will not tolerate such de facto vandalism of this article, and will not submit to the feed-the-troll dialectic. --Tothebarricades 01:49, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Assuming you're talking about national anarchism, it's not just "one webpage." Read the article, and check out the links. The movement is definitely notable and existing in multiple countries. What's the harm of having it in the article? It takes up 3 or 4 sentences. You think having it in the article is going to change the world and everyone is going to convert to national anarchism? RJII 02:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Ultimatum for those removing national anarchism
I have yet to see a specific reason for why national anarchism inherently does not count as anarchism. I've disposed of the "racists can't be anarchists" argument and the "radical decentralists can't be anarchists" argument, even before people have made those arguments explicitly. If no one justifies the exclusion of national anarchism within, say, 48 hours, I will assume the argument is that "racists can't be anarchists", and will insert long disclaimers attacking Proudhon's and Bakunin's connection to "true anarchism". Something along the lines of "Many doubt whether Proudhon can be genuinely considered an anarchist at all, in light of his virulient anti-Semitism, since anarchism is an anti-racist philosophy." MrVoluntarist 02:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Can you tell us in what way Proudhon's or Bakunin's racism manifested itself in their political theory? --Dannyno 16:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

 * What's this? A question?  I asked for a reason, an argument, not a question.  If you want to say Proudhon and Bakunin were racist, but that racism didn't manifest itself in their political theory, all you have to do is say, "Sure, Proudhon and Bakunin were racist, but that racism didn't manifest itself in their political theory."  That wasn't so hard, now, was it?  Since I'm in a charitable mood, and I want to help you guys meet your 48-hour deadline, I'll answer this.  Let's say their racism didn't manifest.  Well, neither does the national anarchists'.  Remember, we're talking about political philosophy here.  National anarchist don't advocate political measures being taken against other races.  They want to get rid of the state and capitalism so they can form their own race-based communities, and the predict that others would as well.  They would not "purify" other communities that wanted to be multi-cultural.  On the other hand, if you want to see how anti-Semitism affected Bakunin's and Proudhon's political beliefs, apparently you're not aware what they wanted to happen to the Jews.
 * Anyone else? MrVoluntarist 23:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It's manifested in their theories by the fact that they identified capitalists with Jews. And, these aren't all just off the record comments from them but part of their philosophy. For example, Proudhon states in Cesarisme et Christianisme that the Jewish are Satan incarnate. RJII 02:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * How like a fascist to be issuing ultimatums. --Bk0 00:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm only threatening to do something I already have the right to do, and in fact, should have done long ago, in light of the total lack of reasoning behind this national anarchism exclusion. Now, there may be a valid reason for excluding it, but no one has presented one yet. MrVoluntarist 00:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not an issue of whether or not national anarchism can or cannot be considered a form of anarchism and I for one have intentionally avoided bringing the argument to that level, as it is irrelevant. National anarchism is simply non-notable, incoherent, and has never been associated with a single event, individual, or work. Ergo we do not mention it, just as we would not mention any made-up philosophy confined to a handful of websites. --Tothebarricades 08:09, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Cesarisme et Christianisme was of course posthumously published, but otherwise I accept that. I think the point is that Proudhon did not found a movement based on racism (nor did Bakunin, or the similarly anti-semitic Marx, come to that). I disagree it is non-notable. It certainly is notable that advocates of apartheid do so under an anti-state label.  The question is whether or not the page needs to exhaustively mention each and every idiosyncratic use of the "anarchist" label. Reminds me of a Steve Bell cartoon which parodied a police statement about "trotskyist anarchists" - "we must sweep ourselves out with an iron broom" etc.  If it does want to be such a list, then it seems to me (and I think this is a problem with the page generally, though I understand the reason for it) that it needs to be clear that everyone who uses the word "anarchist" is not necessarily part of the same *movement* as anyone else who uses the word. I have no problem, despite my own preferences, with the page simply cataloguing use of the word "anarchist", so long as it is clear that's what it is.  The "anarchist movement" is not "split" between communists, capitalists and nationalists, you know? --Dannyno 09:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Sure, but keep in mind anarchism is not just "the movement" --as in a social movement --the people out in the streets, etc. That's one kind of anarchism. There is also philosophical anarchism ..which tend to be the individualists --from Godwin, to Proudhon, through Tucker, to Rothbard, and Friedman. National anarchism appears, to me, to be philosophical anarchism as well. RJII 15:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, first things first, Tothebarricades. You're going to need to be consistent.  If you don't want to contest the claim "national anarchism is a form of anarchism" argument, you need to stop weaseling in arguments against it, like your claim that it's "incoherent".  So let's try to stay on the only argument you're bothering to justify, which is that it's a non-notable movement.
 * And how do you justify that claim? Ah, by national anarchism's light presence on the internet.  Is this really a road you want to go down?  Just for your edification, "national anarchism" as a phrase gets more hits on Google than "'small a' anarchism", "ecological anarchism", "postanarchism" (which Google prefers over "post-anarchism"), "technological anarchism", "utopian anarchism", and "spiritual anarchism". So, I guess we need to ditch those also.  And, again, to save us a little back and forth, I'm sure there are websites advocating those, but don't use those phrases.  However, according to your buddy User:Kevehs, unless someone uses the phrase "X anarchism" that person is not an "X anarchist".  That's how he's justified denying Gustave de Molinari the title, btw, so if you want to take that position, you've just tripled anarcho-capitalism's lifespan.  But don't worry: you still have a few hours to make a valid argument before I begin my changes! MrVoluntarist 23:57, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Gee, you seem to have a lot of knowledge about the history of this page for such a new user. I should just revert every edit you make regardless of content, "MrVoluntarist," if that is your real name. --Tothebarricades 00:46, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Is it so hard to believe that someone would "lurk" on the anarchism and associated talk page for a while before registering? No, my real last name is not Voluntarist, and I suspect your real name isn't Tothebarricades, either. Funny how that works out. But hey, as long as you're not going to try to justify your position, that's fine with me.  Just makes it that much easier to document my attempt to hear alternate views before reverting POV edits. MrVoluntarist 01:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Good Job, Folks!
The article is looking very good. Other than the Nation Anarchism issue, it has been both NPOV and stable for the last few days, using the broad tent definition of anarchism and inclusive of all major schools of thought (including anarcho-capitalism.) Keep up the good work. --Hogeye 15:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Welcome back, Hogeye! Apparently, some people think I'm you, just to let you know. Anyway, we should be able to get the national anarchism issue resolved once someone presents an actual reason to include it.  So far, no one has given a reasonable one.  I've already refuted the arguments that it's not a form of anarchism, that anarchists can't be racist, and that it's a non-notable philosophy.  If anyone knows a valid reason to exclude it, I'm all ears! MrVoluntarist 00:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * What the fuck are you doing here again? --Tothebarricades 01:14, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Edmund Burke
I deleted the mention (please don't quibble over one sentence) to Edmund Burke's "A Vindication of Natural Society" in the "Modern Anarchism" section because it has no relevance to Anarchism: aside from the original opinion (weren't we supposed to avoid these?) of Murray Rothbard, it is generally accepted that Burke meant this writing as a satire (see link). Therefore, Burke was not advocating what you (yes ACs, you) might think.

If you dislike this deletion, please take it up on the Edmund Burke board, not here. Ciao. --TelemachusSneezed 06:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

 * You changed this article, so I'm going to take it up on this board.
 * The article says "The first modern author to have published an essay explicitly advocating the absence of government was Edmund Burke in "A Vindication of Natural Society" (1756)." That statement is 100% correct. It doesn't say Burke advocated the absence of government, merely that he wrote an essay advocating the absence of government.  If you want to add that most today believe it was an (extremely subtle) satire, go for it.  That's how Wikipedia works.  You think something's left out, you add it. As for why you believe the statements of a politician running for office ("Er, that work was a satire ... yeah, that's it.") over an anonymously published essay, that's between you and God, or Athena, as the case may be. I'll revert and add your concern. MrVoluntarist 13:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Anarchism/Archive 24


text:
William Carey (courtier)

William Carey (c. 1495 – 22 June 1528) was a courtier and favourite of King Henry VIII of England. He served the king as a Gentleman of the Privy chamber, and Esquire of the Body to the King. His wife, Mary Boleyn, is known to history as a mistress of King Henry VIII and the sister of Henry's second wife, Anne Boleyn.

Biography
William Carey was the second son of Sir Thomas Carey (1455–1500), of Chilton Foliat in Wiltshire, and his wife, Margaret Spencer, daughter of Sir Robert Spencer and Eleanor Beaufort, and grandson of Sir William Cary of Cockington, Devon, an eminent Lancastrian. This Cary family was anciently recorded in Devon, and originally held the manors at Cockington and Clovelly in that county. Eleanor was the daughter of Edmund Beaufort, 2nd Duke of Somerset, whose brother John Beaufort, 1st Duke of Somerset, was the father of Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Richmond and Derby, grandmother of King Henry VIII; thus William and Henry VIII were third cousins. William's maternal aunt was Catherine Spencer, Countess of Northumberland, and through her, he was first cousin to Henry Percy, 6th Earl of Northumberland, the former suitor of his sister-in-law Anne Boleyn.

On 4 February 1520, he was married to Mary Boleyn, the elder daughter of Thomas Boleyn, 1st Earl of Wiltshire and his wife, Lady Elizabeth Howard. They resided at Aldenham in Hertfordshire.

Shortly after their marriage, Mary became the mistress of King Henry VIII. Mary would have been unable to turn down the king's advances.

The Boleyns received grants of land, and Carey himself also profited, being granted manors and estates by the king while it was in progress. Carey was also a noted art collector, and he introduced the famed Dutch artist, Lucas Horenbout, to the Kingdom of England in the mid-1520s. Perhaps one of the reasons the athletic King Henry VIII favoured Carey was the fact that Carey appears to have been fond of activities such as riding, hunting, and jousting. Carey distinguished himself in jousting at the Field of the Cloth of Gold in 1520.

Anne Boleyn, Mary's sister, caught Henry's eye a year after his affair with Mary ended. Henry proposed marriage to her in 1527. Carey's influence at court was used to try and get his sister Eleanor (a nun) elected as the Abbess of Wilton Abbey over the heir apparent who was Isabel Jordayne. The claim failed when it was revealed that Eleanor had two children by priests.

William Carey did not live to enjoy his sister-in-law's prosperity, since he died of the sweating sickness the following year. Brian Tuke, Henry's secretary at the time of Carey's death wrote this to Lord Legat the day after his death: "Now is word common that M. Cary, which before I came lay in the chamber where I lie, and with whom at my first coming I met here in this place, saying that he had been with his wife at Plashey, and would not be seen within, because he would ride again and hunt, is dead of the sweat. Our Lord have mercy on his soul; and hold his hand over us." He died greatly in debt, and his wife was reduced to pawning her jewellery before Queen Anne Boleyn arranged a pension for her.

Children of William Carey and Mary Boleyn
William Carey and Mary Boleyn were the parents of two children:

 * Catherine Carey (c. 1524 – 15 January 1568). Maid of Honour to Anne of Cleves and Catherine Howard. She was married to the Puritan Sir Francis Knollys, Knight of the Garter. She was later lady-in-waiting to her cousin, Elizabeth I. One of her daughters, Lettice Knollys, became the second wife of Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester, the favourite of Elizabeth I.
 * Henry Carey, 1st Baron Hunsdon (4 March 1526 – 23 July 1596). He was ennobled by Queen Elizabeth I just after her coronation and created Knight of the Garter in 1561. When Henry was dying, Elizabeth offered him the Boleyn family title, Earl of Ormonde, which he had long sought, but he refused the honour.

Because of Mary's affair, it has been suggested that Catherine and Henry may have been instead Henry VIII's biological children (see Issue of Mary Boleyn). The veracity of this claim is the subject of historical debate.

In popular culture
Carey's life, his marriage to Mary Carey, and his death are fictionalized in Philippa Gregory's novel The Other Boleyn Girl, where Mary is portrayed as younger than Anne. The story has been made into film twice, with Carey portrayed by Anthony Howell in the 2003 film and Benedict Cumberbatch in 2008.

title: William Carey (courtier)


text:
Pocket Dragons

Pocket Dragons are collectible depictions of friendly dragons in various situations. They are produced primarily in figurine form, but also are released as ornaments, in flat artwork and various other forms. They were created by, and are still designed by, Real Musgrave, and the figurines are manufactured by Collectible World Studios. Unlike many artists behind collectible lines, Musgrave not only creates the flat artwork for them, but also sculpts them. Both Real and his wife, Muff, have enjoyed nearly complete creative control over the line.

History
The story of the Pocket Dragon goes back to a limited set of black and white drawings done by Real Musgrave in the mid-1970s, depicting a small dragon in the pocket of a tweed sport jacket. Those dragons were originally based on Real and Muff's dog Flower.

The first set of Pocket Dragon figurines went on sale in June 1989, and included twenty-seven of the figures. They were produced in Stoke-on-Trent, England.

In 1996, an animated television series was produced based on Pocket Dragons, called Pocket Dragon Adventures. It ran for fifty-two half hour episodes or 104 European 15 minute episodes. The writers of the series collaborated with both Musgraves, and Real contributed designs for virtually every episode.

As of 2006, over 400 different Pocket Dragons figures had been released, as well as games, books and hundreds of other products.

Real and Muff Musgrave announced their retirement in the fall of 2005, along with the Pocket Dragon figurine collection, to be effective on December 31, 2006.

In May 2006 the distributor Collectible World Studios went into receivership due to high debts and ceased trading. The production and distribution of what would be the last Pocket Dragon pieces was uncertain. Since then the official website and the website of the distributor are no longer online. Xystos, a company linked with the Collectables (Fine Glass and China) LTD company bought CWS later in 2006.

On November 12, 2006, what was probably the last ever UK Pocket Dragons event was held at Collectables (Fine Glass and China) LTD, Stockton on Tees. Real and Muff Musgrave had retired and were attending to abandoned animals, but Real still produced Pocket Dragon products licensed with other companies. The proceeds from sales benefit animal charities with which the Musgraves worked. In 2011 they continued their collaborations with Precious Gifts in Maryland to produce a special limited edition figurine to benefit the Humane Society of Flower Mound (in Texas).

Unlike many artists involved in collectibles and television, Real Musgrave has always personally owned the trademarks and copyrights for his work. The Pocket Dragon trademarks and copyrights are active.

title: Pocket Dragons


text:
John Smit

John William Smit, OIS, (born 3 April 1978) is a South African former professional rugby union player and former chief executive officer of the Sharks. He was the 50th captain of the Springbok rugby union team and led the team to win the 2007 Rugby World Cup. He played most of his senior career as a hooker, but also won 13 caps as a prop, where he had also played for South Africa's under-21 team. He retired from international rugby following the 2011 Rugby World Cup as the most-capped South African player ever, with 111 appearances.

Smit was inducted into the IRB Hall of Fame on 24 October 2011 (while still active at club level), alongside all other World Cup-winning captains and head coaches from the tournament's inception in 1987 through 2007 (minus the previously inducted John Eales).

Early life
Born 3 April 1978 in Pietersburg, South Africa, Smit attended Fields College (then Fields Primary School) in Rustenburg and then went on to Pretoria Boys High School where he was head prefect in 1996 and played for the school's first XV from 1994 to 1996.

Springbok career
Smit played his first Springbok game in 2000 at the age of 22, when South Africa beat Canada 51–18 at Basil Kenyon Stadium in East London. Between October 2003 and June 2007, Smit played in a record 46 consecutive Test matches for South Africa, though it was not until 2004, when he was made captain of the squad by then new coach Jake White, that he became a regular member of the starting XV.

Smit's record-breaking sequence of appearances came to an end with South Africa's first match of the 2007 Tri Nations, against Australia, when he suffered an injury that prevented him taking any further part in the tournament. He recovered from his injury in time to take part in the 2007 Rugby World Cup, in which he started in 6 out of 7 South African matches and in which his leadership qualities came to the fore, saw South Africa win the William Web Ellis Trophy for the second time.

When Peter de Villiers was appointed as the new South Africa coach in 2008, one of his first decisions was to re-appoint Smit as the captain of the national side. Smit led South Africa in their opening game of the 2008 Tri Nations, against New Zealand in Wellington, but suffered a groin injury when he was lifted and dumped by New Zealand lock Brad Thorn after the whistle had blown: Thorn received a one-match suspension but Smit missed the rest of the tournament, being replaced as captain by veteran Springbok lock, Victor Matfield. In 2009, Smit led South Africa to a series victory against the visiting British & Irish Lions, and followed this by leading his team to success in the 2009 Tri Nations, in which South Africa won five of their six matches, including a clean sweep of three wins against New Zealand.

In the first test against New Zealand, Smit equalled the record of 59 Tests as captain held by Australia's George Gregan and England's Will Carling. The following week, he became the most-capped captain in international rugby history.

As of September 2009, Smit is one of South Africa's most successful captains ever, having led the Springboks to victory in 46 of the 64 games that he captained, a win percentage of 72%. He has won more tests as captain than any other Springbok has played as captain. On 23 August 2010, he played his 100th Test – only the 15th player ever, and second South African to reach that milestone.

After his Springbok retirement his record as captain for the most international games was broken, by Ireland's Brian O'Driscoll in 2012 and New Zealand's Richie McCaw in 2013.

Clermont
During the run-up to the 2007 Rugby World Cup, he was linked with the French club Clermont. He eventually signed a two-year deal with Clermont, effective after the World Cup. Despite his move to France, the South African Rugby Union announced on 20 February 2008 that he would retain his Boks captaincy. . After just one year with Clermont, Smit rejoined the and the Super 14 side Sharks.

2009 British & Irish Lions tour
Smit captained South Africa in their 2–1 series win over the British & Irish Lions.

South Africa Honours as Captain
Rugby World Cup
 * Champions: 2007

Tri Nations
 * Winners: 2004, 2009
 * Runners-up: 2005

title: John Smit


text:
User talk:Scoobdoo

Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. See the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. --GraemeL (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

References for William Dougherty
Do you have any references for the information in the William Dougherty article? I was unable to find any mention of him on the web. Jwillbur 23:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:Scoobdoo