Stan Hunter Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 All traces of Anarchocapitalism and Voluntarism have been removed from the main article on Anarchism on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism Furthermore, they have been removed from "Part of a series on Anarchism" article set. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryism The voluntarism article is rather incomplete I think. Is anyone here an editor? I don't know the first thing about contributing to wikipedia or proposing edits.
Torero Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 All traces of Anarchocapitalism and Voluntarism have been removed from the main article on Anarchism on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism Furthermore, they have been removed from "Part of a series on Anarchism" article set. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryism The voluntarism article is rather incomplete I think. Is anyone here an editor? I don't know the first thing about contributing to wikipedia or proposing edits. Hi Stan, in the "View History" tab you can look for changes between versions. It's rather messy due to so many edits done, but I think you refer to this edit done by user Graham11, who seems Canadian. He removed all the sidebars and See Also section. You may write him on his talk page to ask for clarification? I used to be an editor a long time ago but fed up with the propaganda they are putting on it. Especially with respect to the Antropogenic Global Warming Hoax. 1
Mister Mister Posted January 29, 2016 Posted January 29, 2016 this is because anarchism is about opposition to hierarchies, and capitalism is the ultimate form of hierarchy, so anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism. 1 2
Will Torbald Posted January 29, 2016 Posted January 29, 2016 this is because anarchism is about opposition to hierarchies, and capitalism is the ultimate form of hierarchy, so anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism. It is theoretically possible to live in an ancap world and never touch a single hierarchical structure living by yourself or with an egalitarian band. Cap just means voluntary exchange. It is so misleading to mix coercive authority and voluntary leadership. It's the origin of all propaganda to lie this way. 1
AncapFTW Posted January 29, 2016 Posted January 29, 2016 this is because anarchism is about opposition to hierarchies, and capitalism is the ultimate form of hierarchy, so anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism. No, it's about opposition to having rulers and the ruled, which is a form of hierarchy, but not all hierarchies are opposed. There are many voluntary and natural hierarchies that aren't opposed. I doubt any anarchist is going to start complaining about the food chain, or about voluntary master/slave sexual relationships, and only under certain circumstances will they complain about parents being hierarchically higher than children. 1
Mister Mister Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 sorry I was trolling, but this is the automatic ancom response I always hear 1
Will Torbald Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 sorry I was trolling, but this is the automatic ancom response I always hear A good /s at the end indicates sarcasm.
bulgakov Posted February 19, 2016 Posted February 19, 2016 But couldn't one argue that voluntaryism is separate from anarchism? From my understanding voluntaryism has a desired form of organization (that being voluntary organization) which many variants of anarchism seem to object to.
Stan Hunter Posted February 23, 2016 Author Posted February 23, 2016 Hi Stan, in the "View History" tab you can look for changes between versions. It's rather messy due to so many edits done, but I think you refer to this edit done by user Graham11, who seems Canadian. He removed all the sidebars and See Also section. You may write him on his talk page to ask for clarification? I used to be an editor a long time ago but fed up with the propaganda they are putting on it. Especially with respect to the Antropogenic Global Warming Hoax. Thanks for pointing this out. I'm a bit of a newb with editing wikipedia. I commend your efforts anyways. I have to say, overall I'm impressed with wikipedia's neutrality, relative to the rest of the internet, but I have absolutely seen bias seeping through, this particular scenario seemed like it was blatantly ransacked by a leftist troll. This raises another question/discussion point, which relates to my personal journey towards anarchism. Many a new libertarian surfs wikipedia to verify and seek out information that corroborates the libertarian position, so I think having Voluntarists amongst the editors is a good thing. But who am I to say? It's not like I have a ton of time on my hands to police wikipedia. this is because anarchism is about opposition to hierarchies, and capitalism is the ultimate form of hierarchy, so anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism. The canned "anarcho-commie" response. I've heard it before. But that's, like... just your opinion man.... But couldn't one argue that voluntaryism is separate from anarchism? From my understanding voluntaryism has a desired form of organization (that being voluntary organization) which many variants of anarchism seem to object to. In a year-long debate with a friend about the merits of Voluntarism, his emotional attachment to having some kind of authority had him finally admitting that maybe a "proto-government" would be OK and morally acceptable.
Hi there Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 But couldn't one argue that voluntaryism is separate from anarchism? From my understanding voluntaryism has a desired form of organization (that being voluntary organization) which many variants of anarchism seem to object to. Where can I read arguments to this effect? Reason being I proposed in another thread that anarchism simply cannot be where there isn't a moral code embraced that respects voluntarism, as not having voluntarism allows for the initiation of force within and around transactions, leading always and everywhere to the establishment of a state concept or relationship exclusive of anarchy. I mean, anarchy can exist in relationships that embrace voluntarism, it cannot exist where one is slave to the other, that's a statist relationship....or maybe not, I'd like to read about it. So what if the anarchist does not desire a form for anarchy, only desires that it exists? Desired form or lack thereof doesn't make it oppose its identity. It still can't exist without voluntarism, right? You can't define something "sedan" and then say "no desired form" or "desired form is bicycle". It still has to fit its own definition...
Hannibal Posted March 25, 2016 Posted March 25, 2016 Where can I read arguments to this effect? Reason being I proposed in another thread that anarchism simply cannot be where there isn't a moral code embraced that respects voluntarism, as not having voluntarism allows for the initiation of force within and around transactions, leading always and everywhere to the establishment of a state concept or relationship exclusive of anarchy. I mean, anarchy can exist in relationships that embrace voluntarism, it cannot exist where one is slave to the other, that's a statist relationship....or maybe not, I'd like to read about it. So what if the anarchist does not desire a form for anarchy, only desires that it exists? Desired form or lack thereof doesn't make it oppose its identity. It still can't exist without voluntarism, right? You can't define something "sedan" and then say "no desired form" or "desired form is bicycle". It still has to fit its own definition... It depends on your definition of property, as aggression is a violation of property rights. Anarchists (qua anarchism) don't believe in property, and so they can claim to be anarchists while opposing any system dependent of property rights. Of course their ideas about property are wrong. This is the crux of the issue. The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms. It mkes no sense to argue about literature before you can even agree on an alphabet.
AncapFTW Posted March 25, 2016 Posted March 25, 2016 It depends on your definition of property, as aggression is a violation of property rights. Anarchists (qua anarchism) don't believe in property, and so they can claim to be anarchists while opposing any system dependent of property rights. Of course their ideas about property are wrong. This is the crux of the issue. The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms. It mkes no sense to argue about literature before you can even agree on an alphabet. See my post above. Also, why are you telling people what they believe in and don't believe in? Property rights are the basis of anarchism. The government violates those rights, especially self ownership, and is therefore wrong.
Recommended Posts