Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Infinity0 (talk | contribs) at 10:59, 28 January 2006 (there are 6 delete votes). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism

The article, beginning on its very title, implies that anarcho-capitalism and individualist anarchism are inherently related, which is false. They have similarities and differences, which are not enough for a whole separate article. This article, by definition, ignores all the links between individualist anarchism and other topics, specifically, all mention to left-anarchism, giving the impression that left-anarchism is UNRELATED to individualist anarchism, which is false. Any NPOV comparison-contrast article needs to cover all views, and in this case links between ind- and left-anarchism need to be mentioned, giving an article with a new title, such as comparison between types of anarchism. Infinity0 talk

Delete: 6; Blank, rewrite: 3; Merge [to anarcho-capitalism: 1]; Keep: 5;

  • Delete Infinity0 talk 17:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This vote to delete is an extension of the perpetual edit war in the Anarchism article. Please keep this in mind. RJII 23:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment RJII is using the edit war in Anarchism as an excuse to defend this article. Please ignore his whining. Infinity0 talk 16:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Laughable that this would be put up for deletion. Anyway, of course anarcho-capitalism is related to individualist anarchism. It is one, of a few forms, of individualist anarchism. RJII 17:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The whole article needs to be restarted from a neutral point of view. It's also loaded with original research. --AaronS 17:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This a false statement. It's loaded with sourced information, not original research. Aaron needs to read up on what original research is. RJII 23:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article, and RJII and Hogeye for that matter. Laughable that we continue to put up with their nonsense. --Tothebarricades 17:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Blank and Rewrite. This is a well-written article, but does not satisfy WP:NPOV. With some cleaning up and more extensive research on all "major" types of anarchism, a comparison article could be written. Otherwise, each group could be individually written upon, or the information could be merged into the main Anarchism article. Arviragus 19:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment All types? What are you talking about? This article is devoted to comparing and contrasting two types. There is nothing POV about that. RJII 19:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. A compare contrast article in an encyclopedia ought not be on just two members of a category. It should be as inclusive as is reasonable for the benefit of those who are reading the article. Arviragus 19:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • RJII, by dedicating a whole article to comparing these two subjects, you are automatically asserting that there is a deep link between them. That is what violates NPOV. Infinity0 talk 19:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your example has no relevance to this. There is no superset which both anarchism and capitalism belong to, with another subject. But individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism are both subsets of anarchism. This article's existence itself is what pushes the POV. Infinity0 talk 20:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. Infinity0, I would argue that there is intrinsically a deep link between these two political philosophies - both are anarchist at the core. RJII: I believe that the article Anarchism and capitalism can be argued for because they are two seemingly unlinked concepts to the layman, and the article establishes a justification for linking the two concepts. If the two areas are linked, and one argues for superiority for one position over the other (not saying that you did), and excludes other anarchist views without justification (which you do) then it may be interpreted NPOV. Establish an exigence in the article for why the article should exist. Stylistically, I also think that the compare/contrast is a little bit too jerky. It could stand some cleaning up, and the article is a little quote-heavy, and there is too much primary research. These are my main objections and suggestions. Arviragus 20:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. Please bear in mind that I'm glad you're contributing. It's obviously a subject you are passionate about, and passion breeds good work. I'd love to see your writing incorporated into wikipedia. Arviragus 20:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Arviragus wrote, "…or the information could be merged into the main Anarchism article." No the main article is a bloated wreck of partisanship already, with an imbalenced emphasis on anarcho-capitalism and US-style individualism already. We're above 56kb in size and have great difficulty in cutting material while retaining a cogent summary of the subject matter.Fifelfoo 21:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blank and rewrite. This article needs to be written. The claims of a small group of US theorists are sufficiently vocal (publications) that they need to be addressed. The article, however, does not do so. Nor does the individualism article which is US centric and defines individualism by exclusion (exclusion of collectivists, for contrast see any country's individualists except the US, particularly Japan where anarchists moved between syndicalism and individualism without changing their views on collective property). The solution is to blank and rewrite, with more effort put into developing a consensus outline before filling in material, and a deliberate decision to avoid original research, or original research by selective citation. Fifelfoo 21:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rewrite as current subject, or including other types of anarchism too? Infinity0 talk 22:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Rewrite as current title, but with reference to all individualist currents, especially non-US individualist currents which historically have been and continue to be much more ameniable to collective property forms than some US individualists have been. See our good friend Voltarine de Cleyre on property forms for example. Why? Rothbard etal. claim a historical continuity from individualism, but its obvious that the continuity they claim is tendentious. As far as anarchism and anarcho-capitalism, I suggest a 10% rule. No page about an internally coherent subject should include more than 10% criticism of the subject matter, but can include a spin-off to "Criticisms of...". Thus from anarcho-capitalism (and various other pages) there should be a link to Anarchist criticisms of anarcho-capitalism.Fifelfoo 22:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • You bring up de Cleyre as an exception? "Miss Goldman is a communist; I am an individualist. She wishes to destroy the right of property, I wish to assert it. I make my war upon privilege and authority, whereby the right of property, the true right in that which is proper to the individual, is annihilated. She believes that co-operation would entirely supplant competition; I hold that competition in one form or another will always exist, and that it is highly desirable it should." -Voltarine de Cleyre. RJII 23:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blank and rewrite. I agree with pretty much everything fifelfoo says above. I don't think the idea of the article is inherently POV, but unfortunately RJII's editing practises are. Ideal would be to try and develop the article collaboratively from the talk page.Bengalski 16:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Blank and rewrite? So who is going to do the most of the rewriting? By default it would probably be me, since I'm one of the very few people that actually researches this stuff. If others want to contribute, sure, but I'll believe that when I see it. I'm usually the lone editor working on articles that deal with labor-value individualist anarchism. If it happens to be overwhelmingly *my* interpretation of the sources, that's not my fault, but everyone else's fault for not contributing. This very vote for deletion is symptomatic of that --instead of editing, someone is trying to delete the whole thing because they're too lazy to do the research and edit. It's absurd. RJII 16:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • A problem is RJII it's not easy to collaborate with you. You edit highly competitively defending a POV, and often inaccurately to boot. So I know for instance that if I was going to work on this article I'd spend 90% of the time arguing with you, demanding sources from you, chasing up out of context quotes etc. and achieve very little. I don't know why you don't just write your own essays or your own web page where you can explore your ideas to your heart's content without any interference.Bengalski 17:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • So, you don't edit because you fear competition. I welcome competion. I thrive on competition. Article quality is the result of competition. You think the article is of low quality, but the thing that can increase its quality is competition. You think the article is of low quality, but you're not doing anything about it. So, who is to blame? You're blaming *me* for being competitive? I'm blaming *you* for criticizing it while not rising to the challenge of competition. The fact I'm competitive is not something to condemn. If I think I'm right I will compete until proven wrong. If you had a real interest in the subject, you would do the same thing. Competition breeds quality; lack of competition breeds mediocrity. If the article is mediocre, it's you and everybody else's fault who is not willing to prove that there's erroneous information in the article. RJII 17:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's nothing here that wouldn't better fit on the anarcho-capitalism or individualism pages. VoluntarySlave 22:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If I'm not mistaken, everyone except Arviragus that has voted above to delete is biased against anarcho-capitalism (as is witnessed by their edits in the anarchism artcle). I think the vote to delete is very POV motivated. They don't like the outcome of the article, but even if it was rewritten it would come out with the same same results --that anarcho-capitalism shares essential similarities with labor-value individualist anarchism as well as essential differences. We need some votes from people not involved with the perpetual edit war on Anarchism because this vote to delete is just an extension of that war. RJII 23:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • They don't like the outcome of the article - by this it would appear you are admitting the article has an outcome, which violates NPOV. Individualist anarchism shares characteristics with both libertarian socialism and anarcho capitalism, not one only. Infinity0 talk 23:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm saying the facts speak for themselves. Whatever POV the facts lend credence to is irrelevant. Facts are facts. You just don't like what the facts are, so you want to censor them. RJII 02:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Any sort of "compare and contrast" articles are POV. It should be left to the reader to determine what similarities and differences exist, not us. We provide information. They make the judgement. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 00:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This article doesn't make a judgement. It merely provides information. RJII 01:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Comment That's an oversimplification. Sure, people should form their own opinions about things, but what's the point of Wikipedia? To make it easier for people to find relevant information. While someone could hunt through the individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism articles and dig up all the sources, this article neatly organizes the issues for any easy (and well-sourced) compare/contrast. Now obviously we shouldn't have articles like dualism and dirigisme even though they could (conceivably) be compared and contrasted, but the relationship between anarcho-capitalism and indvidualist anarchism is philosophically significant.MrVoluntarist 02:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This article, by definition, only looks at the links between two topics, whilst ignoring all the other links between individualist anarchism and other topics. Specifically, the article IGNORES all mention to left-anarchism, (again, this is by its very title), giving the impression that left-anarchism is UNRELATED to individualist anarchism, which is false. Infinity0 talk 16:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • No it doesn't. It gives no such impression. Of course they have similarities with other types of anarchism. If you make an article called capitalism and socialism to compare and contrast, does it mean it's implying that they don't have similarities with other economic systems? Of course not. You're objections just doens't make sense. The whole point of the article is to compare and contrast the two philosophies and NOT compare and contrast them with others --that would be something for the general anarchism article to discuss in a broad way. There is not enough space to go into depth in the anarchism article to compare and contrast every kind of anarchim with every other kind -so you have to make offshoot articles. For the lack of a better word, your objections are just insane. RJII 16:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • But it does. Ind-anarchism and a-capitalism are both types of anarchism, so an NPOV article would cover ALL types of anarchism. Socialism and capitalism are both economic systems, so an NPOV article would cover other economic systems too. No space to cover all systems in anarchism? Start a comparison between types of anarchism. Infinity0 talk 16:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not even worthy of a reply. RJII 17:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, maybe worthy of a reply. Let's say you're right, Infinity0. There should be an article comparing the ideologies claiming to be anarchist. Even so, the length of the comparison of individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism would justify moving it to its own article (perhaps retaining a short summary for the article you want). MrVoluntarist 16:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Any NPOV comparison would be between left and right-anarchism and invidualist anarchism, not just the latter. And to split the comparisons would be insane. The article isn't that long, adding left comparisons wouldn't result in a bloated article. Infinity0 talk 16:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's definitely long enough that it would be split off from any article covering a broader topic. But feel free to prove me wrong. Make that "comparison" article" and show how you can fit all the content of this article into that one without erasing any relevant, sourced, NPOV information. Then we could consider deleting this one. But not until. MrVoluntarist 17:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Count someone please cite the specific things about this article that are biased? So far, the only thing relevant to that request is the claim that "an article about individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism implies they are similar". No, it doesn't. What specific claims made the in article are unjustified, POV, or original research? MrVoluntarist 00:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, valid topic, if you think that the article is POV, fix it - do not censor it abakharev 02:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. To Admin review : This seems to be a hotly debated topic with plenty of people who are biased either one way or the other. Perhaps asking several to review this article and issue a final recommendation based upon the feedback here and an independent weighing of the facts would be advisable. Arviragus 03:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Definitely. This vote for deletion is a spillover from edit wars on Anarchism by a majority of anarchists who are opposed to capitalism. We need some people not involved in that to cast some votes. RJII 03:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge what's good in the article into anarcho-capitalism and delete the rest. It argues that one fringe view is related to another utterly fringe view. I don't even think it's notable enough for an entry, but since much work obviously went into it would be bad to let it go to waste. // Liftarn 11:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hogeye 14:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A valid topic but borders on original research. I'm a bit worried about the author of this page in relation to our policy regarding ownership of articles, as he tends to dominate a number to often excessive levels, wherein it becomes an unfriendly environment to make modifications (see contribution distribution). Sarge Baldy 21:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Ignore the ad hominem above. False and irrelevant information. And, note that Sarge is another anti-capitalist so you should take what he says in that context. RJII 21:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't mean it as an ad hominem attack. I think it is relevant to this article, where you appear to have made at least half of the contributions. Sarge Baldy 21:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's just because I'm apparently the most knowledgeable on the subject. There was not even a section on individualist anarchism in the anarchism article when I arrived and put one in. Likewise, I created, researched, and wrote almost all of the American individualist anarchism article. Who else besides me is doing research on labor-value individualist anarchism? Very few. Hardly anyone has even tried to contribute to the article. It's not that I'm "dominating" it. You insinuate that I'm preventing others from making edits. And, that's just not true. People just don't edit information on American labor-value individualism much because they don't know much about it. I'm doing my part by doing voluminous research and bringing the information to light. Then, Infinity comes along and doesn't like the knowledge that's being revealed and wants to hide it and censor it. Then the anti-capitalists anarchists come along and try to help censoring it by voting to delete because they're afraid it looks like anarcho-capitalism might be a little too similar to labor-value individualist anarchism. It's despicable anti-intellectual behavior. RJII 21:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The debate over the terms anarcho-capitalism and individualist anarchism has occupied a suffienciently important place in theoretical discussions of libertarian philosophy and politics that an article discussing that debate might well be worthy of inclusion. My sense, however, from having been a participant in that debate for a number of years, is that it would be very difficult to provide documentation of the sort desired by Wikipedia. Because it is not at all clear that there is any uniformity of actual positions among individuals claiming the same labels, either it makes sense to abandon the article, since its basic dichotomy is not defensible, or to go through the toil and trouble of determining what some "representative" sampling of individualist anarchists and anarcho-capitalists actually believe. The latter is appealing, but the evidence is going to be scattered in largely informal settings. I'm sure, for example, that I've made a useful distinction between two kinds of anarcho-capitalists (anarcho-capitalists and anarcho-capitalists) a dozen or so times in online discussion, and Kevin Carson has quoted it nearly as many times, but you probably won't find that in the sort of reputable, published source required. Libertatia 23:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Any sort of "compare and contrast" articles are POV. It should be left to the reader to determine what similarities and differences exist, not us. We provide information. They make the judgement. Hear hear! Foant 22:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment How are they supposed to know what similarities and differences exist if they don't have the information in front of them? All this article does is provide information about their philosophies. Of course it's left to the reader to decide how similar or how different they are. You're totally misrepresenting the article. RJII 22:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There is no reason that "compare and contract" articles need necessarily be POV. The difficulty with this article is that all the information is going to consist of more or less POV material. In the context of an article about the debate, that's primary source material, but it requires extremely careful handling. I would personally love to see this done carefully and relatively thoroughly. Libertatia 22:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment You know, a vote to "keep" doesn't mean you sanction everything that's in the article. The article may need work (like all articles on Wikipedia) but there is no need to delete the entire article because it needs work. RJII 22:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For the love of God please take this debate out of the Anarcho-capitalism article and let detailed discussion occur where it belongs. Radgeek 06:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further comment: Given the importance of the issue to the history and theory of libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism, individualist anarchism, and anarchism broadly, it is worth an NPOV discussion of sources and different conclusions about the relationship between the two. Such an extremely detailed argument about an essentially relational property does not, however belong in Anarcho-capitalism, or in Individualist anarchism, or in Anarchism, or anywhere else but in its own entry. If you're worried about POV, then fix it. If you think that problems with editorial cooperation make it unfixable, then relocating the fight to other entries won't help the matter. If you're worried that "compare and contrast" articles are inherently POV or original research, you need to think harder about this: there is no reason why you cannot neutrally discuss, from existing primary sources, the positions of two sets of thinkers and the conclusions drawn about those positions by others. If you're going to whine about how it examines the relationship between two positions both admittedly on the fringe of political discourse, grow up. WikiPedia is large and contains multitudes, and having just recently read detailed multipage treatises on the entangled plot continuities of DC Comics (see Multiverse (DC Comics), Crisis on Infinite Earths, Infinite Crisis, etc.) I have trouble taking very seriously the suggestion that this article is not encyclopaediac enough to meet WikiPedia's exclusive standards. Radgeek 06:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Individualist_anarchism_and_anarcho-capitalism&oldid=37067911"