`  ==Spam Protection Filter?== Hey what's wrong with this article? For any edit I try to make it brings up a page about a ``Spam Protection Filter`` and doesn't allow me to make an edit. Anyone else have this problem?  :Nope.   ::Strange.  ::I just noticed that it said this text is triggering it: ``http://www. b. 150m. com.`` I guess I'm infected with some kind of spyware. Interesting, it's an individualist anarchist website.   ::Libertatia, what do you mean ``Nope``? You haven't tried to save an edit since I mentioned this. There have been no edits since the 8th. I suspect that it's not just me and that no one can edit this article.  :::I meant ``Nope.`` I had saved unchanged text, and just did that again, and then saved a version minus one word. It does look like it might be affecting just you. It's coming up at the ``save page`` stage?   ::::I see you edited the Proudhon section. I just tried as was able to do that as well. So, it looks like it's just the intro that can't be edited. See if you can edit the intro.  :::::As a temporary fix, I have put a partial citation of the Rothbard article in, in place of the hotlink. If we get a full citation in, that should maintain the reference. We can also mention in the note that it is available online if that seems appropriate. Frees the page for now.   ::::::That works, thanks.   == ``education in marginal utility`` ==  The claim that the anarchists of the Liberty group lacked knowledge of marginal utility theory is simply false. Hugo Bilgram and J Greevz Fisher debated the subject in 1894-5, and F. D. Tandy addressed it in his work in 1896. Perhaps by ``education`` the book-reviewer simply means they didn't adopt his preferred economic model, but it is more likely, as the quote is from a book review, that he is simply incorrect. I've removed the criticism for the time being.   :Tucker never mentions the theory of marginal utility. It's pretty obvious that he wasn't knowledgeable in it and never expressed any awareness of it. If he was, he was certainly smart enough to discard the labor theory of value, which he certainly would have. There are other sources. Wendy McElroy also points out that they weren't familiar with marginal utility. That's where the reviewer is getting that information actually, most likely.  ::Tucker certainly published debates explicitly about the theory of marginal utility. They are right there, in Liberty, in 1894-5, and Tucker included a notice of Tandy's discussion of the issue, in Liberty as well, in 1896. The claim appears to be false.   :::You're not confusing the subjective theory of value with the theory of marginal utility are you? They're two different things. The STV is not able to explain prices. Marginal utility is.  ::::``Marginal utility``—referenced explicitly as (surprise!) ``the theory of marginal utility.`` It was pretty well debated in radical circles before the turn of the century. Debates took place in Liberty. Henry George responded in one of his books. Etc.   :::::Marginal utility is same thing as theory of marginal utility. Yes. I don't understand what point you're trying to make there. But the subjective theory of value is not the same as the marginal utility theory of value. Do you have a source of it being debated? Got any quotes? That's really hard to believe. If so, that's great, because that would be the process of converting to anarcho-capitalism, which is the rejection of the labor theory of value.  :::::This source here says about George, ``Since the very basis of the Austrian concept of value is subjective, it is apparent that George's understanding of value paralleled theirs. However, he either did not understand or did not appreciate the importance of marginal utility, a concept of which Menger was one of the original propounders`` [h