Talk:Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Yeah, that's what Wikipedia really needs... another anarchism-related page for the socialists and capitalists to edit-war over! *Dan* 17:02, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Valid point, but in the end, this was clogging the anarcho-capitalism article. This distinction seems to be made so often, in so many places, that it needs one place where a sane editor can delete the debris of an edit-war and replace it with "(see: Anarchism vs. anarcho-capitalism)" 66.94.94.154 17:52, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

• • • It needs such a rewrite it may as well get deleted. starting with the title and then.. Each paragraph (5) - starts with anarcho-capitalism except 4 which has 'other anarchists' just before. Tis created by and is the jot-pad of anarcho-caps who can't get their un-encyclopedic POV ramblings into other articles. -max rspct 23:13, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

from VfD

On 20 May 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. Despite a clear majority arguing for deletion, the necessary concensus for deletion was not reached and the decision defaulted to "keep" for now. If this article is not substantially improved in a reasonable period of time, it may be appropriate to re-nominate it for deletion.

I will further note that the concensus was against the separation of this content as a separate article. I understand that it was broken out from another article for length reasons. The participants in this discussion found that argument unpersuasive. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anarchism vs. anarcho-capitalism for a record of the discussion. Rossami (talk) 01:06, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying categorically that I'm against incorporating any text from this page in anarcho-capitalism, but I will oppose any attempts to add material to the detriment of that article. One thing a Vote for Deletion is not is a vote on what to put in a different article. - Nat Krause 09:14, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am against shoe-horning this back into anarcho-capitalism, if it is merged anywhere, it probably should be injected into Anarchism and capitalism. Saswann 12:48, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Chomsky quote

The following was deleted from the anarcho-capitalist section of the Anarchism article:

In Noam Chomsky on Anarchism, the ardently anti-capitalist Chomsky writes, "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", although he adds that he finds himself, "in substantial agreement with people who consider themselves anarcho-capitalists on a whole range of issues". ^[1] Simon Tormey, in his book Anti-Capitalism: A Beginner's Guide places no anti-capitalist restriction on being an anarchist: "Pro-capitalist anarchism is, as one might expect, particularly prevalent in the US where it feeds on the strong individualist and libertarian currents that have always been a part of the American political imaginary. To return to the point, however, there are individualist anarchists who are most certainly not anti-capitalist and there are those who may well be."

Tucker

I put a disputed tag on the sentence saying Tucker opposed division between laborer and employer. I demand a source for that. You can't make that kind of a statement without explaining that was he actually opposes is employers not working. RJII 17:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

| On Talk:Anarchism you keep saying Tucker supports employers. Am I missing something?? The direct quote is "wiped out". -- infinity0 17:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't take "wiped out" out of context. He says he wants the distinction between "wage-receiver" and "wage-payer" to be wiped out. In other words, an employer is purchasing the employee's labor just as much as the employee is purchasing the employer's labor. The wages of the employee are coming from the labor of the employer. RJII 17:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

On Talk:Anarchism, I explained why wage-payer == employer. You then replied with something completely irrelevant about "whole labour products". I have been waiting ever since for you to come up with a reason why wage-payer is not the same thing as employer. -- infinity0 17:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course an employer pays wages. What's your point? Tucker wants the employer to continue paying wages, but the money for those wages should come from the employer's labor. RJII 17:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Self-employers aren't called employers. Similarly, "people who hire other people to help them but they also do part of the work themselves" are not called employers. -- infinity0 17:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

LOL! To be an employer doesn't mean you necessarily don't work. To be an employer means you own a means of production and you're letting someone else use that means of production and pay him for it. What Tucker wants is for the employee's wages to come from the labor of the employer. He wants the employer to have to work. I don't know WHERE you're getting that idea a person who owns a business works, then he's not an employer. RJII 17:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

You're not letting him use it. You're ordering him to use it. I get your point though, but since Tucker says the hirers work and get their income from it, I don't think you should use the word "employers". He "supported private MOP" makes this point much clearer. Still, what's your problem? My version said "but was against prohibiting employer-employee relationships altogether." You took that out for some reason, I would have thought you wanted to keep it in to clarify things. -- infinity0 17:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

No, you're not "ordering him to use it." LOL! He's free to borrow cash to purchase his own means of production --and at extremely low interest in an anarchist society. You dont think I should use the word "employers"? What? I have no idea what the rest of your paragraph says. RJII 17:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

No, because Tucker doesn't support employers in the common sense of the word, as they exist today. -- infinity0 18:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

That's not true. And, you have no source to back that up. So, don't make the claim in the article that opposes employers. RJII 18:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't say that. -- infinity0 18:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It says: "Similarly, individualist anarchists also opposed this split between the separate classes of labourers and employers." First of all, "similarly" is very POV of you. Individualist anarchists are not similar to the communists who wrote the Anarchist FAQ. Second, Tucker never says he opposes "a split between the separate classes of labourers and employers." He opposes the idea of some people not working for a living. He wants everyone to have to work to survive. RJII 18:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

RJII, it's not implying that they are similar to the anarchist FAQ writers. It's implying that the opposition to class distinction is similar. How does it imply the former? It directly follows the point that employers and employees are separated. -- infinity0 18:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

And, it says he "was against prohibiting employer-employee relationships altogether." This is extremely misleading. This gives the impression that he had something against employer-employee relationships. He didn't, at all. RJII 18:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, removed this bit, since that's disputed. -- infinity0 18:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV the article

I put an NPOV tag on the article because the whole article comes across as an attack on anarcho-capitalism. The article is not called "Criticism of anarcho-capitalism" but "Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism." The very first sentence of the article says "Many anarchists strongly maintain that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism." RJII 19:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Pfft... You were the main contributor to the article... Do you have any specific complaints? The first sentence is true, and most of this article is just detailing the differences between anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. Only thing they have in common is no government, but not much else in the way of similarities. -- infinity0 19:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The article merely documents the relationship between anarchism and anarcho-capitalism, including the fact that anarchists do not consider anarcho-capitalism to be a form of anarchism. BTW, I have modified the "first sentence" to which you refer, to be more accurate. Perhaps it will suit you better. 216.23.105.10 08:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Spooner and partnerships

I put a disputed tag on the sentence where it is claimed that Spooner supports "cooperatives." He uses the term "partnerships." A "cooperative" in anarchism typically implies a collectivist situation. There was nothing collectivist about Spooner. RJII 21:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Co-operatives exist in today's capitalism too. -- infinity0 21:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

A partnership is joint investment. Co-operatives is joint labour. Spooner wants the latter. -- infinity0 21:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Why won't you allow use of Spooner's term? A direct quote prevents a dispute. It's the most NPOV thing to do. If you think Spooner didnt support join investment, you're wrong. RJII 21:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Joint investment is exactly what he's talking about: "The amount of money, capable of being furnished by this system, is so great that every man, woman, and child, who is worthy of credit, could get it, and do business for himself, or herself --- either singly, or in partnerships." RJII 21:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Because you're linking it to the article on partnerships, which is NOT what Spooner means. In that context he is talking about workers - co-operatives. In a partnership, the people don't necessarily do work. In a cooperative they do. -- infinity0 21:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

So the link is the problem for you. Then use his term "partnership" and link it to "cooperative." I've yet to see a dual proprietorship where the proprietors don't work. RJII 21:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

But then that's confusing for readers. What's wrong with using co-operative anyway? -- infinity0 21:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

RJII, how does "co-operative" imply collectivism? Co-operative is what it's called in normal language. -- infinity0 16:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

RJII reinserting redundant info

RJII, why do you keep adding "written by communists, anti-individualists" every time the FAQ is cited? Why don't you keep adding "a right-wing extremist" every time anarcho-capitalist authors are cited as well? -- infinity0 17:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, why do you keep deleting "social anarchism"? It's not a neologism, it has 28k google hits. "Anarcho-individualism" had about 400 hits yet you kept trying to insert that in. -- infinity0 17:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm just noting that the authors of the FAQ are "social anarchists (communist-anarchists, anarcho-syndicalists and so on)" in their own words. This bias needs to be known. These people "reject individualist anarchism." It's not a credible source in the first place, so it needs to be treated like a primary source --for it to be made clear that it's THEIR opinion and what their STATED BIAS is "to put our cards on the table, the writers of this FAQ place themselves firmly in the "social" strand of anarchism." They at least were honest enough to admit they had a bias. Why won't you allow the article to make their bias known? By the way, congratulations on your vote to become an administrator. RJII 17:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Then why don't you add the labels to all other sources, such as Murray Rothbard or Ralph Raico? -- infinity0 17:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Please be civil, RJII. Infinity0 is correct -- most of your sources are very much biased, as well, and are only primary sources. The difference is that the author of your sources have higher stakes, because they're trying to make a little-known philosophy relevant. --AaronS 17:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Why would Rothbard need to be labeled an anarcho-capitalist? Everybody knows he is. If you want to label these guys' philosophy, go ahead. I couldn't care less. It's pointless though. Everybody knows Rothbard is an anarcho-capitalist and Raico is a professional historian. RJII 17:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Infinity, why are you deleting the fact that the writers of "Anarchist FAQ" "reject individualist anarchism"? Here's a source" Why do social anarchists reject individualist anarchism? RJII 17:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The writers don't say they reject individualist anarchism, which is what you said they said (quote was misleading). Say they are social anarchists, and that they think social anarchists disagree with individualist anarchism. -- infinity0 17:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be put in the notes, though, otherwise it's bloating up the article. Informations on sources are normally put in the notes, anyway. -- infinity0 18:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

RJII, why did you make this edit? It sounds almost spiteful. The whole point of the article is to examine the differences between anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. The FAQ and ind-anarchists agree on THAT RESPECT ONLY. The article doesn't link them two any other way. -- infinity0 18:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Spiteful? Hardly. You are making it look like individualist anarchists arguments are "similar" to anarcho-communist ones. They're not. They're an entirely different mindset. You're really distorting things in this article. RJII 18:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

No, they're not an entirely different mindset. The sentence says what it says - individualist anarchists oppose the split, and anarcho-capitalists do not. It even gives a source. Why do you think it links ind-anarchism to anarcho-communism? -- infinity0 18:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

By using the word "similarly." RJII 18:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed the word similarly. It now says "also" which has less tone. That OK? The article needs SOME flow. -- infinity0 18:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

No. You're retaining the same meaning by using a different word. RJII 18:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

"Unlike a-capitalists, social anarchists oppose the class distinction. Next paragraph. Ind-anarchists also oppose the class distinction, but they don't oppose private MOP."

What's POV about that??? -- infinity0 18:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Why did you make [2] when you know full well that that is POV? -- infinity0 18:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not POV. It's easily sourceable. And you can't find any sources saying that it's not a form of individualist anarchism. RJII 18:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Easily sourceable doesn't mean it's not POV. There is a source you refuse to acknowledge. -- infinity0 18:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not a source. It's being represented as a source by you. But, it's a misrepresentation. RJII 18:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Replied to this point on the a-capitalism talk page. Other points:

"Unlike a-capitalists, social anarchists oppose the class distinction. Next paragraph. Ind-anarchists also oppose the class distinction, but they don't oppose private MOP."

What's POV about that??? -- infinity0 18:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, RJII, it says in the NOTES that the FAQ writers are social anarchists. This is what is normally done. Information about a source is included in the source along with the notes. -- infinity0 19:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It needs to be said in THE TEXT. First of all, it's a not a credible source. We've already established that. We can use it a primary source, for what the writer of the Anarchist FAQ believe. So, it needs to be stated what their POV is. It's needs to be made clear that their views don't necessarily represent anarchists in general. RJII 19:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it's the custom to put source info in the notes where the source actually is. It also needs to be make clear that anarcho-capitalist views don't necessarily represent anarchists in general - why don't you add labels to them in the text too? -- infinity0 19:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The "custom"? Yeah right. Who am I not labeling as anarcho-capitalists that are anarcho-capitalists? RJII 19:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

You're not putting in the text that they are anarcho-capitalists, eg Murray Rothbard, Hoppe, Ralph Raico, etc. I'm serious, it's the custom to put source info in the notes along with the sources. Hence why it's already in the ntoes. -- infinity0 19:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not the "custom." So, you want it noted that Rothbard and Hoppe are anarcho-capitalists? LOL. Where have I not noted this? And Raico, as far as I know, is not an anarcho-capitalist. If you can't find himself or a source saying that he is, put it in. Why should anything be hidden? RJII 19:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It is. In all essays you add the source information in the notes, so it doesn't break up the point of what you're trying to say. -- infinity0 19:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It NEEDS to break up the point of what you're trying to say. The reader needs to know the POV of this FAQ. They're honest and say "to put our cards on the table, the writers of this FAQ place themselves firmly in the "social" strand of anarchism." They thought it was important to make their POV known at the outset. But, you're hiding it. RJII 19:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hiding what? It's clear in the notes, and it's also clear in the actual FAQ. -- infinity0 19:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It needs to be in the text. Also, it needs to be noted how they define "social anarchism": "(communist-anarchists, anarcho-syndicalists and so on)." RJII 19:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Why does it need to be in the text? You need to treat all sources the same. If you put "An Anarchist FAQ is written by social anarchists" in every case it occurs, then you need to do the same for all the anarcho-capitalist and right-wing extremist authors. -- infinity0 20:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't need to do anything. If you feel it's important to state that Murray Rothbard is an anarcho-capitalist, you're free to do so. RJII 20:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel it's important to add anything. But if you decide to add "social anarchists" to the main text, you must add the others too. Otherwise, it's POV. -- infinity0 20:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about?? It is noted: "...most noted anarcho-capitalist, Murray Rothbard" RJII 20:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The others ARE noted. You're the one that's singling out the Anarchist FAQ by deleting any mention of their POV in the text. RJII 20:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Their POV? You're not mentioning that Murray Rothbard is against social anarchism, so there is no need to mention that the social anarchists are opposed to individualist anarchism. -- infinity0 20:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

You're grasping for straws now. RJII 20:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems like you were in the first place. I'm just pointing out that you have double standards. -- infinity0 20:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a double standard. You do. Do you see me censoring attempts to note in the text that Rothbard is an anarcho-capitalist? RJII 21:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see you explicitly stating that Rothbard disagrees with social anarchists. -- infinity0 22:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Give me a quote saying he opposes "social anarchists" and I'll put it in. No problem. RJII 00:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

It's clear to everyone that Murray Rothbard is against social anarchists. Why is a quote necessary? -- infinity0 16:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly my point. On the other hand, it's not clear that "Anarchist FAQ" is opposed to individualist anarchism, so it needs to be made clear. RJII 17:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The authors don't say they oppose individualist anarchism. I meant "no quote is necessary to add to the article that Rothbard is against social anarchists", and by "everyone" I mean "all the editors". But normal readers don't know it, so it should be added. -- infinity0 17:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The FAQ says very clearly: "To put our cards on the table, the writers of this FAQ place themselves firmly in the "social" strand of anarchism." And, [3] "However, while social anarchists disagree with the proposals of individualist anarchists, we do still consider them to be a form of anarchism -- one with many flaws and one perhaps more suited to an earlier age when capitalism was less developed and its impact upon society far less than it is now" under the title Why do social anarchists reject individualist anarchism? RJII 17:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

They reject it, but don't outright oppose it - "we do still consider them to be a form of anarchism". However, Murray Rothbard opposes all left-forms of anarchism. -- infinity0 17:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

"Reject," oppose, whatever. The point is that the bias needs to be made clear. It's not an "anarchist faq" --it's a faq about the views of "social anarchists." If you want to note that Rothbard opposes all left anarchim, go ahead. I'm not stopping you. You're the one trying to prevent relevant information from being noted. RJII 18:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

They are social anarchists. On what basis are you judging your perceivement of their bias against individualist anarchism to be significant enough to mention in the main text? Also "I'm stopping you" is the wrong attitude. It's your duty as a wikipedian editor to maintain WP:NPOV yourself, espeically when there aren't any other editors to stop and correct you. -- infinity0 18:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

This conversation is over. You may not understand why, but I'm sure most people do. And, it's not worth it to me to take too much effort to illuminate you. RJII 18:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add that the FAQ is reflecting the majority of anarchist opinion. Most anarchists are social anarchists and, consequently, reject individualist anarchism as a solution to the social question. If they did not, then they would be individualist anarchists! Similarly, individualist anarchists think the same about social anarchists. At its most extreme, we get Tucker denying that communist-anarchists were anarchists. So RJII's objection seems to be that an anarchist FAQ reflects the opinions of most anarchists! Which is, surely, the point of an FAQ? User:BlackFlag 11:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Split

Ind-anarchists are opposed to class distinction. Tucker quotes and Spooner quotes. -- infinity0 20:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

In what sense? RJII 20:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The split between employers and employees, meaning that one class lives purely off employing others and one class lives purely off being employed. -- infinity0 20:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

That's not a "split between employers and employees." There is no necessity that an employer does not make his income through labor. RJII 20:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

In a "split between employers and employees," that is the case. Hence why it is called a split. -- infinity0 20:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

A "split" is your own words. Tucker never says that. RJII 20:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

"Distinction" then. They mean the same thing. -- infinity0 20:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Individualist anarchists do not oppose a disitinction between employees and employers. RJII 20:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes they do. They dislike the fact that there is one class of people who make money entirely off employing others, and another class that make money entirely off being employed. -- infinity0 22:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

That's not the same thing as saying they oppose a distinction between employees and employers. What they oppose is employers earning money without working. Benjamin Tucker, for example, has no problem with employer/employee situations. What he wants is for the employer to have to pay the employee wages high enough to compensate him for the value of his labor (which Tucker thinks accords with the labor theory of value). RJII 00:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

That is what a "distinction" means. You can clearly divide up (distinguish between) people who employ and people who are employed. -- infinity0 16:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The distinction between people who employ and people who are employed is that and employer owns a means of production and the employed doesn't. The employed operates someone'e else's means of production and gets paid for it. Benjamin Tucker does not say he wants to eliminate that. He says he wants the employer to not be able to sit back and pay someone to operate his means of production, but wants the employer to operate it as well --to work for his income. He's still an employer --but he's working for a living just as his employee his working for a living. RJII 17:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Tucker says he wants to eliminate the fact that there is a clear distinction, or split, between people who are employed (who "operates someone'e else's means of production and gets paid for it" in your words) and the employers, who make money from lending out their own MOP. The distinction, or split, is that one class of people are employers and not employees, and one class are employees and not employers. -- infinity0 17:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

No he doesn'st say that "he wants to eliminate the fact that there is a clear distinction, or split, between people who are employed (who "operates someone'e else's means of production and gets paid for it" in your words) and the employers." You're making that up. The distinction is not that some are employees and some are employers, but that some don't work for a living and others do work for a living. There is no necessity that to be an employer you have to be idle. RJII 18:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course, there is no necessity according to the generalised definition. But a split/distinction specifically means that there is that necessity. That is WHY it's called a split/distinction - because you can clearly say "That guy is an employer" or "That guy is an employee". -- infinity0 18:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

This conversation is over. Read and understand the material first, then get back to me. RJII 18:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Large scale edits and deletions

Why do you mention that social anarchists disagree with individual anarchists, yet do not mention Murray Rothbard disagrees with social anarchists, and even individualist anarchists? Why did you delete two whole paragraphs of social anarchists disagreement with a-capitalism? -- infinity0 19:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks almost like a complete reversion to two days ago... [4]. -- infinity0 19:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. It is a complete reversion to two days ago. [5]. -- infinity0 19:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

RJII, why did you delete that paragraph? It is being used as a primary source. On what basis are you judging it to be a "bad source"? -- infinity0 20:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I just extensively edited the article to render it more neutral and to make the flow of argumentation more natural. I know it's a disputed page, but I think all the changes are well-justified. One thing stood out like a sore thumb, though: There are lots of quotes from anarcho-capitalists to explain their positions, but few from regular anarchists to explain theirs. The quotes either (1) should go away or (2) should be balanced in a tit-for-tat. I'm not familiar enough with the important works to find appropriate quotes myself, so that unsatisfactory situation is untouched for now. -GRB

Well I feel like an idiot. Both sides wrecked the efforts within a few hours. Looks like the regular anarchists deleted and falsified the information I added while the ancaps loaded the article down with POV statements. Maybe I'll try again in a month. -GRB

Looks pretty good. But, the Auberon Herbert thing needs to be clarified. He's defining government as non-taxed private defense, just as Tucker supports private defense, and anarcho-capitalists. RJII 16:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, it was good, until infinity showed up and wrecked it. RJII 17:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Infinity is deleting subject headings. He deleted "Individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism" header. Headers like this break up the text and make more readable and organized. I'm not even going to ask him why he did this. I'm certain his answer will be nonsensical. RJII 17:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

No point having that section; there is enough contrast between social anarchism and a-capitalism too. Also, please stop with the sarky comments. -- infinity0 17:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

What did I tell you? RJII 17:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

So I put up a tag requesting sections. What does he do? He deletes the tag and puts this in his edit summary: "I disagree; if you want sections, add them in yourself, but that is certainly not the consensus." Go figure. Infinity is the only one that doesn't want headings to split up the text. GRB put the heading in that he deleted. Both GRB and I support it. RJII 18:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, make your own sections and I'll have a look. But having that tag there suggests to readers that all the editors definitely want it. -- infinity0 18:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Infinity placed an NPOV tag over the paragraph discussion individualist anarchism and private defense without explaining why on the Talk page. RJII 18:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd like another opinion on it. I haven't looked at it in detail yet. I tried using npov-check but it came up red. -- infinity0 18:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

So, he puts up an NPOV tag without looking at it in detail. That's irresponsible editing. RJII 18:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I tried using npov-check but it came up red. -- infinity0 19:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

RJII removing point

Why did you remove the point that individualist anarchists also oppose class distinction? -- infinity0 19:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Section

The contents of the section is not divided up into "social" and "individual" anarchism, nor should it be. It's about different forms of anarchism in general, and should deal with it issue-by-issue, not school-by-school. -- infinity0 19:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The section needs to be broken up with headings. I don't understand why "infinity" wants everything conflated and confusing. RJII 19:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I just did. My argument right there says it should be broken into issues, not schools of anarchism. -- infinity0 19:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Infinity is confusing things by trying to lump all forms of anarchism as one. Individualist anarchism and communist anarchism cannot be conflated. The article is more POV now, as is the section. RJII 19:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not conflating individualist anarchism and communist anarchism. The article doesn't even mention anarchist communism. -- infinity0 19:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

RJII disruptive editing

What is your source for stating individual anarchists are not against hierarchy? -- infinity0 19:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Why did you add the pov comment "communist anarchists oppose this"? -- infinity0 19:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

What is your source for saying individualist anarchists are "strongly opposed" to social anarchists? -- infinity0 19:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

RJII, what is the point of this edit? You know full well that it is POV - stop provoking reverts. -- infinity0 19:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Source: [6] RJII 19:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

And what claim is that sourcing? -- infinity0 19:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Why do you keep referring to them as communist anarchists? -- infinity0 19:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Why did you make this edit?? You know full well that most anarchists do not recognise anarco-capitalism as a form of anarchism - all social anarchists (majority of anarchists) and many individualist anarchists. -- infinity0 19:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Find me one individualist anarchist that says anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. This claim is all coming from the "social anarchists." This needs to be made clear. Don't clump all anarchists into the same line of thought. Individualists oppose "social anarchists" much more than they oppose anarcho-capitalists. RJII 19:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[7] - "most people who explicitly identify themselves as individualist anarchists consider themselves class war anarchists, or anti-capitalists." -- infinity0 19:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

That's written from an individualist anarchist perspective. They define capitalism as state-backed privilege for monopoly. Anarcho-capitalists also oppose capitalism. Opposing capitalism and opposing anarcho-capitalism are not necessarily the same thing. RJII 19:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You're making excuses. "Written from ind-anarchist perspective" is exactly what you were looking for. -- infinity0 19:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

"Anarcho-capitalists also oppose capitalism." It's time like this I wonder if "anarcho"-capitalists ever wonder if life would be easier for them (and us all) if they had picked a better name? Yes, opposing "actually existing" capitalism and fictional, pure, wonderfully nice capitalism (which has never existed) is not the same thing. But the former is usually justified in terms of the latter and "fictional" capitalism is expected to share many of the same features of "real" capitalism (wage labour, interest, rent, profit, hierarchy, etc.). BlackFlag 15:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

RJII, you removed "Historically, anarchism has always been opposed to capitalism". Where is there a 19th century anarchist that did not oppose capitalism?? -- infinity0 19:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

There are other anarchists who did not oppose capitalism. Auberon Herbert, Molinari, Faucher, etc. And, don't forget Murray Rothbard. RJII 19:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Herbert and Molinari were not anarchists and refused to call themselves anarchists. Murray Rothbard is not a "historic anarchist". -- infinity0 19:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources acknolweding that they were anarchists. You don't have to call yourself an anarchist to be an anarchist. Everybody realizes Max Stirner was an anarchist though he never called himself one. And, of course Rothbard is an historic anarchist. He's dead. 19:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

There are also plenty of sources disputing those claims. So, you can't say "they were anarchists" seriously. All the historic figures who everyone acknowledges is anarchist opposed capitalism. -- infinity0 19:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh really? Find me one. RJII 20:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

RJII's editing is a joke. He removed Herbert's own note that he supported majority government. I wasn't aware that "anarcho"-capitalists were in favour of democracy. So, please, let Herbert's own opinions count for something! As for "plenty" of sources, sure, plenty of "anarcho"-capitalist sources call them anarchists. Kropotkin did not, he dismissed the individualists as simply defending capitalist and landlord domination. Tucker labelled Spencer a Champion of the Capitalistic class. BlackFlag 08:48, 14 March 2006

They themselves, for instance. Herbert and Molinari hated anarchism and refused to call themselves anarchist even though anarchism existed in their day. It is only anarcho-capitalists that are putting this label on them. -- infinity0 20:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

In spite of the evidence and the stated opinions of Herbert and Molinari! It is amazing that RJII removes Hebert's own statement of his ideas and puts in his own. That is considered objective editing? I recommend it goes back to the way it was. BlackFlag 08:48, 14 March 2006

Why do you keep referring to "social anarchists" as "communist anarchists"?? -- infinity0 19:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Communist anarchist is not correct terminology FionMacCumhail 13:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Cary Levy source being used wrongly by infinity

Infinity took the Carl Levy source that I put in, and changed it to say "They ["anarcho-capitalists"] also argue that anarcho-capitalism is a rebirth of the tradition of individualist anarchism that was popular in America in the late 19th and early 20th century" [8] Carl Levy is not an anarcho-capitalist. This needs to be fixed. Unforunately I can't fix it, because once again, infinity has got me banned from editing this article by complaining about my edits, even though they are sourced. Unfortunatly adminstrators don't have to the time to verify the complaint. RJII 01:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

What is he then? -- infinity0 12:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Proudhon and "possession"

In the Theory of Property, which is the last development of Proudhon's thoughts on the matter, he maintains both parts of the contradiction ("possession" and "property") that he created in the System of Economic Contradictions. Check p. 142-3 of Edward's Selected Writings of P.-J. Proudhon for a passage where he talks about the virtuous property owner who is noble precisely because he would uphold the notion of "possession." Libertatia 20:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

RJII, the passage that Edwards includes certainly does not seem to support your, or his, contention. Given a choice between what the editor says and what Proudhon says, I would choose the latter. Libertatia 01:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be correct to me. What do you have that contradicts that? RJII 02:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The passage cited above (p. 142-3), and the entire trajectory of Proudhon's work which, from the attempt to find a liberty in a "third form" in 1840, through the "economic contradictions" of 1846, and on into the sections from 1863-64 quoted in the Selected Wringings, emphasizes the harmonizing of contraries. The most serious problem with your position is that there are other passages, where he seems to insist on the permanent need to deal with the state, that could indicate not just increased "conservatism," but an abandonment of anarchism. Libertatia 17:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I think Proudhon recognizes that a State is going to exist regardless, due to human nature. He says: "By the word [anarchy] I wanted to indicate the extreme limit of political progress...The institutions of the police, preventative and repressive methods officialdom, taxation etc., are reduced to a minimum..." I think he wants to approximate anarchy as closely as human nature allows possible. RJII 17:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The passage above also shows that he wants to approximate possession as much as possible. But what sets mutualists like Proudhon and Greene apart from any other anarchists is that they individually rejected all the systems currently available to them, instead embracing them in harmony or in tension. If you want to pick and choose among the things Proudhon accepts or rejects, you'll simply miss his method, which involves the "economic contradictions." At that point, BlackFlag's analysis is the most coherent one: in acknowledging the inevitability of both property and state, Proudhon is no longer an anarchist. I disagree, but I have to acknowledge that he's a very complicated sort of anarchist. Libertatia 17:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think he has always been about trying to save face. I don't think he had a coherent philosophy on property and he knew it. RJII 17:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

That's hilarious. Even with just the excerpts presented in the Selected Writings, it's not at all hard to follow Proudhon's development. If you've bothered to read What Is Property? and the translated volume of System of Economic Contradictions, his general trajectory is clear. But here's the basics: In 1840, Proudhon argues that "property" in the common sense rests on a set of philosophical incoherencies, and is thus "impossible," or, by its own terms, is "theft." He posits "possession" as an alternative, acknowledging that Pierre Leroux had made a similar move, but had distinguished between two very different forms of "property." Proudhon objects to possible confusions, and, at that point, decides to abandon the old word. By 1846, he has thought about it some more, and begun to change his mind. The System is a transitional work, so it's a little less coherent, but he commented on it often enough in later work to clarify things. He's become attached to the notion that Justice, his most important principle, is a matter of synthesis. He asserts that "property is liberty" as an antithesis to his earlier statement, and attempts to harmonize the two. He acknowledges later that he didn't do a very good job until he tried again in the section on "Goods" in Justice in the Revolution and the Church. It took him some time to 1) work through his criticism of property to an understanding of its aims, with a view to eliminating its evils, and 2) decide that the terms of the dialectic never simply resolved into a sythesis. Theory of Property then lays out not only the complete theory by which property, made moral, provides the justice aimed at by the system of possession, but it traces the development of Proudhon's thought, so you can see how he got there. Libertatia 20:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I've replaced the quote from the introduction by one from Proudhon's last work. As can be seen, he continued to oppose ownership in land. Now, that is from the book RJII quotes from. Makes you wonder how he managed not to notice that. It is a shame that RJII decides to ignore Proudhon's own opinion when it comes to his ideas. Or that of the editor who notes on the same page that RJII quotes that Proudhon was in favour of "limotation" on the size of land being owned/used to "small farm, one just large enough to support a peasant family." hardly much of a move away from possession to property... makes you wonder how reliable any of RJII's changes are, to be honest. BlackFlag 22:12, 28 March 2006

Don't accusing me of bad faith. I have absolutely no vested interest one way or the other in what Proudhon's position is. What does it matter to me? I know that he was wasn't for ownership in vast expanses of land but in favor of smaller-scale land ownership, but that still makes him in favor of land ownership. He also supported a right of inheritance in land. How can you say he "continued to oppose ownership in land" and at the same time say he supported ownership of land "just large enough to support a peasant family"? Either way, that's still ownership in land. I provided a quote from a scholar that he switched from possession to property. Don't come down on me for it --come down on him if you don't agree. By the way, are you sure you know the difference between "possession" and "property"? RJII 21:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the scholar's quote was about Proudhon's "preference," which is a little different than saying he "switched" or abandoned the relation of possession. That's why it's necessary to read the actual texts carefully, and go to Babelfish and the French text occasionally. Libertatia 21:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

RJII quote's a book in which Proudhon himself states clearly that he is against property in land to maintain that he was, in fact, in favour of it. And he ignores the key issue of size which the editor makes. That is seriously distorting both proudhon and the editor. And he still claims that Proudhon was in favour of land ownership, even though I've provided a direct quote in which he states the opposite! Crazy. And RJII expects us to believe he has "no vested interest" in claiming that Proudhon supported land ownership? Please! It is just a coincidence that his change supported the "anarcho"-capitalist position? As for coming down on the editor, well the editor did not come here and selectively quote himself, did he? At least he provided Proudhon's own words on the subject. BlackFlag 22:34, 28 March 2006

Come off it. I'm well aware that Proudhon was anti-capitalist. I wouldn't ever try to state otherwise. Why would I try to make him out to be an anarcho-capitalist anyway? Have I ever claimed to be an anarcho-capitalist? My interest in anarchism has always been in individualism in general --with a focus on early American individualist anarchism. RJII 00:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

With that said, I'll trust Stewart Edward's inteprtation of the text over yours. RJII 01:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

This should be fun. How do you think Edward would intreprete Proudhon's comments on his opposition to owning land? Would he say that Proudhon was, in fact mistaken and did not really mean what he wrote? Which is why he included it in his book? And how does Edward's intepretation conflict with my one, once the relevant context is provided of Edward's? Edward was clear that Proudhon was referring to property used by a peasant family, i.e. land which was occupied and used. Even Edward does not support *your* interpretation of his argument. As you must surely be aware if you read the page in question. BlackFlag 13:59, 29 March 2006

Well, I think he would say that even Proudhon thought there was no natural right to have property in land that he still advocated it as protection against the state. RJII 16:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

In other words, Proudhon believes that property is still theft, but we have to make do. This isn't much of an endorsement. And it doesn't seem to be the position you've been pursuing in your edits. Libertatia 19:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

"Theft" whatever. If something is theft then it had to have been someone's property in the first place in order for it to be theft. As assertion of theft is an assertion of property. But, even if he thinks it's theft he still supports it as a defense against the State. In other words, he's tossing out natural law deontology and choosing consequentialism. Very pragmatic of him. RJII 06:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

There's no need for "other words," since Proudhon is remarkably clear in What Is Property? Of course "theft" assumes property; that's the rhetorical strategy. He then supplements that with the much longer and more important analysis of property as "impossible." And there's more than just a pragmatics at work. Unfortunately, there isn't much from De la création de l'ordre dans l'humanité in the Selected Writings, but even what we do get shows the importance of the dialectic and various metaphysical speculations to Proudhon's political philosophy. Libertatia 19:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

If Proudhon is advocating property as a defense against the state then, obviously, the state still exists. He is not discussing an anarchist society. Moreover, he did not advocate "property" in the usual sense, he advocated "property" spread equally through society, limited to (e.g.) the amount of land an peasant family could work. RJII ignores that little fact. Proudhon's argument about "property" being "theft" is that the land is the common property of all and anyone who takes more than they use personally steals it from the rest. Rent, as such, is also theft. Similarly, the capitalist steals the rightful property of the worker by making profits from their labour. He argued that workers should manage their own work and own the product of their labour ("capital" would be owned by those who use it, i.e. society as any new worker would automatically become an associate and have the same rights as existing ones). His later arguments do not contradict this. It is a shame I have to explain the basics of Proudhon's argument as RJII really does not understand Proudhon or seems like he wants to. User:BlackFlag 08:50 30, March 2006 (UTC)

Of course the state still exists. Proudhon didn't think human nature was going to change overnight. He recognized that there would probably always be a state. "By the word [anarchy] I wanted to indicate the extreme limit of political progress...The institutions of the police, preventative and repressive methods officialdom, taxation etc., are reduced to a minimum." The best one can hope for is to minimize the ability of the State to encroach on individual liberty. One of the ways to do this by having "private property": "principal function of private property within the political system will be to act as a counterweight to the power of the State, and by so doing to insure the liberty of the individual." And, if you think he thought "land is the common property of all" then you don't know the first thing about Proudhon. He opposes the idea of collective ownership of land and any other communist notions. RJII 08:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest you read "What is Property?" particularly Chapter III, part 1 ("The land cannot be appropriated"). Or how about these quotes from said work? "Every occupant is, then, necessarily a possessor or usufructuary, a condition that excludes proprietorship." The "right of the usufructuary is such that he is responsible for the thing entrusted to him; he must use it in conformity with general utility . . . the usufructuary is under the supervision of society and subject to the condition of labour and the law of equality." [page 66] This is because Proudhon believed that "property in produce, even if this is allowed, does not mean property in the means of production. . . [workers] are, if you like, proprietors of their products, but none proprietor of the means of production. The right to the produce is exclusively jus in re; the right to the means is common, jus ad rem." [page 86] So the land would obviously be owned in "common" and used by individuals based on possession/use. I can provide numerous other quotes on this matter, but I suppose RJII will (as usual) ignore them. User:BlackFlag 09:16 30, March 2006 (UTC)

No he does not want the land to be owned in common. It's too communist and he detests communism. "Now in 1840 I categorically rejected the notion of the right of propery. Those who have read my first Memoir know that I rejected it for both the group and the individual, the nation and the citizen, and thus I was not advocating communism or State ownership." RJII 08:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Who said he was advocating communism or state ownership? Not I. And he rejected the idea that the group would be a property owner because he was against property! Proudhon argued that the "right to the produce is exclusively jus in re; the right to the means is common." I wonder what he could have meant by that? Oh, that *is* a difficult one... Could it mean that the land was held in common and people could use it as they wanted? Subject, of course, to the "supervision of society" (I wonder what that could mean?). For Proudhon, "the land is indispensable to our existence, -- consequently a common thing, consequently insusceptible of appropriation." ("What is property", chapter 3). I wonder what he could have meant by that? "the land is . . . a common thing"? Difficult. Perhaps RJII could explain what this "really" means, as he is obviously such an expert on Proudhon. I'm sorry, but this is a waste of my time. RJII really has no idea what Proudhon's ideas were or even what anarchism is. User:BlackFlag 14:43 30, March 2006 (UTC)

Warren and land

Why was Josiah Warren deleted, who I noted as another one that doesn't have the occupancy and use restriction for land? RJII 17:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps because Warren was the guy who refused to profit from absentee control of real estate, when he closed up the Cincinnati Time Store and simply abandoned lease rights to the land. Libertatia 20:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

He bought and sold unused land "at cost" and had no requirement for occupancy and use. RJII 20:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Cite it, and we can go from there. The account of the end of the Time Store is in Bailie's First American Anarchist, which is now online. Libertatia 20:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

"this, the prime cost of land, the taxes, and other contingent expenses of surveying, etc., added to the labor of making contracts, would constitute the equitable price of land purchased for sale." And, "Rents of land, buildings, etc., especially in cities, are based chiefly on their value to the occupants, and this depends on the degree of want or distress felt by the landless and houseless; the greater the distress, the higher the value and the price. The equitable rent of either would be the wear, insurance, etc., and the labor of making contracts and receiving the rents, all of which are different items of COST." -Equitable Commerce, Josiah Warren RJII 01:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I really wish RJII would spend some time actually reading the people he quotes. If you look at "Equitable Commerce," Warren discusses what he considers to be valid rent -- namely the repaying of the cost to produce something and repay wear and tear. "The owner of machinery would receive nothing from the mere ownership of it . . . Rents of houses, lands, etc., being limited and determined by the same principle." So rent of a house would be the cost of maintaining it (so hardly rent at all). He even states that land "should be accessible to all without price," and any cost would be "the labour of buying and selling it." In other words, no rent as is understood today even for already occupied land. In other words, RJII is (yet again) wrong. I do wish he would find out about the ideas of the people he decides to quote, it would save me so much time! User:BlackFlag 13:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

You need to try reading what I'm responding to. I'm not trying to prove anything about rent. I was just showing that Warren didn't have advocate occupancy and use restrictions for land. Why are you reiterating what the quote says? It's as plain as day that he doens't like the idea of charging more rent than necessary to cover cost. I didn't claim otherwise. RJII 16:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

What do you think that land "should be accessible to all without price" means? You say that this is not about rent, but surely rent is paying for land you use but do not own. If there is no rent for the use of land then it is an "occupancy and use" regime. If buying the land someone uses is based solely on the labour cost of the transaction then, clearly, the land itself is *not* owned and not being bought. As for not charging more than to cover cost, he is arguing that you do no pay for the *use* of something like a house (which cost labour to build). I will agree that Warren did not use the term "occupancy and use" (neither did Proudhon, etc.) but in practice that is what he advocated (or something so close it is difficult to determine a real difference). User:BlackFlag 08:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

That's some crazy stretches and manipulations you're making there. Warren had no occupancy and use restrictions for owning land. He saw nothing at all wrong with buying land, keeping it for oneself, or selling it to someone else. What he had a problem with is profiting from selling the land. He even set up anarchists colonies like this (such as Utopia (anarchist community) and Modern Times. He would by large expanses of land then sell lots to people. The people couldn't just come in and move in for free on to unoccupied land. They had to buy a lot (under the agreement that they would sell it at cost when they sold it). RJII 07:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You *really* do not understand what you are talking about. Yes, Warren bought land (he had too, he was not living in an anarchist society!). He then had to (according to his own principles) recoup his cost and so sold lots to this land based on the price he had to pay to do so! The reason why people could not move in for free was because he had paid for the land (as you note!) as he was living under a state which enforced private property in land! How things would work in a free society is somewhat different, surely? So, please, think about what you are writing. User:BlackFlag 09:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow. You truly don't know much at all about Warren. Even for an anarchist society he supports buying and selling of land. Read Equitable Commerce. "Referring to the land question, Warren doubted the need for the assault upon legal land titles. He continued to stand by the earlier position that land speculation would cease if all land were sold at the price paid by the original buyer in all subsequent transactions involving the same piece of land." -Men Against the State, James J. Martin. RJII 08:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

And this contradicts my comment, how, exactly? BlackFlag 12:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

What's clear is that, in practice, Warren seems to have followed the principle of occupancy and use. He didn't claim any further control over the property on which the Time Store had operated, although he lawfully could have, even if only to transfer "ownership" on the cost principle. Given that, including Warren among those who didn't follow the principle of occupancy and use isn't quite right, no matter his theoretical thoughts on rent. There probably isn't a simple, useful yes-or-no answer to this one. Libertatia 19:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

In practice he bought and sold land when he was creating anarchist colonies. He got investors, purchased land, then sold lots to potential residents. Besides, what one does in practice is not that relevant in order to relay a person's philosophy. For example, Tucker opposed "usury" but he lived off of an interest-earning annuity as a result of an inheritance he received. Nowhere in Warren's philosophy can you find him placing a condition on occupancy and use for land. He had no such restriction. The same for Stephen Pearl Andrews. The occupancy and use idea didn't come until Tucker --I'm sure with some influence from Proudon. RJII 19:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

"Nowhere in his philosophy"? You're not trying to tell me you've read all of Warren's writings, are you? I'm quite certain you haven't skimmed the surface of Andrew's theoretical writings. Assuming you've been lucky enough to get your hands on them, they're pretty damned hard to wade through. I haven't read all of Warren or Andrews either, and I've been fortunate enough to get my hands on some very rare pieces. Why the bluster? If you really have no agenda except an interest in the individualists, then there's no reason to get defensive when other interested researchers disagree with you. But you're constantly tossing off these rash statements - no "occupancy and use until Tucker," for example - that obviously aren't supported by the depth of research you would need to seriously assert them. As for practice having nothing to do with theory, that's simply a POV. Libertatia 19:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

You're calling *me* defensive here? I'm as calm as I can be. You seem to be the one getting uptight here. If you want an explicit secondary source that Warren did not have occupancy and use restrictions for land, I'll give you one. Give me a few minutes. I know that Martin points that out. I'll have to find it in the book. My assistant is looking for it now... RJII 19:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

A quote from Martin would be good. Checking Martin's footnotes is always better. (He had his own, frequently explicit agenda.) Not claiming to know Warren when you've only read Martin is best. Bring it on. Libertatia 20:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I've read a lot of Warren. You can't find Warren advocating occupancy and use restrictions on land simply because he never mentions it one way or other. Obviously, the idea didn't cross his mind. Martin points out that Warren didn't have the occupancy and use restriction. That's being looked up now. When it's found are you going to argue against it? I'm not sure, but I think you're kind of new to Wikipedia, so I hope you realize that it's improper to take information out of an article if it's backed by a credible source. We're not supposed to be conducting "original research." If I or you disagree with what a source says --oh well. The best we can do is find a source that contradicts that. RJII 20:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

If the primary sources do not support the claims in the secondary sources, then the "credible" nature of the secondary source is up in the air. Having checked Martin's footnotes very carefully against the primary sources, I've got a pretty clear sense of in what regardsMen Against the State is credible. The fact that Warren does not specifically address the question of occupancy and use in Equitable Commerce might be telling, except for the practical details of his history (and to treat Warren as anything other than a practical reformer seems to miss the entire spirit of his career.) But we happen to know that: "During Warren's first residence in Cincinnati, he obtained a lease for ninety-nine years from Mr. Nicholas Longworth, the well-known real estate owner, of a property extending from Elm to John Streets and from Fifth to Ninth Streets, giving him eight blocks of the best building land in Cincinnati. Upon this estate he built a few brick houses, in one of which he lived for several years. It was here at the corner of Fifth and Elm Streets, that he set up his first Equity store. After the store was terminated, the intensity of Warren's convictions deepened in regard to holding land for speculative purposes. Believing as he did that the only legitimate title to property is labor, that wealth acquired by the rise of land values, due not to any action of the individual owner but to social causes beyond his control, is opposed to the principle of Equity, he felt that he could no longer retain his title to an estate whose value would continue to augment without any effort on the part of the possessor. He therefore went to Mr. Longworth and returned unconditionally the lease he held, thus voluntarily depriving himself of property rights which, had he chosen to retain them, would, before many years elapsed, have made him a wealthy man." (Bailie, The First American Anarchist pp.16-17).

Right. He thought profit was exploitative. RJII 21:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

From this account, it looks like he didn't even take "cost." That's looks an awful lot like "occupancy and use." Libertatia 21:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

If he does not mention it, the wording should reflect that. "Some, such as Warren, neglected the issue altogether" rather than "Warren did not put restriction upon land ownership". -- infinity0 20:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

He actually supported land titles against opposition from other individualists. As Martin points out, "Referring to the land question, Warren doubted the need for the assault upon legal land titles. He continued to stand by the earlier position that land speculation would cease if all land were sold at the price paid by the original buyer in all subsequent transactions involving the same piece of land." RJII 20:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

In Equitable Commerce there is a long and rather remarkable assault on all laws, which raises some questions about Martin's reading. If he really held the view "against opposition from other individualists" then that ought to be somewhere in a primary source. Where is the primary source? What does Martin cite? Libertatia 19:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

And his explanation for that argument is...? -- infinity0 20:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

"this, the prime cost of land, the taxes, and other contingent expenses of surveying, etc., added to the labor of making contracts, would constitute the equitable price of land purchased for sale." - this means nothing without a context. What "prime cost of land" is he talking about? -- infinity0 20:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)