Talk:An Anarchist FAQ

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives
1, 2


[edit] Brad Spangler on Rothbard

I've removed this as the paragraph and the linked article have little to do with a criticism of the FAQ. Rather, it is a general statement of Spanger's (unique) interpretation of Rothbard as a "socialist." The FAQ is mentioned in passed and even this is to an old version which is claimed quoted Rothbard "out of context." Looking at the latest version, it clarifies the issue and so Spangler's comments are out of date. At best, it could be stated that Spangler thought the FAQ quoted Rothbard "out of context" in the past, but that it no longer does so. That Spangler thinks that Rothbard is a "socialist" is hardly criticism of the FAQ which states that Rothbard was a capitalist, which he repeatedly stated he was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.97.121 (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Spangler commented on the FAQ, Spangler is a somewhat notable figure, the comment is verifiable, so it ought to be included. I agree that the length of the previous version was excessive and that Spangler deals only fleetingly with the FAQ, so I have restored a curt sentence, with your caveat appended. Regards, Skomorokh incite 23:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the Sprangler paragraph as he does not, in fact, mention the FAQ when he states that Rothbard was a "socialist". The FAQ is mentioned in passing ("As an aside, the Anarchist FAQ touches on this matter"). Nowhere in the article does he "find fault" with the FAQ on this issue -- unless the FAQ is to be included in the near universal agreement that the founder of "anarcho"-capitalism and self-declared supporter of capitalism was, in fact, a capitalist. However, to single out the FAQ on this matter seems totally unwarrented. The only specifically FAQ comment is in the aside and is to do with the claim that it quoted Rothbard out of context. Even assuming that this is true, looking at the Sprangler's comments and the relevant section (F.1) linked to that has obviously been clarified. Whether this is worth mentioning is debateable. I think not, but others may disagree. One thing is true, Spranger does not explicitly "find fault" with the FAQ on the issue of Rothbard being a "socialist" -- unless, of course, you think that the FAQ should be singled out from the near universal agreement that Rothbard was a supporter of capitalism. I fail to see why. BlackFlag —Preceding comment was added at 09:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Correct. Brad's analysis of why "anarcho-capitalists" ought to think of themselves as "socialists" can hardly be aimed particularly at AAFAQ. Libertatia (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I find it disingenuous to suggest that Spangler mentions the FAQ only "in passing". He devotes an entire paragraph of analysis followed by three paragraphs of quotation. I reproduce the analysis here in case you missed it in the article:
As an aside, the Anarchist FAQ touches on this matter, while insufficiently illuminating it. In a criticism of Friedmanite utilitarianism, Rothbard explains the problem of utilitarianism lacking an anti-state theory of property (unlike his own natural law approach). The FAQ offers an out of context excerpt from a passage that appears to give the impression that Rothbard was arguing in favor of tyranny, when in fact he was doing the exact opposite (in highlighting the shortcomings of the utilitarian approach). From the FAQ:
Skomorokh incite 23:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Would you be more comfortable saying he mentions it "in an aside"? It's still the case that Brad's essay, excellent as it is, established a movement of just about one "stigmergic socialist." A criticism that applies to virtually everyone, an-cap or opponent, can hardly be especially aimed at AAFAQ. Can it? Particularly when it is mentioned in an aside? Libertatia (talk) 22:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to push the issue because on reflection I don't think Spangler ultimately meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, irrespective of the quality of his writing. It's the lack of alternative perspectives on what is, whatever its merits, a rather partisan publication that irks me. Please feel free to remove or amend the Spangler references as you see fit. Skomorokh incite 22:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
In what do you "demur"? The identification of Rothbard as a "socialist" is an interesting argument. As a mutualist, ALL member, and friend of Brad's, I'm sympathetic on all sorts of level. And, despite the fact I'm one of those listed as a contributor to AAFAQ, I've been quite critical of parts of the work. If there is still concern about the "out of context" quotes, than that's one thing. But Brad's contention that Rothbard should be considered under a category under which nobody could have considered him, prior to the invention (by Brad, apparently) of the category, can hardly be directed specifically at AAFAQ. Libertatia (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Using AAFAQ not as a source, but as content

I am highly distrustful of my understanding of copyright, but if the AAFAQ is published under the GDFL, that means we can use content from the FAQ in Wikipedia in any way we like, correct? This would be a fast and easy way of increasing anarchism-related content on the encyclopedia. скоморохъ 21:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it would be a fast and easy way of increasing content on Wikipedia, but its quality and neutrality would decrease. -- Vision Thing -- 18:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)