Template talk:Anarchism sidebar

RfC: Anarcho-capitalism and its place in this template

There is clear consensus that Anarcho-capitalism should feature in the template. I see no consensus on whether it should go under "Schools of Thought" or under "Related Issues"; according to WP:NOCONSENSUS that probably means it ought to stay in "Schools of Thought" for the moment. (non-admin closure) Dionysodorus (talk) 01:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Does anarcho-capitalism belong in this template and, if it does, what is its appropriate place? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• Yes. Schools. Sources confirm it. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 23:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, under Schools of thought. This sidebar is a navigation aid, and as such, should link to articles that may be of related interest of readers. Its appearance in the sidebar is not an endorsement, but a realization that it is at least related. Anarcho-capitalism is covered in the main body of the Anarchism article and several others in this series, and so is clearly related. This template doesn't need protection, but perhaps semi-protection to prevent the rare occurrence of IP editors and casual readers that remove it because of their particular extreme viewpoint and unawareness of past discussion. -- Netoholic @ 15:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
• Yes but, per the discussion above and below, and most of the actual sources on the topic, in a related issues section. Sources do not "confirm" it is anarchism, in fact they suggest there is a lot of dispute about it – nearly all traditional anarchists, Murray Rothbard himself and third-party academic writings all query the connection. Hence this template should not unequivocally assert that it is (just as it should not assert, were that possible, that it is not). N-HH talk/edits 11:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, under the "Issues" section. "Anarcho-capitalism" is not generally accepted as an Anarchist school of thought. Furthermore several other sections of "Schools of Thought" are small and obscure and should also be moved or removed. 24.197.253.43 (talk) 05:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
• Yes -- It does make sense, yes. Damotclese (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, in schools of thought, even though its status as a real school of thought is so hotly disputed by social anarchists. It is a real strain of thought that identifies as anarchist, though held my a minority of those who identify as anarchists. There was a passage in an essay in the Routledge Companion to Political Philosophy that noted that just about all of these schools are thought to be illegitimate by some of the others. We're making an editorial decision either way. Moving it to related issues constitutes taking a side in this debate. MisterRandomized (talk) 12:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
• No: I will think the article on "anarcho-capitalism" does belong in wikipedia but that word does not belong in this template. It clearly belongs in liberalism and libertarianism templates only.--Eduen (talk) 19:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
• Yes: Anarchism, per the relevant Wikipedia entry, is a "political philosophy that advocates self-governed societies based on voluntary institutions." Moreover, Anarchism "considers the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful." These central, foundational tenets notably support also anarcho-capitalism. Although, anarchism and capitalism were originally completely antithetical, and anarchism's classical ideologues were expressly against capitalist society, in our day and age, with the advance of libertarian and other, strongly anti-statist points of view, the term "anarcho-capitalism" has taken a legitimate hold in nomenclature. -The Gnome (talk) 07:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, but per sources offered by NHH and others in the discussions above and below, in a related issues section.. There is sufficient doubt in my mind that anyone would recognise this as a 'school' of anarchism. There seems quite a lot of WP:OR in this discussion. Yes perhaps anarchists are notoriously sectarian, as are socialists, but almost all socialists would question whether the 'national' variety, was any kind of socialism at all. Sources appear to support that there is very real doubt whether this IS anarchism. Something doesn't become 'Christian' just by including the word 'Jesus' into its title and sharing some common beliefs. Do these people even claim to be anarchists? Pincrete (talk) 23:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

I note that some advocates of anarchism (or of certain concepts of anarchism) take a very strong view that anarcho-capitalism must be excluded from anarchism, or from being included among anarchist theories. I find the strength of this argument to be remarkable, almost paradoxical. Anarchism is the rejection of the validity of central authority. Why do "anti-anarcho-capitalists" take the view that anarcho-capitalism must be excluded from anarchism? What is the basis for a central doctrine that excludes anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I will note that anarcho-capitalism is one of the very few forms of anarchism (if it is a form of anarchism) for which there have been working experiments, such as Viking Iceland, and modern-day Somalia, where it is essentially the result of a failure of government institutions. I haven't seen any experiments in anarcho-socialism on that sort of scale, only small utopian communities that took advantage of an existing state structure, so that they were really only experiments in socialism, and of some communes in the Spanish Civil War that didn't last very long. As Orwell noted, not only were they opposed by the Nationalists, but the Soviet Union, who was backing the Republicans for military reasons, also didn't want them to succeed. However, it seems unlikely that any sort of anarcho-socialism could have survived anywhere for long without the utopian remaking of human nature envisioned by some on the Left, and the remaking of human nature requires a state to maintain order and educate at least two generations. Anarcho-capitalism at least has been tried in its own ways. Why are some anarchists so insistent that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism? (I have a possible answer to that question.) Robert McClenon (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

To say that medieval Iceland and Somalia represent functional "Anarcho-capitalist" societies is an extremely specious argument, one to which Anarchists usually do not respond any more than one would attempt a rational debate with the Time Cube guy; nor do I think it would be likely that there is much in the way of Anarchist scholarship specifically refuting these arguments for the reason that "Anarcho-capitalism" is so fringe that few serious scholars have felt a need to respond to it. But I will state a refutation: "Anarcho-capitalism" makes specific demands of the nature of the economy and society, and to say that those societies fulfill those criteria is an incredible stretch. Tribal societies are far more complex than the simplistic depictions with which the capitalists describe them, and their descriptions focus only on one or two aspects of those societies which have quasi-capitalist elements. For each of those examples there are likely to be elements at least as easily attributed to Anarchist rather than Capitalist ethos- for example, David Graeber in Debt discusses an Icelandic story relying on gifting; hardly a capitalist idea. He also noted in a 2013 Reddit AMA that a large proportion of Icelandic society was slaves, which is certainly not Anarchist either. If Anarchists do not claim examples of earlier societies as Anarchists, it would seem to be because we have higher standards than do the anti-State capitalists (as I call them); we, more realistically, study the certain admirable qualities of various societies while also noting their faults and not claiming that they were Anarchists if they were not ("Anarchism is an ideological magpie"). By claiming that these societies were "Anarcho-capitalist" the anti-State capitalists are saying that because geese and swans have webbed feet and bills then they must be platypuses.

In answer to your second question, "Anarcho-capitalism" is not Anarchist for several reasons, by definition, by consequence, and for reasons of the history and culture of the anti-State capitalists. By definition, Anarchism means opposition to coercion; but under capitalism, it is acceptable for someone who owns excess food or medicine or some other necessity of life to make any demand of someone who needs it before they will hand it over, simply because they own the title to it- even if the current owner does not need it and will not use it. That is coercion. By consequence, capitalism leads to accumulation of wealth which creates distinct classes tending toward extreme wealth for a few and extreme poverty for many- capitalists love to say that the modern world has a large middle class, but this ignores the material conditions of the vast majority of the world and, worse, ignores the fact that the gains of the working class have only been achieved by people organizing, which is something capitalists have shown only antipathy for; opinions among anti-State capitalists toward unions range from accepting-but-dismissive to openly hostile. There are also critical issues of things like the nature of corporations, contracts, homesteading and abandonment, corruption, meritocracy, and inheritance, on all of which anti-State capitalists seem to have views which are often extremely vague or questionable if not openly hypocritical or failing to address concerns that deontological adherence to capitalist principles would lead to extremely unfair outcomes. Third, the history and culture of anti-State capitalists is and has always been openly hostile to Anarchism, having its origins in conservative arch-capitalist American academia in the past half-century and generally staying there, as opposed to the Anarchist milieu which is a strata stretching through usually poor, working-class, LGBT, and environmentalist communities. The anti-State capitalists seem to have a complete blind spot for all of these groups and also the challenges faced by people of color. 24.197.253.43 (talk) 05:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not an anarchist, but I consider the insistence of some anarchists that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism to be paradoxical, an effort to impose central authority on a belief against central authority. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The problem is of course that anarchism has historically been anti-capitalist, hence the concept of anarcho-capitalism is, to some, inherently oxymoronic. It would hardly, for example, be against anarchist principles to query whether a putative "fascist anarchism" or "authoritarian anarchism" would be anarchism or have much to do with it. Just because anarchism is anti-authority, it doesn't mean it can't be defined taxonomically, whether by anarchists themselves or disinterested political scientists. And it's not just left-wing anarchists who mark the distinction, the problem is noted in authoritative third parties, and indeed by some anarcho-capitalists too – Murray Rothbard himself is on record disavowing that his views can be said to be anarchist. The issue of inclusion depends on who you ask and how you define anarchism, and the problem is that it is hard for a template like this to reflect that nuance. As for real-life examples, the Spanish Civil War saw genuine collectivist anarchist experiments; the Icelandic, Somali etc examples loaded (often very recently) into the anarcho-capitalist page are not generally thought of as anarcho-capitalism in action, they're just societies which have been retrospectively co-opted and claimed by some fairly marginal and partisan libertarian writers to possibly, in part, be vaguely the sort of thing they are talking about. N-HH talk/edits 11:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I consider it no more authoritarian than saying Pluto is not a planet. If you say Pluto is a planet, nobody is going to haul you away. But you are wrong according to the academic standard and you may be considered a fool by those who know better, which may carry other social consequences. No doubt the anti-State capitalists would describe this interaction as capitalist by virtue of being a free-market process. 24.197.253.43 (talk) 05:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

"The problem is of course that Pluto has historically been a planet". /s -- Netoholic @ 16:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Your point being, apart from apparently pointless and sarcastic mimicry of the phrasing I used and from begging the question? Pluto used to be classified as a planet, but it is not now. Anarchism, as noted, has historically been seen as an anti-capitalist philosophy and still is by many authorities and by most anarchists. N-HH talk/edits 17:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

If the argument being made here is that anarcho-capitalism is not part of this template because it covers a "historical" Anarchist movement, then maybe what we need to do is make clear (perhaps by rename and changing the top link) that this template covers the dictionary definition of the term "anarchism" and that it is meant to connect all articles for schools of thought which advocate for political anarchy (ie stateless society). We might also look at the Anarchism and see about moving some of the historical anti-capitalist ideology into a separate article and so that political anarchism doesn't conflate with economic issues. Obviously there are a lot of schools of thought that advocate for political anarchism, and economic anarchists are just a subset of that and most already have their own articles which explain their interpretation of anarchism as it relates to economics in addition to politics. -- Netoholic @ 18:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

As above, you're misunderstanding the use of the term "historically", as if it necessarily meant "but not any more", while also assuming the very thing which is under dispute, which is that anarchism has somehow been fundamentally redefined by Rothbard and anarcho-capitalism. Nor should this template cover a simple dictionary definition of the term "anarchism": it should deal with what political science considers to be the definition and scope of the political concept of anarchism. Finally, I'm not sure the distinction set out between "economic anarchism" and "political anarchism" is that illuminating or one found in the literature with that sense. N-HH talk/edits 07:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

"it should deal with what political science considers to be the definition and scope of the political concept of anarchism" Great, then it is clear that anarcho-capitalism is a "school of thought" under this definition, and I expect then that you'll be updating your vote above. -- Netoholic @ 13:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Again, it is a relatively new and highly unorthodox ideology, and it would be giving it undue weight to include it as equal to tendencies which have had millions of adherents around the world and had relatively dwarfing effects on world history over the past century and a half. The question is not so much whether it is "a" school of thought (although that is a question); the question is whether it is sufficiently accepted and influential to be worth mentioning. As "Anarcho-capitalists" have nothing to show for themselves but a bunch of academic theory and internet discussions, plus an annual party in New Hampshire, I think the answer is clear. 24.197.253.43 (talk) 03:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

"it is a relatively new and highly unorthodox ideology" Ideology is another term for "school of thought". Since you agree anarcho-capitalism is a "school of thought" (even if you disagree its subordinate to left-Anarchism) then in belongs under the Schools of thought section of the template. -- Netoholic @ 16:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand what 'a distinction between "economic anarchism" and "political anarchism"' even means. It sounds to my ears like gibberish. The Anarchist argument has always been that economics and politics are indistinguishable. 24.197.253.43 (talk) 03:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@Netoholic. Why would I be changing my "vote" on that basis? I've been quite clear and consistent, citing multiple actual sources to that effect (eg in this recent post, just so you can't credibly claim you actually missed any of that), that there are genuine disputes about its inclusion within anarchism proper and about the definition and scope of anarchism as a political movement and/or ideology. For the third time, it needs to be pointed out that you are simply assuming and declaring as gospel, without any supporting evidence, the very point that needs to be proven. As ever, debates are being pointlessly dragged round in circles. N-HH talk/edits 06:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't need sources to describe basic vocabulary and concepts. Anarcho-capitalism is (broadly speaking) a "school of thought" aka ideology. Even if you disagree that it is subordinate to "historical" Anarchism, it is still conceptually a "school of thought", and so belongs in that section in the template. -- Netoholic @ 16:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

According to your perspective WP:UNDUE would never be invoked for anything. 24.197.253.43 (talk) 00:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

That guideline applies to weight of information in articles. This template is a navigational aid. If ancap wasn't already mentioned in the anarchism and several otehr related articles, you might make a case. But since that's not the case, and the topic of anarcho-capitalism is related to anarchism, you're misusing that guideline when you try to apply it to this template. -- Netoholic @ 04:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Of course real-world references are necessary when trying to establish, in the complex and often subjective field of political classification, whether A is definitively a type of B rather than editor assertions about what "basic vocabulary" might or might not, supposedly, automatically tell us without further investigation. And of course no one is arguing for removing it altogether from this template or disputing that it is "related" to anarchism (or indeed denying that it is a "school of thought" of some sort, albeit one that might be better thought of as sui generis or as a form of right-wing libertarianism). Hence why some of us have been arguing it would be better placed under "Related topics" – from where people can of course navigate just as succesfully. N-HH talk/edits 09:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Your vote above does not endorse placement in the Related topics section of the template, but rather "a related issues section" which doesn't exist, so its confusing whether you mean Related topics or Issues. In either case, since the dictionary definition and common meaning (as described in the lede of anarchism) place primary meaning on elimination of the state, and since anarcho-capitalism also advocates that, then the topic is absolutely best placed in the *Schools of thought* section. Elimination of all hierarchies (such as in private affairs) is, as you often say, a "historical" viewpoint which not all anarchists advocate, but it is not part of the core, especially in modern times. -- Netoholic @ 04:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Since you've raised dictionary definitions, I could just remind you that "topic" and "issue" can mean more or less the same thing. It's rather obvious, surely, that my original comment meant including it in the "Related topics" part of the sidebar (as I have since said more explicitly). It's not at all confusing and only someone on a trolling mission would make quite so much of that for so long. As for your assertion that the deductions of random WP editors, based on extrapolation from dictionary entries, are what determine content here, trumping statements found in reliable, authoritative real-world sources, this is really basic introduction-to-WP stuff for new starters. They don't, as I've now pointed out to you about five times now I think. I'm not sure you're competent to contribute here, nor is it worth responding to anything else you say. N-HH talk/edits 08:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

"Elimination of all hierarchies (such as in private affairs) is, as you often say, a "historical" viewpoint which not all anarchists advocate, but it is not part of the core, especially in modern times." This is an astounding statement! Are you serious? 24.197.253.43 (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Break

Re two of the latest responses. User:Damotclese, that is simply a vote without any explanation. User:MisterRandomized, the inclusion of anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism is disputed by all sorts of people, not just social anarchists: individualist anarchists, third-party academics and even on occasion – despite your assertion about self-identification – the supposed original anarcho-capitalist Murray Rothbard have all questioned its categorisation as anarchism. The fact that the entry in the Routledge compendium you refer to notes that the precise nature of anarchism is often disputed does not provide any answers to the specific and considerable controversy around anarcho-capitalism. Socialists argue among themselves who is a genuine socialist, but virtually no one accepts that Nazis (ie National Socialists) are socialists, and noting the former does not make the latter true. That question has to be looked at in its own right rather than by extrapolating from a generalised truism. Btw, in any event, that entry is written by Roderick T. Long who happens to be, according to his WP page, yes, an academic but also "a senior scholar for the Ludwig von Mises Institute [and] an editor of the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies". Finally, I agree about not taking sides – but I don't quite see how definitely including it as a school of thought without qualification is not taking sides. N-HH talk/edits 21:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Sources

Whether individual WP editors think anarcho-capitalism should be counted as a form of anarchism, based on their own deductions from dictionary definitions or on anything else, is neither here nor there. As ever, what matters is what reputable, reliable and authoritative sources say about anarcho-capitalism and its relationship to the political concept known as anarchism, and how that is best represented in this template. Just to clarify the problem, here are some comments from academic and other texts, some focused on anarchism, others on political definitions more broadly. Some of the authors are sympathetic to anarchism, others not; some merely note the existence of the dispute, others take a more explicit position themselves.

• 21st Century Dissent: Anarchism, Anti-Globalization and Environmentalism by G. Curran: "Heated dispute remains over whether anarcho-capitalists should be accepted into the anarchist fold in the first place"
• The Politics of Postanarchism by Saul Newman: "it is important to distinguish between anarchism and certain strands of right-wing libertarianism which at times go by the same name (for example, Murray Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism)".
• Contemporary Political Ideologies: Second Edition edited by Roger Eatwell, Anthony Wright, whose introduction notes that its chapter on anarchism holds that "so-called contemporary 'anarcho-capitalism' is really a form of liberal rather than classical anarchist thought"
• Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism by Peter Marshall, whose brief chapter on anarcho-capitalism concludes by saying "few anarchists would accept 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp since they do not share a concern for economic equality and social justice ... [they] might therefore best be called right-wing libertarians rather than anarchists"
• Anarchy and Society: Reflections on Anarchist Sociology by Jeffrey Shantz, Dana M. Williams: "Murray Rothbard and others may theoretically claim the label of anarchism, but they do not oppose all authority ... Thus, most 'movement anarchists' ... argue against the inclusion of these folks in the anarchist camp"
• Finally of course there's Murray Rothbard himself, who in one piece wrote:

  "We must therefore turn to history for enlightenment; here we find that none of the proclaimed anarchist groups correspond to the libertarian position, that even the best of them have unrealistic and socialistic elements in their doctrines. Furthermore, we find that all of the current anarchists are irrational collectivists, and therefore at opposite poles from our position. We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical"

And there are many others, but there's no need to labour the point. The point isn't that the sample above proves anarcho-capitalism is not, definitively, a form of anarchism – and of course there are plenty of other sources that will be more open to accepting that it is, while still acknowledging the issue exists – but the observations do flag up that there is a fundamental and significant dispute here, which the template needs to acknowledge rather than gloss over. N-HH talk/edits 14:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

cherry picking -- Netoholic @ 15:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

If you'd read the last paragraph and understood what I was saying in it, you'd realise that this has nothing to do with cherry-picking. Thanks. N-HH talk/edits 16:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

And yet, all of your selected quotes (virtually the same set you trot out on other pages where you engage in this precise "debate") include only one side. -- Netoholic @ 16:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Well actually, of the six sources cited in the content in the diff you linked to (which I was not the original author of btw), only two are included above, so they are not "virtually the same set". Nevertheless, thanks for pointing all of us to four more, in addition to the ones I have cited just now, that say much the same thing. As for cherry-picking, you are confused. I am not trying to "prove" that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism, let alone claiming that every source says as much – indeed I explicitly said "there are plenty of other sources that will be more open to accepting that it is". The point was merely to show to those unfamiliar with the issue, and to those with closed minds or eyes, that the existence of a dispute about categorisation is widely and commonly attested in the literature, in a way that it is not, say, in respect of anarcho-syndicalism. Which is exactly what the sample quotes are more than sufficient to show. Again, I am done as this constant derailing of debate due to lack of competence and comprehension is very tedious and far too much of a time sink. N-HH talk/edits 17:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

If you were interested in helping "those unfamiliar with the issue", you would have included citations for their reliability, not for the particular wording. You would have included citations that both support and object to your preferred outcome. Instead, you carefully selected only a few and quoted specific passages (ie cherry-picking). Indeed, even your "killing blow" quote from Rothbard is out of bounds because the title and subject is Are Libertarians "Anarchists"? and anarcho-capitalism is not mentioned in that article at all (it is an unpublished article from the 1950's). Since you gave the titles of all your other Sources, except that one, I feel like the omission was intentionally deceptive. -- Netoholic @ 19:05, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

User Netoholic says "Instead, you carefully selected only a few and quoted specific passages (ie cherry-picking)." There is a good reason why one will mention only a sentence from such works. The fact is that anarcho-capitalism is only mentioned in that very brief way in those works. For those authors clearly it does not merit more attention besides those single sentences. Something like that can hardly be said to constitute a "school of thought" within anarchism. It is more like an anecdote and an outside issue.--Eduen (talk) 11:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

more on anarcho-capitalism

Is there a single reason that can be given as to why anarcho-capitalism should be included here? Is there a reason that it can be defined as a part of the anarchist movement more than Nazism, or National-Socialism can be defined as a part of the socialist movement? National-Bolshevism has been given as an example too. Are we to include the period in English history known as "The Anarchy" as a part of the anarchist movement? It could make the same claims as the anarcho-capitalist edit-warriors here; that there was no central state and that it has the word "anarchy" in its name. IF you accept this example as being separate from the anarchist movement, then to be consistent you should also accept that the anarchist movement is not simply defined as a movement advocating for the absence of a central state, and take the historical meaning of anarchism into account. 124.171.144.44 (talk) 14:43, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 25 July 2016. Removed links to German Revolution, it had little to do with anarchism.

Contents of edit request removed for navigability. Changes moved into the sandbox with Special:Diff/731402839 — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 04:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Mangokeylime (talk) 02:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. There are currently links to this template, related articles, or categories from the given articles (German Revolution of 1918–19 and Bavarian Council Republic). Removal needs discussion before activating this. On the other hand, this sidebar appears to have less than 330 transclusions. You can consider making an WP:RFPP to lower the prot level. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 04:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Deleted national-anarchism

I think thank this edit should be also reverted, like that's when acap was been deleted. Sorry for my grammar --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 09:17, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Remove Thoreau

Thoreau explicitly stated he was not an anarchist, "I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government." If he is included because of his influence only, you might as well include Marx and Nietzsche too.Oscar666kta420swag (talk) 07:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 10 October 2016

Please remove "capitalism" from the main list of anarchist schools of thought, as it is widely rejected by anarchists that aren't anarcho-capitalists. It would be more appreciated if it were filed under a list of "less widely accepted schools of thought" along with "national anarchism". Thank-you. 104.240.177.152 (talk) 22:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:36, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I support this proposal of taking out "anarcho" capitalism from "schools of thought".--Eduen (talk) 07:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Remove Murray Rothbard

True Anarchism has absolutely nothing to do with "anarcho"-capitalism. Murray Rothbard, shouldn't be on this template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.127.65.59 (talk) 10:48, 16 November 2016 (UTC)