Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Dec 8

This discussion has gotten somewhat off-track, so I'm going to attempt another summary. Before I do, I can't resist responding to your misguided "straw man" accusation. If you were reading what I wrote (clearly not), you'd know that (a) the rape example was to make a point, (b) the car example was to further explain that point (essentially by noting the two examples are the same in the relevant aspect).

lol, okey dokey, you apparently think the point you made applied to my argument though, eh? That is the straw-man, the attribution to myself a position that I do not hold which would entail mothers getting raped with sons standing on hand too confused to do anything about it.

VV I never attributed any such view to you, quite the contrary. Since you failed to understand the argument the first time, I don't know if there is any point in repeating it, but here goes anyway: If an ancap defending their car in a manner consistent with the currents rights regime constitutes imposing their system, then so does thwarting the aforementioned rape with violence. The latter position is absurd, as I assume you would concede (hence the contrary).

Anyway,lzvbtfっざzたっdぜっっzdっっっzd to summarize the terminology svccdz issue:

One side: Anarchism should refer dzedrvonly to a particSdular, fairly old belief system/movement of people who call themselves anarchists.

Um, no. There are many new movements in anarchism, for example the primitivists. This is misrepresentation on your part. All this "side" is claiming is that anarchism has a particular meaning that the capitalists purposefully ignore.

VV Christianity is a belief system. Lutheranism may be a "new" belief system, but it is also part of the old one. This is a minor point anyway.

Other self-described anarchists who don't share their views are impostors with no right to the term.

I don't recall saying anything about impostors or rights. I'm merely pointing out the simple truth that anarchism still has these meanings, they have not yet disappeared despite the capitalists best efforts.

VV Whatever. You may not have used the word impostor but that is the thrust.

Response: Anarchy in the sense used by these others refers to the absence of a state/government.

Then it is indeed a misnomer, as that is not the literal definition of anarchy. What is more, neo-classical liberals support several forms of government, thus would not be anarchists even if this is all anarchism meant.

There may be another sense in which it refers specifically to that movement, so it may be fair to say there are two different senses of the word anarchism, one "literal" and one a name of sorts.

The "literal" translation of anarchism is absence of rulers. So it just so happens that the literal meaning of the word refers to the group that bears the name. Coincidence?

VV Your POV about what constitutes a ruler.

In any case, given there is an active movement of capitalists who consider themselves anarchists, the rule of usage dictates that either there are two distinct meanings or the word must be construed broadly. The claim that this other usage is illegitimate is POV.

That is precisely why this page still exists, and isn't deleted by anarchists everytime we come across it. Capitalist views should definately be presented here, having more information allows people to see past their lies and misrepresentations more clearly. The ONLY thing I ask for, and many people through the history of this page ask for, is that the language they use not indicate an absolute truth value of their position. In other words, neutrality.

VV No such language is used, manifestly.

Other side's possible counter: But in fact they are not anarchists because what they believe in is not "true" anarchy for some reasons

Funny, in all my time here I have never said that, not even once, yet you have attributed it to me on multiple occasions

There is no qualitative difference between private security and the state, or there is no liberty if others have the right to enforce property claims, or the existence of property entails violent enforcement.

Actually that is "and," "and," and "and."

Response: Your POV. Ancaps believe there is a fundamental difference between these private institutions and government. Disagreement, however strong, is thus non-neutral. Ancaps may in turn see projected left-anarchist societies as being state-like.

Sure, both opinions ought to be presented somewhere on wikipedia. You will note that on several occasions I have now said clearly that I don't demand the anarchist position be explicated here. Again, and again, all I demand is that the language used here does not rule our position out. You constantly try to turn away from this and pretend it is about something it is not.

VV Your position is not ruled out but in fact generously explained in the intro, quite substantially since this is not an article about it.

Does that make no one an anarchist? The fact thay they believe in the absence of the state, even if their proposal seems state-like to others, makes ancaps anarchists in this sense.

Here I thought your own definitions made it clear that anarchism was against all forms of government, not merely the state. The fact that you equate the two as identical is fine, but not everyone does. As such even if we limit the word to only one of its meanings and pretend that the root does not call for far more, capitalists would still not be anarchists. But again, these arguments don't need to be on this page.

VV This seems a bit pointless anyway since both state and government are potentially vague words. You seem to have implicitly conceded this by calling potential ancap institutions states in all but name, on the seeming grounds that they are government-like.

Most of the things you've said about this have in my view not been on point at all. You accuse me of having a double standard, when there's nothing to have a double standard about.

I see, so when I made changes to wording identical to changes you made yourself on other pages, and you reverted it, that was not a double standard. Apparently, neutrality simply means something different on other pages than what it means here.

I see terms such as anarcho-socialist, left-anarchist, and socialist anarchist as disambiguating.

And anarchists see them as blatantly misrepresentative.

VV How? They may seem redundant to those who think anarchism should refer only to the one position, but redundancy is not misrepresentation. French conservative would seem redundant to those who thought the only valid, historical kind of conservatism was that so called in France, and that what Russians believe is not conservative at all. But the qualifier allows us to be spared taking a position on this. The opinion of those who find it redundant is also stated very clearly in the opening paragraph.

When there are two different claims to a term, this is the best course.

Yes, so lets make a distinction here. Capitalists diverge from anarchist tradition, they do so admittedly. Capitalist DO NOT think that they arose from anarchism, it says so RIGHT HERE ON THIS PAGE. NONE of the original anarchists were capitalist, neither the individualists nor the collectivist. So obviously the distinction "traditional anarchist" would be valid. No? If you think it would be unclear to readers, lets even make a clause that states explicitly "this label is meant to do nothing more than disambugate between the two theories, it does not imply that "anarcho-capitalists" have no tradition of their own." Good? No? Not satisfied enough yet with your misrepresentations of anarchism? Notice, that there is no "real traditional anarchist" being suggested here, nor has it ever been on the table in this discussion. So why do you keep trying to portray the scenario as if someone is trying to distinguish between "real" and "fake" when no one is? Perhaps because you can't argue the actual issue on the table?

VV Ancaps would regard past efforts towards a stateless market order as anarchist, whether so called or not (cf. dinosaur above). Thus traditional is a troublesome qualifier. Socialist is not since you claim your variety/ies of anarchism require socialism.

Do you really think that individualism/egoism have anything to do with socialism? Anti-capitalism != socialism. I'm reverting your revert. It would be different if you actually ran things by this discussion page before taking unilateral action. - AaronS

Spare me the claims of non-discussion; they're absurd given the history, as is the edit in question. Would you prefer anti-capitalist anarchism then to socialist anarchism as a compromise? This objection had not been brought to my attention, possibly lost in the mass of other verbiage. -- VV 23:01, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Regardless of my history, the claims are valid. You have done it again; thus, I am forced to revert it until more discussion is had. Both anti-capitalist anarchism and socialist anarchism are misnomers; just as it would be POV for me to call anarcho-capitalists anarcho-fascists, or some other derogatory term, it is POV to call traditional, Bakunian, Proudhonian, etc, etc anarchists anything other than that which has been historically used in reference to them. With this in consideration, the term traditional anarchism is a clear compromise. It is not POV, since, according to 99.9% of literature on the subject, it factually is traditional anarchism. - Aaron 19:50, 8 Dec 2003

This analogy is obviously inapplicable. Said variety of anarchists do claim to be anti-capitalist, while ancaps do not claim to be fascist. Do you really believe this objection? The revert is of an absurd change, renaming ancaps. It is not POV to avoid using a hotly disputed one alone by adding to it a specification of which sense of it you mean. You have provided no objection to anti-capitalist anarchism, nor any reason why it is a misnomer. -- VV 01:25, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

First of all, property is an institution of government, by definition. It is the exercise of absolute dominion over a person or thing (Merriam-Webster). Anti-capitalist anarchism is POV because, for many traditional anarchists, anti-capitalism is not on their list of priorities. In fact, many do not even define themselves that way, especially considering the fact that their objection to capitalism is not a socialist one but an anarchist one. This distinction must be clear. Furthermore, anti-capitalist anarchism is a term that I have never seen used before; why it should begin to be used in a supposedly neutral encyclopaedia definition is beyond me. It is not our perogative to create a new language; rather, it is to define things, when necessary, within their historical and contemporary contexts. That said, anti-capitalist anarchism is a misnomer, the equivalent to anti-statist anarchism. Also, your revert edits out clearly non-POV things, such as my inclusion of individualist anarchists with traditional anarchists. For this reason, I am reverting until further discussion is had. -- Aaron 21:14, 8 Dec 2003

Property an institution of gov't? By definition? I don't think even Kev asserted such a crazy thing. Your POV, obviously. I am seeking a specifier for this form of anarchism which is not loaded like traditional. Socialist anarchism still seems like the best choice, but I am open to alternatives, including the ones I've proposed. The misnomer talk is puzzling in light of your objection being merely one of emphasis, when the feature emphasized is the distinguishing one in this case. We could even try a proper name, like Proudhonian anarchism. But ancap->lib-cap is not a solution and will not be one. As for the text on indiv anarchists, it is off topic; we were listing terms used, not all the different component movements, which is not really relevant for this article and out of scope for that paragraph. -- VV 02:36, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

By definition, yes. It doesn't take much to pick up a dictionary.

prop·er·ty

2 a : something owned or possessed; specifically : a piece of real estate b : the exclusive right to possess, enjoy, and dispose of a thing : 'OWNERSHIP' c : something to which a person or business has a legal title d : one (as a performer) under contract whose work is especially valuable

own

1 a : to have or hold as property : 'POSSESS' b : to have power over : CONTROL

pos·sess

1 a : to have and hold as property : OWN b : to have as an attribute, knowledge, or skill

2 a : to take into one's possession b : to enter into and control firmly : 'DOMINATE' c : to bring or cause to fall under the influence, possession , or control of some emotional or intellectual reaction

dom·i·nate

1 : RULE, CONTROL

2 : to exert the supreme determining or guiding influence on

rule

3 a : the exercise of authority or control : 'DOMINION' b : a period during which a specified ruler or government exercises control

So, please, don't pretend like I'm stretching things, here. It's all right there. It's not my POV - it's the POV of the dictionary.

Socialist anarchism is just as loaded as traditional anarchism, and is much less accurate, considering the fact that many anti-capitalist anarchists would not call themselves socialists. Proudhonian anarchism leaves even more out. If libertarian capitalism is not a solution, then neither is libertarian socialism. As for individualist anarchism - it is a term that is used to describe traditional anarchism. -- Aaron 22:24, 8 Dec 2003

Like I said long ago, one could say Russian conservative and French conservative, and thereby save arguments as to who the real conservatives are, when there are radically different competing usages. -- VV 07:18, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Obvious, the ancap -> lib-cap thing is not a solution. Again, the issue is not whether people should be able to choose labels for themselves, they should, but whether when there are conflicting claims to a label there should be specification as to which usage is meant. -- VV 21:52, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

Back to Anarcho-capitalism.

VV I never attributed any such view to you, quite the contrary. Since you failed to understand the argument the first time, I don't know if there is any point in repeating it, but here goes anyway: If an ancap defending their car in a manner consistent with the currents rights regime constitutes imposing their system, then so does thwarting the aforementioned rape with violence. The latter position is absurd, as I assume you would concede (hence the contrary).

You are having lots of trouble with this one VV. Let me put it this way. If you think this applies to my argument, then this is a straw-man, because it does not. If you do not think it applies to my argument, then it is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. If you can't see the qualitative difference between property and self, then that is your position and your problem, not mine.

VV Really, quit the patronizing language. It is you who misunderstood what I said, probably because you didn't try. Now you're trying to make the word straw-man apply otherwise. The argument is very simple and solid. I'd repeat it but I don't see the point.

Yes, the argument is simple, solid, and a straw-man. Thank you, move on.

VV It's probably too much to expect for you to admit you were wrong. You've made a heroic attempt at retooling the straw-man accusation, but do you seriously stand by the claim that I "changed my example"?

Yes. The relevance of the example changes entirely when you begin by claiming that a person is being physically harmed (the straw-man, as it didn't apply to my arguments), then suddenly change it to a car being damaged/stolen.

Christianity is a belief system. Lutheranism may be a "new" belief system, but it is also part of the old one. This is a minor point anyway.

Yes, Lutherans also believe in Christ, making them a part of Christianity. Primitivists also believe in anarchism, making them a part of anarchism. The only way we could claim that capitalists believe in anarchism would be to change the meaning of the word. If Lutherans tried to claim that the Buddha was Christ, then christians would have a pretty good argument that Lutherans aren't christian. If people in Nepal tried to claim that their country was Scottland, then Scottish would have a pretty good argument that people in Nepal are not actually Scottsmen, eh?

VV The situation is not so clearcut, since the ancap claim to anarchist is not so absurd.

According to? Hmm... hum... that is right, according to VV! The ultimate arbiter of what is clearcut and what is hazy and obscured, like this "mysterious past" of anarchism you refer to when you can't get around the facts concerning the original anarchists.

VV So you're claiming it's "clearcut" when in fact it's an issue of considerable controversy? Oh, you're claiming I'm the only dissenter even to its being clearcut.

I never claimed you were the only dissenter. I am saying that you are falsely presenting yourself as some kind of authority on what is or is not a clearcut issue. To anyone who has studied the history of anarchism this issue is clearcut. The people calling themselves anarcho-capitalists are almost entirely isolated to the US and ignorant of that very history.

But, fine, yes, this very thing does happen. "Native Americans" often call themselves Indians. This causes confusion sometimes because people from India are also called Indians. If an article were, say, comparing both groups, some terminology would be needed, and in fact the term American Indian is often used. Do Indians (from India) have a good argument that they are not actually Indians? Well, it doesn't much matter. Eh?

Yep. As I have said repeatedly, let the caps call themselves whatever the heck they want to. They can call themselves fascists or buddhists or pancakes with butter. Just indicate that this is a CLAIM on their part, and everyone is happy.

VV You seem to have overlooked the fact that I rebutted your argument.

What argument, that anarcho-capitalists have no valid claim to the title? You sure as hell did not put to rest that arugment. You merely gave some reason to believe that they do have claim to the title, which I readily agreed with, pointing out that regardless of what they believe their claims should exist on the page as claims.

Whatever. You may not have used the word impostor but that is the thrust.

Funny, I thought I made the "thrust" of my argument explicit. Anarchism has a certain meaning, historically and today, a meaning that must be ignored in order to call capitalists anarchists. But apparently you are a mind-reader who knows that my "true" motivations are not what I say they are, or maybe you think that an argument about the meaning of a word reduces to an argument about which ideology is "true."

VV Oh, get off it. I'm reading English, not minds.

Then stop assuming you know my motivations from my words, and stop attacking ME according to my motivations instead of addressing my ARGUMENTS according to the words.

VV This is pretty funny coming from you. But you probably wouldn't recognize it.

Who was the one on about "irrelevant broadsides" earlier?

No such language is used, manifestly.

So making a definitive statement about a matter that capitalists claim without a single qualifier, without even noting that it is a claim and not a fact, is totally neutral to you? Then why, VV, have you edited such statement on so many other pages with the exact same qualifiers I have tried to insert?

Your position is not ruled out but in fact generously explained in the intro, quite substantially since this is not an article about it.

Generously? Are you the one that dictates this page VV, "giving" generously to those who disagree with you? Give me a break. You only accept particular arguments that we make, carefully weeding out others. Then you destroy any attempt to make the statements that follow throughout the rest of the essay neutral, and you pretend you are not ruling out our position? As I have said from the begining, and as I will repeat, I DON'T CARE IF OUR POSITION IS EXPLICATED HERE. All I am asking is that the position of the capitalists be explicated in a neutral manner. You can pretend like I'm asking for something else, but it won't change the fact. If you are unable to accept that capitalism must be introduced through the neutrality policy of wikipedia, then I would also accept a simple header that declares, in bold, "This page does not attempt to be neutral, readers are warned that it is an explicit propaganda by capitalists and does not even attempt to allow for dissenting positions."

VV I assume you recognize your own hyperbole for what it is. Grab your aforementioned dictionary for uses of the word generous.

K. There, read it, understood it, still applies. Next...

VV No it doesn't. You can't fool me, I know what my own words mean.

I see, so you apparently must know that generous does not mean "liberal in giving," because if it did, then my statements would indeed apply.

This seems a bit pointless anyway since both state and government are potentially vague words.

Ah, so for what, two months now, you argue into the ground that caps obviously reject the state and government. Then when your arguments fail and have nowhere to go, "this seems a bit pointless anyway." Fine, define the two words in the context of the essay, or just link to a wikipedia definition. If caps fit in it, then the claims can stand without qualification. If caps do not fit in those definitions, then the claims must be qualified as CLAIMS.

VV Yes, my arguments have failed and I have nowhere to go. I'm desperately grabbing at any straw I can find, because I'm just so biased and want Wikipedia to be nothing but anarcho-capitalist propaganda. Fortunately, a knight in shining armor has seen through my crumbling and absurd straw-men and will overthrow the dictatorial stranglehold I seek to maintain. Am I summarizing your take on me fairly?

You exaggerated it to the point of absurdity, but I thin you have the basic pattern down, yes. If you would like to suggest evidence that doesn't fit this pattern, instead of playing games, go ahead.

VV Well what I've said so far has been dismissed as part of this scheme,

No, it hasn't. You built a cartoon characture exaggeration of what my claims where, as per the following statement on your part:

so your comical call for evidence comes off as insincere. Ancaps would regard past efforts towards a stateless market order as anarchist, whether so called or not (cf. dinosaur above).

Then according to this very page, that would mean that "anarcho-capitalists" have their own tradition, but that it is not the tradition of anarchism. After all, as this page clearly indicates, "anarcho-capitalists" believe that they came from liberalism, NOT from anarchism. That means that past "anarcho-capitalist" societies follow in the tradition of liberalism, NOT anarchism. Thus the word "traditional anarchist" quite clearly refers to those following from the people who originally identified with anarchism.

VV Yeah maybe that should be rewritten. I didn't write it.

Ah, finally the standard of what should or should not be rewritten, edited, and reverted on this page. Just ask yourself, did VV write it? If the answer is yes, it stands. If the answer is no, it stands only with his express approval. Go ahead and rewrite it, that would be a hoot. I like watching someone who knows next to nothing about anarcho-capitalism rewrite the claims of people who actually understand it.

VV I again assume you're just being dishonest. But in any case you are genuinely confused, my message was that you should not hold me accountable for something I didn't say.

Of course, when you said "maybe it should be rewritten" I should have read that as "don't hold be accountable for that" instead of "maybe it should be rewritten."

Thus traditional is a troublesome qualifier. Socialist is not since you claim your variety/ies of anarchism require socialism.

"Socialism" is not only redundant, it is far too vague. Traditional anarchists are all socialists in different senses of the word. Many egoists and individualists are only socialists insofar as they are anti-capitalist. To call them socialist, and then attribute these positions to them and use their labels interchangably with others is to misrepresent and confuse both positions. Alternatively, to call it another of your suggestions like "anarcho-communism" would be to rule them out altogether. They could, however, be included very easy and simply under the "traditional anarchist" label that Aaron whipped up. Let me repeat myself, "Capitalists diverge from anarchist tradition, they do so admittedly. Capitalist do not think that they arose from anarchism, it says so right here on this page. None of the original anarchists were capitalist, neither the individualists nor the collectivist. So obviously the distinction "traditional anarchist" would be valid."

Property an institution of gov't? By definition? I don't think even Kev asserted such a crazy thing.

I would be happy to point out the fact that property is exclusive dominion over a given thing, the ability to use, dispose, and enjoy a thing upheld by way of force. I could further point out that to govern is to control, direct, or strongly influence the actions and conduct of, to exert a determining or guiding influence over. In the face of those two definitions, taken straight from the dictionary without edit, I don't have to claim that property is governance by definition. I only have to wait for you to be silly enough to deny it.

VV This is just word play.

lol, first the response is "property as an institution of government is just plain crazy!" Then when it turns out to be strongly supported by the very definition of the word, "this is just word games."

VV I stand by everything I've said. I don't feel the need nor see the point in seeking to explain again.

Govern has some weak senses, but a government in the relevant sense is something more specific.

Feel free to define your variables as you slither away from the very arguments you called for and are unwilling to accept the answer to.

At any rate, this is your POV; it just flatly denies the ancap position.

Yes, it does. Yes, it is POV. That is why my POV should not be on this page, but rather, the cap POV should be on this page. Agreed? Good. Now just add to that the fact that the cap POV should not be expressed AS FACT, and we are good to go.

VV I'll hold my tongue yet again. But, "slither", really....

Tit for tat. You want me to be civil, try removing the dismissive bullshit you load into half your statements.

I am seeking a specifier for this form of anarchism which is not loaded like traditional. Socialist anarchism still seems like the best choice

If you were really looking for a term that wasn't loaded, then you would not chose socialist anarchism, as that blatantly assumes the capitalist position at the outset. "Traditional anarchism" is indeed loaded, but it just happens to be loaded with connotations that capitalists agree with, like the fact that they did not come from the same tradition as anarchists, but rather arose from liberalism. Proudhonian anarchism doesn't work, because again you are trying to squish a huge number of diverse ideologies into a label that does not fit them. "Anarchism" is the label the refer themselves to, universally. They are anarchists, and they are no more or less than anarchists. The compromise of even traditional anarchist is problematic, but it is less so then any other. I would vastly prefer that they be called anarchists, since anarchist is a different word than "anarcho-capitalist" and thus distinguishes them just as well as any false prefix you slap onto the label would. But since no one is going to accept that, "traditional anarchist" will just have to suffice.

VV Once again, you've exposed me. I never wanted a term that wasn't loaded; I looked for one that blatantly assumes the capitalist position at the outset. I can't fool you at all, can I?

Nope. Choosing words that did in fact assume their position from the outset, and then enforcing those changes regardless of the opposition, sort of gave it away.

VV I'll keep that in mind for my future crusades of anarcho-capitalist deception.

You do that.

Oh, reiterating the claim that there is only that kind of anarchist isn't going to serve to dismiss the huge number of objections to it.

Nor should it. Those objections should be present, they should be accounted for. All well and good, I have never suggested anything otherwise.

But ancap->lib-cap is not a solution and will not be one.

Your bias is leaking from your pores VV. You thought that anarchist->libertarian socialist was a perfectly acceptable solution. In defense of it you even pointed to the fact that capitalists have pushed collectivist anarchists into refering to themselves as libertarian socialists on their own page. Why is it that they can be refered to exclusively as libertarian socialists on their page, even renaming the entire page to indicate as much, yet refering to capitalists as libertarian capitalists "will not be done?" I didn't even change the page or the headings, just the sub-text. How much more biased can you be? The good news is, I didn't intend for libertarian capitalist to be taken seriously, I intended for it to stop your mindless reverts to "libertarian socalism" long enough for us to talk about it. Apparently it worked, where weeks of trying to talk about it did not. I'm begining to understand just how valuable these discussions are, given your total disregard for them.

VV Just to review, the "mindless reverts" (which constituted one (1) change)

One change repeated over and over and over.

VV Nope, once.

Funny, the history shows otherwise. Maybe its a different reality we are looking at here.

were (was) to socialist anarchism. I had moved on from libertarian socialism after strenuous objections. And it was you who had originally suggested that term in the first place! I suppose once I conceded that much you wanted more.

Try this for a change. Listen to what someone says, and think about it, and then act accordingly. I tried it and Aaron convinced me, his arguments worked just fine. But of course you would hold it against me that I changed my position through discussion on this page, since you apparently think it would be disaster if any of these discussions lead you to change your own opinion.

VV I'm supposed to be impressed that you were persuaded to adopt an even more extreme and unreasonable position by Aaron?

Extreme and unreasonable. Of course, it must be so, because VV said as much. And I take him at his word everytime he says anything, because he has shown so much integrity in this conflict thus far.

And I suppose it would be a waste of time to note all the changes I have accepted (but I did anyway, see below).

You mean all the changes you have "generously" accepted. Oh great lord?

As for later mindless reverts, they were to a version before what you now seem to admit was vandalism (making frivolous changes just to make a point).

The article as it stood was biased, and you unilaterially reverted it back to that bias over and over. I decided to stop banging my head against the wall and demonstrate the bias to you by making it symmetric. What do you know, you finally stop reverting back to lib soc, and suddenly my edit is "frivolous."

As for the text on indiv anarchists, it is off topic; we were listing terms used, not all the different component movements, which is not really relevant for this article and out of scope for that paragraph.

So a brief explaination of the ideology that capitalists claim to borrow from is off topic? Then why are there so many explainations of liberalism, natural law, and libertarianism right here on this page? I'm serious VV, take a little time off, reorient yourself, and come back. I will happily cease to edit the page if you agree to take a few days off, because you obviously need it to clear your head here. - Kev 12/08/03

VV Yes, it's a quick blurb about the opposing anarchist ideology, not a classification of all the opposing views. The sections that then do do exhaustive comparisons warrant more discussion. Anyway, I will see your advice for me to "reorient" myself and clear my head for what it is, a patronizing cover, and I'll go clean up all that bias that was leaking out of my pores. In the interim, I have tried a new edit. Since it doesn't give you everything you want, I'm sure you won't like it. I'll brace myself for a new round of incivilities. -- VV 08:05, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You'd best brace yourself, because if you continue to constantly dismiss my edits as "absurd" "silly" "ridiculous" "non-sensical" "vandalism" "frivolous" "terrible" and so on and so on, you can reasonably expect that my tone is not going to suddenly grow more loving out of the kindness of my heart.

VV I would never suspect you of developing a loving tone. Your behavior towards me on this forum goes far beyond rude. I fear yielding to the temptation to start talking to you the way you've been talking to me.

Yes. Please take a note of the begining of our conversations. Look carefully, and notice who first started using dismissive rhetoric and bullshit qualifiers in the place of arguments. I'm sorry if you don't like my response to it.

As for my criticisms, they have been of what you've written, not you, and in some cases I've been right by your own admission. Now, in accordance with my "patronizing cover", you know, that one that implored you to discuss things when you reverted without a single word, that one that already took two weeks off to give you time, that one who has wasted hours now educating you as to basic facts about this subject you were almost wholly ignorant of - that "cover" will leave the page according to YOUR edits, just like he did last time, to give YOU time to get your head clear. - Kev 10/09/03

VV A positive though temporary gesture,

More than you are willing to do, apparently. Too bad though. Don't worry, I still won't edit it for a week. At least one of us ought to be sincere, eh? I know, you are going to whine about how Aaron was still changing it even when I'm not, ignoring the fact that the last time I did this for 2 weeks your edits stood almost totally unchallenged. I'll just mark this up as another indication of the extent that you are willing to come to an amicable compromise. Can't wait till the week is up, as you've just lost a whole lot of the "give him the benefit of the doubt" that was keeping me back.

although of course Aaron is not on board. I still of course do not believe there's anything wrong with MY edits (which are MY attempt at answering everyone's concerns), and I don't see much evidence of constructive criticism of them.

I know you don't, but I no longer have any hope in this area. I've done my best to explain my reasoning behind every edit. You've disagreed on each and every point. I've tried and tried again, come up with numerous facts on the matter, shown different angles. When you weren't discussing it I implored you to discuss it, when it wasn't going anywhere I voluntarily took a break for your benefit. I noted the historical facts that were relevant, ones that you clearly had no knowledge of. Yet still, you think nothing is wrong with your edits, despite their one-sided nature, despite their constant attempts to push back any change on this page - regardless of the reasoning behind it (the lao tzu edit for example, which you blocked time and again with NO justification and finally gave up on it as it was apparently "silly." The lib soc edit, which you reverted half a dozen times before finally adopting it as your own edit when you feared even that might change)

Nor do I expect you're likely to acknowledge how much compromising there's been.

So all that change was compromise? You are saying that if you'd had your way none of those changes would exist on the page? That would be rather sad, as the former version you are comparing it to not only lacks a great deal of relevant information, it is also horribly biased. That sorta indicates that you would prefer the bias, and have only removed it as part of a "compromise." Go ahead VV, revert back to the page you think it so grand. I assure you there are several instances in the history of this page I could revert back to as well, ones long before I even came, and sit on a high horse claiming its been "a whole load of compromise since then." -Kev 12/10/03

-- VV 06:56, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Dec 9

VV, are you going to address the issues that I raised, or are you just going to revert at will? - Aaron 4:59 PM 9 Dec 2003

I have been addressing the issues, and you have been reverting at will. -- VV 06:16, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You have addressed none of the issues that I raised. None whatsoever. Please do so. - Aaron 7:15 PM 11 Dec 2003