User talk:Nikodemos/Talk archive 1

This is an archive of all conversations on my Talk page since I joined and up to 22 May 2005. -- Nikodemos

Welcome

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia.

You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Wikipedia:Maintenance or the Task Center for further information.)

Fix spelling and grammar

More... • Learn how

Fix wikilinks

More... • Learn how

Update with new information

More... • Learn how

Expand short articles

More... • Learn how

Check and add references

More... • Learn how

Fix original research issues

More... • Learn how

Improve lead sections

More... • Learn how

Add an image

More... • Learn how

Translate and clean up

More... • Learn how

Help counter systemic bias by creating new articles on important women.

Help improve popular pages, especially those of low quality.

You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.

You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.

If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.

Again, welcome! - UtherSRG 17:26, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

kudos for your comments on reactionary

Latest comment: 20 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Kudos for your edits of WHEELER's text on reactionary. As you may have noticed, I had already tried to clean up the POV spread along the text, but WHEELER is extremely thin skinned and seems to lack basic expression skills, which makes it very difficult to explain to him how to, say, attribute political analyses so as not to appear to endorse them. David.Monniaux 21:05, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Congratulations on your spinning and your slanting to try to wrangle your way out. Good Job. America's Academia are proud of you.WHEELER 23:40, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Spinning and slanting? Because I did not sing praises to Herbert Hoover and your biased opinion? I edited your article so as to present both points of view. You edited it back to being a one-sided praise for yours. I will restore my changes, and I suggest you learn the meaning of "NPOV". Nikodemos

Niko, good job editing Cold War. I'd fixed that problem a while ago, but did not see that someone snuck it by me again weeks ago. Good work on reactionary as well. 172 11:34, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sir, Facts are facts. Please do not revert facts. I will be replacing them. You are not to change Herbert Hoover. He is quite intelligent enough to describe what he is reactionary about. ThanksWHEELER 13:50, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Too bad he wasn't intelligent enough to deal with that Depression thing ;)AndyL 17:10, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Frankly it isn't clear to me that FDR's New Deal did anything but prolong it, however "intelligent" the brains-trusters might have been. The analogy that suggests itself is of Calvin Coolidge as Bill Clinton, riding the wave of a stock-price bubble and a largely illusory but nonetheless amusing wave of prosperity, and getting out of town just before the burst, and of Hoover as George W., haplessly dealing with the effects of the burst. --Christofurio 19:59, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC) Hardly anybody turned up at Jay Gatsby's funeral.

Intelligent people can be just as biased (or plain wrong) as anybody else. But I'll leave your Hoover quote alone if you like it so much... Nikodemos

My comment was meant to be a poke at TDC and libertarianism. AndyL 01:56, 8 May 2004 (UTC)Reply

Much Better

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Thanks for the latest round of changes on the Socialism site. I'm not ecstatic but you wouldn't want me to be! It was interesting doing business with you (if you'll forgive the capitalist metaphor).

BTW, I took your suggestion and incorporated my comments about the martyrdom of Socrates into the Democracy site, along with a link to an on-line version of David Friedman's book about anarcho-capitalism.

I'm quite amused that you had me pegged as a Catholic, Euro-monarchist. That would practically make me a Jacobite, which is cool, in an alternate-universe sort of way. But it may interest you to know that the most recent religious services I've attended were Quaker. --Christofurio 16:16, May 28, 2004 (UTC)

Well, it was interesting co-operating for the common good with you too. :)

You should be amazed at the similarities between modern libertarian/anarcho-capitalists and old reactionary monarchists. The fact that you agree so much with that authoritarian lot raises some interesting questions about your notions of "freedom".

Such as that there are monarchists who are fans of "The Sopranoes"? I expect there are some socialists who are likewise. Your mislabelling of me was no more profound than my choice of screen name. No driver required -- that is my notion of freedom. --Christofurio 18:49, May 28, 2004 (UTC)

It wasn't "mislabeling" so much as a simple guess. I just happened to guess wrong. And as for the similarities between you and monarchists/ultra-conservatives, I'm talking about your common dislike of democracy and your common enthusiasm for private property (the hallmark of the rich and powerful - or the "vile maxim of the masters of Mankind", as Adam Smith put it).

And by the way, I like your metaphor. Anarcho-capitalism is an accelerating car with no driver... about to smash into a concrete wall and kill everyone on board.

The monarchists feel the same way you do about the car. You and they are both in alliance on sovereignty. But, really, it WILL drive itself given the forces of spontaneous order.

Then again, YOU and the monarchists feel the same way about private property. Usually, if you look hard enough, you will find at least some similarities between ANY two political ideologies. As for sovereignty, I have said it before and I say it again: Private property is a form of sovereignty and authority. In anarcho-capitalism, a person who owns a patch of land is effectively the government of that land. The system you are proposing is one that essentially means breaking up present-day governments into 6 billion tiny totalitarian police states. If a man trespasses on your private property, you can do anything to him, including killing him, correct? If you disagree with that, then you are restricting private property, and proving my point that private property is tyrannical.

I responded to precisely that point on the Talk page of "Socialism" when you raised it. I will respond again now. The answer is "no." I would not regard trespass upon my property as a capital offense, and I don't think that it would generally be regarded as such in an anarcho-capitalistic world. If you read the Friedman chapter on the sort of judicial system that might emerge in such an environment, you'll get the general idea. But now you will say that I've given away my position by agreeing it may be right to restrict private property. But there you're getting ahead of yourself. I believe market forces themselves will lead to the creation of a non-sovereign judicial system that will restrict private actions through the force of spontaneous order. That isn't an abandonment of the anarcho-capitalist position, because it is the anacho-capitalist position!--Christofurio 22:57, May 30, 2004 (UTC)

If the judicial system is not sovereign, how can you force anyone to obey its decisions? And if no one is forced to obey its decisisions, then what's to stop the losing party from simply ignoring the court ruling? The Free Market Fairy and the Spontaneous Order Sprite won't help you here. You see, the problem with any "spontaneous order" myth is that anyone can say "No. I think I'll just kill you instead." and then the only way you can stop him is through some exercise of [b]authority[/b] and [b]sovereignty[/b]. I'd just rather have this authority come from the people than from a capitalist tyrant. --Nikodemos

I will co-operate with anyone who agrees with me on the preservation of commercial liberties, to preserve and expand them, just as I will co-operate with anyone who agrees with me on the preservation of personal/expressive liberties, to preserve and expand THEM. What neither set of my "allies" understands, though, is that both causes are one and the same. Liberty is liberty. The right of an artist to express himself, for example, is one with his/her right to seek a patron, and to enter into contracts with that patron. When Michelangelo agreed to paint the Sistine Chapel, he was acting as an artist, an independent contractor, and a believer in the RC faith. How dare we try to chop him up into pieces and say "this arbitrary portion of that activity is free, that arbitrary portion is not"?

Because those two portions are NOT arbitrary. The first is based on the legitimate concept of freedom of expression, while the second is based on the illegitimate concept of private property.

All expression entails physical media, like a chapel ceiling, or an easel and canvas. All physical media are maintained in ways that impose costs. If those costs are to be rationalized, a market system will do it. Citing Rousseau won't change any of this. Any distinction between the expression and the media is arbitrary. "Sure you can paint whatever you want, but only after the State assigns you a ceiling or canvas," is just the sort of thing that a tyrannical sovereign says when it wants to pretend to be bestowing freedom. --Christofurio 22:57, May 30, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. You've just made a socialist argument. By saying "you don't have free speech unless you have the means to exercise your free speech" you are proving that capitalism does not, in fact, allow free speech. After all, what about the poor people in your system? What about those who can't afford to buy the means to express themselves as a result of your beloved free market? By your own definition, they are denied the right to free speech.

Socialism, by contrast, guarantees free speech by granting a canvas to every painter who needs one. If there isn't a canvas for each one of them, the system operates on a first-come-first-served basis. And what holds true for art also holds true for every other form of expression. The "evil" State is bound to respect a little something we call a Constitution, by the way. A Constitution that explicitly states what it can or cannot do. --Nikodemos

Evil states find it easy to ignore the paper guarantees of their constitutions. Let's talk a little more about that canvas give-away, though. I submit that you've conceded the important point, which is that there is no difference in principle between “human rights” and “property rights”. Either both phrases deserve scare quotes or neither does, but your habit of writing about human rights (without quotes) and “property rights” with them is unfounded on principle, because each is a manifestation of the other. If it’s a human right to paint, somebody has to have a property right in the canvas.

I am happy to have you call this a socialistic argument. You could call it a Martian argument, too – so long as the meme spreads, I am unconcerned with labels. --Christofurio 13:10, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

Consider your proposal that canvas’ could be given out first-come first-served. On the day when the program is to begin, the door of the relevant distribution center hasn’t opened yet, and people are standing in line, patiently waiting, that morning. At this moment, wouldn’t you say that the first person in line has a right to be the first one to get a canvas? The second in line has a right to be the second, and so forth? Anyone who “cuts in line” without permission from everybody in back of the cut is violating those rights – is a thief. --Christofurio 13:10, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

Likewise, doesn’t it seem logical that people in this position can sell their positions in the queue? In other words, I (as an aspirant painter with some money) could pay somebody to stand in that line for me. When that person received a canvas, I would have a contract right to that canvas, having paid for the position in line that it represented. In something like this way, publicly defined rights tend to become private property rights. The process of privatization is the natural one of movement toward the allocative efficiency frontier – like water rolling down hill. The water rolls that way until someone dams it. In human affairs, the damn damming is called coercion. --Christofurio 13:10, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

Liberty is liberty, but there is no such thing as the "liberty" to violate the rights of others. Since private property is a violation of the rights of others, nothing involving private property can possibly be described as "liberty". (private property means having a monopoly over the use of a certain object; it is the authoritarian concept that one man can use force to prevent another man from using that object; it is illegitimate because the only thing you can legitimately own is your own labour, not the natural resources required to construct any object - private property is based on ownership over natural resources, which is illegitimate, therefore all private property is illegitimate)

Wow. Italics and bold faced print. Almost as good as reasoning.

Wow. Nitpicking on the form and ignoring the content. Almost as good as a counter-argument.

The first man who, having fenced off a plot of land, thought of saying, "This is mine" and found people simple enough to believe him was the real founder of civil society. How many crimes, wars, murders, how many miseries and horrors might the human race had been spared by the one who, upon pulling up the stakes or filling in the ditch, had shouted to his fellow men: "Beware of listening to this imposter; you are lost if you forget the fruits of the earth belong to all and that the earth belongs to no one."

- Jean-Jacques Rousseau

I know we explored this months ago, but I couldn't resist the urge to come back and ask -- is this a utilitarian argument? You've told me that the basis for all your views is utilitarianism, but you quote this passage of Jean-Jacques' so reverently that it seems you must think it meshes with the maximization of utils somehow. So is there an a prior principle at work to the the effect that theft can never increase the sum amount of pleasure/happiness/or whatever it is in the world that utilitarians are trying to maximize? If so, why? If not, then we'd have to leave open the possibility that the first fencer of land was (a) as much of a thief as Rousseau paints him but (b) increased human utils. In that case, you as a utilitarian would have to agree that this man was acting as a benefactor of the species. That one theft was a good thing. I'm not suggesting any conclusions for you. What I'm saying, though, is that Rousseau's reasoning here looks backward, to origins, whereas utilitarianism by its essence looks forward, to consequences, and that you jump from the one direction to the other as suits your fancy, which is arbitrary. --Christofurio 17:21, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Well, that passage is one of my favourite quotes. Notice that Rousseau's argument is fundamentally utilitarian: "How many crimes, wars, murders, how many miseries and horrors might the human race had been spared..." He is saying that private property is morally evil not so much because it was created through illegitimate means (theft), but because it led to "crimes, wars, murders, miseries and horrors". If a thief such as that first fencer of land had actually increased the sum of human happiness, then his action would have been very good and morally justified. However, in my view at least, it is clear that history proves the contrary.

One of the reasons I like this Rousseau quote so much is precisely because it covers both the origins and the effects of private property, and condemns it as evil from a consequentialist (utilitarian) standpoint as well as from a deontological standpoint. Private property was created through illegitimate means and led to evil consequences - thus I don't necessarily need to appeal to utilitarianism to prove that private property is morally wrong. You will often find that the reason why I "jump from the one direction to the other" in moral arguments is because I want to prove that my view is correct not just in my own system of ethics, but in my opponent's system of ethics as well.

Finally, as a side note, the fact that private property was created through initiation of force is one of the reasons why Objectivism is inconsistent.

--Nikodemos 19:24, 15 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

How can your two causes be the same?

Because thought necessarily leads to behavior and behavior necessarily involves the consumption of resources. To pretend to free thought while controlling resources is an absurdity.--Christofurio 22:57, May 30, 2004 (UTC)

Someone must control resources. Whether it's a public authority or a private one, someone must control resources if they are to be used at all. You want private control of resources, I want public control of resources. Neither of these options allows for absolute freedom, but public control allows for more freedom than private control. --Nikodemos

How can you defend the liberty of the slave to be free from exploitation AND the "liberty" of the slave owner to hold slaves?

I don't.

How can you oppose public government, but support private government?

I don't support oxymorons. All govt is public. A government is an institution claiming the monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a given territory. You seem to think that ownership of a 'territory' amounts to the same thing -- but that is your presumption, not mine. --Christofurio 22:57, May 30, 2004 (UTC)

It does amount to the same thing. Stop dodging the issue and answer this simple question: Does a land owner have the right to use force against trespassers on his land in an anarcho-capitalist system? If yes, then you have a de facto government. If no - who's gonna stop him from killing the trespasser anyway?

I will not write recipes for the chefs of the future. Marx refused to do so, when challenged by Comteans, after all. In the anarcho-capitalistic world, recipies for dealing with such situations will arise by spontaneous order. I have some something more about the process by which that would happen, below. --Christofurio 13:19, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

How can you oppose the tyranny of one group of men (the government) over an area of land, but support the tyranny of another group of men (the landowners) over that same area of land?

I've been on the defensive here (which is appropriate, since this is your talk page, after all. But I think I've satisfied my obligations in that capacity, and I'll go on the offensive for a moment. How can you oppose the tyranny of 49.9% of a voting population but support the tyranny of 50.1% Does right become wrong if a few dozen swing votes change? See An Enemy of the People for a sense of what I'm getting at here.

That's a pathetically weak argument. "Right" and "wrong" are relative terms. Only a religion can provide you with moral absolutes, and if you want to use a religion as the basis of your political system, then what you have is a theocracy.

Right and wrong are relative? Really? So the rightness of your view that private property is illegitimate is relative? Relative to what? To your ability to get a majoruty to agree? Why should it be relative to that, rather than relative to, say, some elite's ability to marshall military force? or relative to (and falsified by) my desire to be left alone (as you've promised I should be, if I sign your opt out agreement)? What is relative to what and why should anything be relative to majority rule? It may be 'pathetically weak' of me to notice that you haven't answered such obvious questions. But I (unlike many socialists) prefer to appeal to reason than to strength. --Christofurio 20:23, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Please excuse me if I have trouble remembering what exactly I meant with a sentence that I wrote nearly a year ago. Perhaps I was referring to the fact that different people have different views of right and wrong, and, unless we invoke a religion, there is no logical reason to give one moral system priority over another. This relativism is an integral part of my version of utilitarianism: Each person may have a different view of what is "good" or what makes him/her happy, and the overall public good (the closest thing we have to an absolute good) is determined by taking into account all the different (and relative) personal goods. So why is majority rule so important? Because, by definition, the greatest good is that which benefits the greatest majority of people - or, to be more exact, the greatest good is that situation in which the greatest majority of people agree that things are good.

When I say that private property is illegitimate, I mean one of two things: (a) Private property is evil from a utilitarian perspective, because it produces more suffering than happiness, OR (b) private property is wrong even from the perspective of the moral system that my opponents are using - for example, if I am arguing against Objectivism, I may argue that private property was created through initiation of force, therefore it is immoral even according to Objectivist morality (and therefore Objectivism is inconsistent).

--Nikodemos 20:13, 15 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

The experience of the whole human race provides us with certain postulates which allow good people to defy the whims of majorities. I would have helped Socrates to escape, if it had been in my power and that had been his goal, wouldn't you? even in defiance of a majority? If so, then in the same spirit I will defend private property even (especially!) where the whim of a majority threatens that institution. You have told me it is "easy" to make a case for there being a difference between human rights and property rights, so I suppose you wouold say I should defy majorities for the former cause but not the latter. But your efforts to accomplish that easy task have fallen wide of the mark. It appears not to be so easy for you after all. --Christofurio 13:10, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

How can I support the "tyranny" of 50.1% ? Because as long as humans wish to live together, they must have some decision-making system. Who gets to take a decision - any decision? You only have two choices: Either it's a minority (ranging from one man to 49.9%) or it's the majority. None of these options provides absolute freedom, but that's because absolute freedom is only possible if you isolate yourself from the rest of Mankind. Majority rule, however, provides the most freedom. In brief, democracy is the worst social system except for all the others. Even where democracy is tyrannical, any other system would be more tyrannical.

Let's look at "An Enemy of the People". I assume you believe the decision taken by the people was wrong. But then who should have had the power to make decisions? Don't say "no one", because that argument is full of holes. Doing nothing is in itself a decision. And the paradox of any system in which "no ones" takes the big decisions is that you need some sort of authority to prevent people from taking the decision-making power upon themselves. You need authority to enforce the lack of authority.

And just one small note regarding the Friedman book you've linked to: The page is empty! I mean, only a tiny fraction of the book is actually available. That, and the fact that such a link doesn't really belong in the middle of an article, compells me to remove it. I suppose you could add it under the "external links" section, but in its current state you may as well add a link to a blank page...

There's some intersting stuff there, especially the bit about how an anarcho-capitalistic judicial system might work. Look again.

Oh, don't worry, I will look.

Great.

I came. I saw. I was half-amused and half-disgusted.

Feelings do not constitute reasons. --Christofurio 13:10, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

And besides, giving away books for free is very anti-capitalistic. Tsk tsk. Shame on you. ;) Nikodemos

Private charity isn't anti-capitalist at all. Coercing taxation in order to fund a dole isn't really socialist either, although its a bit social democratic.

Speaking of which, I'd like to tell you about my own personal ideas regarding taxation in a socialist system. In order to make socialism immune to any "taxation is force" arguments, I believe the government should NOT use any form of coercion to compel people to pay their taxes. A man should have the option to terminate his Social Contract with the government by not paying any more taxes. However, this goes both ways. If you don't hold your end of the bargain, the government doesn't hold its end, either. If you stop paying taxes, the government simply ignores you and stops protecting your rights and freedoms. Let's see how "free" you feel when the government no longer protects you from criminals and murderers.

Wonderful! A new anarcho-capitalist has been born. Of course, those of us who opt out of the alleged contract won't be interfered with in our possession of our own unregistered firearms so we can do for ourselves what the state will no longer even pretend to do fo us. We can work together with one another, enter into contracts, to provide mutual assistance in this self-protection effort. The whole Friedmanite Machinery of Freedom will emerge from this concession, and the myth of sovereignty will fade when faced with such competition.

I'll make a couple more points here at the bottom of your page. Where you thank me for making a socialist argument, I good-heartedly have to reply "you're welcome." After all, the label doesn't matter. If you really believe that the "social contract" isn't binding and coercion on such a basis is never justified, then you and I agree on all essentials, even if you want to call the resulting view socialism and I prefer to call it anarcho-capitalism. Vive la difference! Since you are now willing to take away the state's coercive power, you appear to be coming to this conclusion likewise.

As to poverty: the sovereign wouldn't have anything to do with maintaining that, would it? Here, as elsewhere, the state is the disease that it pretends to cure. --Christofurio 13:40, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)

Finally, I accept your invitation to discuss the situation described in Ibsen's play. The underlying problem is riparian rights. Apparently, a tannery is emptying its by-product into a stream that issues into the ocean near the baths. Who owns the surface water as it passes by the tannery? If (and only if) property rights are clearly asigned will conditions exist for productive bargaining. I know nothing of Norway's laws, in Ibsen's time or now, but in Anglo-American common law, the owner of the land through which a stream passes had or has the right to "reasonable use," such use not to interfere with reasonable uses downstream. The courts decide reasonableness in the context of the litigation brought before them and pertinent precedents.

Either through court action or negotiations toward a settlement, the baths' owner could seek to have the tannery bear the financial burden of a purification plant or a diversion of the stream. If the tannery couldn't bear that burden, it would have to close, and the problem would have been solved in either case. If the tannery were to close for this reason that fact would demonstrate (far better than any majoritarian dictat could) that the value of what it had been producing was less than the attendent costs.

But suppose that there is no such cause of action, or the owner of the baths loses the suit, because property rights are clearly in favor of the tannery under existing precedents? If it is nonetheless the case that the baths are likely to be the great boon to the town that the play portrays, then from the reasonably anticipated profits of the venture (assuming that the seeking of profits is considered a good and honorable thing in the surrounding society) it should be possible for investing/profiting parties to fund either purification of diversion. So long as property rights are clear one way or the other, a bargaining solution is possible. The tannery and baths can co-exist to the benefit of the town.

See Ronald Coase

Yes, this historically has worked where the courts have been those of a sovereign. But judges have usually been the least responsive of any important public officials to political pressures -- and they'd be even less so if courts were themselves the products of entrepreneurship working through competing protection services. The political problem is to prevent government (or mob) interference from short-circuiting the higgling and haggling necessary to bring about such a bargaining solution. Dissolving the myth of sovereignty is an important part of the long-run solution to that problem.

Yes, I've gone on a bit long. My apologies. But I'm working from your questions, and I respect you enough to believe that they deserve something more than sound bites.

Libertarian socialism vs. anarcho-socialism

Could you please explain your reasoning behind changing "libertarian socialism" to "anarcho-socialism" in the Anarchism article? -- Spleeman 20:06, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The prefix "anarcho-" denotes a lack of government. Putting the word "libertarian" ahead of something denotes a limited government. Thus, in the context of that article, "anarcho-socialism" is more correct than "libertarian socialism". By other definitions, the two terms are synonymous, so both of them are equally correct. Therefore, since the change is either good or irrelevant (depending on your definition of the respective terms), no harm can come of it, so it is a change worth making.

- Nikodemos

The term "libertarian" denotes "liberty", not "limited government". I don't have a problem with you changing "libertarian" to "anarcho-", per se, but I do think it evidences a willingness to cede the term "libertarian" to the right, a willingness I do not have. The term libertarian has been used for over a century by anarchists in Europe and elsewhere; it is only since the 1950s that the term was co-copted by the right and taken to mean "minarchist" or "anarcho-capitalist".

Anyhow, in the future, I would recommend explaining yourself on Talk:Anarchism before making arbitrary changes based on your personal preferences or opinions. -- Spleeman 23:27, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Believe me, I am anything but a friend of the right, and the term "libertarian" is one I've been known to furiously defend from the self-proclaimed "libertarian" capitalists, which I believe should be more accurately called proprietarians, since private property, not liberty, is what they really care about (and private property is a form of authority).

As for the arbitrary change, as I already explained, it was at best good and at worst irrelevant, so it was a change worth making.

- Nikodemos

This change is further complicated by the fact that most anarchists believe that socialism (by its weakest definition, at least), is a necessary part of anarchism, thus making "anarcho-socialism" redundant and automatically biasing wikipedia readers to the anarcho-capitalist assertion that anarchism is compatible with capitalism. It also makes the libertarian socialism page, which currently indicates that it is in fact a form of anarchism, contrary to the other pages like anarchism which has now been changed to refer to libertarian socialism instead as "anarcho-socialism". And I must agree with Spleeman, there is no necessary implication in the word "libertarian" of a minimal state, the word need not imply anything more than one who believes in human liberty. That means that "libertarian socialism" -could- indicate a state because it is not particularly narrow, but it doesn't necessarily indicate a state, and in practice when it has been used through history it has not indicated a state. Kev 09:58, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

On the other hand, it seems to me that using the term "libertarian socialism" rather than "anarcho-socialism" implies that the self-proclaimed "anarcho-capitalists" are more "anarcho-" than the original (socialist) anarchists. This is one of the other reasons why I changed it.

- Nikodemos

I can definately see that problem, and it is one of the reasons I suggested a long time ago that the anarcho-capitalist page be redirected to either "anti-state capitalism" or "neo-classical liberalism", since the term "anarcho-capitalist" is highly contested but the other two are not. What is nice about either of those titles is that there are actual "anarcho-capitalists" who use these titles interchangably, whereas I know of no major figures who refer to themselves as anarcho-socialists. However, the various editors of that page who were sympathic to anarcho-capitalism absolutely refused this change on the grounds that it was politically motivated.

One possibility that has been floated around is to refer to libertarian socialism as anarcho-communism, but for various reasons that is also problematic. Still, it might be better than anarcho-socialist, and if there is a problem in that not all libertarian socialists consider themselves anarcho-communists, then two seperate pages could be maintained (I think we would do better to err on the side of more explaination rather than less). On the anarcho-capitalist page anarcho-capitalism is currently contrasted with "anti-capitalist anarchists" though again this sorta hands the semantic debate straight over to the capitalists by implying that there is such a thing as capitalist anarchists in the first place, and worse it is sometimes compared with "left-anarchists" which falsely implies that only anarchists who consider themselves leftists are anti-capitalist. Really, the whole semantic debate has long since had the ball in the capitalist corner due to the brute force revert techniques used by a select few editors, and I don't see the situation improving toward NPOV anytime soon. I'm just not sure if "anarcho-socialist" is the right solution. Kev 18:20, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Anti-capitalism

"Libertarian socialism argues for worker control and ownership of the means of production in the context of a limited state." This sentence is simply incorrect. Libertarian socialism is a form of anarchism, not a "related ideology". Libertarian socialism calls for the total abolition of the state. If you want to prove otherwise, you're going to have to cite some sources. -- Spleeman 23:39, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake - I guess I'm just generally averse to using two different names for the same thing; I'm a nitpick at heart, you see, and strongly believe that all political terms should have neat and clear-cut definitions, leaving no room for misinterpretation, which is rarely the case in real life. At any rate, most of my knowledge on libertarian socialism comes from various libertarian socialists whom I personally know, and not from well-established academic sources, so I will concede this point to you.

However, I did some re-editing to make it clear that libertarian socialism is a subset of anarchism (rather than being completely synonymous with it, as the current version of the article implies), and that it involves worker control and ownership over the means of production.

- Nikodemos

Comrade, I would just like to say I hope I am not coming off wrong about reverting or changing some of your edits. No hard feelings, right? I appreciate the work you've been doing recently on the left politics-related pages. And I understand and sympathize with the motivations behind the edits you've made, because I know you have good intentions. I just wanted to make sure you didn't get "over-zealous", so to speak. Keep up the good work. -- Spleeman 00:06, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nolan chart

Please see my remark at Talk:Nolan chart. -- Jmabel 18:18, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, could you cite the particular article? By the way, I believe it's not customary to archive talk pages just because they are old, only when they exceed 32K. -- Jmabel 20:43, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

Just Stop

I think we need mediation here because one you haven't read any of the classics.

For the benefit of anyone else reading this, we should mention what you mean by "here". It is the Classical definition of republic article.

In your contribution list, you have made no contributions to anything classical.

First of all, define "classical" with more accuracy. Second of all, I haven't made contributions to articles about the Ancient World for the same reason I haven't made contributions to articles about vegetables: Because they are not in my area of interest.

You quote nothing. It is your pure opinion based on what? Anything except your opinion. This is a definition. How can you edit an article when you have no understanding of anything of Cicero, Aristotle or any other Greeks? I write an article with 38 quotes and more...

Ok, let's say I write an article with 38 quotes from Osama Bin Laden explaining what a nice guy he is and how all infidels should die, and without presenting any dissenting opinion. Would such an article be NPOV in your opinion?

Also, I'm very curious to know the reason for your apparent need to reassure yourself by constantly claiming that your opponents have no understanding of X and Y. This is especially intriguing considering such things as the fact that Cicero wasn't Greek.

...and you put nothing in it except to erase stuff. If you want NPOV then read and quote from somebody otherwise leave the thing alone because you don't know what you are talking about. WHEELER 00:02, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If you have an issue with my edits, bring it up and let us discuss it on the article's Talk page. So far you've concentrated exclusively on ad hominem's. - Nikodemos

World Government edits

Thanks for your helpful edits to the world government page. [[User:Brettz9|Brettz9 (talk)]] 19:04, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Vietnam

hello you edit political part of Vietnam and you just took out the significant poltical party that Prince of Vietnam has established in in Vietnam, now is this neutral ? what cant they be two sides to bring a neutral standpoint to deliver both.Tran Van Ba

Because the party is insignificant, and because it isn't actually based in Vietnam. You're free to mention it if you wish, but presenting it as any sort of relevant political force is misleading and false. Nikodemos 02:23, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Where did you get the information and facts that it is insignficant ? Have you been following the the arrest of his members ? Yes, that is true that it is not based in Vietnam, but they have chapters in Saigon, Hue and also in My Tho with members. this is not fair because it is not neutral your point is showing only one political party, while there is more than one and you have not stated any facts that where you come to the conclusion that it is insignificant, if you have please share it with meTran Van Ba

How many members do you have? (yes, I'm saying "you", because I know very well that you're a high-ranking member of that organization, since you were so kind as to write an article about yourself) Nikodemos 03:12, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Vietnamese Constitutional Monarchist League

The issue of correction was brought up, and I had corrected it, showing what the organization beliefs were and what they stood for, if you look at the African National Congress, or it states similar goals to represent the people in a nation that represents everyone. The paper I studied on the organization was well within the boundaries.Tran Van Ba

The issue was certainly brought up, but you never addressed it. See the article's Talk page. Nikodemos 03:12, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

yes, it was addressed and I went back to correct all the statement that said WE, and first person if you look at my corrections after the recommendation you can see the correctionsTran Van Ba

That wasn't the issue. The fact that your article was insanely POV was the issue. Nikodemos 03:12, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Norodom Sihanouk

Cocerning you state that his membership in a organization or inclusion is self-promoting well, in his biography that is also a statement concerning Guinness Book of World Records identifies him as a ..etc Is it fair to state that He signed a Official Document that stated his membership in a political organization that is assiting him to maintain peace in his nation and also in the region? Tran Van Ba

Actually, my problem was with your wording, not the information you were trying to convey. Nikodemos 03:12, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hungary

I think you should explain your reasons for the massive changes you made on the articles Hungarian Soviet Republic and History of Hungary. --Vasile 13:09, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The first and most important reason was the language. To put it bluntly, the articles were written in very bad and broken English. I came across them by accident, and decided they needed an overhaul. While I was at it, I also made NPOV changes and various other tweaks. Which particular changes would you like me to explain? Nikodemos 13:20, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

First, please detail your pretext of "bad and broken English" with examples from the actual versions. I don't like your primary school English style either. --Vasile 13:27, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oh, are we at the level of gratuitous insults already? How entertaining. Well, now, let's see, what exactly is "re-born Hungary" supposed to mean and why is it better than "newly independent Hungary"? Or how about "spiritual father"? What is that metaphor doing in the article? And why do you insist on phrases like "instilled in many Hungarians a hatred" instead of the much more neutral "led to a deep feeling of antipathy"?

And by the way, do you mind actually stating your objections to my edits? Last time I checked, Wikipedia policy did not include reverting other people's edits for the sole reason that you don't like them. Nikodemos 13:38, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You'd acused me on what you actually did and I did not insulting your gracious person. You changed the text pretending the bad non-neutral English. You should explain your changes before reverting the text.

As I have asked you from the very beginning: Which particular changes would you like me to explain? What actual objections do you have to any of my changes? When A makes edits to an article and B wishes to revert them, it is B who must explain his actions, not A. This is a common sense rule: If we reverted by default any new version which is not "properly explained" by the author, we'd never get anywhere and Wikipedia would be dead. Nikodemos 11:37, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Answering your question: 1) re-born Hungary means the new Hungarian state created after the Empire dissolution. 2) In the proper sense, Lenin was the spiritual father of Kun and this is not a metaphor. However, the wikipedia policy doesn't exclude the use of metaphor, that is a sign of good style. 3) The hate feeling exsists and is different than that (more neutral ?) of antipathy. 4) You continually change the text pretending that your opinion is "neutral nice English". --Vasile 15:42, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I continually change the text because you have offered no reason whatsoever why I shouldn't. And since it seems I haven't made myself clear, my question is: What is wrong with my edits and why is your version better? Nikodemos 11:37, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You didn't read my answers. Paraphrasing a bolshevik classic propagandist, your reverts are simply méchantes. The style of revert is the man. I don't care about your political sympathies, you are not the first that try to use history as propaganda, but please do not pretend your primary school style edits being "neutral". Your edits are clearly subjective and the "best policy" that you used was to accuse previous version of being POV or difficult to understand English due the use of metaphors. --Vasile 13:55, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Excuse me, are you insane? Point me to the specific parts of my edits that you disagree with and let us discuss them like rational human beings. If you do not, I will ask for a third party to intervene. -- Nikodemos 14:02, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This type of personal question is clearly prohibited by wikipedia policy. What would be next? Your mechanical reverts didn't look like human activity. I answered your questions and you simply ignored them. --Vasile 14:13, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You don't seriously believe that question was anything other than rhethorical, do you? And, by the way, this question was rhethorical too, just so you know. Still, with comments like "Your mechanical reverts didn't look like human activity", I am seriously beginning to fear for your sanity. The questions that you answered were examples I gave to illustrate why I decided to edit the articles when I came across them. Now, are you going to tell me what you find objectionable about my edits or will I have to call a moderator? -- Nikodemos 14:26, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am not interested in personal discussions. My intention is to clarify the article. Fear no more about my person, but please let's move this discussion to the article. --Vasile 14:42, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That is precisely what I've been trying to tell you. Now we're finally getting somewhere. Thank you for being reasonable, and please see my reply to your new comments in the article's Talk page. -- Nikodemos 15:07, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Communism Reorganization Effort

I've taken it upon myself to start restructuring the bewildering array of communism-series pages which currently exist on Wikipedia and I'm not totally prepared to do it alone (mostly for lack of authority / fear of unilateralism). Anyway, you seem to know what you're talking about if your discussion page alone speaks for anything, and I think you'd be a great help to this project.

I haven't made any changes, and I may bot make any in the long run if I cant get this thing together or it meets too much resistance. So far, I've found no such opposition, and I'm to hopefully have the thing well on it's way before Saturday of this week.

As I said, though, I've started working on it with Yossarian and we already have a little support for the restructuring, so I thought I'd go out and petition a little more. I'm sure you could bring a lot. The layout plans we've laid to this point are all spread out at Talk:Communist Ideology. Let's try and get this baffling mess sorted out once and for all, shall we? -- Oceanhahn 07:55, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't see any reason for such massive restructuring. Look at the articles for other ideologies: Anarchism, Socialism, Liberalism, etc. That is the model that Communism should follow. It might also be a good idea to make a Communism Series like the one for liberalism, in order to link all communism-related articles together. The main communism article needs some rewriting, I agree - and I was planning on doing it myself in the coming weeks - but we shouldn't get over-zealous. -- Nikodemos 13:24, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

order of the dragon of annam=

I do not agree with your changes because it was already neutral and had no statements concerning tranny or human rights. I feel that the changes you made (unofficial) is incorrect, that is not neutral, he is recognized by the Imperial Nguyen Dynasty. You also took out the statement The Order of the Dragon of Annam, is the Real, Personal, and Dynastic property of the Imperial Nguyen Dynasty. It was neutral and that the order was established by the Nguyen Dynasty and vest with the Nguyen Dynasty.

Concerning your statement: "do not recognize the legitimacy of the Vietnamese government and do not recognize the abolition of the Order".

To make this statement is non-neutral becuaue there is no issue of the legitimacy of the government of Vietnam, the nguyen dynasty recognizes the govt of vietnam, but only wants to improve relations and improve the life of the people in social and charitable programs and since the Nguyen Dynasty had brought the Order of Dragon to life for the people of Vietnam, the order was never turned over to the government. Jimmyvanthach 15:57, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Bao Dai

your statements concerning the investure of Bao Long in 1954 is incorrect. You are right Bao Long was invested in 1938 but when Bao Dai abdicated in 1945 to Ho Chi Minh, this abdication ended the monarchy. And Bao Dai became the head of state of South Vietnam in 1954 he did not become Emperor this neutral to the standing of his biography. Prince Buu Chanh is recognized as the Regent of the Nguyen Dynasty and he is vested with the rights, as per his investure in the United States by the Imperial Nguyen Dynasty Overseas Council and it is documented and there is no dispute to this issue [[1]] also please see link attached. Jimmyvanthach 16:56, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Tran Van Ba

I hope you are aware of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tran Van Ba? Dunc_Harris|☺ 21:32, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nguyen Phuc Buu Chanh

The changes you made to Nguyen Phuc Buu Chanh concerning making the article neutral, I agree wih you, because the sentence you took out was non-neutral. Jimmyvanthach 21:55, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please see talk:socialism before furthering this revert war

Calling something ridiculous is ad hominen not substantive.--Silverback 10:35, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ridiculous or not, it's still POV. And last time I checked, Wikipedia had a NPOV policy. -- Nikodemos 10:46, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sam Spade

You may want to vote on whether Sam becomes a sysop at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Sam_Spade AndyL 17:36, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Enver Hoxha

Yes, Hoxha was no socialist you are correct...I just tired to somehow "compromise" with everyking, to prevent problems--Gustuv 23:54, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

U.S. intervention in Chile

Would you please take a good look at the edit you made downstream of mine recently in U.S. intervention in Chile? Your comment suggests that you reverted me without looking closely. You say "Keep them both", but you don't add content: you remove a sentence, add the same external link for a second time (which is OK if you think it is really useful) and move the Schneider material out from under the "1970" heading, which should apply to it. My guess is that you mostly got confused be the earlier back-and-forth between VeryVerily and an anon. If you really meant to do what you did, fine, but I can't see what is gained by not indicating that the Scheider kidnapping was part of the sequence after the 1970 election. -- Jmabel 21:18, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Calm down - you're perfectly right. It seems I tried to re-add some material that you had already re-added under a different heading. Sorry about that. I'll go clean it up. -- Nikodemos 08:34, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks (Communism)

Thanks for trying to maintain some semblance of neutrality in Communism. These people who constantly insert propaganda or delete stuff that doesn't match their POV without even going to the talk page (even when asked) are really getting on my nerves. I find it impossible to deal with two or three specific people here, whereas I generally can work quite well with people whose points of view differ greatly from mine. Shorne 08:21, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm rather busy with other articles at the moment, but at some time no later than next weekend I plan to dive into all the communism-related articles to clean them up and structure them neatly into a communism series. Criticism of communist theory should go in anti-communism, and criticism of communist practice should go in communist state. -- Nikodemos 08:26, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The section is purely NPOV as it just says what a (reliable) source claims. Please see Talk:Communist state to know, why I moved it to "Communism" ("not NPOV but relevance" section. Boraczek 19:54, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Merely quoting someone is not NPOV. If I wrote an entire section in the Judaism article quoted from Mein Kampf, for example, would you consider that NPOV? -- Nikodemos 08:46, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Dear Niko, Instead of developing the article or moving the questioned section to the discussion page, you simply reverted my modifications. Your statement that the data are "insane propaganda" suggests that you are simply biased. As you can see in the page you referred to yourself [2], the estimate of the Black Book is not the highest possible one, although relatively high. Then you insulted me, probably because I did the same thing as you - I reverted. You showed a lack of respect for me. I must say that your behavior was definitely improper. I hope you will be more calm and you will have good manners in the future. Boraczek 19:54, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Better?

Lots, actually, thanks. That said, I still don't agree that socialists think they will "serve the broad populace rather than a favored few", rather I think they intend to take from some in order to give to others (like Hitler did to the Jews, or Mao did to the capitalists, etc...), creating a new favoured few. However, I understand this is my POV. The problem is I think "would, in their view, serve the broad populous rather than a favored few" is also POV. Frankly I think you and I aught to come to some mutual understanding, as we have not IMO been interacting in a fashion best suited for the needs of the project. I found our discussions on Talk:collectivism to have broken down to a point where I stepped back from that article for a time, in order to allow us both to reflect and return to our interactions refreshed. Unfortunately, we walked straight back into each other on Socialism. These are hard topics, I know. Politics and religion are never easy, in the best of situations, w people we know personally and agree with. When discussing them with strangers, whom we might well disagree with, things are that much more difficult. Here's hoping that we can find a way to discuss and interact that ‘‘is’’ best suited to our work here. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 17:04, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

E-mail

Try sending e-mail now if you wish. Shorne 05:57, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Romanian stuff

Could you have a look at what User:Criztu has been up to, especially at History of Romania, but also elsewhere? My feeling is that he is editing with a very POV agenda, and entirely without comment. See for example my remarks at Talk:History of Romania. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:19, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

Answer

I replied to your email. Boraczek 16:46, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Collaboration project

Could you consider voting for Partisans (Yugoslvia) as a collaboration project?AndyL 21:28, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Marie de Roland-Peel

Concerning Marie de Roland-Peel can the non-neutral sentences were removed, can you take a look at it, and if now acceptable can you remove the neutrality notice. Jimmyvanthach 00:30, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What's your problem

Do you look up my contributions list and then follow behind me deleting my work? Because that is what it looks like.

I think it looks that way simply because I have many of your articles on my watchlist... -- Nikodemos 10:34, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I put this in the Nazi 25-point program:

This program is the synthesis of Pan-Germanism, collectivism, egalitarianism and pseudo- liberal currents. Moreover, this program was anti-Habsburg, anti-monarchical, anti-clerical, and anti-feudal. In demanding plebiscites for all important decisions, it showed itself to be nominally democratic. The plan attacks all hierarchies; capital, clergy and hierarchic nobility. The Jews were especially singled out because they were seen as the "rising aristocracy of capital" (Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi, founder of the Pan-European movement, repeatedly called them this.). As in all levelling tendencies, all "elites" and hierarchies were to be done away with.

You deleted that.

I went to the Village pump and an admin guy said well if another says it is POV then put the author's name in front of it and so it is a comment by the author.

So I put in:

Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn writes that this program is the synthesis of Pan-Germanism, collectivism, egalitarianism and pseudo-liberal currents. Moreover, this program was anti-Habsburg, anti-monarchical, anti-clerical, and anti-feudal. In demanding plebiscites for all important decisions, it showed itself to be nominally democratic. The plan attacks all hierarchies; capital, clergy and hierarchic nobility. The Jews were especially singled out because they were seen as the "rising aristocracy of capital" (Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi, founder of the Pan-European movement, repeatedly called them this.). As in all levelling tendencies, all "elites" and hierarchies were to be done away with.

You still deleted this. What gives? Have you studied Austrian National Socialism? Eric von Kuehnelt is an Austrian, has a degree in political science, What's your beef? What evidence do you have to the contrary?

Eric von Kuehnelt is a maverick, little-known, extremely right-wing and reactionary author. My intention was to remove his opinion as a temporary measure until I had the time to do some research and find an opposing view that I could post in the article to balance out Von Kuehnelt. However, if you insist so much on including Von Kuehnelt, I won't remove him again - but I will make a few edits in order to explain to our readers that his opinion is not that of mainstream historians. -- Nikodemos 10:34, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why do you keep on deleting the Occurences to Ochlocracy? Why...What is your evidence to the contrary? Even the OED uses them to define its terms? What is your problem or is this harrasment?WHEELER 18:34, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Because the "occurances" are quotes that serve no purpose other than to display the POV of the persons who said/wrote them. -- Nikodemos 10:34, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I see you are contributing today Mr Tudoreanu but where is the discussion? I am waiting for reasons on the Ochlocracy page? Where are your points? Please replyWHEELER 19:38, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

For the record, I'm struggling to clean my computer of a rather nasty virus right now, so don't expect me to be very active. (and shouldn't you be happy that I'm not very active?) -- Nikodemos 10:34, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mr. Tudoreanu, another two persons showed up on the article and put in the occurences of the word Ochlocracy, you seem to be the only person editing it out. I am asking for evidence of your support of editing the words out. You have not provided anything yet. I am asking again for some kind of discussion and you have failed to discuss anything.WHEELER 20:33, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

our watchlists

It seems almost impossible for us to avoid each other, apparently we share almost identical watchlists (well, I assume mine is bigger, at near 5,000 pages, but whichever), but can we at least keep from running headlong into one another? Can we make a "mutual non-aggression pact" perhaps, not to revert until we've at least had a chance to exchange words, and perhaps even strive not to revert at all, but rather communicate until we reach some compromise of consensus? Maybe the latter is too much to ask, but what say you of the former? Reverting is considered rude on the wiki, and those who do it too often are maligned and looked down upon. I'd hate to see us bringing mutual stigma upon ourselves. Sam [Spade] 01:50, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You do have a point. How about a policy of not reverting each other without listing at least some reasons on the Talk page?

P.S. 5000 pages? How on Earth can you keep up with all the changes? -- Nikodemos 18:11, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sounds better than at present, but how about waiting a day or two for a response before reverting? As far as the 5,000, its not much trouble, I simply skim my watchlist on my way in and out of the house :) Oh, and I would ask you to be thoughtful of WHEELER's copious contributions to this project, not the least of which being his genorosity with citations, something we all could dtand to respect and admire :) Sam [Spade] 02:22, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Not likely Sam Spade, he also follows everything I do, and edits everything out. I am sick of him and have gone to Wikinfo. All he does is edit things out. I am sick of him.WHEELER 17:41, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

For the record, my watchlist contains precisely 453 pages as of this moment. I can list them for you if you wish. And I can also go through your contributions page and undoubtebly find dozens of pages that I never even knew about, much less edited. I don't follow anyone around, Wheeler, and a little less paranoia would do you some good. Also, like I've said before, why don't you just create your own website? There are plenty of free web hosting services around. -- Nikodemos 18:11, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The word "communist"

pages 7 and 8, A History of Socialist Thought (1965) I went back and looked at it again. Exactly what he says is, "It seems to have carried with it, right from the beginning, something of a double entendre. As used by Frenchmen, it conjured up the idea of the commune, as the basic unit of neighborhood and self-government, and suggested a form of social organization resting on a federation of free communes. But at the same time it suggested the notion of communauté — of having things in common and of common ownership; and it was in sense that it was developed by Cabet and his followers, whereas the other element connected it rather with the underground clubs of the extreme left, and, through them, with the clubs of exiled revolutionaries thorugh which it passed on to be employed in the name of the Communist League of 1847 and of the Communist Manifesto of 1848." As to whether he got it right I can't say. One thing is that the French word, commune, while used in Russian (or at least there is a word usually translated commune which means the same thing) in the French sense is not used in that sense in English where the village community which would correspond to the French concept has been greatly attentuated. Fred Bauder 20:04, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Capitalism

Hi, I just wanted to thank you for your edits on Capitalism, that page really needed it :)--Che y Marijuana 15:26, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalist critique of left-anarchism

Hi, could you please take a look at that page for me and tell me what you think of it? I posted on its talk page maybe a month ago, maybe two, and no one has responded. It's an extreme right editorial with no encyclopedic value in my view. Thank you.--Che y Marijuana 16:00, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

1989

I've been asking various people to have a look at what's going on at Romanian Revolution of 1989 and Nicolae Ceausescu. I think a lot of what has recently made its way into the article is little more than an arbitrary conspiracy theory, but I've been calling upon various people who may have a better chance than I of sorting it out. (Some related issues at Commuist Romania, but less insertion of sheer junk.) -- Jmabel | Talk 00:24, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories about the 1989 revolution are commonplace, mostly due to the sheer lack of information about what exactly happened back then. In the chaos and confusion of December 1989, many as-yet-unexplained events took place. The material added to the articles you mention is not accepted by mainstream historians, but then again, mainstream historians themselves base their account of the 1989 revolution on many speculations. And I see Ratza has good references for his material, so it shouldn't be removed. It might be a good idea to mention that all the different accounts of the revolution are disputed, though. -- Nikodemos 11:56, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words

I feel I should let you know that I moved your opposition statement to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/Candidate statements/Disendorsements, and that opposition statements or "Disendorsements" are frowned upon (see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/Organizers statement). All of that said, I appreciate the compliments, and would say my feelings regarding your self are similar, that you are a good editor, albeit a biased one. Fortunately you are able to accept logic and the facts when they are presented clearly enough, and are not so partisan as to engage in vandalism, personal attacks, or other policy violations. In short you are intellectually honest. In all matters not related to your POV, your edits excell, and for a non-native english speaker (I believe you are Romanian?) your english is suberb. I have no POV re: Kyklos, btw, I just sympathize w WHEELER, and he asked me to look into your edits to pages he has created or contributed to largely. Cheers, [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 13:59, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, and you're welcome. I have a rather large "to do" list at the moment, but when I'm finished with it (hopefully some time around the winter holidays) I'd like to discuss politics with you via email. It seems we're going to have to work with each other whether we like it or not, so getting to know each other's views a little better would be a good idea. :) -- Nikodemos 15:11, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK, but feel free to review User:Sam Spade/Theoretical Biases anytime you like. It has a talk page as well. :) [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 17:36, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I already have. That's why I want to talk to you in private - we have a few views in common, but then there is the matter of the immense divide over the Equality vs. Hierarchy issue. That would be interesting to discuss, methinks. -- Nikodemos 17:55, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Be aware that I believe in a hierarchy of meritocracy, not of skintone or nepotism. People who misunderstand that tend to get unnecesarilly angry at me ;) [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 19:33, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I understand that better than you'd think. I have quite a long experience of arguing against supporters of various forms of "meritocracy". And keep in mind that ALL hierarchies are presented as meritocracies by those at the top. The elite always claims it *deserves* to be an elite. All tyrannies built their legitimacy on such claims. Aristocrats and slave owners always pretended to be *superior* to their serfs or slaves. After all, the core problem of any meritocracy is how to define "merit". A racist hierarchy is simply a meritocracy which has defined "merit" as having a certain skin colour. -- Nikodemos 19:54, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This touches directly on our discussion @ Talk:Communism#Human_nature, and with psychology and economics generally. Its a monster of a topic, and if we solved it we'd likely earn a nobel prize, or at least a third world dictatorship ;) [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 01:12, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Road to Serfdom

I have NPOV concerns regarding your recent edits to The Road to Serfdom. I would appreciate it if you'd have a look at the the talk page. - RedWordSmith 19:40, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, you do bring up valid points; see my reply on the article's talk page. -- Nikodemos 20:20, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just curious if you were aware of Sam Spade's recent actions. - RedWordSmith 23:23, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Communist manisfesto

Talk:Far-right#What.27s_wrong_with_recent_edits... I did read Marx... and Engel’s communist manifesto, and even as a teenager I could see what fools those men were. Have a look for yourself, the hubris of it all is breathtaking. It is overwhelmingly clear that neither they, nor their foolhardy followers had any comprehension of basic human psychology, sociology, or economics. What they did have was plenty of confidence, idealism, and bitter, nihilistic anger towards God and country. When we presume the ignorance of others, it suggests we might take the plank from our own eye, rather than the mote from our comrades ;) As I parting gift, I recommend you read John Locke's Wealth of Nations while your at it ;) [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 17:41, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"John Locke's Wealth of Nations"?? For some reason, Sam, I get the distinct impression you didn't pay any more attention to Adam Smith's work than you did to Karl Marx's. On another note, simply stating that "I read the Manifesto when I was a teenager and I think Marx was stupid" (which is what your message amounts to) does not constitute any sort of counter-argument. You'd better come up with something more than "Marx was wrong because I say so". And, while we're on the subject, the Communist Manifesto may be the most famous of Marx's works, but it is far from being the most important - after all, it's just a manifesto. If you really are interested in studying Marxism, I recommend Wage Labour and Capital, and, afterwards, Das Kapital (which, by the way, is based on classical economic theory as put forward in Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations"). -- Nikodemos 17:10, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have no interest in studying Marxism whatsoever, as I think I made pretty clear, its dangerously insane propaganda leading directly to grossly inefficient totalitarianism (or at best an untenable communal circumstance incapable of defending itself from outside aggression, if were being "anarcho-communist"). As far as "The Wealth of Nations", I'm reading it (teaching it actually) as we speak, and if I somehow managed not to pay close enough attention, the time I spend discusing it line by line would probably make up for that. Cheers, [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 19:07, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What is dangarously insane propaganda, Nikodemos, is an intellectually bankrupt and dishonest theocratism, shameless in its own ignorance and arrogance. El_C 05:21, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

El_C said it best. Ignorance and arrogance are the best terms to define your stance on this issue, Sam. If you never studied Marxism and have no desire to ever study it, your comments only serve to highlight your own dogmatism. I'm beginning to wonder whether you'd like to burn all Marx's books, just to make sure no "dangerous propaganda" can affect the minds of the people - who must, after all, agree with you or be deemed "insane". -- Nikodemos 10:51, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ahahahaha.... no. All of the above is wrong. El_C is a poor source of info, due to an inability on his part to be neutral. I have studied Marxism, and have no further interest in it. And I oppose censorship. While I favor restricting dangerous propoganda from children or the mentally impaired, those of developed minds ought have access to a full diversity of human thought. Likewise books on satanism, or maltheism, sadism, nihilism etc... ought not be censored (altho again, they should not be given to children). [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 11:05, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You shouldn't be the one to talk about neutrality. But other than that, if you oppose censorship, then at least we have something in common. As for you having studied Marxism - it doesn't show. I'm still interested in having that discussion with you later this month, though. -- Nikodemos 11:10, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

For the record, I disagree with Sam Spade's assessment of myself, Nikodemos. I feel that it is he who is a poor source of info., for several reasons, one of which is his inability to be neutral. I feel (very strongly) that it is I who posses a(n appreciably) greater ability than he for neutrality, and that this is quite clearly demonstrated by our respective contributions. El_C 12:13, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just in time for Christmas ;) Wasn't it clear from my User:Sam Spade/Theoretical Biases that I oppose censorship? I thought you had read that. Frankly, I think your view of my "ignorance" is "arrogant", and if you understood what you are labeling as my "dogmatism" you'd probably find it rather agreeable. My preferred government styles are to be found in Switzerland and Singapore, and I generally favor the governing styles of all of Northern Europe (especially Belgium, the Netherlands, and Denmark). The U.S.A. has an awesome constitution, and the founding fathers were hero's of humanity, but I don't prefer the way things have gone as of late, especially the corporatism which Adam Smith warned about. The last American president I'm very happy with was Theodore Roosevelt, the great imperialist, the great environmentalist, and the great humanitarian (making many reforms and protecting workers, most famously with his "Trust-busting"). I have no idea what you think I am, but I am a populist, and a progressive. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 11:22, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually, one of the main reasons I wanted to talk to you was so that I could find out what your political views actually are; the Theoretical Biases page doesn't really give much information, except for making it clear that you don't fit in any traditional category (which, as far as I'm concerned, is a point in your favour - it shows you took the time to build your own views rather than simply agreeing with somebody else). If you support the economic systems (not just the governing styles, mind you) of Northern Europe, then I can see some common ground between us. :) The American Constitution was great for the 18th and 19th centuries, but it is in many ways outdated today (if nothing else, you have to admit that one of its major flaws is simply the fact that it fails to account for many technological advances that have radically transformed politics, economics, and everyday life). -- Nikodemos 11:33, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Quite the opposite, I would say the failing of the American constitution is that it is not enforced, and that every one of the Bill of Rights is violated on a daily basis. The US Constitution allows for additions, so I don't see how technology or whatever other advances could not be accounted for (assuming anyone cared to enforce the rules as written, which I clearly feel few do). The right to bear arms is an important fundamental for any society wishing to remain safe, and free from tyranny.

As far as North Europe, I intentionally avoided specific reference to their economics, since I do indeed take issue with their low growth rate, sluggish economies, and regressive taxation. That said, they have a social safety net, which I see as being a basic prerequisite of civilized society. Unfortunately they are badly in need of reforms, as any local will tell you.

Jobless immigrants on the dole eat up a goodly portion of the budget revenues, and the public is becoming increasingly nationalistic and racialy polarized in response to this, something I see as unfortunate. As vital as social welfare is, it is equally vital that it not be misused, and Northern Europe will make the needed reforms in time I am certain. having many libertarian tendancies, I favor immigration, but clearly people should not be allowed to move to a country and begin recieving payments from a govenment which they have not been contributing to.

All of that said, I feel much safer here than I have in the states, and the people generally strike me as more relaxed and content, much to this regions credit. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 12:34, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Welfare State

This page was disputed because of its lack of balance. I made amendments to present bullet-point arguments on both sides of the debate. You have removed those arguments, restoring the article to the state which led to it being disputed. If you think there is a defect in an argument, write something better.

Prof. P Spicker, author of Principles of Social Welfare (Routledge, 1988) and The Welfare State (Sage, 2000).

I don't see how the bullet-point list could be a matter of POV dispute, since it presents arguments from both sides. Rather, the reason I removed it was because it is too simplistic - in the sense that it contains a single sentence for each argument - and because many of the arguments listed on it were already discussed, in more detail, in other parts of the article. But if you insist on keeping the list, I don't mind. I just think it's superfluous. -- Nikodemos 17:28, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On second thought, I do object to keeping the list in its current form, since some of the arguments are just single words (e.g. "humanitarian"). -- Nikodemos 18:16, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The removal of material which you acknowledge is balanced but consider incomplete is unacceptable practice. This is an open source encyclopaedia and contributors have the option to expand on the material. They cannot do so if the structure is persistently vandalised by someone with nothing to add. Paul Spicker

Sigh... Very well, I'll try to expand on it myself. -- Nikodemos 10:40, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Look at your contributions and your discussion--you clearly have a POV.

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Welcome back

I saw that you made your first edit in about a month. I was worried that you were gone. We've been losing far too many good contributors lately. Welcome back! 172 06:02, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you! But I'm not quite back yet. I'll return properly after the New Year - and then I'll have a lot of catching up to do (I suspect I'll spend a week just going through my watchlist and checking the articles that have been edited this past month). -- Nikodemos 11:39, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Alright, now I am officially back. :) -- Nikodemos 22:59, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Milton Friedman -

Dear Niko

I have just discovered Wikipedia. It is the best internet source that I have found. I edited the biography on Milton Friedman to add to your comments on Chilean visit by adding comments on his South African visit (I am South African). This has been removed by someone else. I was not sure how to give reference and so I will now put them in the discussion page. I am now going to reinstate mine contribution.

If you have any suggestions please let me have them. Maynardophile

I will look into it as soon as I can. -- Nikodemos 23:18, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dear Niko

Just to update you and also to call for your assistance if my edit to the Milton Friedman biography is removed by Ed Hoop or someone else again. Ed asked we (quite ligitimately) to provide quotes from my source that Milton Friedman wrote in support of Ian Smith's racist minority government. I have now done so, as well as provided a full bibliography (including ISBN number) of a book of Friedman's visit to South Africa and Rhodesia in 1976(most of which comprises copies of his speeches and an article which he wrote in support of Rhodeia). I belive that this entry is of academic importance because, read with the paragraph on Chile, which you seem to have been involved, it paints a more complete picture of Friedman in his political context.

I would be very grateful for any advice.--Maynardophile 00:24, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yellow socialism

Plese see my question at Talk:Yellow_socialism#Racism_and_anti-Semitism. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:29, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Re:

see my reply @ User_talk:Sam_Spade#You_owe_me_a_talk_.3B.29. Cheers, Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 14:57, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Primitive communism

How is it "POV" to say that there is doubt among anthropologists, including marxist anthropologists, that the thing ever existed? Some would say that the whole concept of primitive communism is "POV". Should I provide you with references? I can assure you that an extensive bibliography on the matter exists. I would like to hear your reasons for this censorship before I revert. Grant65 (Talk) 03:36, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

Saying that the whole thing is a controversial concept, and that there is doubt among anthropologists about it, is not POV. However, you went far beyond just saying those things. You actively sought to endorse the views of those who do not believe primitive communism existed. And that is POV. -- Nikodemos 10:11, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Religion in the Soviet Union

"resident expert" rotflmao. I'll to look into the matter. I cannot promise much, but I can throw in a bunch of facts. The first thing to be done is to cut the piece out into the freshly created Religion in the Soviet Union. Mikkalai 20:28, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Re: apology

Thanks. I understood the point of your edits, but they were trying to tidy up all references against the accused collaborators, and at the same time dropped information against those who accused them. We need to preserve objectivity, and keep the same amount of compassion for all victims of unlawful conduct. --Joy [shallot] 23:10, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please read

Positive liberty

Negative liberty

These concepts are keys. Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 01:45, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Help please!

Majoritarianism article has been vandalized by stievetheman and I tried to revert it to the version [you have created]. Unfortunately I received a two days ban for this revert. As long as I am using a public proxy used also by many others (thus cannot revert it again because of the ban fear), could you please revert majoritarinism article to the [correct version] ? Thank for you help, Nikodemos. Iasson 12:54, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just so you know, there is an RfC open on this user. --Carnildo 09:35, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Class in the contemporary United States

Hi. There's been a fairly massive, protracted battle going on at the above article. I know you've been part of that in the past. If you want, you can jump in. I do feel I'm holding my own, but would appreciate help.

It may devolve into an revert war. For now, I've been pretty good about at least trying to edit toward consensus. My "opponent" (who edits only to that article, mostly by IP, at one point on User:Jrwilhelm) has been doing some reverts, but I'm against 3RR anyway and not about to throw that book at him, especially since he has no other stake in WP. (He's really just zealous about one article.)

So, join in on this one if you wish. It would be much appreciated, since it's taking up a lot of my time. EventHorizon talk 00:38, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Totalitarian democracy

Thank you for your contributions to this article. I found it an absolutely fascinating subject on which to write, but my polisci background could use more depth. Denni ☯ 23:52, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)

Revisionist Zionism

Could you please take a look at the dispute at Revisionist Zionism? User:Guy Montag is trying to censor material critical of Revisionist Zionism, particularly documented evidence of fascist sympathies among various Revisionists in the early 1930s. AndyL 23:01, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm looking over it now. -- Nikodemos 23:51, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Political templates

Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I am trying to move these templates away from the garish advertising-like design toward a tasteful, compact, utilitarian design. Flags and logos can be added separately if desired. The socialism page already has a picture of a red flag, for example. Mirror Vax 13:01, 19 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

I like the idea of a (small and non-intrusive) logo on each political template, to give it flavour and, simply put, to make it look better than just a plain box. It seems most wikipedians agree with me. -- Nikodemos 21:13, 22 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

The logos are anything but small and non-intrusive, though. They could easily be standalone images. It's bad enough that the vertical format intrudes on the article. BTW, Template:Libertarianism sidebar has been converted to a tasteful design without complaint. Wikipedia should be about helping, in my opinion, not about shoving advertising in the reader's face. Mirror Vax 21:49, 22 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

If the libertarians like your design, let them keep it. I, for one, support the use of logos on the socialism and communism templates. It's not a matter of "advertising", it's a matter of putting the same recognizable symbol on all the articles pertaining to the same subject. IMO, the images are non-intrusive, and the current design is perfectly tasteful. -- Nikodemos 23:32, 22 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Add topic