Talk:Minarchism

Only major language without minarchism
English cant be the only major language without minarchism. This is very different for NWS. NWS does not even mention minarchism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by La marts boys (talk • contribs) 16:36, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Bill Maher?
Maher isn't any kind of libertarian, let alone a minarchist. He might call hiself that, but his stated political positions don't support the claim. See here: http://archive.salon.com/ent/tv/feature/2001/08/01/maher/?sid=1043433

Why Is There A Page For This?
Why is there even a wikipedia page for this? e.g. what are significant differences between libertarianism and minarchism? 24.193.117.225 (talk) 01:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Libertarianism is an ideology which includes minarchism. Libertarianism, however, can include anarchism while minarchism cannot. AddsDitchVim (talk) 21:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Minarchism is a subset (generally) of libertarian philosophy. — Satori Son 16:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Reads far too much like anarcho-capitalist, rather than Minarchist
This article should be mergable with small government, & limited government; it's not, because this article is not really minarchist. This article could merge into anarcho-capitalist. Small & Limited government should be merged under the title minarchist. --Lance W. Haverkamp (talk) 19:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Redirect to night-watchman state
Minimal state has been folded into night-watchman state, night-watchman state. This article uses all three terms interchangeably (perhaps vandalism/POV, but I could not find the diff). Talk has been dead for months. It reads like SEO. Can we delete this? (Note, I am fairly new to contributing as an edditor. Please use kid gloves.) pnppl (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with pnppl that the merge proposal is inappropriate, that talk has been dead for a long time, with no case made; I also believe that these are distinct concepts, with N-w state being an independent notable (and older) subset of minarchism. I'll therefore delete the merge template.Klbrain (talk) 15:08, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep, I concur with Klbrain. No discussion on this for years, and merge doesn't seem warranted anyway. — Satori Son 17:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

desertion

 * Linda & Morris Tannehill argue that no coercive monopoly of force can arise on a free market and that a government's citizenry cannot desert them in favor of a competent protection and defense agency.

Interpreting this sentence oddly took me several tries, I guess because the structure invites me to read one clause as "because" the other, and/or because "them" is obscure. I hope to find a way to improve it. —Tamfang (talk) 08:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Minarchism is NOT Libertarian
Libertarians do not believe in ANY state, Minarchists DO. This libelous conflation of the two concepts continues to damage Minarchist philosophers by portraying them as "anti-government wackos" when we are in fact very much pro-state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.85.167 (talk) 19:39, March 17, 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that assertion is correct. Generally, it can be said that at least some (most?) libertarians do believe in an appropriate level of state authority (to enforce private property rights and the like).  More specifically, libertarianism is not synonymous with anarchism.
 * But, if you have some reliable published sources advocating that opinion, we should discuss adding something to the article. — Satori Son 18:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Minarchist flag
I've seen these variants proposed -

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Minarchism.png

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Minarchism_flag.svg.png

http://adriabandiere.com/upload/prodotti/85b994.jpg?236588

https://azeoqq.bay.livefilestore.com/y1mBIUFl-7hm1liJn_v45PkrOJr9SHNB_6BDrOwRkLeYbXXbtu9yohk3aoJs1pIxUxv0OJ9gcdH8Mq8J77A7RGXR-_NzKFMi2q9WTbY_qDhKZc/tobepolled.png?psid=1

Perhaps someone could edit one of these in to the page as a representation of minarchism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nameequalsjeff (talk • contribs) 01:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * We'd need reliable, published sources to support the flag's inclusion here. Seems premature.  — Satori Son 15:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Merge with Night-watchman state
I suggest this article be merged with Night-watchman state. I see that this has been proposed before in 2011 (here and here), where they were distinguished between an article on a kind of state and the political philosophy which advocates for this state. I am unimpressed by this distinction.

In my opinion, political philosophies are only worthy of their own articles when they become broader movements with multiple policies, reforms, or structures for which they advocate. Libertarianism, Communism, Anarchism, and Socialism are good examples of this. Minarchism is nothing more or less than the theory and advocacy of the night-watchman state. It has no additional policies, reforms, or structures beyond this one concept. Accordingly, it seems only appropriate to merge.

What do others think? Daask (talk) 12:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

adding new RfC template per original post by User:Daask (his nomination quote is below; I added to RfC due to only a few participants in this discussion since it was started in December)

I suggest this article be merged with Night-watchman state. I see that this has been proposed before in 2011 (here and here), where they were distinguished between an article on a kind of state and the political philosophy which advocates for this state. I am unimpressed by this distinction. In my opinion, political philosophies are only worthy of their own articles when they become broader movements with multiple policies, reforms, or structures for which they advocate. Libertarianism, Communism, Anarchism, and Socialism are good examples of this. Minarchism is nothing more or less than the theory and advocacy of the night-watchman state. It has no additional policies, reforms, or structures beyond this one concept. Accordingly, it seems only appropriate to merge. What do others think?

BrendonTheWizard (talk) 14:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)


 * No opinion yet This article will need a lot of work, but I'd like to think this article has potential. However, the "See also" section is currently malformed and will have to be reduced. Likewise, in the philosophy section, there are only three sentences and only two have a source; that does not constitute a standalone article in my opinion. The criticisms section is longer than any other section, but it doesn't use a single source. If you would like to, consider this a weak support as I'm leaning towards the idea that a merge would be beneficial, though I'd like to see the improvement of both articles. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 01:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Changing my !vote to Support Merge - While both articles are lacking in substance and in citations, I support your proposal as the Night-watchman state seems to be the sole example of minarchism provided. Merging would allow for a better-sourced article with more content to read without having to navigate between the two articles. I tend to support separate articles for separate subjects in most cases, but it seems that Minarchism and the Night-watchman state are intimately related. Because the philosophy section still has only three sourced sentences (totaling four if we were to count the unsourced statement), yet the philosophy of a political ideology should be the primary source of substance in the article, this article is severely lacking the information its purpose is to provide. You are right to contrast this article with good examples of broader movements. As the 2011 proposal stated that the purpose for distinct articles is that the "Minarchism" article would represent the philosophical aspect, I am unimpressed that after nearly seven years this article unfortunately lacks any substantive elaboration on its political philosophy beyond simply referencing the Night-watchman state. Therefore, I support Merging into Night-watchman state. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose merging, very strongly. The concept of the night-watchman state is a different matter from a political philosophy which advocates that concept as the sole function of the state. Need for improvement in either article is irrelevant to this conceptual distinction.
 * —Syrenka V (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


 * While you raise a good point stating that the proposal and the philosophy behind it should warrant separate articles, I would argue that the overlap is clear enough that the subjects are inseparable. This article does not add anything to the philosophy behind Minarchism & the Night Watchman State that is not provided by the NWS article. For that reason, I am not ready to concede that these subjects are discrete enough to warrant separate, standalone articles, and I therefore believe that WP:MERGEREASON is applicable. In my userspace, I prepared a copy of this article with unsourced material removed which can be found here. We have only two RS sentences to explain the philosophy behind Minarchism, both of which explain the need for a state, meaning they'd fit nicely into Night-watchman state (especially since the latter of the two sentences on Minarchism's philosophy is talking solely about the Night-watchman state). I will try to prepare a draft of what a merge from Minarchism would look like. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 19:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment This discussion was started almost four months ago and only three people have participated in this discussion including the nominator. It would be wrong for me to close it as I've actively participated in it, so I'll turn this discussion into an RfC so others can weigh in on the discussion. Rather than starting the process over, I used the nominator's initial comment as the brief RfC statement. Editors have suggested for over a decade now that these two articles are merged, but none with a formal nomination to reach a consensus. Hopefully this discussion can conclude soon. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Legobot added the RfC template and then removed it immediately because the discussion started months ago because it automatically believed that the actual RfC discussion was expired. I had to copy and paste Daask's original message with a new timestamp. Hopefully now we can get enough outside voices to reach a consensus on this. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 14:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support merge. Since the idea of the night watchman state is mostly theoretical, it isn't particularly distinguishable from the political philosophy that advocates it; the articles essentially have the same content, and it's difficult to see a situation where they could meaningfully diverge. --Aquillion (talk) 05:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support merge, per Aquillion, there is no meaningful distiction between a political theory, and a term used to describe a state which would theoretically exist using the same ideology. The only substantial difference is that certain states have been described as approaching 'Night watchman' status, but that isn't substantially different from a state having been described as employing - for example - anarchist principles. Pincrete (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I oppose the merge. The Night Watchman State is only one kind of Minarchism there are many others. Some versions including other things not present in The Night Watchman State and excluding things in The Night Watchman State. All of Minarchism ≠ Night Watchman State. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberty823 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support merge. While the ideology of minarchism is not the same thing as the state it advocates, this is IMO not the test for whether to merge or no. Rather, I think the night watchman state article can have a section on minarchism, laying out the content of that ideology. Of course, someone typing "minarchism" in the Wiki search box would be directed to the merged article. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 12:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment To see what a merge would look like, I took sourced content from this article and added it to my userspace draft User:BrendonTheWizard/Night-watchman state. I noticed several things when preparing it:
 * The article Minarchism only has a handful of sourced sentences to add.
 * Several of the sentences in Minarchism were literally almost word-for-word the same as what you can find on Night-watchman state, which only adds to the list of reasons to merge the two. The lead of the two articles uses the exact same word order when describing Minarchism and the Night-watchman state and the philosophy/justification section pointed to the exact same book. Even throughout the pre-merged justification/philosophy section, proponents were already being referred to as minarchists in all instances.
 * The merged version certainly does have more relevant content, as the two articles cover the same information. Though Minarchism's philosophy section was short, it was a very much-needed addition to the justification section.


 * Feel free to add/change content in that userspace draft as you wish. Cheers, --BrendonTheWizard (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Opppose. The history of the night watchman state concept is different from minarcism, and while minarchists might advocate for a NWS, other idealogies may do so as well, while minarchists themselves may pragmatically shift from dogma should they be in a non theoritical position of power or influence.Icewhiz (talk) 19:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Though Wikipedia is not a vote, there's currently 5 in favor of the merge and 3 in opposition to the merge. Rationale in support states that Minarchism and the Night Watchman state are intimately related and that the NWS article can have a section including information on Minarchism as the ideology that advocates for it, while the opposition argues that Minarchism and the NWS are distinct as one article would cover the state and another would cover the idelogy advocating for the state in addition to other ideas that minarchists may hold. The RfC is still active, but if it expires soon it's likely up to the closer whether to wait for a clearer consensus, to close with a rough consensus to merge, or to close as no consensus due to 5-3 being very close; more important than the number of !votes is the weight of the arguments they carry, which is not for me to decide, but rather whoever formally closes this discussion once it expires. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 14:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Support The justification section already explains minarchism/philosophy, so might as well merge that there. The criticism section in minarchism is as well criticism of night-watchman state, and the the minarchist projects is as well "Night-watchmen state projects" etc. They're tightly aligned. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Samuel Edward Konkin III ("SEK3" online) coined the term minarchism(minimal government) solely so a minimal alternative to "anarchism"(no government) would exist
Samuel Edward Konkin III ("SEK3" online) coined the term minarchism(minimal government) solely so a "minimal" alternative to "anarchism"(zero government) would exist, in the same domain.

Because there are several theoretical and possible types of "minimal government," with libertarians caring most about ones structured along the lines of the 1994 Libertarian Party Platform or Lysander Spooner's writings advocating voluntarily prohibiting force and fraud (and otherwise doing nothing), it makes sense for there to be "a one-word title" for "all the types of system that might be considered to exist with a minimal government." This is because "anarchy" is "a one-word title" for "all the types of system that might be considered to exist with no government." It makes sense to differentiate "minarchists" from "totalitarians"(systems where a government has total power).

The reason why this makes sense is that certain types of minarchist don't claim to favor "a night watchman state," and a "night watchman state" is a phrase comprised of multiple words. There are many incredibly good reasons for avoiding multiple word phrases when replying to a person who identifies themselves with one word. The person who has volunteered a one-word title for themselves has narrowed down where they stand in a general domain for the purposes of being concise. This is a courtesy. This is something done to eliminate details, noise, and likely errors. It also identifies whether such details, noise, and errors can be eliminated, or if you're trying to strive toward something new of your own creation.

A "Night Watchman State" can both be argued to have already existed, and to never have existed. Many people who advocate for "minarchism" claim to be "constitutionalists," and some of them claim to be "U.S. Constitutionalists" or "Bill of Rights Advocates," while others favor a specific kind of "due process" being reinstated from its historical roots, as established by Algernon Sidney (I'm one such minarchist, but minarchism and a "Night Watchman State" don't specifically require this). As such, a "Night Watchmen State" is, indeed, a subset of "minarchism" in general. "Minarchism" is an abstract domain, not a specific example within the abstract domain. As such, it also includes all theoretical and incorrect conceptions of minimal states. One might well say that minarchism is a more general term that includes "Night Watchman State," without getting into Monty Python's mud-digging peasants explaining to King Arthur that "what we really are is voluntary anarcho-syndicalist commune, with all decisions to be made by a parliamentary vote, if and only if a quorum is present..." To recap, visually: Minarchism = (Night Watchman State)("true levellers")("true republicans")(Constitutionalists)(U.S. Constitutionalists)(Monarchists like "Mencius Moldbug" AKA Curtis Guy Yarvin)(People who voted for Trump while claiming to want less government)(People who want America to have nukes, but only as a deterrent)(People who think America having nukes inherently makes us a totalitarian state)(People who have a billion theories about how a minimal government might be constructed)(Jury Rights Activists, laboring under the current state toward reducing the state as much as possible, one "not guilty" verdict at a time) ...The prior parenthesis describe a lot of "minarchists" but they don't all describe "a Night Watchman State." Ergo, even if the only groups of "minarchists" were "Night Watchman State Advocates";"Some members of the U.S.A. Libertarian Party"; and "U.S. Constitutionalists," the term "minarchist" would be different from "Night Watchman State." The term "minarchist" is an abstract category, the term "Night Watchman State" is a subset category within "minarchism." Since the scale "amount of government" is mathematically continuous in thousands of scalar domains, all of which can be added together in different ways and some of which are mutually-exclusive to each other, it makes sense to have a word that denotes "some level of existing government" which allows for the existence of all existing sub-groups.

The prior is true even if factionalism is stupid and counter-productive. I can show up to a political meeting and refuse to discuss what I believe is hair-splitting bullshit. However, I might be wrong. Ergo, the English language should still be able to describe concepts that I personally believe are "often counterproductive" and "subject to misuse." WIKIpedia tends to not "take down" pages that describe harmful theoretical concepts, or concepts that encourage infighting and factionalism. Why not? Because even if humans don't get something right, reducing their ability to discuss the thing that they're getting wrong usually only leads to them reinventing the wrong thing, not wandering towards more productive territory. And who's to say infighting isn't productive? Ultimately, it almost certainly is: If everyone was the same intelligence level (low or high), they'd get along perfectly, but they'd be unprepared to defend against the first predatory organism or "splinter group" smarter than themselves. The anarchism page describes many things that I think are both "stupid"(unwittingly counter-productive) and "dead-ends"(unlikely to ever be revived or lead to a productive idea of any kind). ...But I don't want to remove those things from the "anarchism" page, nor do I wish to remove the anarchism page itself. I'm happy to know that, historically, there were many large groups of people who wanted "maximum intrusion into people's personal lives!" in the name of "no more intrusion into people's personal lives!" ...This lets me know a lot about how "the lowest common denominator" has governed human history.

Demanding that people know about one's specific brand of bullshit is discourteous. I have no problem with mentioning the ideas with the most market share first. As such, "Night Watchman State" should be highly prioritized on the "minarchism" page's "intro" or "description" as should "classical liberal" and "abolitionist." (FWIW: Lysander Spooner does not appear to have considered himself an anarchist, just an individualist legal theorist and abolitionist. His stated ideas, by my estimation, seem to place him in the category of "voluntaryist minarchist," alongside myself and Henry David Thoreau. Thoreau explicitly stated that he was not "a no government man," and that he was first striving for less government, and that he suspected the ultimate destination was "a government that governs not at all." ...Which is still "not anarchy," since "anarchy" is "absence of a government.")

"Minarchism" is the appropriate title of "the alternative to 'anarchism' that is substantially and qualitatively different from 'totalitarianism'." (We know that such a thing should be able to be labeled, because there has been a vast difference between "more totalitarian" and "less totalitarian" states.) Although Samuel Konkin III liked to make up silly words like "agorism," and that's unfortunate, sometimes he made up a really good word that needed to be made up, a word that implies its meaning from root words that are familiar to nearly everyone. He was right about "minarchism." Anarchism = "no government." Minarchism = "minimal government." Now, let the argument commence on both terms about what constitutes "no" and what constitutes "minimal." Then, at least, people are arguing about how to label the same scalar variable ("amount of government," as a label). Once a position is taken on that scalar variable, one can argue as to whether the result would be "liberty"(as Rothbard asserts, in "For a New Liberty," of "anarchy"), or "an unstable power-vacuum resulting in wildly-fluctuating levels of tyranny" as Stanley Milgram asserts is likely of "anarchy," in "Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View."

Moreover: "anarchy"(the result the group claims is possible) ==> "anarchism"(the group trying to attain anarchy); "minarchy"(the result the group claims is possible) ==> "minarchism"(the group trying to attain minarchy).

Because there are many groups trying to attain minarchy, as a minarchist, I want the ability to say, "I don't think 'group x' would ever get us to something I consider to be a minarchist or night watchman state," even though I might concede that an "otherwise libertarian government with a universal basic income" might be "minarchist," ...especially in comparison to the police state we have now. However, such a state could not really be considered "a night watchman state," since the night watchman doesn't hand out money to people he finds committing a wrong. (He escorts them away, subdues them, arrests them, or shoots them. The night watchman state is purely retaliatory, and purely concerned with addressing the initiation of force. As such, the user who stated that "one might get to the 'night watchman state' via economics arguments alone" is fairly incorrect. Though it's possible, the night watchman state is more concerned with 'individual property rights.' For example: a corporate "night watchman" is not concerned if a company employee is leaving with property he comes and goes with, but he is concerned with who has the title to property that non-employees might be carrying out.)

The existence of "minarchism" also allows for an important concept to be communicated: the existence of libertarians who are "anarchy" and "minarchy" agnostic. (I.e. "People who want liberty whether a state exists or not." i.e.: If a state exists that doesn't violate individual rights, they'd stop assassinating government agents, blowing up buildings, mailing demands to newspapers, etc. Essentially, such a group might be open to an alliance with anarchists or minarchists, but they clearly wouldn't be open to an alliance with totalitarians. Thus, "minarchism" is an essential signpost on "scalar degree to which government exists," that is possibly necessary to prevent or reduce violence in the future. It can allow smart enemies to know "how to capitulate" and "estimate whether capitulation is an option.")

In the prior paragraph I described "people who want liberty whether a state exists or not." I'm one of them. I'm that rare sort who realizes that "reducing government requires face-to-face interaction with citizen-juror-electors-voters themselves. Ergo, both 'minarchy' and 'anarchy' are simply 'directions in which one can travel.' Unlike both such 'self-labeled directions,' the action of moving toward either or both of them is more important toward real outcomes than defining the precise location. This is also true of driving to a city. I don't need to know the GPS coordinates of the city if I have a map. When I start getting close to the destination, I'll see signs for it, and I'll start reacting to those signs. If someone is very far away from a city, they might even hitch a ride with someone whose own final destination is far away from their final destination. For example, if I'm in Boston and headed to Seattle, I might be willing to hitch a ride with someone who's going to San Diego and willing to give me a ride for free, because they can get me far closer to my destination than someone who's charging me money to drop me off right at Seattle (as long as I leave my gun at home, identify myself, go through TSA, and get an anal probe first). To clarify the political analogy, it makes more sense for me to build up a pro-gun political list of Trump supporters, due process attorneys, jury rights activists, etc. Than it does for me to publicly make common cause with a bunch of anarchists who tell me they "don't get politically-involved, there's no point." One group "takes action and alters physical reality in the political domain," the other one does nothing that can alter physical reality in the political domain.

As many "moving parts" or "scalar variables" as we can eliminate in a discussion about government, the better. "Minarchism" allows a comparison to a quantity in the same domain, and it allows such people to be labeled with a neutral term that is neither self-chosen, flattering, congratulatory, or inherently containing an untruth. (Though both "minarchism" and "anarchism" are abstractions, they're not abstractions that inherently contain either "popular value-denoting terms" or "untruths about material reality.") So why not just use the term "libertarianism"? Because a large state can theoretically be described that is voluntarily-supported, and this large state might well maximize both liberty(the protection of natural rights) and productivity(trade; production; economic well-being). Whether I, a minarchist libertarian, or others who call themselves "anarchists," believe such a condition is possible is irrelevant to referring to the abstract goal.

An anarchist might want to stop talking with me as if I share his goals if I state that I am a minarchist. Or, he might talk with me in a different way that indicates that he wants to understand the way I comprehend the domain of government.

I might want to stop talking with a totalitarian or "total government advocate" once they clearly identify themselves as such on the same one-dimensional scale upon which "minarchists" and "anarchists" reside. I might agree with anarchists that the overall size of government, or the conceptions about what government is allowed to do constitute large and problematic issue. I can do so without agreeing that I'm an anarchist or a minarchist, and while knowing what both of those things are. When someone uses the term minarchist they've differentiated themselves from "anarchists" who believe that "a small difference in scalar degree forbids the sharing of mutual goals." Moreover, they've done so to avoid wasting my time, if I simply want to plan political action. Planning political action with people who are unaware of the nature and value of political action is a waste of time. (...Much the same as if I'm planning to transact business with someone who suddenly reveals they don't accept dollars, gold, digital currencies, crypto, exchange of labor, etc.)

When I'm pattern-matching in reality, people who want to have political conversations but then reveal that they're "anarchists" allow me to accurately predict that such people will not want to do anything effective in the political domain. This is because the people obtaining 100% of the results they desire in the political domain are engaging in "retail politics." Ergo, I know that, somewhere, misconceptions have wormed their way into this person's skull. But what if I want to give them a fair hearing anyway? What if they're the person who doesn't match the pattern? OK, they can still call themselves "anarchists" but now I know what question to ask them, if I want to work with them. There's a tiny "idea space" or "domain space" that allows anarchists to still be politically effective, or at least allows them to learn how to be politically effective. Even so, they've told me where they stand on one very important scale.

"Night Watchman," by contrast, implies a belief set informed by a long History that may no longer correspond to any abstract ideal. It also applies to a specific type of "radical minarchism." Even though it might be fairly radical, different people have different conception of "Night Watchman" and most of them are no more specific than "minarchism" as a general domain. Further, without the term "anarchism," clarifying one's position as a minarchist of any kind would be irrelevant, because people would probably just have resorted to percentages. (i.e. Q: "What percentage of this government do you think is legitimate?" A: "zero." Q: "Okay, what percentage of government do you think should exist, using this government's amount of government as a measure?" A: "Between zero and one percent." Q: "Okay, if we let you in the club do you promise not to break anything or physically attack anyone?")

I like people who call themselves "Night Watchman State advocates." But the correct term for someone who favors minimal government is "minarchist." It's fewer syllables, its roots imply its meaning, it can only mean one thing as a response to a query from an 'anarchist' or about 'anarchy' or 'anarchism,' and it includes as a subset of itself a pattern that has had a long history in material reality. Ergo: Konkin was right to coin the term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.146.48 (talk) 07:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)