Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Protected edit request on 27 June 2014

The last sentence of the introductory paragraphs, "Anarcho-Capitalism is not usually recognized as a form of anarchism by most traditional anarchists, as anarchism has historically been anti-capitalist" needs a citation regardless of if it's true or not. 2601:7:7E00:8A8:8BB:FC92:1FA8:DA12 (talk) 13:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Multiple citations for the statement are in the body, as well as being linked to and discussed in the RfC above, which, as noted in response to previous edit requests, relates directly to this content. WP:CITELEAD is open as to whether citations should also appear in the lead, but it's not obligatory. N-HH talk/edits 16:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: per N-HH. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Tea Party

If something about the Tea Party is put in the lead section, per WP:LEAD it should be a summary of referenced article text. Please don't put new material in the lead section alone. Binksternet (talk) 13:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Following the LEAD guideline

At WP:LEAD, the guideline says that the lead section is to be a summary of information contained in the article body. The following text seems to me to be a suitable summary of article body text:

• Anarcho-capitalism is not usually recognized as a form of anarchism by most traditional anarchists, as anarchism has historically been anti-capitalist.

The article body goes into more detail on this point:

Anarcho-Capitalism is not usually recognized as a variety of anarchism by traditional anarchists, who would instead view it as a form of right-wing libertarianism, as anarchism has historically been anti-capitalist and concerned with social and economic equality. Most social anarchists argue that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism because they view capitalism as being inherently authoritarian. In particular they argue that certain capitalist transactions are not voluntary, and that maintaining the class structure of a capitalist society requires coercion, which is incompatible with an anarchist society.

The main article about this issue is identified for the reader: Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism.

Here at this article, involved editor Knight of BAAWA expressed that the text seen above in bold should not be made part of the lead section, "even according to WP:LEAD".[1] Please explain the position to me, as it looks otherwise on the face of it. Binksternet (talk) 07:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Does the lede for evolution mention "teach the controversy"? No, of course not. Does the lede for Earth mention the Flat-Earth society? No, of course not. Does the lede for sociology mention phrenology? No, of course not. Does the lede for christianity mention that some catholics do not consider protestants to be christian (and vice-versa)? No, of course not. The lede is not for such things. Please stop trying to make it be that way, given your complete misreading and misunderstanding of WP:LEAD. And please don't say that those articles are not relevant to this discussion, for they are. It's called "consistency". You will have to explain to all of us why you think anarchocapitalism is so special that it deserves this special treatment that other articles don't have. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 12:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The information removed is entirely relevant and should be reinstated. Anarchism is the parent philosophy of anarcho-capitalism, and thus their relation is absolutely appropriate to illustrate here. Contrary to Knight of BAAWA's examples, omitting this information would be more like the Catholicism lead failing to mention Protestantism, or vice versa (both, in fact, do). -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) First, to look at your examples, the Earth article does not mention the Flat Earth Society. The Sociology article does not mention phrenology. The Christianity article does not tell the reader that certain groups consider each other not to be Christian. So if we look only at the WP:LEAD guideline, none of these articles would carry your suggested summary statement in the lead section, because there is no such referenced text in the article body.

Second, you have flipped the mainstream and minor relation of traditional anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. Traditional anarchism has more text written about it, more study of it, and is more established as a position. So traditional anarchism is the more mainstream topic, in this sense. Anarcho-capitalism, by contrast, is newer, less studied, and less established. Therefore your examples should have been whether the Flat Earth Society mentions that the Earth is spherical (it does), or whether some other article about a minor position tells the reader about the mainstream position (it should). Here at the anarcho-capitalism article, it is very relevant to tell the reader how this field is viewed by those who came before.

Third, you have not quoted the WP:LEAD guideline directly to explain what part I might be misunderstanding. Binksternet (talk) 14:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The sentence that both of you want added is completely irrelevant to what anarchocapitalism is, and is dealt with in the body of the text. I'll give you an example via wikiprecedent: christianity. The lede does say that protestantism came from catholicism, just as the lede for anarchocapitalism says that it is an individualist anarchism form (parent). But the lede of christianity does not say (though it could with references) that the catholics did not consider protestants to be christian (and vice-versa). And given that historically western christianity was catholic only for a thousand years, we see the argument from antiquity attempt clearly fail.

As to what you misunderstand, Binksternet, it is due weight. I'll give another wikiprecedent: evolution. There is neither mention of creationism nor ID in the lede for evolution. At all. Period. But it is clearly significant enough to have been brought up in court in the US many times regarding the teaching of it and of ID. One would think, then, that it would get mentioned. But no, it's not. Why? Because it's irrelevant to what evolution is. Similarly, that some people view anarchocapitalism as not part of anarchism is irrelevant to the lede as well. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 21:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I am not finding your argument very compelling. You started with WP:LEAD, saying I was misunderstanding the guideline, then you switched to WP:WEIGHT, which is another thing altogether, making me assume that you have abandoned the argument about WP:LEAD, acknowledging that it does not help your point. The WP:WEIGHT guideline discusses whether to represent minor viewpoints strongly or weakly as compared to the representation in published sources. However, the viewpoint of traditional anarchism is the mainstream view, and cannot be lessened by an application of WP:WEIGHT. The mainstream view always gets prominence on Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 23:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

So you don't find how other pages are set up to be compelling? You don't find consistency in pages to be compelling? Suit yourself, but neither precedent nor WP:LEAD are on your side. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 12:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Knight of BAAWA, sorry, but that's just outright nonsense. Your examples were obviously set up in error and thus are not appropriate analogues to the current dispute. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 13:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not nonsense. No, my examples were not in error, and yes they are analogues to the current dispute. Further, it appears that Binksternet hasn't actually read WP:LEAD, for he would have found a section in there about undue weight. I know this because I actually read it. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The edit warring needs to stop! BRD -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, major edits (i.e. content removal) need to stop being marked as minor! Is this a common theme here??? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 13:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The irrelevance of the Evolution page and the argument being derived from it have been pointed out over and over, and far more apposite examples, in which definitional debates are very definitely and correctly included, provided ad nauseam. That has all been consistently ignored, as have guidelines re weight and lead structure (or rather, oddly deployed as if they somehow justify removal, when they rather obviously tend to supporting inclusion. How back to front could "it's in the body, it shouldn't be in the lead" be as an argument?). Furthermore, this content is subject to an RfC, which is still open. Due to edit warring, the page was protected .. and as soon as that is left, mid-RfC, those wanting to remove it are off edit-warring it out again? N-HH talk/edits 20:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not irrelevant, much to your dismay. You too are ignoring precedent and policy. Please stop. By the way: the sentence is being edit-warred in, not out; it has no business being there. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Your just saying that the comparison with Evolution is relevant, that others must be dismayed by that and that the information has "no business being there" doesn't make any of those assertions automatically true. Let's explain it again, in bullet points:

• What individual other pages do is not of itself probative of anything
• The "debate" around Evolution/Creationism is a substantive one of fact, not one of classification/description/context. Same with Earth/Flat Earth
• Creationism and flat-earthism are fringe concepts/arguments, hence clearly undue for the lead of the main serious page on the overarching topic; the observation that anarcho-capitalism is often not seen as anarchism is clearly not fringe, as the sources cited show
• Other pages, in fact, very much do note such issues (or at least did when I last looked): see for example Liberal Democratic Party of Russia and, especially pertinently, National Anarchism; as well as, more trivially, Red panda, Koala, Tibetan terrier
• And, if you want to stick with evolution, a more appropriate, though still imperfect, comparison would be with the Intelligent Design page. Are you seriously suggesting that it should not point out in the lead – which it of course does – out that it is not considered a science? Especially if it had an "also known as Creation-Science" line and carried the "Science" template?

Also, I don't know why you're telling me to "stop". As before when you tried this one on, I'm not editing the page. Btw the text that, slightly varied, is now being touted as some kind of reasonable compromise, which suggests that "Anarcho-capitalists distinguish themselves from ... anti-capitalist anarchists", is extremely problematic and in no way a replacement for the material which needs to be there: not only does it rely on the a-c perspective, rather than that of third parties, but it if anything reinforces the suggestion that a-c definitely is, uncontroversially, assumed to be a form of anarchism, by directly contrasting it with other forms of anarchism. This is the crux of the problem – this page asserts and assumes a fundamental descriptive/definitional fact which is a matter of significant recorded dispute in the real world according to authoritative sources. N-HH talk/edits 09:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

RfC: should the page note in more detail the contention around including anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

An edit, and now a later variation of it, that includes more detail on the fact that most anarchists and much academic analysis question the classification/inclusion has been repeatedly reverted by a single editor. There has been discussion on this in the section above. In essence there are two parts to the edit and two issues to look at:

• A: Should the point be expanded, with references, in the section "Anarcho-capitalism and other schools", eg through the current proposed wording or some variation of it: "Anarcho-Capitalism is not usually recognized as a variety of anarchism by traditional anarchists, who would instead view it as a form of right-wing libertarianism, as anarchism has historically been anti-capitalist and concerned with social and economic equality"?
• B: Should a brief summary of the point, as referenced in that section, be included in the lead? N-HH talk/edits 18:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes re both A & B. The content itself is well sourced. The point also appears in The Routledge Companion to Social and Political Philosophy, as well as the books currently cited in the edit itself. It is verifiable information, which is included in multiple reliable and authoritative sources, and a significant point of dispute within the classification and definition of anarchism. The fact that there is such a dispute is not controversial. Not mentioning the issue – the lead and much, though not all, of the body avoid it currently – not only misleads through omission but is a breach of NPOV. As for the lead/point B, it needs to be noted there, however briefly, as it goes to the definition of the topic. The fact that we have a section, indeed a whole separate article, on the relationship between these two concepts also suggests it is significant enough to include in the lead, which currently asserts and assumes, without qualification, that anarcho-capitalism is, uncontroversially, regarded as a form of anarchism. N-HH talk/edits 18:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• No to all. You've failed to make any sort of valid points. You need to make edits to every single lede for every single idea that has controversies in order for your edits to have merit. And please stop misleading people that there is a misleading by omission and breach of NPOV; there isn't. The article in no way asserts and assumes what you say it does. Ergo, you are lying--and no, that is not a personal attack. Since the article clearly doesn't say what you say it does, and since you have to have read it to make whatever claims you are making lest you not have any clue, it's clear that you are deliberately not being truthful. Why is that? Why did you lie? You know that anyone can look at the article and see that what you have written does not comport with what the article says--so why lie? - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 11:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• No to both - This is an article about AnCap philosophy and history, and that requires that we stay on-topic, summarize, and give due weight the various aspects of this ideology, and so we do not have to give the same due weight to other, off-topic ideologies. AnCap views about other ideologies is highly relevant, and should be described in a way that relates to how why those views are counter to AnCap philosophy. Views about AnCap from the perspective of other ideologies are highly off-topic, and should be only mentioned in very brief form here (this is of course reversed on the articles about those ideologies when talking about AnCap). I am perplexed at the existence of Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism, as it is very poorly-defined, a structural mess, should probably be deprecated or re-tasked, perhaps to Great anarchist pissing matches of history. -- Netoholic @ 07:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• No and No. Anarcho-capitalists have never claimed to identify with the bomb-throwing, property-hating left - who have long commandeered the term "anarchy" for their own political agenda. Hence they tend to use the term "anarcho-capitalism" rather than "anarchism". (Nor do they identify with the political right who tend to disrespect persons in a similar manner.) Regarding equality, anarcho-capitalists are actually more concerned with flattening hierarchies by allowing a level playing field where individual employer-employee relationships tend to become peer to peer, than impractical political "solutions" such as those from the left - which tend to create class rifts. Their "equality" claim is as hypocritical as their "anti-state" claim. (The "Anarchism" article is sorely lacking on this point. But that is another matter and needs be settled elsewhere.) While mention of the claim to the title "anarchism" by other schools of thought could continue to be offered in its own section in this article, it is clearly secondary. JLMadrigal (talk) 12:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• Yes and yes. Wikipedia articles commonly give readers a context in which to place a philosophy. It is the AnCaps who deliberately and explicitly took the term anarchist and transformed it for their own purposes — which is a legitimate move, and their move has been overwhelmingly successful, due largely to the popularity of right-wing values of the US. But the dual meanings can easily cause confusion for the reader, and this potential confusion can be ameliorated, and therefore should be. — goethean 15:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• Yes and yes. We are writing an encyclopedia here, so we should primarily concern ourselves with objective viewpoints such as that found in The Routledge Companion to Social and Political Philosophy, edited by Gerald F. Gaus, Fred D'Agostino. On page 225, Roderick T. Long says that social anarchists generally think of anarcho-capitalists as not anarchists.
  We should not concentrate on in-universe descriptions, taking the word of anarcho-capitalists about whether they are this or that. Rather, we should stay objective and tell the reader about the scholarly analysis, both in the lead section and in greater detail in the article body. Binksternet (talk) 19:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• No and yes. If anything, it seems the section titled "Anarcho-capitalism and other anarchist schools" (as of 20 June 2014) should be reduced. Aside from the first statement, the whole section is supported by only three sources, two of which are primary (and why the heck is so much content derived from a webmaster???); it's a lot of filler, but little actual content. I also have a concern that the first sentence uses the term libertarian as a philosophy distinct from anarchism, whereas these terms are often used synonymously. This goes straight to the heart of the issue, which is that libertarianism/anarchism, as it has been expounded since the mid-19th century, has been a left-wing, anti-private property ideology. It wasn't until the mid-20th century that so-called classical liberals in the USA appropriated both terms to describe propertarian and statist beliefs. This information should absolutely be in the article and the lead, but again, the section in question needs a lot of work. Add better content with more reliable sources to make this a good section. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• Yes and yes. I'm not impressed with political arguments that smear the opposing team like this was a heated debate on a web board or Usenet. I see two issues that could preclude this information: is it undue or off topic? While an argument could be made for either, I personally do not agree. This is a topic that I would expect to see in the article, and, as a reader, I would be surprised to find that it had been excluded. How the wider anarchist community perceives anarcho-capitalists, and how academics have reported on this topic, is relevant and verifiable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Suggested compromise regarding disputed material

Many articles have a "Criticism" section devoted to counter arguments. Placing disputes regarding "official" and "unofficial" versions of anarcho-capitalism (as well as any disputes regarding the "legitimacy" of anarcho-capitalism) in such a section would be a fitting compromise. It's not a question of preventing readers from knowing about controversies regarding the movement, but about presenting them in an organized way. An article about the laws of aerodynamics written in the 19th century would have been corrupted if it were subject to contemporary viewpoints regarding man's inability to fly. Likewise, the laws of economics are not subject to the whims of social engineers - as the official politico-academic left (as well as the ecclesiastical right) would prefer. JLMadrigal (talk) 13:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

An article about 19th century aerodynamic theories must be placed in its proper context at the outset so as not to mislead readers. So must an article on politico-economic theory. — goethean 14:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Precisely. And the context in which the principles of anarcho-capitalism is understood is a clear understanding of the basic laws of economics. The reason the anti-state movement has failed on the left is because of its grave misunderstanding of capital and markets. Similarly, in the 19th century, the laws of aerodynamics were not well understood - and certainly not by the majority. What would be misleading to readers of anarcho-capitalism would be a writing-off of market fundamentals by basing its legitimacy on its popularity. The case for anarcho-capitalism must be presented clearly in the article. Opposing theories (where applicable) can be presented toward the end in the "Criticism" section. JLMadrigal (talk) 00:08, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

At least there's an attempt here to look at whether the material might be included, but perhaps in a different way, rather than the outright and absolute "no" that prevailed ahead of the RfC. That said, I'm not sure I'd be in favour of this suggestion. Firstly, devoted "Criticism" sections are deprecated on WP and, in my view, just end up as rather tedious POV laundry lists; secondly, despite this assumption seeming to be behind much of the opposition to inclusion, the material under debate here is not "criticism" of the tenets of anarcho-capitalism, it's just a brief reference to the debate about terminology and classification. Btw, I would also dispute the suggestion that anything on the page should be about presenting the "case" for anarcho-capitalism (or indeed making the case against it). An encyclopedia is meant to inform, describe and place in context, based on the content and observations of reliable, authoritative sources, not advocate one way or the other. N-HH talk/edits 10:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem with the disputed text is that it describes viewpoints about anarcho-capitalism held by those outside of the movement - in this case criticisms of anarcho-capitalism. Such viewpoints clearly belong in a "Criticisms" section. Regarding the clarification of terminology, the sidebar (which could be expanded) offers an appropriate venue to describe terminology as it is used by the movement. Regarding classification, anarcho-capitalism does not fit the defective mold offered by the left (or the right for that matter). Libertarianism itself is viewed by the left as far right, and by the right as far left. So, in order to understand where anarcho-capitalism "fits", one must see the defects of existing systems of classification. To allow anarcho-capitalism to be defined by outsiders - particularly by enemies of the movement - would increase the confusion surrounding an already complex topic. JLMadrigal (talk) 15:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

No topic gets to exclusively define itself, on WP or elsewhere, without reference to authoritative third-party views and analysis. Equally, the proposed text is not allowing anarcho-capitalism to be defined by outsiders, hostile or otherwise; it merely notes significant views on definitions and terminology, as reported in reliable sources. I can only repeat that that is not criticism – any more than saying that a Tibetan terrier is not a terrier (not that this text goes that far anyway, nor should it) is a "criticism" of the Tibetan terrier – and that WP disdains criticism sections anyway. N-HH talk/edits 08:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

That's not the issue at all. The concern is due weight: this article is the only place where AnCap descriptions of their own movement is relevant and in fact necessary to give a clear definition of the viewpoints that make up this philosophy. That sort of information would be off-topic (to any large degree) in another article. What "traditional" left-anarchists think about AC can fit in many places, and probably the best mix is a little here on this article and a little on their own articles, in-line and in-context. The lead of this article should paint broad strokes, and I'm sorry but the quibble from left-anarchists is a minor sidenote. -- Netoholic @ 18:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

"...the quibble from left-anarchists..." --- you mean how anarcho-capitalists deliberately and successfully re-defined anarchism to something closer to its opposite? It's more than a quibble, it is a well-documented part of history that the article should note prominently rather than pretending that it never happened. — goethean 18:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

"Anarcho" comes from the simple, definition of word "anarchy" meaning "no rulers", not from "anarchism". Anarchism ("traditional") comes from the same base word. The only difference in their philosophy is what comes after we have no rulers. Its not "capito-anarchism". -- Netoholic @ 18:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to get into a discussion of the ostensible merit of various political philosophies. Please refer back to my previous comment (it is a well-documented part of history that the article should note prominently rather than pretending that it never happened.). — goethean 19:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

It does not follow that "well-documented" means it should feature "prominently" in this article. For the reasons I said above, article space in this article must give more weight to descriptions of anarcho-capitalism from people within the movement since this article is the only reasonable place that content (also "well-documented") belongs. -- Netoholic @ 21:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Instead of expanding the "Criticism" section, scrap it along with the "Anarcho-capitalism and other anarchist schools" section, and create a new section preceding the "Internal debates" section (itself more appropriately renamed "Branches of anarcho-capitalism") that classifies anarcho-capitalism among relevant contemporary political ideologies - possibly entitled, "Anarcho-capitalism and Modern libertarianism". Since the Nolan Chart clarifies how modern libertarians define themselves, and how anarcho-capitalists identify themselves among the modern libertarian movement, a brief, well-sourced discussion of the political spectrum in this light would resolve the classification issue, and make anarcho-capitalism more understandable. JLMadrigal (talk) 03:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Criticism sections are bad form and no subject is allowed to define itself. BTW the term "anarcho-capitalism" is a clear reference to anarchism. Rothbard used the anarchist flag and cited anarchist sources. How sincere he was or whether it really is anarchism is another issue. TFD (talk) 03:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. We're slightly going round in circles here. As noted, the bottom line is "An encyclopedia is meant to inform, describe and place in context, based on the content and observations of reliable, authoritative sources, not advocate one way or the other." That is a pretty simple and basic requirement. WP is not here to provide a platform for proponents of the political school that is the topic of the page. It should not, and the proposed text does not, advocate in favour of or against anarcho-capitalism per se but simply and briefly note the wider context including, in this case and others, an acknowledged definitional dispute. Also as noted, the argument that anarcho-capitalists aren't or don't claim to be part of the broader anarchist school is neither entirely accurate nor what the page currently asserts. And even if that were the case, it should surely propel those arguing that towards accepting the inclusion of widely and reliably sourced content that briefly notes that very issue. If non-partisan, secondary sources consistently make observations that the definition and context is not that clear cut, WP should reflect that, and no policy-based arguments have been presented to counter that assumption. N-HH talk/edits 09:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

N-HH, you are again confusing popularity (among members of an opposing school for that matter) with legitimacy. The ideological context of Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism is modern libertarianism - not leftism. Further, the basis for anarcho-capitalism in general is not political ideology but economic reality. Its popularity among political activists is a matter better explored in such a section. JLMadrigal (talk) 12:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

The only specific point made against inclusion posted in the current discussion about this seems to be that the Evolution page doesn't mention creationism in the lead. However, this is not just about the lead, and in any event the two cases are utterly different. Creationism is a) a fringe theory that b) disputes the reality of evolution. The dispute here is about classification and terminology, not about the correctness or otherwise of any underlying theories, and nor is the "anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism" stance a fringe view. Far more appropriate analogies, as noted in the previous discussion, can be found in the following pages, where the taxonomic issue is covered both in the lead and the body: Red panda, Koala, Liberal Democratic Party of Russia and, for good measure, National Anarchism and Creation science. N-HH talk/edits 18:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

So you've admitted that you're just trying to marginalize anarchocapitalism. Great. You've just invalidated your entire stance by admitting to trying to introduce a non-neutral point of view to the text. I request the protection be lifted at once so that the NPOV edits can be removed. There will be no further discussion required. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 11:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I've admitted or done any such thing or how anyone could possibly come to that conclusion or, pace your comment above, that I've been "lying" (or that that accusation is not a personal attack. Whatever). And NPOV is of course in fact precisely about representing all widely held points of view, without necessarily endorsing any of them. We have reliable, authoritative sources that explicitly note the existence of the dispute over terminology and note that the "not a form of anarchism" view is widely held. However, currently, as noted, the lead classifies and describes anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism without qualification (even if you don't accept that the prefix "anarcho-" is doing this in itself anyway, the lead also rather obviously does it by saying in the very first sentence "also referred to as free-market anarchism .." and through the use of the Anarchism template, which includes in its list of "Schools of Thought" what it calls "Capitalist" anarchism, which ordinarily links back to this page). As for "no further discussion required", the whole point of RfCs is to get exactly that, preferably from third parties. I'd suggest we let that happen. N-HH talk/edits 16:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how a fair-minded reader can conclude any such thing. I'd suggest that perhaps it might be an idea to ease off with such overheated rhetoric and focus on the substantive content of the discussion rather than the motivations of one's ideological opponents. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@Netoholic: when you say "we do not have to give the same due weight to other, off-topic ideologies", are you suggesting Anarchism is "off-topic" and "other" to Anarcho-capitalism? Surely that if anything justifies including the material, not excluding it? Also as for due weight, we are talking about a couple of sentences to note the issue. It is not about taking one side of the argument, filling half the page with it or putting it in the very first sentence, but briefly – as you indeed suggest as well – and simply noting, per multiple reliable sources, that the taxonomical debate exists. N-HH talk/edits 08:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

General anarchism (as in the unambiguous use of the word meaning "without rulers") is relevant to AnCap philosophy, of course. The sources that you have for the particular brand of "traditional" anarchism (ie left-anarchism, I guess) is a different ideology than AnCap, evidenced by how those sources try to disavow AnCap from their ranks. As such, yes, then those sources are certainly from an off-topic ideology and do not deserve strong weight here. Brief mention is perhaps fitting in the right context in the article body, but the lead should be squarely on describing AnCap ideology, history, and any major controversies, if any. What you want to put in there is not major. Also, there is no point trying to justify this inclusion based on how reliably sourced it is. Content that is extensively and reliably sourced can still be off-topic for a particular page. Describe the "taxonomical debate" on the pages of ideologies that think there is a "taxonomical debate" - its relevant over there because its part of their ideology, but only minimally relevant on AnCap. --Netoholic @ 08:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

As noted, the lead currently uses the Anarchism template and uses synonyms such as "free-market anarchism". You can't get round that by saying, "oh it refers to a totally different thing, which happens to also be called anarchism, and hence it's off-topic and cannot be mentioned at all". There simply isn't that neat sort of distinction in the real world for such topics and terminology. Even if there was, an explanation would still be warranted. Regardless, the simple fact is that the debate about the use of the term anarchism in this context – whether it is taken to mean simply without rulers and/or to refer to the predomoninantly leftist strain attested in the academic and historical record and what the relationship is between "anarchism" and "anarcho-capitalism" – is noted, and noted broadly in the fashion being proposed in the RfC, in multiple reliable sources about "anarchism" and about politics more generally. The definition and classification of a topic, the terminology used to describe it and how it relates to other, arguably related, ideas, are surely fairly fundamental to that topic, and hence relevant to the lead. At the very least it must be relevant to a section in the body explicitly titled "Anarcho-capitalism and other anarchist schools". If you're going to be consistent in arguing that discussion about "anarchism" is off-topic and that anarcho-capitalism is entirely sui generis and discrete, you've got to scrub that section entirely and also remove the Anarchism template and the "anarchism" synonyms. In fact of course, what we should do is briefly present the issue/debate, as reflected in sources, without plumping definitively for either option, which is all the proposal entails. N-HH talk/edits 19:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Re: Anarcho-capitalism and other anarchist schools section.... "you've got to scrub that section entirely" - The best suggestion I've heard in this entire discussion. The section should instead be dedicated to referencing AnCap arguments from sources that comment about any other ideologies (left-anarchism, conservatism, etc.). Devoting an entire section to the argument with just "traditional" anarchists is unduly weighted. Let left-anarchist complaints about AnCaps be in their own articles because those views are part of their ideology. --Netoholic @ 19:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

But that section is not, without the proposed addition, simply about the "argument" with "'traditional' anarchists" nor would the addition of the one-sentence content in question make it so. Anarcho-capitalists tend to call themselves anarchists, and the section is about the relationship, as a whole, with other anarchist schools. As reliable sources attest, there is an interrelationship and theoretical lineage there, and some elements of anarcho-capitalist thought sync with other anarchist ideas; but there are also disputes, about both theory and terminology. The assertion that such content is off-topic or unwarranted on a page about "Anarcho-capitalism", which would otherwise carry unqualified assertions about its relationship to and membership of the broader currents of "Anarchism", is untenable. So long as the material is presented in the round, with due weight and neutrally, it is manifestly relevant and on-topic, barring some extraordinarily strong argument to the contrary, which has yet to be presented, and is unlikely ever to be.

More specifically, equally untenable is any similar assertion about the precise content under consideration in the RfC, based as that content is on the explicit meta-observation that "few anarchists would accept the 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp since they do not share a concern for economic equality and social justice .. even if they do reject the State, [they] might therefore best be called right-wing libertarians rather than anarchists" in a chapter on "The New Right and Anarcho-capitalism" in a book entitled A History of Anarchism, which is described in one formal review as "An exhaustive and authoritative study which is bound to become the standard account" of anarchism. When we also find the same observations in other, more general books, such as The Routledge Companion to Social and Political Philosophy, in a sub-chapter called "The Rise of Anarcho-capitalism", the foundations of any objections fall away to anyone with an open mind. How can such explicit treatment of the topic of Anarcho-capitalism in authoritative sources not be relevant and why should individual random WP editors get to override/veto the judgment of those sources? Fine, there's a debate about how exactly to present that information but the idea that it cannot be included at all is just bizarre, to be frank. Hopefully that is going to be clear to most people – I've said more than enough on this. N-HH talk/edits 22:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

@JLMadrigal: "Anarcho-capitalists have never claimed to identify with the bomb-throwing, property-hating left ... [whose] 'equality' claim is as hypocritical as their 'anti-state' claim". This is not about the merits or otherwise of anarcho-capitalism, general/leftist anarchism or any other political viewpoint, nor is the material in question about promoting or denigrating any such viewpoints, but about merely noting the differences, as recorded in reliable sources, despite the similarity in some terminology and, even, in some theoretical ideas. And if, as you say, anarcho-capitalists want to disassociate themselves from [other] anarchists – as the term is usually used – I don't quite understand what the objection is to referring to the well-sourced and verified observation that the logic works the other way too, and that there is an analytical and taxonomical debate in academic sources about the relationship. N-HH talk/edits 23:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

This article is about anarcho-capitalism. As such, it may further expand on the viewpoints of anarcho-capitalists regarding contrary ideologies. For example, it may clarify that anarcho-capitalists see left-anarchism as a self-contradictory term since a forced collectivization of property and capital requires a state. Any negative viewpoints about anarcho-capitalism by sources other than those in the movement need to be confined to a special section regarding said objections. The debate between anarcho-capitalists and traditional "anarchists" has its own article. JLMadrigal (talk) 04:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Would the real anarchist please stand up? There is only one reason to not include this information if it is well sourced. wp:valid Would we unduly legitimize these positions if we included them?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The following text and references:

"Anarcho-Capitalism is not usually recognized as a variety of anarchism by traditional anarchists, who would instead view it as a form of right-wing libertarianism, as anarchism has historically been anti-capitalist and concerned with social and economic equality."

is an inaccurate representation of anarcho-capitalism, and would immediately be recognized as such by any anarcho-capitalist:

It is clearly not right wing, since it fully rejects the state and rightist collectivism. Those on the right support the state monopolization of the military-industrial complex and monopolization of law via an ecclesiastical collectivization of personhood. The left views anyone supporting a free market as "right wing".

Anarcho-capitalists understand that social equality is not achieved through the confiscation and redistribution of wealth (as the left believe), but through free markets where business associates are peers. Cronyism requires the state.

The cited text incorrectly defines "the state" to include any provider of security and arbitration services. Such a broad definition could only support a bomb-throwing, property defacing definition for "anarchy" (since no one would be allowed to defend himself).

My suggested wording below (to be placed in the "Criticism" section) would provide a clearer statement of the ideological conflict. JLMadrigal (talk) 12:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

References

"While anarcho-capitalists clearly would prefer to omit the state from the orchestration of capital and markets, many old-school anarchists have less faith in the free market, and would prefer not to allow the unhindered accumulation of wealth, associating capitalism with wage slavery." JLMadrigal (talk) 12:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I dislike overt "Criticisms" sections, so I'd rather see this line (and its a good line stating the "conflict" with appropriate weight) placed along with other discussion of Anarcho-capitalist philosophy regarding anarchy (basic statelessness), perhaps under subheading Anarcho-capitalism#Contractual society. (related note, I think that heading is a bit misleading, since its not immediately apparent to a reader that it contains information AnCap anarchist/statelessness views) --Netoholic @ 19:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

As noted in another sub-thread I'm also against outright and discrete "Criticism" sections (as, indeed, is WP as a whole; nor, indeed, is this about "criticism" as such anyway). As for the critique of the current proposed text, that text is of course derived from an accredited source – that's half the point of the whole debate here – and we shouldn't suddenly be relying on our own logic to argue with the accuracy or otherwise of the source material (which is not anyway trying to represent anarcho-capitalism but to represent views of anarcho-capitalism and to place it in context) or advocating changing the text to something not directly based on that material. Equally, the alternative text, as noted elsewhere, while arguably "correct", is anyway making a different point and does not address the classification issue at all. It might be a valid addition but I don't see that it's an alternative. N-HH talk/edits 08:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Who? Who are these traditional anarchists. I think you really have to name them off. While see no issue with giving a little weight to notable people, these unnamed traditional anarchist don't really deserve that weight. As written in the survey above, that would be wikipedia giving a position. Wikipedia can't give a position. Anachocapilists say they are anarchists and "traditional" anarchists say they aren't. These are the only recorded facts. I'm not familiar with any group known as "traditional Anarchists". Not a group like say the Republican party, who will at times have a spokesman that issues a statement on their behalf. Most of the sources shown here are being to used to do just that. Your proposed change is giving undue weight to.. well that part isn't clear.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism is a distinct ideology, and is independent of any "proper" anarchism movement. It does not need to be classified in terms agreeable to ideologists of another strain (in this case, to leftists). In fact, if anarchy is defined as the absence of the state, then anCaps are the only "true" anarchists (since leftists require the existence of the state in order to confiscate and redistribute wealth, prevent competition, and abolish property). Rather, anarcho-capitalism is properly classified as the advocacy of abolishing the state in matters regarding BOTH person AND property. JLMadrigal (talk) 02:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

@Serialjoespycho: Traditional anarchists might better expressed as the traditional conception or currents of anarchism. Obviously the wording could be changed to that or something similar, but I'm not sure they have to be identified and named: the idea is fairly clear, surely, and also used in sources. I agree though with noting the recorded facts, and the dispute in question is well recorded. @JLMadrigal: As for the distinctiveness of anarcho-capitalism, as noted, that is the very issue that the proposed text addresses, which as ever leads me to wonder why there is such opposition to including it from those who appear to be advocates for anarcho-capitalism and why there's less complaint from them about the current state of the page, which by contrast asserts the connection without qualification or explanation. Also, as already noted by me and others, we're not here to debate the merits or otherwise of anarcho-capitalism or traditional anarchism [sic] nor should the page be about that. N-HH talk/edits 09:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Just as an article about evolution does not need to mention creationism to be clear, an article about anarcho-capitalism need not even make reference to the misnamed "anarchist" movement. Again, anarcho-capitalism (unlike leftism) is consistently opposed to the state. The Evolution article makes a brief reference to Creationism under a "Social and cultural responses" section. A similar approach might be acceptable in an article clarifying economic realities. JLMadrigal (talk) 12:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

N-HH, I'm sorry. I'll try to be more clear for you. There doesn't seem case being made that this point of view is the majority point of view. It does seem to be pushed as a significant minority point of view. However if it is signifigant there would be prominent adherents. If they are prominent it is very likely they have names. I'm not an advocate for anarocaptilism. A bot directed me to this RFC. You can see that on my talk page. As far as advocacy goes since you mention it, it does seem to me that there are advocates on both sides of this issue. However that isn't very important. I have good faith that both sides can be nuetral. I'm not debating the merits of either. I am asking who the traditional anarchists are that hold this position. Unless the position is this is the majority POV, name names.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I have to say that the "debate" on this page is appalling. This isn't a place to institute your personal, ideological beliefs; Wikipedia is built on verifiability, people... find your sources! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Closing

The last comment was 20 days ago. Since then the lede has been modified. Is this discussion resolved? If no comments are presented, I propose to archive this thread with a simple {{resolved}} note. – S. Rich (talk) 05:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

S. Rich, the RfC was recently reopened, and discussion should continue. I'm a little confused as to your recent deletion from the lead, as well. Perhaps you didn't see the section in the body which makes the same claim and is supported by six sources? I don't mind leaving the statement out for the moment, as there is currently an edit war occurring and the IP user should not have re-added it. If the RfC doesn't resolve this problem (which I now believe to be indicative of a wider, POV issue), I'll bring it to the DRN. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 05:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually I was supporting Ditto51, like with here. Next. I've seen RFCs pulled out of the archives in the past, but I think the better procedure is to start a new thread with a link to archived discussions. (In fact, Help pages which I've contributed to say as much. E.g., archived discussions are immutable....) At present, Mr. Dub, I don't see a need to go to DRN. Rather, if there are specific changes that are needed, let's find out what they are. (I am entirely neutral on the matter.) – S. Rich (talk) 05:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

References: arbitrary break

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.