User talk:Libertatia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Abstraction

I deem unfounded the complaint (if you meant it to be directed specifically at me, as seems the case from the context) that I answer specific "historical accounts" with abstractions. I'm always happy to discuss historical accounts of capitalisms But on the Talk page of Anarchism just now I was countering the abstract claim of 88.152 and others that anarcho-capitalism is inherently contradictory with an equally abstract (but no more so) explanation of why it isn't. I wasn't 'countering' particulars with abstractions. I will always try to address anyone on the level of concreteness with which he addresses me. ----Christofurio 20:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It was directed to the comment directly above. I'm agnostic about the label anarcho-capitalism, as those who fly that particular flag vary in important regards as to their actual politics. Libertatia 14:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

A few words more, because this is a lazy Sunday. You write, in the same passage I responded to above, "Now, traditional individualist anarchists also trade in the (semi-mythic) promise of a really-free market-to-come, but try to call it something different, to avoid confusion."

Something different from "capitalism," then, is apparently what you mean there. This task of looking for a "Something Different" name that would itself be immune from anybody's nitpicking seems unnecessarily burdensome. I'll continue to call it "capitalism" in the meantime, and let the nitpickers make of that what they wish. And this is why it risks no genuine confusion: capitalism as an ideal is continuous with certain aspects of capitalism as an existing force in the world. One of the contentions implicit in much anarcho-capitalist writing is that if and when that ideal free market does come about, the historians of that time will see the development of, for example, secondary markets in equity over the recent centuries as having been a positive step forward toward the world that they enjoy. They'll see the prosecution of "insider traders" in the late 20th and early 21st centuries as having been a hindrance to the coming-to-be of the world that they enjoy. The word "anarcho-capitalism" doesn't merely constitute a mooning after an imagined future ideal -- it connects that ideal with some factors in the present and the past. It means one takes the side of the "kulaks," rather than of their liquidators, in memory.

So the term "anarcho-capitalism" isn't merely internally consistent. It contributes to your goal of "avoiding confusion." --Christofurio 15:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not really an issue of "looking for a ... name that would itself be immune from anybody's nitpicking." Sure, such a thing is impossible, and to the extent that these debates never rise above the level of semantics, they are essentially worthless. Constructions like "consistent Manchesterian," "unterrified Jeffersonian," and "free-market anti-capitalist" do, however, strike me as more initially thought-provoking than "anarcho-capitalist," in part because it has been so easy to appropriate that last term to describe the mafia-capitalism of the post-Soviet states. Then again, when I see Enron execs associated with "kulaks," and in a positive sense, perhaps you don't mind those associations. In that case, your use of capitalism is clear as a bell, and in line with historical usages. It's your definition of anarchism that remains open to question. Libertatia 14:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Its a good thing I never associated Enron execs with the kulaks, then, isn't it? I associated myself with the kulaks, "in a positive sense," because I think their memory must be defended. I certainly imlied that some prosecutions for insider trading and related offenses have been, in my view, misguided. I'll give you some examples if you like, but for now let's say this has nothing to do with the Enron crowd. They're on trial (yippee!) for having violated their fiduciary responsibilities to their stockholders. A manager's fiduciary responsibility is to work to make the owners of the company -- which in this case was a category that overlapped with the category "employees" considerably -- a profit. And that means a real profit, one that would show up given honest accounting! Lay, Skilling, and crowd violated that responsibility. They failed the basic test of capitalist ethics. And I'll never call myself an "unterrified Jeffersonian," I assure you. Huh? The adjective fits, but the noun applies to me not at all. --Christofurio 03:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Come join Project Utopia!

Well, it's not a project yet, just a proposal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Utopia But sign up and help make it a reality! Rabidwolfe (talk) 12:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the message on your page

"system which attempts to do without any practice of critical judgement and expertise on the part of the editors will...drive away expertise.." That's the point, don't you see? Self-proclaimed experts on Wikipedia are not to be trusted. That's exactly what the system is trying to prevent, "original research," and for good reason. Wikipedia is simply a central repository for already-published information. It is not the editor's place to judge the truth of the information, and selectively input what he thinks is true and censor what he thinks is false. That defeats the whole idea of Wikipedia, including the policy of NPOV. Operation Spooner (talk) 06:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Alas, what you describe is not what Wikipedia pretends to be. If Wikipedia would acknowledge that truth is the first casualty of their policies, there wouldn't be a problem. But it really isn't a questions of "self-proclaimed" experts in the case of our most recent conflict. It's a case of poorly researched material overwhelming well-researched material, of baseless assertions naturally being unchallenged, since nobody who had a clue would have made the claim in the first place. Libertatia (talk) 19:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)