Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 25

POV tag
Thanks to the persistent removal of important information from the lead—information which is the subject of an ongoing POV dispute—I have re-added the POV template to the article. Thanks! — MisterDub (talk &#124; contribs) 22:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You're not using it in good faith. Be warned that not using tags in good faith/misuse of tags can lead to being reported. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 23:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Report me or shut up; I will not be bullied. This tag is reinstated because it is the subject of an ongoing NPOV dispute.  Please do not remove it until we have some kind of resolution.  — MisterDub (talk &#124; contribs) 14:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I will report you if you continue to misuse tags. A Wiki admin moved the tag from the whole article to the Anarchocapitalism and other anarchist schools section (and it is still there as of 6:25pm CDT 9/4/14, despite your claim in your edit summary that it is not). As for bullying: what do you think you were trying to do to me, hmmmmm? Do you not like it when your tactic is used against you? Perhaps you'll think twice about trying to bully others with that tactic.- Knight of BAAWA (talk) 23:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Knight of BAAWA, the difference is that I warned you, and then  I reported you; an action quite distinct from bullying. As for your poor recollection of recent events, let me remind you that the admin removed the tag from the whole article, but placed one in the lead on the line in question.  This line was recently removed and it shouldn't have been.  Thanks to your persistent removal of this line, I was forced to tag the whole article.  — MisterDub (talk &#124; contribs) 15:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No, you tried to bully me into silence. That will NOT be tolerated here on Wikipedia. And you were not forced to do anything; a wiki admin MOVED the tag for a reason. Don't try to play the victim. Further, the admin moved the tag OUT OF THE LEDE and into a section further down the page. Anyone can check the history and see that I'm correct. Deliberately trying to mislead people will NOT be tolerated here. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 12:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * This article is certainly the focus of debate about whether it is extremely promotional. The tag should stay until the promotion is removed. Binksternet (talk) 00:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * A wiki admin moved the tag to the section I noted. Are you, Dub, and Goethean saying that the wiki admin is WRONG? You're going to defy the wiki admin? Oh boy; this will be fun. And notice that I have the edit history of the page to back me up. Do you think it go well for all three of you if you continue to defy the wiki admin? Further, the "POV dispute" has had nothing in the way of any discussion for nigh on 2 weeks and 3 weeks respectively. So there is no dispute; it's been settled. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm OK with the following wording for the final paragraph in the lead:
 * - ...although I would take out the last comma. JLMadrigal (talk) 01:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * To someone with an ideological axe to grind, information seems like promotion. There is no reason to banner-tag the entire article, when the issue is one line or one section - we have tags for those. The line JLMadrigal quoted above is appropriate, as it is descriptive to the uninformed to distinguish between similar concepts. -- Netoholic @ 02:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * To someone with an ideological axe to grind, information seems like promotion. There is no reason to banner-tag the entire article, when the issue is one line or one section - we have tags for those. The line JLMadrigal quoted above is appropriate, as it is descriptive to the uninformed to distinguish between similar concepts. -- Netoholic @ 02:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I see no reason even for that sentence; it really does not add anything to the article. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It gives the context of anCap with regard to opposing schools which, in the case of minarchism on the right, is nominally hospitable to capitalism, and schools on the left which are nominally hospitable to anarchism. It does not legitimize either point of view. JLMadrigal (talk) 13:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't see that it needs to have such context, I really do not. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 18:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The following wording:
 * ...might be a little less POV-ish. JLMadrigal (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * JLMadrigal, I am satisfied with the article as it currently stands. I would argue against this second suggestion of yours because, as Eduen stated in his edit summary, "mutualist and individualist anarchists also advocate self employment and markets."  In other words, the suggested wording ignores individualist (but still anti-capitalist) anarchists by specifically referring to collectivist strains.  — MisterDub (talk &#124; contribs) 15:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * JLMadrigal, I am satisfied with the article as it currently stands. I would argue against this second suggestion of yours because, as Eduen stated in his edit summary, "mutualist and individualist anarchists also advocate self employment and markets."  In other words, the suggested wording ignores individualist (but still anti-capitalist) anarchists by specifically referring to collectivist strains.  — MisterDub (talk &#124; contribs) 15:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I have reinstated the POV tag for the line in question, as it doesn't express the fact that there is a relevant controversy that anti-capitalism is prominent among, and arguably integral to, anarchism. Maybe Knight of BAAWA will bring a reasonable compromise to the table, but until then, I'll be seeking resolution at the noticeboards. — MisterDub (talk &#124; contribs) 00:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You've yet to bring anything reasonable to the table in the first place. You just want to hold this page hostage to your desires; that is not how Wikipedia works. And the sentence deals with the so-called "controversy". So please: stop trying to play the victim; it's not warranted. Further, no dictionary definition of anarchism includes anticapitalism. None. To believe otherwise is to believe that atheism entails communism. Should you believe otherwise: show the dictionary definition which includes anticapitalism. Now. Or else remove the tag which you are, in point of fact, misusing. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 12:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Still waiting..... - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 22:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The following wording more clearly maps ancap among neighboring political ideologies and gives a snapshot of each. I think it's about the best that we can get for a clear summary: JLMadrigal  ...  13:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Your wording of "those on the left who identify as anarchists but tend to distrust" is dismissive of the mainstream traditional anarchists. It's not accurate to treat them as a minor group, and not neutral. The mainstream anarchists must be given pride of place, not kicked to the curb. Binksternet (talk) 14:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * "Those on the left who identify as anarchists"?!?!?! That is far worse!  — MisterDub (talk &#124; contribs) 14:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Here is a proposal that I doubt will be received favorably by the owners of this article. In any case, this is what the lead should look like:

"Anarcho-capitalism (also referred to as free-market anarchism, market anarchism, private-property anarchism, libertarian anarchism ) is a political philosophy that argues the state inherently violates the non-aggression principle (NAP) and therefore must be eliminated in favor of a voluntary society in which money, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services are operated by private firms in a free market. It asserts that personal and economic activities should be regulated by victim-based dispute resolution organizations under tort and contract law, rather than statute.

Anarcho-capitalism grew out of the modern American libertarianism of the 20th century, when members of the Old Right—most notably Murray Rothbard, who coined the term—adopted left-wing anarchist terminology to describe their classical liberal beliefs. These right-libertarians valued self-ownership and justly acquired private property, but disagreed over the extent to which the state is permissible or necessary: while minarchists supported a night-watchman state limited to protection of individual rights, anarcho-capitalists argued for its complete eradication. Unlike most anarchists, who believe anti-capitalism is an integral part of their philosophy, anarcho-capitalists defend wage labor and hierarchy as necessary components of a free society."

— MisterDub (talk &#124; contribs) 16:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The only "owner" of the article so far is YOU, MisterDub. Your edit history on this article betrays some bend to have it read only as you want otherwise you'll POV it. That's not how Wikipedia works.
 * And no, I do not like your non-neutral POV attempt at the lede. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 22:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * You will not find any source that supports the claim that anarcho-capitalists "defend hierarchy as necessary components of a free society", because it is untrue. They reject hierarchy. A man owns his own castle. In a free market, workers are voluntary service providers. JLMadrigal   ...  03:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources. However anarcho-capitalists believe that different individuals will rise to different levels in society, that is, under their preferred society, some people will have more money than others.  In any case, anarcho-capitalists are far more likely to vote for the Conservative Party or UKIP than they are for Labour, which puts them on the right.  TFD (talk) 03:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Vote? Anarcho-capitalists reject majoritarianism along with all other manifestations of the confiscatory state. Do your homework. JLMadrigal   ...  04:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There are some who argue against voting (such as Rockwell), but not voting is not part of the ideology. If you have any evidence that they are not allowed to vote, then please provide sources so we can add it.  TFD (talk) 05:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Allowed? Have you even heard of anarcho-capitalism? Only the state is disallowed. So any "support" that an ancap would offer would be toward whoever would most succeed at eliminating the state without making it more efficient in its confiscatory practices. JLMadrigal   ...  13:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * "You will not find any source that supports the claim that anarcho-capitalists 'defend hierarchy as necessary components of a free society', because it is untrue." Did you even look at my proposal?  Did you see the source?  Did you notice it's even Murray Rothbard saying it?  This is ridiculous!  — MisterDub (talk &#124; contribs) 14:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Apparently you are seeing something that's not there, MisterDub. Exactly which quote makes this claim? JLMadrigal   ...  15:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You mean you can't see the very last source? The one immediately after the statement it supports?  The one in which Murray Rothbard states that the "institutions necessary to the triumph of liberty" include "hierarchy, [and] wage work"?  — MisterDub (talk &#124; contribs) 16:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * While Mr. Rothbard is the first self-proclaimed anarcho-capitalist, he does not represent the movement as a whole, nor does his statement regarding hierarchies describe anarcho-capitalism. David Friedman, another anarcho-capitalist, has the following to say about them,
 * "One major limitation on the size of firms is the problem of control. The more layers of hierarchy there are between the president and the factory worker, the harder it is for management to monitor and control the workers. That is one reason that small firms often are more successful than large ones." JLMadrigal   ...  05:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Friedman is still advocating hierarchy in that quote, just less of it. He does not say hierarchy should be abolished. Binksternet (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Advocating hierarchy? Explain. JLMadrigal   ...  01:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Central characteristics of capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets and wage labour.
 * Capital accumulation = financial hierarchy. &mdash; goethean 01:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The following quote by Mr. Friedman from "The Machinery of Freedom" takes aim at the role of hierarchies in central planning, and shows how capitalism opposes them:




 * The following quote from the book is an attack on the corporate university system:




 * It is easy to find quotes from Friedman and other anarcho-capitalists explaining how free markets oppose hierarchies. JLMadrigal   ...  02:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The following wording dispenses with discussion of placement on a political scale (at least for the lede).


 * Even if we grant the hierarchy thing, it doesn't separate anarchocapitalists from other anarchists in that there are a slew of anarchists who like sports. And most sports have referees. Which is a hierarchy. So clearly: that's a non-starter and means nothing other than hypocrisy on the part of those professing to hate all hierachies while embracing the idea of refereed sports and/or sports governing bodies (like FIFA). - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 22:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * *scratches head* Weren't we talking political philosophy? &mdash; goethean 00:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * We are. And we're also talking about those who scream that all hierarchies are bad while supporting some hierarchies, which is clearly hypocritical. Wouldn't you agree? - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 03:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure. But you bringing umpires and sports into the discussion is off-topic and makes zero sense as a counter-example. &mdash; goethean 17:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It only makes zero sense if you're desperately trying to deny the hierarchy involved. Which, it appears, you are. Why is that? You can see there is a hierarchy there, and all hierarchies are bad, right? But clearly some are ok or else there wouldn't be anarchists who like those sports. See what I'm getting at? See how I'm showing that they can't say all hierarchies are bad while embracing some hierarchies as good? See how I'm pointing out the hypocrisy? And see how the idea of hierarchy really is red herring here? - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I can see that you are playing a sophomoric libertarian gotcha parlor game rather than discussing a Wikipedia article &mdash; and making a fool of yourself in the process. &mdash; goethean 17:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I can see that you're being uncivil again. I am discussing the article (despite your obviously wrong statement to the contrary); you just don't like where it is going. That is not my problem; it is yours. When you want to discuss the article rather than being uncivil: let me know. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 18:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out how the phrase "others who identify as anarchists but tend to distrust the market process" marginalizes anyone. Could those of you who think it marginalizes anyone please kindly explain how it does? If no explanation is forthcoming: it will be re-added. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 19:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The statement about others "who identify as anarchists" casts doubt on their claim (the obvious intention of the POV warriors here). It's a word to watch, like so-called, nominally, etc.  — MisterDub (talk &#124; contribs) 19:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It does no such thing, Mr. POV-warrior and article-owner. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 22:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * In addition to that, the use of the word "but" implies that there is an inconsistency between being (or "identifying as") an anarchist and rejecting capitalism (or as you put it, "tend[ing] to distrust the market process.") I think most "anarchists", whether traditionally or otherwise, would say there is no such inconsistency, and I also think they would say they don't merely "tend to distrust the market process", but go so far as to "reject capitalism."  Neutron (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't imply any inconsistency at all. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 22:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Their claim is dubious for two reasons: 1) Property and markets are natural phenomena, so any attempt at their elimination would reject anarchy in those realms, and 2) said elimination would require a state as an enforcing mechanism. If a wording that states these important differences can be made more polite, I'm open to suggestions. JLMadrigal   @  00:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Knight, if there is no inconsistency being implied, then I assume you wouldn't object to replacing "but" with "and", right? (Not that that's the only problem with the sentence.)  Neutron (talk) 14:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Which I have now rewritten a little into a compromise version, but people are already undoing the compromise. Ah well, I will just go offer my diplomatic services elsewhere.  Neutron (talk) 22:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That's because a POV-warrior has decided that he and he alone owns this page. And he's now been warned about it. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 23:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Are we ready to remove the tag? There is no substantial difference between:

and

...and the former has had "...who identify as..." and "...but..." removed as requested above. What's the beef? JLMadrigal  @  17:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * For some reason you have not offered the other versions which have been put forward, for instance:
 * Both of these pay greater respect to the traditional/mainstream anarchists who preceded by many years the an-caps in their disavowal of regular government. It is not neutral to call this greater group "other anarchists", as if they are not the main thing going. Binksternet (talk) 23:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Both of these pay greater respect to the traditional/mainstream anarchists who preceded by many years the an-caps in their disavowal of regular government. It is not neutral to call this greater group "other anarchists", as if they are not the main thing going. Binksternet (talk) 23:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Both of these pay greater respect to the traditional/mainstream anarchists who preceded by many years the an-caps in their disavowal of regular government. It is not neutral to call this greater group "other anarchists", as if they are not the main thing going. Binksternet (talk) 23:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I listed the two versions that came closest to consensus. Regarding respect, the anti-property anarchism of yesteryear is being displaced by modern libertarian thinking. Do you have any numbers to back up your claim that traditionalism is still the main thing going? If not, I have no objection to giving them a prominent place in the history section. JLMadrigal   @  03:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. Can the following version get a consensus?:
 * JLMadrigal  @  12:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I think it could read better. 1) Why not introduce the idea of a night-watchman state when discussing minarchists?  The statement is accurate, but sounds clumsy to me.  2) The end of the sentence is redundant: we should keep either "reject capitalism" or "seek to abolish or restrict...".  I would prefer something like the following:
 * "Anarcho-capitalists are distinguished from minarchists, who advocate a small night-watchman state limited to the function of individual protection, and traditional anarchists, who reject capitalism."
 * "Anarcho-capitalists are distinguished from minarchists, who advocate a small night-watchman state limited to the function of individual protection, and traditional anarchists, who reject capitalism."


 * But as long as the redundancy is removed, I would support its inclusion and the removal of the NPOV tag associated with it. It's not what it ought to be, but it's a (grudgingly) acceptable compromise.  — MisterDub (talk &#124; contribs) 19:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Traditional anarchists perceive and define capitalism differently than capitalists do. How about the following:
 * JLMadrigal  @  04:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Your claim is nonsense, but the proposed text is acceptable, as stated previously. — MisterDub (talk &#124; contribs) 14:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Nonsense? Hardly. The term itself is used as a spook by the left, conjuring up horrible images of sweatshops, &c. (which in reality are a direct result of cronyism - its opposite). Even some who seem to accept the market process try to dissociate free markets and capitalism. JLMadrigal   @  13:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not accept it; it violates NPOV. It is grossly tilted in favor of the so-called "anti-capitalist anarchists". And the sentence in no way needs to be there. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 12:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not accept it; it violates NPOV. It is grossly tilted in favor of the so-called "anti-capitalist anarchists". And the sentence in no way needs to be there. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 12:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I have re-added the tag, as "traditional" marginalizes anarchocapitalists. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 12:35, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Please offer an alternative. "classical"? JLMadrigal   @  13:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Knight of BAAWA is correct. I have forgotten the fact that Wikipedia specifically lists "traditional" among words to avoid. Hopefully we can quickly find a better word. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Relative_time_references JLMadrigal   @  14:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Baloney. The word "traditional" works perfectly well to establish the fact that anti-capitalist anarchists established their beliefs long before pro-capitalist anarchists. Ancaps are comparative upstarts. Binksternet (talk) 14:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * While in many contexts "traditional" could fit the above linked description, in this case I am comfortable with it. The word, after all, is not forbidden. "Other" does seem a bit foggy. If Knight of BAAWA can provide an improvement, we can discuss it here. I don't think "traditional" warrants a tag. JLMadrigal   @  15:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The word "other" works fine for me (I don't see how it's foggy). "Traditional" simply marginalizes anarchocapitalists as somehow being inferior or less-than, and I am not comfortable with it at all. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 21:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * How about "classical"? JLMadrigal   @  12:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Still has the ring of marginalization, sorry. That they are the "classics"--to be elevated above all others--and anarchocapitalists are not that important. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 14:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Suggestion from a casual passerby, how about rephrasing as "...and traditional other anarchists who often seek to...." This removes the fuzziness from other, and preserves the idea that both views are widespread. Hope that helps. —&#160;&#160;  &#160;&#160;Bill W.&#160;&#160;  &#160;&#160; (Talk)&#160;&#160;(Contrib)&#160;&#160; (User:Wtwilson3) &#160;&#160;— 20:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm ok with that. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 23:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Iceland
I just added a one source section tag to the discussion of Iceland. I'm a little weary of using a Libertarian Economist who has a political agenda as the source of this discussion. It seems like a far better place to look for a NPOV on this topic would be in the writings of historians, or economic historians (preferably those that focus on Iceland) and not economists with Washington think tank affiliations.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 09:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Is anything he wrote not verifiable or accurate? - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 14:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Delisted FA
Regarding these edits, and the Featured article review at Featured article review/Anarcho-capitalism/archive1: The FAR Coordinator, Nikkimaria delisted the article on December 16,  and because the bot which processes FAR closings is no longer operating, I did the final steps (updating articlehistory and removing the star) manually. I hope this clears up any questions. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 04:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The instructions for the process can be found at WP:FAR.
 * The FAR was initiated on July 29, 2014, and remained in the two to three-week review phase until 14 September.
 * The article moved to the Featured Article Candidate Removal (FARC) phase (typically lasting two to three weeks) on 14 September, where it remained for another three months before the article was delisted.
 * Every editor significantly involved in the article was notified on user talk (see notifications at the top of the FAR page).


 * I was never notified that the article had been moved to "Featured article removal candidate (FARC)" status. When was notification given? JLMadrigal   @  05:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You (and every other significant contributor to the article) were notified when the FAR was opened; you commented at the page after the article was moved to the FARC phase.   Individual notification of FAR to FARC is not given; it is presumed at that stage that involved parties are watchlisting the FAR (as you apparently were).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * All issues regarding delisting were promptly resolved three months ago - within 24 hours after they were presented. Only four days before the article was delisted were new issues presented. Smells like stealth to me.  JLMadrigal   @  12:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Yep--stealth on the part of those who want there to be a government. There was no consensus to delist. It needs to be IMMEDIATELY reinstated or action will be taken. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 14:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "All issues regarding delisting were promptly resolved three months ago" ... Not true... :/ Shii (tock) 19:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The article can be relisted FA by nominating it at WP:FAC. As to whether the action was "stealth on the part of those who want there to be a government", readers might note that I was a supporter of the article in its 2006 FAR (which btw is the only FAR I'm aware of in eight years that saw editors arguing after the close that it was wrongly Kept). Submitting the article to FAC is the route to relisting it as a Featured article, but as a four-year former FAC delegate, I would suggest that it will be quickly denied status until/unless the issues relative to FA standards that caused its delisting be addressed first: That provides a list of things to work on without even analyzing the quality of the sources or prose, which will be scrutinized at FAC. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a good deal of uncited text.
 * There is a tagged section and multiple tags in the article (more needed, but I'm not going to tag bomb since it appears no one is working to correct those issues).
 * Evaluate whether any of the lengthy quotes can be re-expressed in Wikipedia's own words.
 * There is considerable Manual of style cleanup needed, including section headings (WP:MSH), WP:PUNC placement relative to quotes, WP:FN placement, WP:CAPTION (puncutation), inconsistent use of Em and En-dashes, and more
 * There is a lengthy See also section (when an article is comprehensive, most See alsos will have been worked into the text)
 * Further reading needs pruning
 * Citations are incomplete and inconsistent.


 * No, it can be relisted immediately, since the unilateral delisting without consensus clearly was wrong. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 18:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's unclear what your intended meaning of "unilateral delisting" is; see the instructions at WP:FAR:
 * "The featured article removal coordinators determine whether there is consensus for a change in the status of a nomination, and close the listing accordingly."
 * In the many (overly generous IMO) months that the article remained at FAR, the issues were not corrected. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not unclear what the meaning of "unilateral delisting" is, especially when taken with "without consensus". There. Was. No. Consensus. To. Delist. Ergo. The. Delisting. Was. Unilateral. Period. End of story. How this is difficult to grasp is beyond me. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 13:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Again, EVERY issue that elicited a "delist" during the FARC phase (that is, under the "FARC" heading in the talk page when it was typed in - since that action seems to be all that is required to convert it to this phase), was resolved - until four days before the entire article was delisted. That can hardly be considered "generous".
 * Furthermore, Binksternet, who initiated the review process, promised "...to more closely identify problems, and to rectify them. The first part of the process is to compare the present version of the article to past versions, to see what might current text might be changed or deleted, and to see what past text might be restored in some form. The second part of the process is to look at modern writings on the topic and see how the article can be changed to better reflect the literature."
 * It has become glaringly apparent (as I had suspected from the beginning) that his intention has always been to see to it that featured status was removed, rather than tune the article as he claimed. JLMadrigal   @  21:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The article does not satisfy the FA criteria. There are substantial sections that are not cited to a reliable source, numerous WP:MOS breaches, inconsistent citation styles and a host of other issues. Rather than whinge about its delisting, why not improve the article? As it stands, it would not have a snowball’s chance in hell for promotion at WP:FAC. Graham Beards (talk) 22:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with the user immediately above this post - I'm not a frequent editor of this article, but am interested in libertarianism and have also become cognizant recently that the bar for FA has increased significantly since 2005. There are a lot of fundamental issues with this article, and while it would be great to see this be FA again, the goal should be first and foremost to improve the article. The bullet points above cover the issues at a very fundamental level, and once those are addressed, a peer review will likely be in order. My recommendation is to address the points above, receive a peer review, obtain GA status, then FA. But I must regrettably concur with the previous poster that the current article would not stand a chance if taken directly to FAC as is. Tonystewart14 (talk) 05:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment – I agree with Graham—and I would have made the same decision in Nikkimaria's place. Once the article moved to FARC, legitimate summary concerns were listed and went unaddressed. posted concerns here on 29 September and  posted concerns here on 11 December. So, I don't think it's accurate to argue that concerns were posted suddenly at the end and the closing was unilateral. -- Laser brain   (talk)  14:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And yet there was no consensus. Ergo, unilateral delisting. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 03:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The FARC process does not require full consensus for delisting. Rather, a strong consensus is needed if the article is to keep its FA status, so you have it backward. Binksternet (talk) 14:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

About that sentence in the lede....
I still see no reason for it to be there other than to appease those who want there to be a government so that there isn't an edit-war. And that is not a valid reason for that sentence to be there. Unless a valid reason for it to be there is given, it should be removed--regardless of wanting to appease those who want there to be a government just so they won't engage in an edit-war to hijack this article. And if no valid reason is forthcoming: it will be removed. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 02:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Insults and ultimatums aren't appropriate on Wikipedia. "That sentence in the lede" situates anarcho-capitalism appropriately within the family tree of libertarianism, establishing context and noting prominent controversies (per WP:LEAD).  Let us not also forget that this addition was the result of a RfC.  — MisterDub (talk &#124; contribs) 15:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What insults? And no--that addition was not the result of an RfC; it was the result of you holding the page hostage to your demands by your engaging in an edit-war. THAT is not allowable here in Wikipedia. Nor does that sentence have any appropriateness in the article per WP:LEAD. It needs to be removed. And without any valid support--it will be. THAT is how Wikipedia works. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 13:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It has been three weeks, and the only complaint is from the one who held this article hostage to his demands in order to hijack it for his own desires. That being the case, the sentence shall be removed, since his desire to own the article is in clear violation of Wikipedia principles and rules. Further, it the other "anarcho-" articles are any template (and they are), anarchocapitalism appears to be the only one with such a sentence. No reason for that; time to bring it in line with the other articles.

And yes: the one who wants to own the page will be reported for his attempt to own the article again when he engages in an edit-war to put back that which does not belong. He will not be permitted to own the article. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 23:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Your ridiculous bravado is amusing, but ineffectual. The reason anarcho-capitalism is the only article displaying the most prominent controversy in anarchism is because every other anarchist current is anti-capitalist, and therefore "few anarchists would accept the 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp since they do not share a concern for economic equality and social justice". (Marshall p. 565)  It's Wikipedia policy to make prominent controversies known and give due weight.  — MisterDub (talk &#124; contribs) 15:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * No, that's not the reason at all. You have made it clear that you want to marginalize anarchocapitalism in any possible way you can (in violation of Wikipedia policy), and have decided to own the anarchocapitalism article as a result (in violation of Wikipedia policy). Due weight? False. No other "anarcho-" article has such a sentence. I am simply bringing the article in line with them. Should you not like it I suggest you edit the other "anarcho-" articles with such a sentence. Otherwise: you are simply violating Wikipedia policy. And you will be reported for it. I am tired of your game. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 13:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You have apparently lost track of the larger picture in your wish to promote an-cap magical goodness to the world. The larger picture is that everybody else thinks it's ridiculously impractical, full of internal contradictions, terribly antisocial, and without a chance in hell of being widely implemented. The article must at least let the reader know that negative opinions exist. Binksternet (talk) 14:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You really don't understand WP:DUE WEIGHT, do you? "[Articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint] should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. ... In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained."
 * If you feel the need to report me, go ahead. I have done nothing in violation of Wikipedia policy, and I won't be intimidated by your vacant threats.  — MisterDub (talk &#124; contribs) 15:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Private Property
The "Private Property" section is slanted toward Rothbard. It neglects the consequentialist view of the topic - namely that markets dictate property distributions and assure order. JLMadrigal  @  12:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

It should also be noted, that there is a distinction between private and personal property. Jp16103 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * No, no there isn't any such distinction. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 21:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)