Lysander SpoonerEdit

I'm sorry, how is it undue? I thought I sourced it. Individualist anarchists like Spooner were anti-capitalists and identified as part of the American socialist movement which at the time was mainly a form of artisanal socialism due to American material conditions. I do not deny Spooner and Tucker's influences on right-libertarianism, but they cannot be retroactively made part of the capitalist movement as they identified as anti-capitalists or socialists, in Spooner's case even opposing wage labor. Just like people such as Molinari, Bastiat and Say identified as liberals and were not anarcho-capitalists, so Spooner was opposed to capitalism and part of the socialist movement. This cannot be removed just because of modern standards, or because someone thinks today Spooner would be a right-libertarian or anarcho-capitalist and not a socialist-leaning, left-libertarian anti-capitalist. Besides, it is not like I removed the libertarianism sidebar to push a POV, I just think the American socialism and libertarian socialism sidebars should be retained as well for the reasons stated above.--79.52.153.59 (talk) 22:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Sure, maybe he had some socialist leanings but it is important to emphasize consensus facts in the article. Clearly the fact that he started a mail company to compete with a government monopoly indicates that he was a capitalist. We can agree that he was an individualist and libertarian so these infoboxes should clearly be first. Regarding the paragraph where you cite the anarchist FAQ, I'm not sure that this counts as a reliable source but let's leave it. Thanks for your effort. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 07:30, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply and for not reverting my edits this time. No, Spooner did not have some socialist leanings, Spooner was a socialist. Obviously, if you think socialism as state ownership, of course he would not be a socialist. As I stated above, individualist anarchism in the United States was a form of artisanal socialism due the United States' material conditions at the time. Indeed, individualist anarchism was what today is called libertarian socialism, albeit there are some differences due to the vastly different material conditions from the 19th century to the 20th and 21st centuries. The fact that he started a mail company to compete with a government monopoly does not make him a capitalist. Competition does not equal capitalism. Indeed, it was the socialist individualist anarchists' value of competition against capitalism which they claimed was in fact anti-competitive and based on state privileges. Ironically, just like today socialism usually means state socialism and all socialism must inevitabily results in "totalitarianism", yesterday capitalism meant state capitalism and state capitalism was indeed seen as the inevitable end results of capitalism itself. Thus, I think the anarchism and individualism sidebars should go first and right after the American socialism sidebar as it is now. The libertarian socialism and libertarianism sidebars are good in his political views section and in the influence section, respectively, both because they cannot be both under the first three sidebars as there would not be enough space and because the political views section speaks of its involvement in the anarchist and socialist circles as well as his opposition to wage labor and support for workers' self-management whereas the influence section speaks exactly of all his influence on libertarianism as a whole. I thought it was notable to add due to right-libertarians and Rothbard himself claiming Spooner, among others, as one of their own and a precursor of anarcho-capitalism. Spooner may well be an anarcho-capitalist today if he was brought back in the 21st cetnury, but that would mean he would have gone against all of his economic views at the time, making his whole philosophy inchoerent since he rejected wage labor and favored self-management. We should describe someone's political views as it was at the time he lived rather than do it it by modern standards and Spooner was an individualist anarchist and a socialist, or by today's standard an anti-capitalist left-libertarian. That is why I thought it was also important to add the opinion of those who thought of him as an anti-capitalist and left-libertarian at the time he actually lived and expressed his thoughts rather than an anarcho-capitalist or right-libertarian by today's standards.--95.247.157.16 (talk) 06:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't really know how to respond to this because left-libertarianism is a complete self-contradiction in my mind. I think Spooner was a bit confused economically. I haven't read enough of his work to really give my own opinion, but there really doesn't seem to be enough of a consensus to solidly call him a socialist or an anarcho-capitalist. Some of his work certainly comes out against the price system and wages. Some recently re-discovered works of his supposedly come out very much capitalist, although I haven't read them myself.[1] If you want to put the left-libertarian sidebars up then the austrian school should also go up. Then everyone will be pissed. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 09:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Hey, I'm sorry for the late reply, I just saw your reply. I also wanted to add what will follow, but I thought I would wait for your reply first. However, I saw it only now, so I will first write what I wanted to add and then reply to you.
I forgot to say this in my second reply and just wanted to add it is understandable to misunderstood such individualist anarchists, with their emphasis on competition and such things which may superficially remind ourselves of modern right-wing poltics. However, more important is why they proposed such things and what was their end. Their end would be strongly left-wing and a libertarian, socialist society. I would argue many early liberals (classical liberalism is an American 20th century creation which actually goes against many of what liberals said) could be read as advocating exactly the same thing. Indeed, socialism and communism arose as a reaction to actually existing liberalism and its failures to provide liberty and equality. John Locke's arguments and his Lockean proviso as well as his appeal of God's Earth belonging to everyone can be read as being in favor of the commons in practice and against his own homestead principle. Individualist anarchists wanted to abolish things such as rent and usury, just to name a few, as well as any economic privilege and simply thought that a free-market and competition would do so, which led to people like Marx arguing against market socialism because due to actually existig materially conditions such ends would not happen. Indeed, it can be argued that a true free-market and laissez-faire system can only be socialism as any private ownership of the means of production (i.e. productive property) for a few while the rest works for a wage would inevitally lead to what actually happened and we see today, namely capitalism as state capitalism and privileges, with the latter ironically being one of the four things laissez-faire capitalism claims to reject. It can be argued that what a free-market really means is being free from all forms of economic privilege, monopolies and artificial scarcities (i.e. free from rent) rather than government regulations. I think this is exactly what individualist anarchists argued.
As another example, it has been incorrectly argued, especially by right-wing Americans, that Nazis adopted leftist economic policies, despite the fact in practice they underwent massive privatizations and the term itself was coined to describe such thing. Adopting social welfare policies and supporting what would be called a welfare state does not mean anything if you exclude citizens from such benefits, especially for something which they were born with such as Jews or ethnic minorities, because otherwhise it becomes right-wing policies, with right-wing meaning "certain social orders and hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable, typically supporting this position on the basis of natural law, economics, or tradition, as hierarchy and inequality may be viewed as natural results of traditional social differences". Unlike the right, the left is universalistic. Thus, Nazis adopted "leftist economics" (actually pretty mainstream policies even at the time) for right-wing ends. At the same time, it would be a mistake to argue that individualist anarchists adopted right-wing policies because back then there were actually pretty radical leftist, so they still adopted left-wing politics for leftist ends, albeit by today they may sounds as right-wing politics (if you mean liberalism, rather then the actually definition of right-wing I stated) for left-wing ends. I'm sorry for dwelling upon all this and sound essay-like, but I wanted to better explain my reasoning. It really was an interesting conversation, so thank you.
Now onto your reply. I find it funny you say that about left-libertarianism, especially considering that until the 1970s (when right-libertarianism developed, not surprisingly just as neo-liberalism was rising; that is not a coincidence) left-libertarianism was synonymous with libertarianism and indeed they were one and the same. I would argue that right-libertarianism is an oxymoron (I just noticed you actually said self-contradiction instead) and that there can be no "libertarian" right-wing politics. For right-wing politics, I mean the meaning stated above which I took from its own Wikipedia page viz a viz left-wing politics meaning supporting freedom vs. authority, social equality/egalitarianism (meaning equal liberty) and against social hierarchies which I find pretty accurate and still useful, no matter what some people may see or think as outdated or useless; the political spectrum is still good and useful, but there ought to be a libertarian/authoritarian axis. Unfortunately, what "the left" means nowdays is just watered-down social democracy and social liberalism, i.e. the center-left/center itself. Just like egalitarianism has been made a mockery (equality of outcome, everyone the same, yadda yadda yadda), it really always meant simply equal liberty, the main precept of liberalism, nothing more, nothing less; or what the great liberal Herbert Spencer proclaimed as "each has freedom to do all that he wills provided that he infringes not the equal freedom of any other". It is just they completely ignore the harm caused by productive private property being unacessible to the majority of people; to them, that is not coercion; the fact that it requires force and coercion to defend, that apparently does not infringe "the equal freedom of any other", but I digress again. Anyways, I just thought it was important to clarify since you see left-libertarianism as an oxymoron and thus probably have a vision of the left as commonly stereotyped. With this, I am not saying there are no leftists authoritarian. Unfortunately, there are. It is just they are leftists right-wing authoritarian (see the right-wing authoritarianism Wikipedia page). The right-wing here "does not necessarily refer to someone's politics, but to psychological preferences and personality". It is just the right is associated with authority, traditionalism and other things which made up such right-wing authoritarian personality. Indeed, it could be argued that the Jacobin were leftists right-wing authoritarian: (1) they were leftists meaning in favore of change/liberty/equality; (2) they were right-wing because they were forced to adopt policies which are in practice right-wing, such as authoritarianism. Often times, a revolution (examples being the French and Russian Revolutions) usually turn into a right-wing authoritarian regime to defend the revolution itself which can either end with the adoption of its ideals without authoritarianism which is what happened to the French Revolution after its end; or in being toppled like in the Revpolutions of 1989 with its failure. A rightist revolution (or more correctly, reaction; a rightist revolution usually happens as a reaction to a left-wing one) become an extreme right-wing one, which is what happened with fascism in Italy and Germany.
Now back to the argument. Indeed, individualist anarchists had some interesting opinions and views, but as I stated above their ends were left-leaning and socialist. That is what the reasearch I did ended up supporting. Now in my opinion, Spooner was clearely a socialist and would be even by today's standards. He wanted to end the employer-employee relationship by having everyone being self-employed and end wage labor. However, that is my opinion. I did not add anywhere in the text that he was clearly socialist, not in the led nor anywhere else. If you were refering to the sidebars, I already explained my reasons. Just like many other individualist anarchists, he was part of the labor/socialist movement, even being part of the First International. His economic views are clearly libertarian socialist, albeit outdated. So I think the sidebar are perfect as they are now. The anarchism, individualism and American socialism sidebars right after the led as the most prominent and important ones related to Spooner and the libertarian socialism and libertaranism sidebars in the political views and influence sections, respectively. I do not think the Austrian School sidebar should be added: (1) where to add it? In the influence section, there is already the libertarianism sidebar which is more accurate; (2) his economic views in many ways run counter to the Austrian School; (3) many actually dispute Tucker and Spooner's influcenes on Rothbard, who basically used the subjective theory of value to go to different conclusion, his own. However, I would argue there is not really an issue between the labor and subjective theory of value, especially not the strawmenned version of the labor theory. As far as I know, people like Marx, Tucker and others never denied the subjective value. What Rothbard really did was what I did earlier with Locke by simply using their arguments to reach a different, more logical conclusion. To Rothbard, that was anarcho-capitalism. However, he was not really influenced by them economically, that is why I do not think the Austrian School sidebar should be added. Bastiat, Say, Molinari and others do not have it either and I think it should be added only for the one who were actually part of the Austrian School. Thank you again for the nice conversation and arguments.--79.36.167.52 (talk) 15:25, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

ThanksEdit

Thank you for thanking me for me edit on Brexit. Unfortunately, it’s since been deleted. Sadly, there are many disgraceful Admins who can’t face being presented with evidence that Brexit isn’t as bad as their beliefs make out. Thanks again. Boscaswell talk 00:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Boscaswell: Indeed. I try to stay away from articles like that as much as possible but I do enjoy watching the fights from afar. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 08:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Supply teachersEdit

Hello there, I am sorry you mistook my copyedit for a typo. "Supply teacher" is the term used for teachers who act as locums when the usual teacher is absent for a protracted period. They are indeed substitutes, but are called "supply" in Europe, where Francine lived.--Po Mieczu (talk) 14:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@Po Mieczu: Sorry about that, I should have just googled it! Should it be changed back, maybe with a link to supply teacher? Pelirojopajaro (talk) 06:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

pending changesEdit

I saw your edit here and am scratching my head as to why it was not automatically accepted! ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:04, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

@ThatMontrealIP: A glitch in the matrix? Thanks for noticing. Any idea who I should complain to about that? Pelirojopajaro (talk) 10:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

User pageEdit

I noticed the quote taken out of context (quote mining) and altered from [2]. I do not know you but when this is the first thing I see about an editor and it compares the technical processes of a website with persecution and pseudomedical diagnoses (false equivalence), it may also give a false impression about your purposes. I thought you might like to know, —PaleoNeonate – 21:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

That's nice to know. Care to expand? Anyway it's a good quote and you don't have to dig very far to find it.Pelirojopajaro (talk) 04:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)