User talk:Kevehs/Archive Mar 04 - July 05

Hello, Kev, this is Toby from Talk:Anarchism. Since you're not User:Kev, it'd be nice if you either signed your talk page entries as "Kevehs" or (even better) as "Kev" (with a link to your user page). This would be especially helpful for people reading the page for the first time. You can set up the latter (with the link) this way:

1. Go to Preferences and set your nickname to "Kev".
2. Sign your comments as "~~~" to produce "Kev".
3. Sign as "~~~~" to produce a signature and a time stamp.

You don't need to go back and change all past signatures, of course; but this could be very helpful for the future! -- Toby Bartels 20:40, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC) (produced with "~~~~" ^_^)

Thanks! ^_^ -- Toby Bartels 01:20, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Talk page

Guidelines for how to utilize a talk page can be found here. Please don't chop up my text. Sam Spade 02:50, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'd be happy if you used a bit more wikiquette when using talk pages. It isn't nice to assume bad faith, nor helpful to behave in a generally contentious manner. Sam Spade 04:49, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I didn't assume bad faith on your part Sam/Jack. I gave you more than 2 months to demonstrate your bad faith before I finally threw in the towel. Kev 06:12, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

In need of community support

Kev,

I saw your recent comments on Talk:Anarcho-capitalism. They might as well be describing my own experiences, even though I haven't even been editing the Anarcho-capitalism page.

Like you, I am on the verge of being driven away from Wikipedia through the relentless efforts of the same problem user who also wants to drive you away from Wikipedia and censor your work on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/172, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration, and Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/172 vs VeryVerily.

The same user who refuses to accept the results of the Augusto Pinochet poll (see also [1]) goes through my user history every time he logs on and then starts reverting things that I've written arbitrary. He manages to divert attention away from the articles onto ad hominem attacks, thus poisoning the well against me. [2]

He has been doing nothing else for the past couple of months, other than making some minor changes to pages that he finds through the random page feature. Meanwhile, I've been working on articles such as Empire of Brazil, Dollar Diplomacy, and Franco-U.S. relations. I'm tired of letting a problem user define my contributions to the encyclopedia, as opposed to my work.

I may have said some regrettable things in the past, but my editing practices are scholarly and methodical. When I make an edit, my choice is based on a consideration of the quality of the encyclopedia. Unlike the user who avowedly admits to trying to escalate a personal feud (see, e.g., [3]), I do not decide which pages to edit and what changes to make on the basis of personality feuds, emotional POV whims, or a desire to get attention.

Although this user shows little evidence that he understands the content of the articles, I have shown considerable restraint, given my professional expertise. [4]. Only through community support (i.e. lobbying the arbitration committee)will this user be stopped. Otherwise, Wikipedia will die unless we stop vandals and clueless POV-pushers from running rampant and driving away valued contributors.

Please feel free to direct questions and comments to my talk page or e-mail at sokolov47@yahoo.com.

Sincerely,

172 02:02, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

theoretical intentions

' they are intending to seek an ACTUALLY desirable stateless society. If they their intention was to seek an undesirable statelss society, then why the hell would they desire it? '

These are good questions, believe it or not. They underline your POV here, and the difficulty it causes you in thinking outside the box. Firstly you assume that a stateless society could ever be desireable. Secondly you bypass completely the glaring possibility that Anarchists have something entirely other in mind than a long term state of anarchy. Perhaps they have something similar in mind to how I would respond to anarchy? Something similar to how people have always responded to anarchy? The rapid aquisition of power, the manipulation of chaos, and the installation of totalitarianism? Anarchy leads to warlordism which leads to totalitarianism. There is no contridicting evidence, and we have all of history to examine. But when we put the box of POV onto our heads, sometimes it is possible to be blind no matter how bright the light may shine. Sam [Spade] 14:58, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ok, two important points: a) I am real, suggesting I am trolling is even worse yet than suggesting anarchists might have some sensible ulterior motive in their pursuit of chaos (yes, anarchy is a synonym for chaos, look it up) b) I may or may not be a statist. I am definitely hierarchical. From what I read of anarcho-capitalism, I am one. I reserve the right to defend myself, my values, and my property and will not hesitate to utlize every means necessary to do so, regardless of the desires or presence of a state. Also the definition of Libertarian Socialist (an oxymoron whose mention has lead to hearty amusement amongst many I have discussed it with) is so convoluted and bizarre as to possibly include myself as well, I wouldn't know, I don't understand it any better than that ass Chomsky who advocates it. Lastly, and less importantly, I never ment to suggest their is no such thing as a stateless society, I would say that man in his primitive, indigenous condition posseses a stateless, yet hierarchical and orderly society. This society is indeed in some ways superior to that of modern man, and worth a great deal of contemplation. Primitive man is also backwards, diseased and superstitious, having many obvious drawbacks which incline most indigenous people to embrace the modern life. Sorry I pissed you off so good, I suppose I layed it on a bit thick the first time around. I'd blame it on the means of communication, but I offend certain folks IRL too ;) Cheers, Sam [Spade] 17:48, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've said it before and I will say it again. You are not worth my time to waste Sam. Your arrogance alone would be bad enough, your declaration that all anarchists seek chaos and thus have some secret agenda other than that which they describe is even worse, but your horrible ignorance of the subject matter of the articles you routinely butcher just blows any hope I have of reaching a sensible conclusion with you. You think libertarian socialism is an oxymoron but consider yourself an anarcho-capitalist? Do you even know where the word libertarian came from you sad thing? Go out and educate yourself, find out who created the modern anarchist movement, find out what the word "libertarian" meant 150 years ago long before the propertarians like you co-opted it, and then feel very stupid for awhile when you realise what an ass you've repeatedly made of yourself. In the meantime I will do my best to ignore your blatant trolling of the anarchist pages. Kev 23:35, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Anarcho-fascism

Everybody calm down.

It's nice to see someone on wikipedia with a sense of humor. BTW the (TM) after "The State" was a nice addition... millerc 03:52, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism

Good edits to the anarcho-capitalism page. I went on there a few days ago and began adding in qualifiers and such. Now you've improved it even more. I think if we continue a slow method of reforming the page, we can eventually get it to a point where it resembles more of a debate than the idiotic, biased "critique" it is now. And if we're careful about it, we can do it without to much resistance from the extreme right wing. Keep up the good work. Solidarity. -- Spleeman 22:13, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi. Sam [Spade] 22:26, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Please, get over yourself Sam. It's not like I don't know you troll Kev's page. I knew you'd see my post, so that's why I didn't say anything that I haven't said publicly before: the A-cap "critique" of left-anarchism page is biased. I will work to improve the article by removing bias. As I said, my hope is that it will "get it to a point where it resembles more of a debate than the idiotic, biased "critique" it is now". If you want to be immature about it and revert all my edits, that's your choice. But it'll just go to show once again that you're biased. -- Spleeman 22:47, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Apology

I wanted to apologize for tagging that edit as vandalism. I misread, and thought it was Spleeman. For what it's worth, I do think that link is important, and that the information should either be on the main page or linked to. And I'm almost always in favor of changing a bad article instead of not linking to it. But that's not the point - the edit wasn't vandalism, and I apologize. Snowspinner 22:34, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

I just wanted to caution you about the policy against personal attacks - your most recent response to Nat is kind of pushing the line, I suspect. Snowspinner 02:48, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)

That, under normal circumstances, would not qualify as a personal attack. But when you add in some profanity and phrase it in the way you did, as I said, I think it's borderline. Snowspinner 06:11, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)

Anarchism edit war

Good to have the support of someone with common sense! I can see VeryVerily has a history of these rediculous acts, especially with you...you're not alone. ;) --Fatal 22:13, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yo

sup :) --Golbez 09:31, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I got a little obsessed. :) But I like the idea and it's actually a useful use of time; i.e. it's not some remote website that no one will ever see. It's a major phenomenon, and every time someone mentions it, they usually mention a page I've worked on, which makes me feel good.

I've ... not so much avoided political articles, as just haven't gotten around to them. So much other information that needed to be put in. But then again, the anarchy articles seem to be pretty good. Your contributions were one of the first I saw on Wikipedia, someone linked me anarcho-capitalism way back when and I saw your name in the history. They seemed pretty good. And a friend I was arguing with on IRC linked anarchism last night, and I saw your name again, and I figured, it might be a nice thing to say hi. :) I was a little nervous, since we were not on the ... best of terms at times on flag, but with your cordial response, perhaps things are better now. Thanks for the welcome. =) And I extend the same to you. --Golbez 22:36, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalists are idjits. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Edits to Anarchism

I agree with your edits, and what we've been talking about shortening the overall page. You moved Anarchist economics to the bottom of the concepts list, however...I put it first because of alpha order -- I hope you don't think I was merely trying to draw attention to the page I created! ;) --albamuth 04:50, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Primitives

Damn, yer pretty funny... if you devote the kind of attention you put into interpersonal crank-yanking into logical, progressive dialogue, we'll be on our way to neutrality in no time. Or are you too intellectually anarchist to enjoy that sort of intellectual rigor? ;) Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 01:06, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

lol, Sam, my only intention is to make sure that the walking disaster you represent for wikipedia does not overly affect the anarchism topics. If you want to spew your trash elsewhere have a ball, if you want to distort the information on those pages understand that I will spend any amount of time to resist your efforts. Oh, and please take note... unlike you I don't censor people on my talk page =) Kev 02:27, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

See User_talk:AndyL#Primitivism, I'm trying to extend an olive branch, but I only bend over backwards so far. Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 21:30, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Great, please start by resisting the temptation to waste everyone's time on wikipedia. Kev 22:11, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Responses to Survey Answers (Talk:Anarchism)

Just to point out that you actually are not correct saying that "all of them took it to mean absence of the mini-states". Bakunin has said that all the states should be abolished with the exception of Swiss state. Just though i'd point that out. Beta m (talk)

Ah Kev, you are planning on responding to the survey directly, I hope? --albamuth 08:06, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hey how come you say that anarchism is not to be confused with anarchy? Anarchy is not a state of disorder and chaos. Anarchy is a non-hierarchal society. Anarchy is what anarchism seeks to achieve. What is it you have against the word other than the fact that it's abused widely? --Fatal 02:47, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree with Kev. It's not our place to simply redefine the word as we see fit. In language, if most people understand a word a certain way, then that's what it means. --albamuth 06:30, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks

Cease your personal attacks [5], or I will request mediation. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 21:04, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please Sam, go on ahead or shut the hell up. Either way, stop threatening myself and everyone else who gets tired of your game of acting like a schoolyard bully with your blatant rude behavior and then calling "mommy!" everytime someone calls you on it. Kev

Hehe, what was it... two days ago that you said the following to RickK? "Of course not, your the only troll on this page."

Doesn't your own hypocrisy make your head spin? Kev 04:34, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I ask you to join me @ Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#User:Kevehs_and_User:Sam_Spade. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 12:48, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Found yet another wiki procedure to abuse, did we Sam? Kev 14:31, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I tried.

RJII's edits are too fast and too ... I don't want to say "single-minded" but he really falls in love with certain phrases and refuses to give them up. Contrary to how it might have seemed on flag, on the wiki I'm not a confrontational person at all. My job here is to add information and fix errors; not to get into political arguments. I don't have blood pressure problems now but I would if I did that; that's why I tend to avoid political articles and go more with factual ones (The 2004 hurricane season articles, for example; no one ever complains about how you portray a weather system. :P) Come to think of it, maybe that's why I left flag.

When I get into battles like that with people, I tend to just remove the page from my watch list and move on. I don't see too many problems with his edits, but it's the constant changing of a spirit that I am trying to project that's weighing down on me, and the fact that there are so many edits in such a short time that makes it difficult to manage. Then again, maybe he feels the same way about my edits. Either way, at least I admit to being an ancap. He refuses to admit one way or another, so his specific point of view is not known. At least with you, I know your point of view, and can work with that, but with him I just don't know.

Anyway, sorry to complain. I wanted to explain why I went through the trouble of attempting a redraft of the beginning of the article (And you seemed to like it, more or less), but haven't made many edits since. Maybe his edits are good; I don't have the effort to figure it out. I'm too obsessed with this whole consensus thing. I am very happy to reword things so that they are acceptable, even (especially) to you, someone who is not a believer in this philosophy. The reasoning is simple - Make everyone happy so that the article can grow. I feel like my efforts at consensus have been a little wasted here. Anyway, sorry to whine. --Golbez 01:33, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Keep on Trucking

Thanks for saving my comment/alert Kev.. I don't intend to continously write in bold but i think unsigned trollers and Nazi sympathisers should be dealt with carefully - i am a bit alarmed over on Holocaust bods trying to argue with Holocaust Deniers with out realising who they're dealing with etc ... One defender of the Holocaust page even cracked a joke about 'canaries in the coal mine' - not good practice!! (u catch me drift?) I suggest we get an agreement to archive the Talk:Anarchism page soon.. I will probably add more bits in defense of the current version of the article(if its not already messed up) quite soon. .. cheers for your work anyway.. User:Max rspct 20:13, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for keeping the anarchism pages clean of "anarcho"-capitalists :)

I appreciate the thanks =) But I should note that my intention is not to remove all mention of anarcho-capitalism from the anarchism pages. They might be a small and relatively insignificant movement, and of course their claim to anarchism is entirely without merit, but they are notable enough to justify their presence. My only intention is to put that presence in context, so that wikipedia readers understand that anarcho-capitalism is not representative of anarchism itself. Kev 16:44, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Primitivism

Good recent edit on Primitivism. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 19:58, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Libertarianism=

Good edits overall tonight on Libertarianism. Thanks for cleaning up the mess I made with my modification earlier this evening. I had a few quibbles that I addressed, but I think we should both be quite happy with the result. Let me know if there are still any disagreements. Dave 06:57, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

You can see my apology and ideas for moving forward on the anarcho-capitalist page when you're ready. I'd also like some input from you on expanding the "radical criticisms" section of libertarianism since it seems like your sort of thing. Dave 08:14, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism

I see you have accused RJII of POV warrioring. If you have solid evidence, you may want to make a statement at [6] or add evidence at [7]. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:53, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your new version is fine. The issue with "restriction" was that anarcho-capitalists don't see "holding onto rightfully earned property" as an active process. I'm not sure what was wrong with calling the property rights "exclusive," but like I said, your version is okay now. Dave 21:03, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

El C/Kevehs/Sam Spade. I will try to mediate your dispute, asuming you still have your dispute. If interested go to the page below.

Also please notify me in my talk page. Thanks. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 02:21, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The link you have provided does not post to a page I am included on. After doing some research I have found that you seemed to think this was somehow a three way dispute, but I do not know EL C and my dispute with Sam has nothing to do with him. While I very much appreciate your offer, the request for mediation is a request that, according to the policy of the page, is made of those on the mediation committee. Given that you are not on that committee, and that you are currently involved in what appears to be a very hostile arbitration with another user, I will have to refuse your request and await word from one of the formal mediators. I do however appreciate your attempt to be bold and help others work through their disputes, and I wish you luck in that endeavor. Kev 01:49, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Human nature dispute on libertarianism

You're right that the paragraph looks like preaching, but that's really the way libertarians talk--ridiculously lofty goals and simplistic explanations of why their politics get them there. I don't know if you've read stuff by Ayn Rand, Thomas Sowell, Fulton Huxtable, or the Cato Institute, but they're pretty good examples. I'll try to replace the paragraph with a quote (so it doesn't look like it's the viewpoint of the article and is substantiated by something) when I have time (probably this weekend, give or take a few days). I'm not sure what you should do in terms of the current dispute until then, but I wouldn't worry about its current state because it should be fixed in a few days and a revert war plus admin arbitration probably isn't worth it. I'm going to write a similar note to RJII and see if he can find a quote and diffuse this himself before I get a chance. I hope that is mutually agreeable. Have a good day, Dave (talk) 16:18, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

The dispute, Kevehs vs. Sam Spade

I had the ilusion that you were related, since that is not the case I created this template. I am an informal mediator meaning I am just trying to help and I have no official basis. In my opinion the official mediation process is overbooked. If you ever change your mind use: User:Coolcat/Mediation C-TAC-01B. I aplogise for my late response, things came up... --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 21:40, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Boldness

Haha, I love it :D I was so happy when this stuff had died down and it looked like boldness could be replaced by slow progress, but I can grow to like this too.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 06:44, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Chomsky

Yes. This I added to the article, and this I should have, but neglected to. - Nat Krause 06:57, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I figured as much. There is absolutely nothing there saying that Chomsky supports the draft. What he does say is that he didn't oppose it. You do recognise that there is a difference between supporting something and not opposing something, right? Further, he even explains why, " If there is to be an army, it would be best, I think, for it to be mainly a citizen’s army."

In order for you to demonstrate that he supports the draft you will need an answer to the question, "should there be an Army?" Kev 08:05, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm suppose you're right. I still think it's an incredibly lame position for an anarchist to take, and yet, anything in the form of "If there is going to be a state, it should do a lot of bad stuff" is not technically anti-anarchist. However, I didn't think it was too controversial among anyone that Chomsky is not really an anarchist, but more of a fellow traveller. - Nat Krause 08:37, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

RfC

Have you seen this? Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Che_y_Marijuana. I was wondering what you thought of it.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 20:29, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Libertarianism (again)

Is the current version acceptable to you? If not, what can I do to make it better? Dave (talk)

I'm confused. There aren't any links to anarchism disambiguation pages in libertarianism. In fact, I checked, and nothing links to Anarchism (disambiguation) except the header of than Anarchism page and a couple talk pages.[[8]]

Still, I agreed with you that the disamb page should be merged/deleted/redirected, so I put my opinion there. Are you satisfied with the current state of the property section everyone was fighting over earlier? Dave (talk) 14:04, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

oh, okay. I haven't been following those other disputes for a while. When I have time, I'll see what I can do. But I hope I was able to fix the human nature stuff. No one seems to have messed with it much aside from improving the writing style, so I guess they're happy with it. Good luck on anarchism. Dave (talk)

Left anarchism

Can you please VfD this article? It was a redirect to anarchism, and was just reverted by RJII, who seems like he wants to make it into something else. It is not a term that is notable, and is completely politically motivated. I would do it myself, but everytime I've done a VfD, the process of listing it there has just confused the hell out of me.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 03:28, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Alright, then can you do that to anarchism and left anarchism, I'll go list it.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 04:46, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Listed, check it out when you have the time.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 08:02, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

funny

I thought you might want to see this... Sam Spade said I have a pro-left-anarchist bias. I hope you think it's as funny as I do. Talk:Anarchism (disambiguation)#Chaos_as_a_third_bullet Dave (talk)

Anarchism vs. anarcho-capitalism

Oi! I've put this cloned nonsense up for deletion.. interested? -max rspct 21:35, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

edit war between the world and one individual

Looks like we're in for another capitalist edit war eh kev? --Fatal 21:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks

I'm sure you are familiar with WP:NPA, so please tone down your rethoric in Talk:Left anarchism. You are not helping your cause if you go berserk when others try and stay calm. Thanks. Rl 20:21, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have a rough idea of what the dispute on that page is about. However, I have not followed it closely enough, and you seem to be talking about events that took place elsewhere as well. Therefore, I cannot even try to judge who is right. However, assuming – for the sake of argument – that your allegations are correct, then you are being set up. Without the context that I suspect few people have, it is you who looks bad. Rl 06:45, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

National anarchism

Yes I agree.. You only have to check the links - nearly all the same guy.. UK emails etc. (SOUTHGATE) and duplication. Will try to put it up for del u want me to...tho Che M seems better at it no? will do tmmorrow .. it late over here. -max rspct 21:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mmmmm . I wonder whether it should be kept. The oxygen of publicity? I am in two minds whether it should be there.. how miniscule is miniscule eh? Also ..rewrite and balance the links out (esp. if they lead back to T.Southgate) -max rspct 22:20, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Transplanted, cause darn it its my wikipedia page and I'll do what I want

Kev> "This is where it would get good for me, cause I would be able to shock or disappoint you by claiming that, in fact, I don't claim to own my body. And what is more, a large number of traditional anarchists deny the claim to self-ownership, along with, big shocker, even a handful of anarcho-capitalists I've met."

Okay, I'll bite. I've never met (or read) an anarcho-capitalist (nor an individualist anarchist) who didn't believe in self-ownership. Do you have any links to sites/manifestos of such people? (I can see that it's conceivable - e.g. some amoralist Nietzche type.) --Hogeye 23:06, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm unaware of a prominent ac that denies self-ownership, though I will dig around because I doubt there isn't one. Of those I've met, two used to frequent the ASC forums, so you might check there. One is a personal friend, and the other I met on the ifeminist forums some years ago, I dunno if she still visits that forum (if they are still there). Anyway, give me a couple days and I'll see what I can find. Kev 01:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the info and links about self-ownership, Kev. I just read the Roderick Long article "The Hoppriori Argument." Long is disagreeing with Hoppe's a priori argument about self-ownership. It is pretty clear that Long himself agrees with the conclusion that one is self-owned - he just doesn't think Hoppe's argument proves it. Long's main page emphatically agrees with self-ownership, with quotes by Richard Overton and Voltairine de Cleyre underlining it.

The Murphey/Callahan article "Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s Argumentation Ethic: A Critique" I have read before. Again, the authors clearly believe in self-ownership. They are skeptical of a priori proofs, however, and find fault with Hoppe's proof. Murphey/Callahan write, "The present authors believe that Hoppe’s argument is unfortunately invalid. Although we appreciate the boldness of his attempt, we conclude that in this case, Hoppe has failed in his task."

Thanks, again, for the links. You (indirectly) turned me on to Overton and his essay, "An arrow against all tyrants." Overton was definitely a pre-Locke liberal. Sorry - proto-liberal.

Hogeye

I got around to reading the Jasay article. Jasay wrote, "it is worth pointing out that self-ownership is a category mistake: ownership is a relation between owner and thing owned such that the owner is free to dispose of what he owns. It is nonsense to talk of a relation between you and yourself. Nor can you dispose of your own self, exchanging it for another’s as you could exchange a thing you owned for another thing."

I've heard this argument before. It seems rather weak, since (1) it is not (contrary to what he claims) nonsense to talk of a relation between you and yourself. (e.g. I am the same size as myself. I love myself.) Not to mention (2) that when someone says "I own myself" the usual meaning is my mind owns my body. Finally, (3) ownership does not mean (as Jasay assumes) that the owner is free to do anything with his possession, only things that can be done in reality. I can't fly my car, nor sell my chess knowlege or talent, yet I own them. Some owned things are transferrable, some are not.

But you are right, Kev: there exists an anarcho/minarcho-capitalist who denies the validity of the self-ownership concept, and thinks that libertarianism can be justified without that concept. I'll get back to you as I read the other articles. --Hogeye 03:28, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Continuation of anarcho-capitalism discussion

Kev> So if you don't have a "moral right" to determine the usage of something, that entails that you shouldn't use it? I would tend to disagree. In fact, I don't think that rights are necessary to determine the legitimacy of use, nor do I see the necessity of morality.

??? Morality is the study of whether actions are right or wrong. Obviously you believe in this, or you would not be promoting a political philosophy, any one of which advocates a set of principles to determine which actions are right or wrong. If you believe people should not exploit one another, you believe in morality. If you believe capitalism should not exist, you believe in morality. And so on. Rights (in the moral sense) _are_ delineations of legitimacy of use; of course they're necessary. I'd like to know what definitions you're using. JohnSharp 16:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hogeye on RFC

Please help out: User:CesarB/RFC/Hogeye. --Tothebarricades 19:36, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Hogeye on WP:ArbReq

Please help out. --albamuth 6 July 2005 17:07 (UTC)

Don't

The world will not end just because you cannot revert one more time. Let's avoid turning this already messy situation in an all-out war. --cesarb 6 July 2005 17:40 (UTC)

Hogeye

He is attempting to take absolute control of the article for himself by avoiding the 3 revert rule and instead simply cutting and pasting from various degrees from a pet article. I have no desire to participate in a revert war, but nor do I intend to simply watch Hogeye unilaterally determine the status of the anarchism article. If you have a solution for me, please offer it. He refused mediation, mocks arbitration, rejects page protection, and insults people repeatedly on the talk page, no longer even trying to engage in substantive dialogue. Doing nothing means he walks all over a public works, so is there another possiblity other than undoing his edits? Kev 6 July 2005 17:45 (UTC)

A partial revert is still a revert. If the text he pasted was already there before, I believe it would count. After he gets enough of them, go to WP:AN/3RR and post not only the diffs to the reverts (as usual) but also the older revision for each one, and ask for advice. --cesarb 6 July 2005 17:53 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, m:eventualism. --cesarb 6 July 2005 17:55 (UTC)

Hey

Zip me an email sometime. I'm done with Flag and I'd really like to get started on our other project.--AaronS 6 July 2005 20:57 (UTC)

Email zipped. Or rather, you have been contacted in a super-secret forum, known here only to you and me. Do not reveal this information to anyone, or you may open yourself up to retaliation by the association of free cheese. Kev 7 July 2005 17:56 (UTC)