Template talk:Anarchism sidebar/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

"Anarcho-Capitalism" should be removed from Schools of Thought

From Wikipedia:Notability: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.

"Anarcho-capitalism" consists solely of contemporary theory. Adherents to the ideology have no history, no individuals who are notable outside of this field, and no contemporary presence in the real world.

In contrast, anti-capitalist Anarchism (henceforth referred to as "Anarchism") has a continuous tradition and has been historically very noteworthy, including strong and direct influence on several early 20th-century wars and social movements, adherents who have been cited frequently outside of purely-Anarchist subculture, lengthy Encyclopaedia entries, and organizations and projects which continue to generate news through the current day.

More importantly for our purposes, "Anarcho-capitalism" does not have any real connection to Anarchism in history or membership; and the only theoretical connection is etymological (which is, in my opinion, being generous); and the consensus among the Anarchist mainstream is that capitalism does not have anything to do with Anarchism. One needs only look through the lists in the other sections of this portal to see that "Anarcho-capitalism" is not part of Anarchism: Where is it in Practice, People (other than Rothbard, whose inclusion is also highly questionable), History (particularly!), Culture, Economics, Lists, or Related Topics? Its only other mention in the sidebar is, appropriately, under Issues.

For these reasons, "Anarcho-capitalism" should be eliminated from the Schools of thought section of this sidebar. It is sufficient that it be included in the category of Libertarianism, with which it has a great deal of similarity and historical and theoretical overlap; and it is generous that it be included under Issues on this sidebar. If it can be shown, with an extraordinary amount of evidence, that "Anarcho-capitalism" is indeed compatible with 'other' Anarchist tendencies, then and only then would it be appropriate to include it as a legitimate school of thought.

I do not apologize for the reversion war with User:Knight of BAAWA as I consider the inclusion of "Anarcho-capitalism" to be vandalism. S/he clearly has an ideological axe to grind and their claims of neutrality are laughable. 24.197.253.43 (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

That's really nice, but it's been decided already by the sources: it's a form of anarchism. And you will be running afoul of the rules if you continue with your No True Scotsman bend. Your ideological axe needs to be put away.
Now I realize the usual pack of haters will try to dogpile on here just so they can attempt to marginalize something they hate (which shows they don't edit in good faith), but none of that matters in the face of the sources. So rage against your own misconceptions, misunderstanding, and impotence: you won't get anywhere. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
What "sources"? 24.197.253.43 (talk) 00:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Try reading the sources provided on the main anarchism article, and in the anarcho-capitalism article. Do your research first before you try something which has been tried many times--and failed each time. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 01:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
If these sources are so easy to find, it should not be difficult for you to identify exactly which ones you say are compelling. The burden of proof is with the person trying to make the positive claim, which is you.24.197.253.43 (talk) 02:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
This "No True Scotsman" argument is nonsense. Is a person who was born in Italy, speaks Italian, and later moved to Spain and died there a Scotsman just because he drank Whisky? Clearly not; but that is what you are trying to claim. 24.197.253.43 (talk) 02:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
No, the burden of proof here in Wikipedia is on the person going against the consensus. And the No True Scotsman and now strawman that you're using is clearly not going to work. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 02:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
What consensus? Look at how many times this has been fought over. You are basically the only person white knighting this. Your argument here amounts to "No, you"- WHY does the "No True Scotsman" argument (as you call it) not work? What about "Anarcho-capitalism" qualifies it to be considered part of Anarchism? If this is so important to you, put in the work. State exactly what sources you're referring to, and make a better argument for why a thought experiment which exists only on the Internet and in ideological writings be counted alongside traditions which have a 150+-year-old history, millions of adherents through history, widespread acknowledgement as an important political philosophy and movement, and adherents who are influential beyond their ideological subculture. So far your only argument is "Obviously it does," 'nuh uh,' and "Stop hating." 24.197.253.43 (talk) 14:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
It's been fought over because people like you want to push your narrow POV in violation of Wikipolicy, that's why. What qualifies anarchocapitalism to be considered part of anarchism? It is anarchist! No government, period. That's ALL that is required. Not anti-capitalism. Not "socialism". Just no government. Period. Just because you want to blatantly push your narrow POV (which involves a No True Scotsman and argument from antiquity) doesn't mean they aren't. Please stop violating Wikipolicy just because you have some axe to grind. So far, your argument is "I don't like it because I want anarchists to only be anti-capitalist", which is like saying "I don't consider protestants to be christian, because only catholics can be christian, and they came first." Yeah, it's really like that. So please: end your hate. If you want to improve this template, you are of course welcome to. All are; that's what Wikipedia is for. But what is isn't for is to have people like you with an axe to grind to marginalize anything you don't like just because you don't like it. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
The fact that you would say something like "So far, your argument is "I don't like it because I want anarchists to only be anti-capitalist"" should be proof enough that you are not arguing with anything resembling good faith. I, and others, have made many other arguments, and several extremely reasonable requests for you to explain why your pet philosophy deserves inclusion, and you have done nothing but refuse, dodge, make ridiculous accusations, and make accusations of fallacies of which you are yourself guilty.
I am not arguing that protestantism should not be included in christianity. I'm arguing that the Branch Davidians should not be included as a denomination in the Christianity sidebar. As indeed it isn't. And neither should "Anarcho-capitalism" (nor "National Anarchism", and there are probably several others which do not pass muster- such as Black (not because it's not Anarchism, but because it's not particularly notable), Existentialist (the linked article suggests the term is mostly conjectural), Infoanarchism, Naturism (possibly; it doesn't really exist now but it has some historic notability), and Vegan) be included among Anarchist schools of thought in this sidebar. 24.197.253.43 (talk) 16:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
You are arguing the same logically as "protestants can't be christians because catholics came first". Please stop it. The fact that you consider anarchocapitalism in the template as vandalism shows that you don't edit in good faith. You will not get anywhere. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 16:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Again, I am not arguing that "protestants can't be christians because catholics came first" but "Branch Davidianism should not be included in the Christianity sidebar because it is not sufficiently notable". There is no evidence that "Anarcho-capitalism" has any notability or real-world existence outside of theory. I even did your work for you and looked at the 'sources' in those articles, and they consist entirely of debate of whether or not "Anarcho-capitalism" counts as a branch of Anarchism. That qualifies it to be mentioned under "Issues" on this sidebar- not "Schools of thought". If you cannot come up with a better argument then I am going to make the edit again. 24.197.253.43 (talk) 18:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
You are arguing that because "anarchists" were "originally anti-capitalist" it must always be that way. Argument from antiquity. And you can make the edit again if you want. But it will be reverted. Because there is enough precedent, sources, and notability of anarchocapitalism to do so. By the way: your usage of scarce-quotes shows that you aren't editing in good faith. Same with your statement that including anarchocapitalism here is vandalism. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I didn't say that anarchists were "originally anti-capitalist" and that is not the argument I'm making as to why "Anarcho-capitalism" should not be part of this section. You are a pro-"Anarcho-capitalism" ideologue and you cannot claim any high ground regarding motivation. I'm through with your misrepresentations and empty assertions. 24.197.253.43 (talk) 23:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
""Anarcho-capitalism" consists solely of contemporary theory. Adherents to the ideology have no history, no individuals who are notable outside of this field, and no contemporary presence in the real world. In contrast, anti-capitalist Anarchism (henceforth referred to as "Anarchism") has a continuous tradition and has been historically very noteworthy, including strong and direct influence on several early 20th-century wars and social movements, adherents who have been cited frequently outside of purely-Anarchist subculture, lengthy Encyclopaedia entries, and organizations and projects which continue to generate news through the current day. More importantly for our purposes, "Anarcho-capitalism" does not have any real connection to Anarchism in history or membership;" Those are your words. The upshot is that you believe that anarchists were originally anti-capitalist. Perhaps you're unaware that people can go back and read what you wrote before. And perhaps you're unaware that a lot of people can and do comprehend English. You're misrepresenting your own words now, dude. And that's sad. You'll probably get blocked soon due to your ideological axe-grinding causing you to violate 3RR. Oh well. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 00:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
That's an extremely creative interpretation of what I said. I was contrasting the contents of the Schools of Thought section, which should have been made more clear by my later note of several other pages which should also be removed from that section of the sidebar. If you can show that "Anarcho-capitalism" is comparable in real-world influence to tendencies such as Syndicalism, Collectivism, Egoism, etc, then you might have an argument. As it is, you are giving your pet topic undue weight. 24.197.253.43 (talk) 01:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
No, that's what you wrote. I quoted you. Further, you are violating NPOV. And undue weight does not apply. I realize that you're now trying to get the ops to do what you can't. But rest assured that your ideological axe-grinding will be noted via your own words. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 02:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
"undue weight does not apply"- Explain why not. Make an argument. 24.197.253.43 (talk) 04:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
You have to explain the reason it does. Make a *real* argument, not just your scarce-quote-using, argument-from-antiquity-using, NPOV-violating (where you call the inclusion of anarchocapitalism "vandalism") stance. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 12:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
"Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views." "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth). To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well." "in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources" "Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity." As I have repeatedly shown, the preponderance of Anarchism in terms of real-world presence is such that "Anarcho-capitalism" is vanishingly small and therefore it makes no sense to put it, as well as several other aforementioned tendencies, in a spot as prominent as the first entry of the sidebar. 24.197.253.43 (talk) 13:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
You've shown nothing of the sort, though. What you have provided is a combination of argument from antiquity and hatred (calling the inclusion "vandalism"). What the sources in the anarchism and anarchocapitalism article shown is that it is a valid school of thought. And that's that. Knight of BAAWA (talk) 23:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm sorry, 24.197.253.43, but you seriously misunderstand Wikipedia's notability guideline. Its purpose it solely to establish whether a subject is significant enough to be the subject of an encyclopedia article. The matter has been discussed in the past, and the overwhelming consensus is that "anarcho-capitalism" is notable. If you're going to argue against its inclusion in this template—a losing battle, in my opinion—you're going to have to try some other line of attack. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I find the arguments made in the linked discussion to be extremely weak. For example the Journal of Libertarian Studies is simply theorists talking to other theorists. It would be like including Star Trek fanfics in the Quantum Mechanics sidebar. So far nobody has explained how the ideology has any serious significance at all in the real world. Note that I am not arguing that the Anarcho-capitalism page be deleted entirely; just that it is not notable enough to be included in something as prominent as the Anarchism sidebar.24.197.253.43 (talk) 02:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Anarcho-capitalism is certainly notable enough for its article and, even if a pretty obscure school, would arguably be significant enough to be listed here – but only if we accept it is a type of anarchism. Despite the claim above that the "sources" have "decided" on this point, actually there's a lot of dispute about it. Third party literature often excludes it, and even Rothbard disowned the connection at one point I believe. And also, as ever, "hate" has nothing to do with it. If anything, advocacy for anarcho-capitalism seems to be the problem here that is muddying the waters rather than opposition to it. Honestly, I for one don't care that much. N-HH talk/edits 17:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I support taking out of this template the strange idead called "anarcho-capitalism". Even if it is notable the consensus on general works on anarchism is to not mention it and if it is mentioned it tends to be denounced as a form of right wing politics which cannot be said to be a form of anarchism. Anarcho-capitalism clearly has a place within the ideological spectrum and it is as a radical form of economic liberalism and of right wing politics. Also perhaps of the very US centered form of politics known as "libertarianism". There are other bizarre combinations of ideologies which do not get accepted in major works on ideologies. For example some people in Russia are proposing a combination of nazism and leninist communism called "national bolchevism" but that thing does not get mentioned in major works on socialism and communism. As such "national bolchevism" does not get mentioned in any work on socialism because it is mostly an idea very unorthodox to the point of being something akin to propose a satanist christianism or a catholic lutheranism. As such it sounds almost like a joke or a hoax. But also because the small amount of followers in it mostly exist within fascist spaces. Something similar happens with "anarcho-capitalism". It does not have any significant encounter with the rest of anarchism and it mostly just exists in the US within the right wing milieu of politics alongside conservatism. --Eduen (talk) 01:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposal/compromise

How about keeping it, but moving it to the "related topics" section rather than retaining it as a confirmed anarchist "school of thought"? Also, on the related issue of "National Anarchism", I support removing that altogether. While anarcho-capitalism has some purchase as an ideology, at least in the US, and undoubtedly has links to anarchism proper, that seems to be just an utterly fringe far-right thing which no connection whatsoever to anarchism as commonly understood. N-HH talk/edits 09:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

No. Anarchocapitalism is a confirmed anarchist school of thought despite what the haters, e.g. those like Eduen who use scarce-quotes, want to believe. It belongs in the list of schools of thought. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 12:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
This is what I propose; and indeed it is already there under "Issues". 24.197.253.43 (talk) 13:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Anarcho-capitalism is only a 'confirmed' school of anarchist thought by its own adherents. No sources that discuss anarchism in general refer to it as a legitimate branch of anarchism other than perhaps to dismiss it. I agree it does belong in the 'issues' section, but not as a coherent school of anarchist thought. Knight of BAAWA apparently wants to promote Ancap-ism since it seems to be a topic of interest to them, but that does not increase its status as being a notable branch of anarchist thought. Interrexconsul (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
So the Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social Thought dismisses it? Hmmmm. No. Or its Encyclopedia of Political Thought? Nope. Please don't just make up things when we can find the sources which show that you're wrong. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 23:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
You really seem to have a heavy emotional investment in this issue. I'm not sure if the attitude you're looking at this with is constructive. And I never contended that the sources you list dismiss it as an ideology, merely that they don't align its belief system with anarchism as a whole. Lastly, nobody can be right or "wrong" as you described in as far as what ideology is part of a school of thought. You are clearly coming at this with a biased POV. Interrexconsul (talk) 03:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Rather it is those who hate anarchocapitalism who are emotionally invested; I'm simply trying to help keep them from editing in bad faith and marginalizing a valid school of anarchism. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 00:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Knight of BAAWA; there is no reason to remove anarcho-capitalism from the template simply to satisfy those who dislike or disagree with it being characterized as a form of anarchism.
talk
) 04:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


I feel strongly that the template should include a link to Anarcho-capitalism, and I don't particularly like the idea that new or unpopular anarchist movements should be kicked off the template or moved to another section. What's next: should we debate whether one can be an anarchist and follow a religion (bye, bye, Christian anarchism) or whether former black nationalists can really be anarchists (bye, bye, Black anarchism). I look forward to the bloodletting. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The issue is that there is more to it than 'unpopularity', while Anarcho-capitalism is undoubtedly that amongst anarchists, the relevant issue is that the only group that purports it to be an actual school of anarchist thought are an-caps, not outside scholarly sources. It can certainly be linked as a relevant issue, but to include it as being a school of thought would be akin to include National Socialism as being a school of thought of Socialism simply because retains the same part of the name and it supports a strong centralized state. Anyone educated about the two philosophies would agree that while the two do share a handful of traits in the broadest of strokes, to claim they are related ideologies would be silly. The same goes for anarcho-capitalism and anarchism. While anarchism and anarcho-capitalism both share the trait of wanting to dissolve/minimize the state, the similarities end there. Anarchists of every other stripe believe in dissolving hierarchies and private property, while anarcho-capitalists believe in one or both of the two (depending on whose interpretation to which you subscribe). The philosophies simply aren't particularly related other than the controversy over whether they are. Interrexconsul (talk) 08:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
The problems with anarcho-capitalism and "national anarchism", the latter especially, are more fundamental than people not liking them or being "new". This is a debate about classification, not about the – to be frank, slightly odd-sounding – refrain about "hate" that keeps coming up (for info, you're not doing a very good job of selling anarcho-capitalism). People can assert on WP talk pages that ancap is definitively anarchism, but that is simply not what the record says. Yes, it is sometimes bracketed with it, but there is always nuance or even uncertainty and disagreement on the point, and WP needs to reflect that. Even the Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social Thought, mentioned above in favour of the ancap-as-anarchism claim but not actually quoted from, describes it as "a tendency in the libertarian New Right", which as it happens is also "largely confined to the US" with "minimal" influence. Other sources are cited in this section of the ancap page, including Peter Marshall's A History of Anarchism – described by one newspaper reviewer as "the most comprehensive account of anarchist thought ever undertaken" – which has a small chapter on it but concludes that "few anarchists" would accept anarcho-capitalists as anarchists and that they might "best be called right-wing libertartians rather than anarchists". Even Murray Rothbard himself is quoted in that section disavowing the anarchist label, saying, per this piece: "We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical". Also, @FreeKnowledgeCreator, the point of the proposal or compromise – hence why I described it in those terms – was not to remove it from the template but, as I explicitly said, to retain it but move it. N-HH talk/edits 08:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, we get into No True Scotsman if we kick out the "unpopular". The decision was made long ago to embrace all the forms of anarchism--and that is a decision I agree with. Wikipedia isn't about popularity; it's about verifiability, facts, and vetted sources. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 00:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I have been editing anarchism related articles for some years now and i don´t know what decision to "embraces all forms of anarchism" user Knight of BAAWA is talking about. It seems from what i read here that there is no consensus to keep anarchocapitalism in the schools of thought section of this template. I already gave my reasons before for not incluiding that thing here.--Eduen (talk) 03:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
So you never saw this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Anarchism_sidebar/Archive_1#anarcho-capitalism ? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm? Couldn't be bothered to check the archives? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm? And that's just ONE example, Eduen. Just one example. All one has to do is check the archives for this page and the main anarchism page. Like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anarchism/Archive_51#anarcho-capitalism . Seriously: you couldn't be bothered to check the archives? Really? - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 12:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Did you read your own citations? Those archives clearly show consensus against including it. -24.197.253.43 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.49.1.3 (talk) 22:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
No, they actually don't. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 01:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
They certainly don't show agreement or a "decision" to include it as a school of thought on the sidebar. The one debate on the talk page here that you linked to is 10 years old, and anyway arguably shows an impasse similar to this one. As for "verifiability, facts, and vetted [sic] sources", indeed. I cited and quoted some, both third party and even anarcho-capitalist, only just above. We've seen nothing in response but broad assertion and barely germane links to old WP discussions. N-HH talk/edits 06:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

I filed this for dispute resolution two days ago, but it was closed for what appears to be reasons of improper paperwork. Should I refile; and if so would someone be so kind as to explain what I did improperly? 24.197.253.43 (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The "dispute" is being resolved here. With discourse. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 00:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I would contend that it is not. You seem intent to promote your own ideology rather than to examine whether or not it is of significant relevance to the core thought of anarchism to include in 'schools of thought'. Furthermore, you misunderstand the concept of the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy and incessantly repeat it as if it is an "I win" card in any debate. I agree that the sources you cite do in fact contain a description of anarchism, but neither they nor the overwhelming body of evidence, as shown by N-HH, agree that anarcho-capitalism is a school of thought of anarchism as a whole. Most sources instead label it as being a branch of Libertarianism. Interrexconsul (talk) 01:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
But the body of evidence DOES show that anarchocapitalism is a school of thought of anarchism. That there are people with an ideological axe to grind (such as yourself and Eduen) matters little to sources, verifiability, and wikipolicy. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 12:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
It seems we have no consensus for keeping "anarcho-capitalism" in this template. My reasons were given here before.--Eduen (talk) 03:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
We do have a consensus: the history of the discussion on the schools of thought shows that we don't just kick things out of the tree because we have some ideological axe to grind, Eduen. End your hate and edit war against anarchocapitalism. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 12:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I would hardly call an ideology that neither anarchists themselves, nor scholars who study the topic, describe as a type of anrachism a school of thought. If anyone here has an ideological ax to grind it is certainly you. Furthermore, regardless of whether or not the previous statement is true, how has anarcho-capitalism affected historical events? How has it as a philosophy affected the outside world? As far most modern (Non ancap) observers can tell it is a purely internet-based ideology that has had little to no effect on real world events. So really Anarcho-capitalism needs to prove both its notability and relevancy to anarchism as a whole. Interrexconsul (talk) 13:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
This thing is being kept here now only by the force of Knight of BAAWA´s edit warring. He is the only one here who things we have to keep the bizarre radical right wing ideology called "anarcho" capitalism in this template. Wikipedia works through a consensus procedure and clearly the consensus here is not towards keeping anarchocapitalism in schools of thought as anyone can see in this talk section. Taking a vote here we have 4 users who do not think anarcho-capitalism is well supported by sources as a "school of thought" within anarchism againts one. --Eduen (talk) 16:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not work on majority vote. -24.197.253.43 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.49.1.3 (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
No, but it also doesn't exist to promote a single crusading user's ideology either. Knight of BAWA has repeatedly shown they are not willing to come to any sort of agreement and that they will simply continue to call those who disagree with them 'haters'. Outside of that single user there is not significant disagreement on this issue. Interrexconsul (talk) 20:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
And yet the hatred is clear, e.g. the calling of the inclusion of anarchocapitalism here "vandalism" and the use of scarce-quotes. Please don't play the victim when you clearly don't deserve to. I have provided links to two of the instances of discussion of anarchocapitalism--one from the archives of this page and one from the anarchism page--where it was talked about not kicking things out of the tree and being inclusive (and those are just two of many where it was decided as such). THAT is what Wikipedia is for. What it is NOT is a soapbox for the haters to marginalize whatever they hate. Nor for them to carry out a decade-long edit-war against anarchocapitalism. It's clear that people like Eduen won't rest until it is purged and thrown into a memory hole. That is not editing in good faith.
Now then, as mentioned above: Wikipedia does not operate by majority vote. And it's amusing that self-professed "anarchist" (such as Eduen) would want to vote on anything, really! That smacks of heirarchy (shockhorrorshock).

The haters have piled on, as I predicted. Please: just stop trying to push your hate via a narrow POV, guys. It's not constructive, and not good for Wikipedia. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 01:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

We heard you the first 600 times. 24.197.253.43 (talk) 03:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Knight of BAAWA, you provided two sources of someone talking about anarcho-capitalism anywhere, you didn't provide sources that it is a school of anarchist thought. I don't think anyone here has said "Anarcho-capitalism is stupid and sucks" so please stop labeling everyone who disagrees with you as 'haters'. It's wholly unproductive and only reinforces the fact that it is you who is acting out of POV. Interrexconsul (talk) 03:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I have refiled here. 24.197.253.43 (talk) 03:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Knight of BAAWA's position is correct, as I've already said. It is incorrect to claim that anarcho-capitalism has not been discussed as a form of anarchism, and the claim that real anarchists do not call it anarchism, as asserted by Interrexconsul above, is a pointless bit of circular logic.

talk
) 06:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure anyone is saying it is not sometimes discussed with anarchism, or even as a form of it; the point is that there is a dispute there, which is acknowledged by anarchists, anarcho-capitalists themselves and authoritative third-parties. The sources that make that clear are cited in the ancap article and I quoted a couple above. In response, all we have is "my position is right" and assertions about evidence. Can we actually see some that makes the definitive connection and rebuts what Marshall, Rothbard himself et al are all on record as saying? N-HH talk/edits 07:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Outside views

  • The WHOLE POINT of a navigation template is for readers to find 'related' topics. Can you honestly say that ZERO readers will ever look into anarchist thought, while still holding to free trade/market/capitalist values? The fact that this is argued over and over again is an indication that while many people do not find value in it, some others do. Its not as if the suggestion is to keep an entry for some entirely foreign topic like
    single purpose user who also seems to be forum-shopping and brigading. -- Netoholic @
    08:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
The proposal above does include the link in the template, just in a different place. And this isn't about zealotry, it's about basic taxonomy: I'd make the same point about
Tibetan terriers, with just as much objectivity and disinterest. Finally, this comment no more represents an "outside" view than anyone else's here. User:Netoholic has not, as far as I know, commented on this page or this precise issue before, but they are active in this and related areas; and others who have contributed above, such as me, are just as new to this precise debate on this page. N-HH talk/edits
08:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
You're definitely one of the zealots I had in mind. I comment in areas of my interest and where I have some knowledge. I've seen your obsession with this AnCap/Anarchist divide on many occasions, especially your edit warring with Knight of BAAWA elsewhere. I'll put my status as outside observer against yours any day. Anarcho-capitalism is (conceptually) a school of thought, so it belongs under "Schools of thought". Lastly, here's an interesting fact... anarcho-capitalism was featured on the Anarchism Portal for the month of March 2007 where it read "Anarcho-capitalism is a relatively new form of anarchism". Not every grade A, pure-blood Anarchist feels the need to deny the connection and similarities. -- Netoholic @ 08:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I also comment and edit in areas of my interest and where I have some knowledge. I change apartments frequently and I don't have a Wikipedia account, in part because I feel accounts are against the original spirit of Wikipedia. As I said above, "Anarcho-capitalism" is related to Anarchism proper, but only as an extremely fringe philosophy; including it (and several other entries) in the "Schools of thought" section gives it/them undue weight and reduces the relative importance of the actual major tendencies of Anarchism. There's already "Individualist" and "Anarcho-capitalism" is already listed under "Issues," which nobody disputes as being an appropriate place for it. This mentality that "Anarcho-capitalism" deserves to be immediately accepted is extremely odd to me. When does this happen with other theories and philosophies? Would someone please show me "String Theory" in the quantum mechanics sidebar? 24.197.253.43 (talk) 13:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
This is why some of us have proposed that it be put in the "issues" section, not in the schools of thought section. An interested user could certainly find the link to anarchocapitalism from the sidebar, but it would not be labeled as a school of thought. Interrexconsul (talk) 20:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
And yet it *IS* a school of thought, the dislike of those who think that only catholics can be christians (since we're apparently doing argument from antiquity) or that No True Scotsman puts sugar on his oatmeal (since we're doing that, too). Also: people need to learn what fringe is not. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight 24.197.253.43 (talk) 00:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
....which does not apply here. Look: just give up your hate-fueled vendetta. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 01:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
From What Fringe Is Not: "...political and social articles where better policies such as WP:NPOV or WP:UNDUE are appropriate." From WP:Due: "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views." This is best accomplished by putting 'Anarcho-capitalism' in the "Issues" section. 24.197.253.43 (talk) 19:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit-Warring and Name-Calling

Both of you!! Even if the IP is engaged in a hate-fueled vendetta, you can't read minds and don't know that to be true, and civility is required in Wikipedia. Unregistered editor: Remember that the next administrative step is likely to be semi-protection, which will silence you (unless you also have a registered account, in which case you should be using it). Both of you need to stop edit-warring, stop name-calling, and be civil and try to work things reasonably. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

This is clearly impossible. The next step appears to be formal mediation. 24.197.253.43 (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
What is clearly impossible? To stop edit-warring? To stop your personal attack of referring to an edit with which you disagreed as vandalism? To be civil? What is clearly impossible? As to the next step being formal mediation, have you (unregistered editor) read the mediation policies? Formal mediation does not accept or deal with personal attacks. Also, do you (24.*.*.*) have a registered account? If so, use it. If not, be aware that semi-protection is likely to be the next administrative step.
The next step in content resolution is the recently filed RFC. Mediation (whether informal or formal) will not take place while other dispute resolution, including an RFC, is in progress. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
For some reason I thought you said something about a compromise position. I would also like to note that I have not personally attacked anyone since that initial accusation of vandalism. I would consider vandalism to be edits in bad-faith; I'm sorry about not being intimate with Wikipedia's culture and shibboleths. 24.197.253.43 (talk) 05:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Given the fact that 24.197.253.43 *SPECIFICALLY STATED* that s/he feels the inclusion of anarchocapitalism in this template to be "vandalism": yes, I can know it to be true that it is a hate-fueled vendetta. In fact, I'll even quote it again: "I do not apologize for the reversion war with User:Knight of BAAWA as I consider the inclusion of "Anarcho-capitalism" to be vandalism." Those are 24.192.253.43's own words. Clearly, the edits are NOT in any way motivated to make the template better, but rather to eliminate something which s/he dislikes to the point of calling it "vandalism" for its inclusion. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Saying that another editor has a hate-filled vendetta is a personal attack. (It also implies that you can read their mind as to what their motive is.) If you don't think so, ask an administrator. It is true that their claim of "vandalism" in a content dispute was a personal attack. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
It's clearly NOT a personal attack, since the person has now gone on record saying that formal mediation is required since the person's first attempt failed. This is called "shopping", which, coupled with the person's statement that the inclusion of anarchocapitalism here is "vandalism", clearly signifies a vendetta. Seriously: just read the person's words. At no point was ANY personal attack made by me, and I'll thank you to stop confusing facts with personal attacks. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 11:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 11 May 2016

I want to add in the section "Theory" the article Libertarian possibilism. Eduen (talk) 02:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
I dont see any oposition to that. As such there is consensus already.--Eduen (talk) 01:12, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Libertarian possibilism is a historical movement of anarchist principles. It certainly belongs in the set of political and/or ideological Anarchist theories. -The Gnome (talk) 10:18, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

more on anarcho-capitalism

Is there a single reason that can be given as to why anarcho-capitalism should be included here? Is there a reason that it can be defined as a part of the anarchist movement more than Nazism, or National-Socialism can be defined as a part of the socialist movement? National-Bolshevism has been given as an example too. Are we to include the period in English history known as "The Anarchy" as a part of the anarchist movement? It could make the same claims as the anarcho-capitalist edit-warriors here; that there was no central state and that it has the word "anarchy" in its name. IF you accept this example as being separate from the anarchist movement, then to be consistent you should also accept that the anarchist movement is not simply defined as a movement advocating for the absence of a central state, and take the historical meaning of anarchism into account. 124.171.144.44 (talk) 14:43, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Anarcho-capitalism and its place in this template

There is clear consensus that Anarcho-capitalism should feature in the template. I see no consensus on whether it should go under "Schools of Thought" or under "Related Issues"; according to
WP:NOCONSENSUS that probably means it ought to stay in "Schools of Thought" for the moment. (non-admin closure) Dionysodorus (talk
) 01:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

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.

Does anarcho-capitalism belong in this template and, if it does, what is its appropriate place? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

I note that some advocates of anarchism (or of certain concepts of anarchism) take a very strong view that anarcho-capitalism must be excluded from anarchism, or from being included among anarchist theories. I find the strength of this argument to be remarkable, almost paradoxical. Anarchism is the rejection of the validity of central authority. Why do "anti-anarcho-capitalists" take the view that anarcho-capitalism must be excluded from anarchism? What is the basis for a central doctrine that excludes anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I will note that anarcho-capitalism is one of the very few forms of anarchism (if it is a form of anarchism) for which there have been working experiments, such as Viking Iceland, and modern-day Somalia, where it is essentially the result of a failure of government institutions. I haven't seen any experiments in anarcho-socialism on that sort of scale, only small utopian communities that took advantage of an existing state structure, so that they were really only experiments in socialism, and of some communes in the Spanish Civil War that didn't last very long. As Orwell noted, not only were they opposed by the Nationalists, but the Soviet Union, who was backing the Republicans for military reasons, also didn't want them to succeed. However, it seems unlikely that any sort of anarcho-socialism could have survived anywhere for long without the utopian remaking of human nature envisioned by some on the Left, and the remaking of human nature requires a state to maintain order and educate at least two generations. Anarcho-capitalism at least has been tried in its own ways. Why are some anarchists so insistent that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism? (I have a possible answer to that question.) Robert McClenon (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

To say that medieval Iceland and Somalia represent functional "Anarcho-capitalist" societies is an extremely specious argument, one to which Anarchists usually do not respond any more than one would attempt a rational debate with the Time Cube guy; nor do I think it would be likely that there is much in the way of Anarchist scholarship specifically refuting these arguments for the reason that "Anarcho-capitalism" is so fringe that few serious scholars have felt a need to respond to it. But I will state a refutation: "Anarcho-capitalism" makes specific demands of the nature of the economy and society, and to say that those societies fulfill those criteria is an incredible stretch. Tribal societies are far more complex than the simplistic depictions with which the capitalists describe them, and their descriptions focus only on one or two aspects of those societies which have quasi-capitalist elements. For each of those examples there are likely to be elements at least as easily attributed to Anarchist rather than Capitalist ethos- for example, David Graeber in Debt discusses an Icelandic story relying on gifting; hardly a capitalist idea. He also noted in a 2013 Reddit AMA that a large proportion of Icelandic society was slaves, which is certainly not Anarchist either. If Anarchists do not claim examples of earlier societies as Anarchists, it would seem to be because we have higher standards than do the anti-State capitalists (as I call them); we, more realistically, study the certain admirable qualities of various societies while also noting their faults and not claiming that they were Anarchists if they were not ("Anarchism is an ideological magpie"). By claiming that these societies were "Anarcho-capitalist" the anti-State capitalists are saying that because geese and swans have webbed feet and bills then they must be platypuses.
In answer to your second question, "Anarcho-capitalism" is not Anarchist for several reasons, by definition, by consequence, and for reasons of the history and culture of the anti-State capitalists. By definition, Anarchism means opposition to coercion; but under capitalism, it is acceptable for someone who owns excess food or medicine or some other necessity of life to make any demand of someone who needs it before they will hand it over, simply because they own the title to it- even if the current owner does not need it and will not use it. That is coercion. By consequence, capitalism leads to accumulation of wealth which creates distinct classes tending toward extreme wealth for a few and extreme poverty for many- capitalists love to say that the modern world has a large middle class, but this ignores the material conditions of the vast majority of the world and, worse, ignores the fact that the gains of the working class have only been achieved by people organizing, which is something capitalists have shown only antipathy for; opinions among anti-State capitalists toward unions range from accepting-but-dismissive to openly hostile. There are also critical issues of things like the nature of corporations, contracts, homesteading and abandonment, corruption, meritocracy, and inheritance, on all of which anti-State capitalists seem to have views which are often extremely vague or questionable if not openly hypocritical or failing to address concerns that deontological adherence to capitalist principles would lead to extremely unfair outcomes. Third, the history and culture of anti-State capitalists is and has always been openly hostile to Anarchism, having its origins in conservative arch-capitalist American academia in the past half-century and generally staying there, as opposed to the Anarchist milieu which is a strata stretching through usually poor, working-class, LGBT, and environmentalist communities. The anti-State capitalists seem to have a complete blind spot for all of these groups and also the challenges faced by people of color. 24.197.253.43 (talk) 05:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not an anarchist, but I consider the insistence of some anarchists that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism to be paradoxical, an effort to impose central authority on a belief against central authority. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The problem is of course that anarchism has historically been anti-capitalist, hence the concept of anarcho-capitalism is, to some, inherently oxymoronic. It would hardly, for example, be against anarchist principles to query whether a putative "fascist anarchism" or "authoritarian anarchism" would be anarchism or have much to do with it. Just because anarchism is anti-authority, it doesn't mean it can't be defined taxonomically, whether by anarchists themselves or disinterested political scientists. And it's not just left-wing anarchists who mark the distinction, the problem is noted in authoritative third parties, and indeed by some anarcho-capitalists too – Murray Rothbard himself is on record disavowing that his views can be said to be anarchist. The issue of inclusion depends on who you ask and how you define anarchism, and the problem is that it is hard for a template like this to reflect that nuance. As for real-life examples, the Spanish Civil War saw genuine collectivist anarchist experiments; the Icelandic, Somali etc examples loaded (often very recently) into the anarcho-capitalist page are not generally thought of as anarcho-capitalism in action, they're just societies which have been retrospectively co-opted and claimed by some fairly marginal and partisan libertarian writers to possibly, in part, be vaguely the sort of thing they are talking about. N-HH talk/edits 11:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I consider it no more authoritarian than saying Pluto is not a planet. If you say Pluto is a planet, nobody is going to haul you away. But you are wrong according to the academic standard and you may be considered a fool by those who know better, which may carry other social consequences. No doubt the anti-State capitalists would describe this interaction as capitalist by virtue of being a free-market process. 24.197.253.43 (talk) 05:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
"The problem is of course that Pluto has historically been a planet". /s -- Netoholic @ 16:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Your point being, apart from apparently pointless and sarcastic mimicry of the phrasing I used and from begging the question? Pluto used to be classified as a planet, but it is not now. Anarchism, as noted, has historically been seen as an anti-capitalist philosophy and still is by many authorities and by most anarchists. N-HH talk/edits 17:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


If the argument being made here is that anarcho-capitalism is not part of this template because it covers a "historical" Anarchist movement, then maybe what we need to do is make clear (perhaps by rename and changing the top link) that this template covers the dictionary definition of the term "anarchism" and that it is meant to connect all articles for schools of thought which advocate for political anarchy (ie stateless society). We might also look at the Anarchism and see about moving some of the historical anti-capitalist ideology into a separate article and so that political anarchism doesn't conflate with economic issues. Obviously there are a lot of schools of thought that advocate for political anarchism, and economic anarchists are just a subset of that and most already have their own articles which explain their interpretation of anarchism as it relates to economics in addition to politics. -- Netoholic @ 18:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

As above, you're misunderstanding the use of the term "historically", as if it necessarily meant "but not any more", while also assuming the very thing which is under dispute, which is that anarchism has somehow been fundamentally redefined by Rothbard and anarcho-capitalism. Nor should this template cover a simple dictionary definition of the term "anarchism": it should deal with what political science considers to be the definition and scope of the political concept of anarchism. Finally, I'm not sure the distinction set out between "economic anarchism" and "political anarchism" is that illuminating or one found in the literature with that sense. N-HH talk/edits 07:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
"it should deal with what political science considers to be the definition and scope of the political concept of anarchism" Great, then it is clear that anarcho-capitalism is a "school of thought" under this definition, and I expect then that you'll be updating your vote above. -- Netoholic @ 13:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Again, it is a relatively new and highly unorthodox ideology, and it would be giving it undue weight to include it as equal to tendencies which have had millions of adherents around the world and had relatively dwarfing effects on world history over the past century and a half. The question is not so much whether it is "a" school of thought (although that is a question); the question is whether it is sufficiently accepted and influential to be worth mentioning. As "Anarcho-capitalists" have nothing to show for themselves but a bunch of academic theory and internet discussions, plus an annual party in New Hampshire, I think the answer is clear. 24.197.253.43 (talk) 03:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
"it is a relatively new and highly unorthodox ideology" Ideology is another term for "school of thought". Since you agree anarcho-capitalism is a "school of thought" (even if you disagree its subordinate to left-Anarchism) then in belongs under the Schools of thought section of the template. -- Netoholic @ 16:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand what 'a distinction between "economic anarchism" and "political anarchism"' even means. It sounds to my ears like gibberish. The Anarchist argument has always been that economics and politics are indistinguishable. 24.197.253.43 (talk) 03:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
@Netoholic. Why would I be changing my "vote" on that basis? I've been quite clear and consistent, citing multiple actual sources to that effect (eg in this recent post, just so you can't credibly claim you actually missed any of that), that there are genuine disputes about its inclusion within anarchism proper and about the definition and scope of anarchism as a political movement and/or ideology. For the third time, it needs to be pointed out that you are simply assuming and declaring as gospel, without any supporting evidence, the very point that needs to be proven. As ever, debates are being pointlessly dragged round in circles. N-HH talk/edits 06:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't need sources to describe basic vocabulary and concepts. Anarcho-capitalism is (broadly speaking) a "school of thought" aka ideology. Even if you disagree that it is subordinate to "historical" Anarchism, it is still conceptually a "school of thought", and so belongs in that section in the template. -- Netoholic @ 16:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
According to your perspective
WP:UNDUE would never be invoked for anything. 24.197.253.43 (talk
) 00:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
That guideline applies to weight of information in articles. This template is a navigational aid. If ancap wasn't already mentioned in the anarchism and several otehr related articles, you might make a case. But since that's not the case, and the topic of anarcho-capitalism is related to anarchism, you're misusing that guideline when you try to apply it to this template. -- Netoholic @ 04:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Of course real-world references are necessary when trying to establish, in the complex and often subjective field of political classification, whether A is definitively a type of B rather than editor assertions about what "basic vocabulary" might or might not, supposedly, automatically tell us without further investigation. And of course no one is arguing for removing it altogether from this template or disputing that it is "related" to anarchism (or indeed denying that it is a "school of thought" of some sort, albeit one that might be better thought of as sui generis or as a form of right-wing libertarianism). Hence why some of us have been arguing it would be better placed under "Related topics" – from where people can of course navigate just as succesfully. N-HH talk/edits 09:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Your vote above does not endorse placement in the Related topics section of the template, but rather "a related issues section" which doesn't exist, so its confusing whether you mean Related topics or Issues. In either case, since the dictionary definition and common meaning (as described in the lede of anarchism) place primary meaning on elimination of the state, and since anarcho-capitalism also advocates that, then the topic is absolutely best placed in the *Schools of thought* section. Elimination of all hierarchies (such as in private affairs) is, as you often say, a "historical" viewpoint which not all anarchists advocate, but it is not part of the core, especially in modern times. -- Netoholic @ 04:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Since you've raised dictionary definitions, I could just remind you that "topic" and "issue" can mean more or less the same thing. It's rather obvious, surely, that my original comment meant including it in the "Related topics" part of the sidebar (as I have since said more explicitly). It's not at all confusing and only someone on a trolling mission would make quite so much of that for so long. As for your assertion that the deductions of random WP editors, based on extrapolation from dictionary entries, are what determine content here, trumping statements found in reliable, authoritative real-world sources, this is really basic introduction-to-WP stuff for new starters. They don't, as I've now pointed out to you about five times now I think. I'm not sure you're competent to contribute here, nor is it worth responding to anything else you say. N-HH talk/edits 08:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

"Elimination of all hierarchies (such as in private affairs) is, as you often say, a "historical" viewpoint which not all anarchists advocate, but it is not part of the core, especially in modern times." This is an astounding statement! Are you serious? 24.197.253.43 (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Break

Re two of the latest responses.

Roderick T. Long who happens to be, according to his WP page, yes, an academic but also "a senior scholar for the Ludwig von Mises Institute [and] an editor of the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies". Finally, I agree about not taking sides – but I don't quite see how definitely including it as a school of thought without qualification is not taking sides. N-HH talk/edits
21:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Sources

Whether individual WP editors think anarcho-capitalism should be counted as a form of anarchism, based on their own deductions from dictionary definitions or on anything else, is neither here nor there. As ever, what matters is what reputable, reliable and authoritative sources say about anarcho-capitalism and its relationship to the political concept known as anarchism, and how that is best represented in this template. Just to clarify the problem, here are some comments from academic and other texts, some focused on anarchism, others on political definitions more broadly. Some of the authors are sympathetic to anarchism, others not; some merely note the existence of the dispute, others take a more explicit position themselves.

  • 21st Century Dissent: Anarchism, Anti-Globalization and Environmentalism by G. Curran: "Heated dispute remains over whether anarcho-capitalists should be accepted into the anarchist fold in the first place"
  • The Politics of Postanarchism by Saul Newman: "it is important to distinguish between anarchism and certain strands of right-wing libertarianism which at times go by the same name (for example, Murray Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism)".
  • Contemporary Political Ideologies: Second Edition edited by Roger Eatwell, Anthony Wright, whose introduction notes that its chapter on anarchism holds that "so-called contemporary 'anarcho-capitalism' is really a form of liberal rather than classical anarchist thought"
  • Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism by Peter Marshall, whose brief chapter on anarcho-capitalism concludes by saying "few anarchists would accept 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp since they do not share a concern for economic equality and social justice ... [they] might therefore best be called right-wing libertarians rather than anarchists"
  • Anarchy and Society: Reflections on Anarchist Sociology by Jeffrey Shantz, Dana M. Williams: "Murray Rothbard and others may theoretically claim the label of anarchism, but they do not oppose all authority ... Thus, most 'movement anarchists' ... argue against the inclusion of these folks in the anarchist camp"
  • Finally of course there's Murray Rothbard himself, who in one piece wrote:

    "We must therefore turn to history for enlightenment; here we find that none of the proclaimed anarchist groups correspond to the libertarian position, that even the best of them have unrealistic and socialistic elements in their doctrines. Furthermore, we find that all of the current anarchists are irrational collectivists, and therefore at opposite poles from our position. We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical"

And there are many others, but there's no need to labour the point. The point isn't that the sample above proves anarcho-capitalism is not, definitively, a form of anarchism – and of course there are plenty of other sources that will be more open to accepting that it is, while still acknowledging the issue exists – but the observations do flag up that there is a fundamental and significant dispute here, which the template needs to acknowledge rather than gloss over. N-HH talk/edits 14:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

cherry picking -- Netoholic @ 15:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
If you'd read the last paragraph and understood what I was saying in it, you'd realise that this has nothing to do with cherry-picking. Thanks. N-HH talk/edits 16:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
And yet, all of your selected quotes (virtually the same set you trot out on other pages where you engage in this precise "debate") include only one side. -- Netoholic @ 16:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Well actually, of the six sources cited in the content in the diff you linked to (which I was not the original author of btw), only two are included above, so they are not "virtually the same set". Nevertheless, thanks for pointing all of us to four more, in addition to the ones I have cited just now, that say much the same thing. As for cherry-picking, you are confused. I am not trying to "prove" that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism, let alone claiming that every source says as much – indeed I explicitly said "there are plenty of other sources that will be more open to accepting that it is". The point was merely to show to those unfamiliar with the issue, and to those with closed minds or eyes, that the existence of a dispute about categorisation is widely and commonly attested in the literature, in a way that it is not, say, in respect of anarcho-syndicalism. Which is exactly what the sample quotes are more than sufficient to show. Again, I am done as this constant derailing of debate due to lack of competence and comprehension is very tedious and far too much of a time sink. N-HH talk/edits 17:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
If you were interested in helping "those unfamiliar with the issue", you would have included citations for their reliability, not for the particular wording. You would have included citations that both support and object to your preferred outcome. Instead, you carefully selected only a few and quoted specific passages (ie cherry-picking). Indeed, even your "killing blow" quote from Rothbard is out of bounds because the title and subject is Are Libertarians "Anarchists"? and anarcho-capitalism is not mentioned in that article at all (it is an unpublished article from the 1950's). Since you gave the titles of all your other Sources, except that one, I feel like the omission was intentionally deceptive. -- Netoholic @ 19:05, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
User Netoholic says "Instead, you carefully selected only a few and quoted specific passages (ie cherry-picking)." There is a good reason why one will mention only a sentence from such works. The fact is that anarcho-capitalism is only mentioned in that very brief way in those works. For those authors clearly it does not merit more attention besides those single sentences. Something like that can hardly be said to constitute a "school of thought" within anarchism. It is more like an anecdote and an outside issue.--Eduen (talk) 11:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
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.

Template-protected edit request on 25 July 2016. Removed links to German Revolution, it had little to do with anarchism.

Contents of edit request removed for navigability. Changes moved into the sandbox with Special:Diff/731402839 — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 04:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Mangokeylime (talk) 02:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a
WP:RFPP to lower the prot level. — Andy W. (talk · ctb
) 04:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Deleted national-anarchism

I think thank this edit should be also reverted, like that's when acap was been deleted. Sorry for my grammar --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 09:17, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Remove Thoreau

Thoreau explicitly stated he was not an anarchist, "I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government." If he is included because of his influence only, you might as well include Marx and Nietzsche too.Oscar666kta420swag (talk) 07:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 10 October 2016

Please remove "capitalism" from the main list of anarchist schools of thought, as it is widely rejected by anarchists that aren't anarcho-capitalists. It would be more appreciated if it were filed under a list of "less widely accepted schools of thought" along with "national anarchism". Thank-you. 104.240.177.152 (talk) 22:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:36, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
I support this proposal of taking out "anarcho" capitalism from "schools of thought".--Eduen (talk) 07:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Remove Murray Rothbard

True Anarchism has absolutely nothing to do with "anarcho"-capitalism. Murray Rothbard, shouldn't be on this template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.127.65.59 (talk) 10:48, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Add Hans-Hermann Hoppe

add

talk
) 01:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
He is not an anarchist but a
cultural conservative" with near far right sympathies. These have made even his fellow economic neoliberals unconfortable. Adding him here will make as much sense as adding Donald Trump or Joseph Stalin. He is more or less a personification of much of what anarchism has historically been againts--Eduen (talk
) 01:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
That's an idea! I'm sure we can find a sources in which Lenin and Stalin are called anarchists, probably by their enemies, so they belong in the template! — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 24 December 2016

Epistemological anarchism should be added to the list of variants of anarchism. 79.78.91.38 (talk) 19:40, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
That looks like a mild variant of
WP:STONEWALL (refusing any proposal until consensus is met, even if the change is non-controvversial). However, I'd still oppose the requested change on the grounds that it isn't a political version of anarchism, which seems to be what this sidebar is about. 69.165.196.103 (talk
) 17:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

One MAJOR missing name...

There are a few missing subjects/people. However, the omission of one name in particular is extremely glaring to me: that of David D. Friedman. I completely understand that this sidebar can't include every single person or issue thought important by everyone, but Friedman is widely considered a founding father of the modern anarcho-capitalist movement; and one of the two major branches of anarcho-capitalism is actually named for him (there is the Rothbardian/deontological school named after Murray Rothbard, and there is the Friedmanite/consequentialist school of thought named after David D. Friedman).

The inclusion of his name should definitely be, at least, considered. Thanks Bzzzing (talk) 13:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Support - If the sidebar had a books section, probably The Machinery of Freedom would be a significant addition. Barring that, I think adding its author makes sense and adds to the balance of perspectives. -- Netoholic @ 01:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Requested edit to be made, seeing as no further comments forthcoming. Admin: per request, please add David D. Friedman to the People section alphabetically after Faure. -- Netoholic @ 05:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 Done -- John of Reading (talk) [template editor, not admin] 07:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 8 June 2017

There is missed some topics. Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 18:34, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done: You need to be more specific about what topics you think are missing. And then that needs to be discussed on this page, and consensus reached, before anyone will actually edit the template. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Suggested additions

→Schools of thought:

  • National anarchism

→People:

→History:

→Related topics:

  • New left

--Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 10:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

  • No one have comments to my propositions, so can someone with suitable permissions add this topics to the template? --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 10 March 2018

Kindly add Anarchism in Puerto Rico to the entries by region. Old School WWC Fan (talk) 07:27, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:10, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 10 March 2018

→Schools of thought:

  • National anarchism

→People:

→History:

→Related topics:

  • New left

Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 13:44, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Rationale, especially for the people? This template typical limits to people of international renown, simply for space considerations. It isn't a directory of everything related to anarchism but the most widely applicable for purposes of basic navigation. czar 14:29, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
I know. Ok, Machajski and Cantonal rebelion can be redundant, but other articles are quite important. Abramowski was a „spiritual father” of anarchism in Poland, and the new left is strongly related with modern anarchism. --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Most regions have a figure with whom anarchism is associated, but we haven't drilled far down that list and instead opt to cover each country's history separately (ironic though that may be). The New Left may be associated with left-libertarianism, but I wouldn't call anarchism a strong association. Indeed, it isn't mentioned by name once in its article. (For what it's worth, I write about Paul Goodman, the most prominent anarchist associated with the New Left.) I don't see the case for its inclusion. czar 16:12, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:22, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on November 28, 2018

Add Cincinnati Time Store to history. and Josiah Warren to persons. FWIW, I thought I was an approved template editor. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

No rationale? I don't see why these need to be added. czar 03:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Ancap twice

[1] @Frietjes, it doesn't need to be listed twice in the template. It's already in the first section and is not an "issue in anarchism" (the other section). czar 04:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Czar, okay, I'm not sure how I missed that. Frietjes (talk
) 12:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Illegalism?

Can Illegalism be added to the schools of thought? -Davidmith (talk) 03:11, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Anarchism_sidebar/Archive_6&oldid=1138524639"