Talk:Libertarianism/Archive 7
Template:Featured article is only for Wikipedia:Featured articles.
 | Libertarianism/Archive 7 received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
Archives:
- Talk:Libertarian, discussion for a page which has been merged with this article.
- Talk:Libertarianism/Archive
- Talk:Libertarianism/Archive2
- Talk:Libertarianism/Archive3
- Talk:Libertarianism/Archive4
- Talk:Libertarianism/Archive5
spaces between sentences
in a recent sweep through the article i tried to conform spacing after sentences to one space, not realizing at first that it doesn't matter (apparently). if you enjoyed those larger spaces immensely in the courier new font for editing, let me know and i'll change everything to two. SaltyPig 08:07, 2005 May 7 (UTC)
- I think its proper grammer to have two spaces after a period, not one. --Kross 09:53, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
- That's typewriter style, for use with fixed-width fonts; typesetter practice with proportionally spaced fonts is to use a single space. However, it doesn't really matter with HTML, where excess spaces are collapsed anyway. (I'm used to using two spaces myself from when I learned to type in the pre-PC age.) *Dan* 11:08, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
Categorically Biased
The primary problem with this article is that linking it directly with the search turn "libertarianism," et al, is inherently suffused with a POV. Libetarian/libertarianism requires a disambiguation page with links to its varied meanings, instead of an article that gives priority ownership to one usage of these words.
use for industry front groups
Nat Krause deleted my text "The adjective "libertarian" is sometimes applied to front groups for industry interests, such as the Center for Consumer Freedom." with the reason: "sorry, I disagree with this edit; either CCF is really libertarian, in which case it is redundant; or else it is not, in which it is irrelevant vis a vis the intro". I assume it is the latter, but I am not sure what you mean by "it is irrelevant vis a vis the intro". I would believe it is relevant if a word is used in a meaning that a normal user would not imply from the definition.
- i think he meant that it's not relevant for a disambig slot. i suggest mentioning it at a good spot later in the article, rather than at the beginning. if you're frustrated because it seems an arbitrary call, i agree; my opinion is that even the libertarian socialist one is perhaps doubtful as a disambig, and this addition even more so. don't see a hard line there though. SaltyPig 13:36, 2005 May 8 (UTC)
- I don't think this is a case of an additional meaning of the word, therefore it doesn't require a disambiguation (unlike libertarian socialism). If CCF calls itself "libertarian", it probably means the same thing that anybody else would be the term, although the claim may or may not be accurate. Generally, I think an instance of someone claiming to be something they are not isn't notable enough to be worth mentioning in an introduction. In any event, these are all just allegations (that CCF is not libertarian in the normal sense of the word, or that it is an industry front-group), and thus there is an NPOV problem here. - Nat Krause 13:40, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
- If the above claim is true, it could probably go in the "political spectrum" or "criticism" section. Something like "some industry front group call themselves libertarian for political reasons, even when their goals run contrary to free markets. On the other hand, many corporations are leery of libertarianism because they depend on the government for economic protection." If you can find a source for the front groups, I can find a source for the latter part. Dave (talk) 14:49, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you, that's a good plan. So I went to their site and investigated a bit. I didn't find a quote where they directly call themselves libertarian, but I found the following:
"The Libertarian Party provides a compelling rebuttal[[1] to the nannies' war cry for new fat taxes, using research from recent Center For Consumer Freedom articles." [2]. I'm really puzzled now. It attacks the Center for Science in the Public Interest for "want[ing] to [...] mandate calorie labels on restaurant menu boards."
I simply can't imagine freedom of choice without free access to information about the choice. How can one fight for one and slam the other?
To Nat Krause: Why do you think the argument that it's an industry front group is an allegation? If only half of the CCF article is true then there can be no doubt. Common Man 19:59, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
spelling of willful
not going to revert war this, but the assertion that "The OED (http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/wilful) is a better source than Google" is false in this context. dictionaries follow common use. google hits are not a precise indication of use, but in this case, in combination with a reputable american dictionary (m-w.com), the difference is notable (it doesn't have the OED snoot factor, but that's perhaps in its favor). Chameleon changed a spelling that even his primary source lists freely as a US variant, and that m-w.com lists as the preferred. considering that the way it was was at least as "correct" as the change -- and arguably far more so -- it shouldn't have been done. the question here is not which spelling is "correct" (i don't care), but rather if there was a reason to change something that was well suited to the article. i believe such change should be avoided.
the wikipedia style manual agrees. Chameleon's primary source states clearly that "the spelling willful is American)." the wikipedia manual of style: "If an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type rather than provoking conflict by changing to another. ... If all else fails, consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article." the article is written predominantly with american spelling (e.g., criticize, programs, centers, argument), and therefore should not have been changed to british.
- Are you sure you posted on thee right page? I don't see the word "willfull" or "willful" on this page. Dave (talk) 20:34, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
- you could check the recent page history or click on User:Chameleon and look at his contributions. SaltyPig 01:31, 2005 May 9 (UTC)
- Oh. I searched for "willfull" or "willful," not "wilful," which I'd never heard of before. I clearly need to read things like this more carefully.
- My view on the spelling: between a factor of two on Google in favor of two L's and the predominantly American spelling in the rest of the article, SaltyPig is correct. Dave (talk) 01:42, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
- yeah, the differences on the tail side of british/american words are plentiful too, and that's where british is often 2 "L"s while american is 1. well, do call me when chameleon drops by to defend his britishizing of the article ; ) SaltyPig 02:05, 2005 May 9 (UTC)
"Republican Congressman Ron Paul is a life member of the Libertarian Party."
The meaning of this statement is not apparent. What's a "life member"? I'm guessing it is jargon (which should be avoided) meaning he gave some money to the LP. Who cares? Ron Paul is worth mentioning, sure, but make it relevant. Mirror Vax 13:14, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
- I don't see how it's jargon. Life memberships in some types of organizations are fairly common. The point is -- and this should be as clear as possible in the article -- that the situation is ambiguous: Paul is technically a dues-paying member of the LP, although he has not actually paid dues (or revoked his membership) in many years. - Nat Krause 14:31, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
system of law
I don't understand the justification for this statement: " To the extent that libertarians advocate any system of law, it tends to be common law, which they see as less arbitrary, more consistent, and more adaptable over time, and emphasize protections of individual freedoms against majority rule." I think libertarians are likely to support a constitution and a bill of rights. RJII 16:24, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
"geolibertarianism" and the libertarian template
Atreyu42 has introduced a Geolibertarianism article and added the libertarian template to it. shall somebody now create a doctrine called fascistlibertarianism and add it to the libertarian template? i object to this, and invite those interested to visit the article in question and see whether its doctrine, despite an absurdly POV claim that "Geolibertarians are as strong on property rights as any other libertarian,...", is libertarianism.
enough with pseudo-communists attempting to glom on to libertarianism. read this: "When someone owns more than their equal share of land, that land gains rental value, which geolibertarians believe should be paid back to the community."
please! the libertarian template on that page should be removed. pronto. further, no attempts to pollute the libertarianism article should be tolerated, except as criticism of libertarianism (marked appropriately). SaltyPig 13:55, 2005 May 22 (UTC)
wrong
I know to effect any change here would be impossible at this stage, but I have to register my anger that this entry on right-wing libertarianism appears as 'libertarianism' in wikipedia, rather than something more general. Admittedly, there is some disambiguation between libertarianisms at the start of the entry, and the concession that anarchism and libertarianism are still largely understood as synonymous in Europe, but this is insufficient. Europe here includes the UK, not just foreign-language communities - where I come from (viz. England) libertarianism is still in current usage to mean anarchism as well as US-style libertarianism, a usage which I find far more logical, since anarchists believe in a far higher degree of liberty than do minarchists. XmarkX 10:46, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
- great heading there, XmarkX! is that a special strategy, where you tell all who've been working on an article how ignorant they are, so they'll want to work with you to add your changes? LOL. BTW, i'm still a semi-newbie at wikipedia, but i don't think talk pages are for registering anger -- especially on an article you apparently haven't had anything to do with (yet). i'm new to this article, and everybody's been pretty cool from what i've seen. maybe with a heading more along the lines of "changes i think would be good", you'd crack some ear holes a little wider for your opinion to get in and your changes to stick. far as i know, there's no agenda to keep this primarily a US-based article. people just write about what they know. nothing to get upset about. stick your toe in the water and swish it around a bit. the sharks won't bite (i don't think). you, um, aren't a shark, are you, XmarkX? SaltyPig 11:42, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
- Incidentally, this has been discussed thoroughly before (that doesn't necessarily mean we came to the right conclusion!) Most of it is in Talk:Libertarianism/Archive4. - Nat Krause 12:30, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
- XmarkX, you are 100% right but there are too many Americans here, and their weight has won the battle for now. — Chameleon 12:48, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
- what's the correct number of americans for here? SaltyPig 13:53, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
- Non-American (British) libertarian: The article is in the right place. I tend to regard other political philosophies/groups which describe themselves as libertarian as merely hijackers of name. I also object to the use of "US-style" libertarianism to disambiguate. Chrislloyd 05:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- What makes you think that the right-wing libertarians have any more right to the name than anyone else? There's certainly a long traditiona of left-libertarianism. Cadr 13:15, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- But is there a "long tradition" of using the term libertarianism (without the left- prefix) to mean left-libertarianism? Got any examples? --Serge 17:52, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"big government statue"?
the caption for the statue of liberty now reads, "Many libertarians, including the Libertarian Party of the United States consider the Statue of Liberty to be an important symbol of their ideas. Others comment on the irony of libertarians choosing "a big government statue" as the symbol of an anti-state movement[3]."
a couple of points: while i think it's important to link to the snide and often illogical huben site in this article (especially since he's right about a couple of things), it doesn't have to be taken to the self-flagellation, ultra-self-conscious point. the fact on the statue of liberty is that it was largely paid for and organized by private donations. yeah, government had to get in the way eventually, but it was about as pure a private project as one could hope for -- surprisingly so considering that there was the usual populist whining about how it should be "funded" by that bottomless pocket: government. in a world where almost everything gravitates to statism, are libertarians to be prohibited from pointing to anything? i say zap the entire caption, but leave the link to the anti-libertarian stuff in the criticism section and at the bottom. in any case, the way the caption's written now, it somewhat implies with "others comment" that "others" means other libertarians. i don't think that's the case for the ref. if it's to remain, it should be tightened up by either modifying the text or finding a statue symbol criticism that is from a libertarian. SaltyPig 11:20, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
- I'd prefer a libertarian comment to no comment at all in this case. My original wording made it clear that Huben's view was not a libertarian one. I can't think of a good reason to remove the line, and I don't think that it's "self-flagellation" to include it since the article is about libertarianism, not for libertarianism to begin with. Dave (talk) 22:42, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
- you can do far better than giving it up to that negative baloney w/o balance. if you're going to go so far as to say "others comment" big government blah blah, certainly it's appropriate to mention the real, majority, private funding of the statue (if not the pedestal). not everything has to have a comment, ya know. it's overboard with the negative, and the negative is wacko. knives and forks can be turned into a big government symbol. what can't be? whatever. can't believe we're even having this discussion. you do whatever you want. libertarianism's hijacked to the core anyway. have fun. means nothing. SaltyPig 00:49, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)
- I agree. The statement appear to be factually false, the statue being privately funded, and such comments belong in the criticism section, if at all. Second, most libertarians are outside the US and have no special attchment to the statue. Third, the comment insinuates that liberatrians somehow worship the statue, as if it was the God Baal.
- I had assumed that "big government statue" in this article meant a symbol of the state, in the same way that the memorials and monuments in Washington, DC, do. But it actually commemorates the Declaration of Independence a hundred years earlier (1776) rather than a government event, action, or figure -- such as the formation of the United States (1789), past presidents, or wars. So if the caption actually means a state symbol, then it should be scrapped because it is wrong.
HELP!
Need a few good souls to help on the United States wiki and discussion
See "Goverment Type" and "Democracy." I can't do this alone...
--Cuimalo 19:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
political philosophy
- Harry491 wrote: (Political philosophy is "tudy of the fundamental questions about the state, government, politics, property, law and the enforcement of a legal code by authority" go to talk.
No. The study on the enforcement of a legal code by authority is no part of Libertarian philosphy. You tell me nonsense. Libertarianism is at first the NAP-axiom and then the derivation of all consequences. Politics is no topic in Libertarianism. (Maybe in the LP, but not in Libertarianism.) --Alfrem 13:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I was under the impression that Libertarianism opposes, where possible, of the enforcement of a legal code by an authority. And Libertarianism has things to say about the government. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:36, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Clearly libertarian philosophy has things to say about the state, the government, property and law enforcement. So it is a political philosophy in any sensible usage of the term. Cadr 18:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- No. "Law enforcement" is something else than "the enforcement of a legal code by authority". Libertarianism has also not more to say, than "government is evil" by definition. What is political at it? And there is not named only one libertarian thinker on Political philosophy. That should make you thoughtful. --Alfrem 18:40, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Uh, what? "Thus, they oppose governmental initiation of force, even if it is supported by a democratic majority" and "As a result, they oppose prohibition of 'victimless crimes.'". Libertarians most definitely have opinions on law enforcement. Besides which, law enforcement is just one component of political philosophy. It also has things to say about the state, government, politics and property! So it therefore satisfies all criteria for being a political philosophy. I'm putting it back. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Yes. This may clear up the confusion: Politics has *two* meaning: the study of the polis (Greek for city-state, or, more generally, society) and politics as in 'the processes of power'. So libertarianism is political in the first sense, but opposes the second.
- No. "Politics is the process and method of making decisions for groups." Libertarianism itself makes no statement on any decision for groups. Libertarianism says only what is right from the view of the NAP. That's all. --Alfrem 08:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Yes. This may clear up the confusion: Politics has *two* meaning: the study of the polis (Greek for city-state, or, more generally, society) and politics as in 'the processes of power'. So libertarianism is political in the first sense, but opposes the second.
- Your quotes are descriptions on people who are Libertarians. It is a political direction of those people. But it is no description of the philosophy. It is like a religion. Nobody comes to the idea to say: "the catholics are political". Of course they are political, but it is not their direct task and intension. The same is here. The libertariansim is a philsophy on the NAP. What some people do with it in Libert. Parties and so on is something else. And again: "Law enforcement" is something else than "the enforcement of a legal code by authority". --Alfrem 08:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- How can law enforcement be anything but the "enforcement of a legal code by authority"?. Law is by definition encoded, and any enforcing agent is by definition an authority. Anyway, libertarianism is usually seen as a political philosophy for the reasons give above: it has lots to say about political issues such as the role of government, taxation, etc. Politics is not just "...the process and method of making decisions for groups", it's clearly far more than that. Cadr 12:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Obviously you have no idea of customary law.
- I think customary law fits the definition. It's a code (even if it's an unwritten code) and even if enforcement is not carried out by a formal authority, one still needs some sort of authority in order to enforce anything. In fact, by enforcing a standard (either collectively or individually), the enforcing agent becomes an authority. Cadr 15:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- "libertarianism is usually seen as a political philosophy" - yes, that is true for the public meaning, and you can wording it so, but it is anyhow a POV-assertion. "...the process and method of making decisions for groups" is one pressupposition. --Alfrem 15:10, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Obviously you have no idea of customary law.
- Well, let's write an article on the public meaning of libertarianism, not your private meaning. Cadr 15:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Don't begin an edit war or you get an entry in Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress ! --Alfrem 15:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Excuse me? I think I reverted your change once, a couple of days ago. I'm not starting an edit war, but you are refusing to respond to anything I'm saying in a constructive manner. Cadr 20:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The problem here is that one may understand Libertarianism as political movement. Yes. The movement is political, but not the philosophy. --Alfrem 08:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- There is definitely an enormous ethical component to libertarianism. "Political" philosphy would seem just to emphasize the factional component, whereas libertarians tend to take principled stands, whether it is too their individual benefit or not.--Silverback 09:03, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
- People of more or less every political stripe claim that they are taking principled stands without regard to their own interests. I don't see how this disqualifies libertarianism from being a political philosophy. Political philosophies usually do have their basis in a moral theory of some sort. Cadr 12:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- In WP exists a strict NPOV-rule. You have every right to hold your own POV, but to say Libertarain philosphy must be political comes from your point of view. Therefore I can't accept it. --Alfrem 12:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- People of more or less every political stripe claim that they are taking principled stands without regard to their own interests. I don't see how this disqualifies libertarianism from being a political philosophy. Political philosophies usually do have their basis in a moral theory of some sort. Cadr 12:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- You haven't provided any sensible argument in favour of not describing libertarianism as a political philosophy. Given that it is near-universally regarded as such, you need to do so. You do need to justify your POV -- otherwise what's to stop me or anyone else claiming something even more ridiculous (e.g. that libertarianism isn't a philosophy at all) and insiting that the page incorporates this POV. Cadr 13:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Nonsense. Libertarianism is based on the NAP-axiom. There is no compulsive reason to make a political doctrine of it. Thats only your wish. --Alfrem 13:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- It's not my wish, I'm not a libertarian. The NAP-axiom has clear political consequences (e.g. against taxation), and libertarians almost always concentrate on the political consequences of NAP (which is probably why they fail to realise how absurd their philosophy is). Libertarianism is a political philosophy. Cadr 14:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- There is no more need to dicuss the point again. Look into politics and political philosophy. The term fulfills not the presuppositions. --Alfrem 15:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I have, and it does, for the reasons I've given above. Do you have a response? Cadr 15:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- How old are you? --Alfrem 15:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- What the heck does that have to do with anything? This is an ad hominem attack. Don't use it. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- 20. You? When we've established our respective age, ethnicity, hair colour, etc., can we get back to discussing the article? Cadr 20:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Libertarianism is the first of several examples of a political philosophyon this professor's course page. About.com defines libertarianism as a political philosophy here. A libertarian web publication calls libertarianism a "political philosophy. The Los Angeles Times calls libertarianism a political philosophy. Encarta defines libertarianism as "political philosophy emphasizing the rights of the individual." Dave (talk) 12:30, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
- No evidience. Same POV in this sources. So what? --Alfrem 12:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Have placed a note on RFC regarding this issue. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, of course libertarianism is a political philosophy. It's a moral system which attempts to define the role of government. Rhobite 04:16, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Saw this on RFC, libertarianism is obviously a political philosophy; read the definition at politics and this is clear. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:23, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
- No, it is not clear. This is your clear POV. --Alfrem 06:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Can I have a clear explanation of why it is not a political philosophy? The page that it references is quite clear on its definition. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:25, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I am quite clear, it is not. Do you accept to determine the term by politics and political philosophy? And then show me why it must be one. Which undeniable assertion(s) of the libertarian philosophy is/are making it political? --Alfrem 08:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Politics is about the process of making decisions for groups. Libertarianism supports a non-agression/non-coercion principle which obviously strongly impacts group decision making. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:14, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
- And how can I use the NAP to make any political decision for groups? This is the same nonsense as to say the Christian love would be political. --Alfrem 17:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I think I see what you mean. While you can argue, for example, that prohibiting marijuana or prostitution is wrong because it violates the NAP, you can't use the NAP per se to make that decision for the group. Individuals in the group still have to decide for themselves. Is that what you mean? --Serge 17:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- When you mean "per se not at all" then yes. Every political group decision must be a breach of NAP because it is an aggression. So why is the NAP political? Are the Libertarians all crazy? Therefore the most libertarians are even not in any party or in political associations. But the statist sees only what the LP and Harry Browne are doing. --Alfrem 18:07, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The LP are libertarians. You cannot artificially restrict the group of people who are allowed to be called "libertarian" to suit your pet theory. Question: If you want to exclude the hundreds of thousands of big-L libertarians from this article, what article should they be discussed in? Rhobite 18:47, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
- When you mean "per se not at all" then yes. Every political group decision must be a breach of NAP because it is an aggression. So why is the NAP political? Are the Libertarians all crazy? Therefore the most libertarians are even not in any party or in political associations. But the statist sees only what the LP and Harry Browne are doing. --Alfrem 18:07, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I think I see what you mean. While you can argue, for example, that prohibiting marijuana or prostitution is wrong because it violates the NAP, you can't use the NAP per se to make that decision for the group. Individuals in the group still have to decide for themselves. Is that what you mean? --Serge 17:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- And how can I use the NAP to make any political decision for groups? This is the same nonsense as to say the Christian love would be political. --Alfrem 17:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Politics is about the process of making decisions for groups. Libertarianism supports a non-agression/non-coercion principle which obviously strongly impacts group decision making. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:14, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
- I am quite clear, it is not. Do you accept to determine the term by politics and political philosophy? And then show me why it must be one. Which undeniable assertion(s) of the libertarian philosophy is/are making it political? --Alfrem 08:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Can I have a clear explanation of why it is not a political philosophy? The page that it references is quite clear on its definition. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:25, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Every political group decision must be a breach of NAP? What if you buy a home in a private community, which involves explicit agreement to abide by the R&Rs of that community, which includes adhering to the decisions made by the home owners association (HOA) board (within some well-defined paramaters). Say the board decides that it's time to repave the community's shared roads (a decision clearly within the paramaters), and you want to wait a year. Is the "group decision" to fine you (as per the R&Rs) for not adhering to the "group decision" (to which you agree to abide by) a breach of the NAP? This is not a subtle point. I am illustrating that libertarian communities can be formed that make group decisions without requiring unanimity every time, and without violating the NAP. A frequent criticism of libertarianism is that libertarian communities could not be formed since the unanimity that would allegedly be required to resolve community issues is practically impossible to achieve. But the HOA model, which I contend does not breach the NAP (by establishing a priori consent), shows otherwise. --Serge 18:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I cant understand all your terms.(R&R, repave). I am German. But I try an answer. Political philosophy is addressing laws. When everybody agree with a law or when nobody must take a disadvantage, then nobody must take a breach against NAP. But unanimity is not the aim of laws. Unanimity is a aim of market decisions. So a decision of a group, you can say it is a political decision like a sesssion, because it is also a question of power. But this would be a political and hypothetical decision and no political and libertarian philosophy. Power is no part of a libertarian philospohy. In your example of libertarian communities in seems to me that people agree that someone or something may make decsions for the group and has might to make decisions. Therefore, this process is political. But this is an internal (no libertarian) problem in the community, isn't it? --Alfrem 20:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Your conception of political philosophy is too narrow. It addresses the means of making decisions for groups -- for instance, the governing structure of firms (boards of directors, etc.), home owners associations, and families. It also addresses means like coercion, enslavement, and murder. Libertarianism makes a clear distinction between the voluntary means and coercive means - this is the NAP. By making this distinction, libertarianism declares some types of political interaction valid and others invalid (in the same way that, say, nationalism as a political philosophy declares some types of political interaction valid and others invalid). In short, libertarianism speaks to what sorts of political arrangements should exist (voluntary only), and is therefore a political philosophy. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:32, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
- When you think my defintion of political philosophy is too narrow, then change the defintion on political philosophy. --Alfrem 21:24, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Your conception of political philosophy is too narrow. It addresses the means of making decisions for groups -- for instance, the governing structure of firms (boards of directors, etc.), home owners associations, and families. It also addresses means like coercion, enslavement, and murder. Libertarianism makes a clear distinction between the voluntary means and coercive means - this is the NAP. By making this distinction, libertarianism declares some types of political interaction valid and others invalid (in the same way that, say, nationalism as a political philosophy declares some types of political interaction valid and others invalid). In short, libertarianism speaks to what sorts of political arrangements should exist (voluntary only), and is therefore a political philosophy. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:32, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
- I cant understand all your terms.(R&R, repave). I am German. But I try an answer. Political philosophy is addressing laws. When everybody agree with a law or when nobody must take a disadvantage, then nobody must take a breach against NAP. But unanimity is not the aim of laws. Unanimity is a aim of market decisions. So a decision of a group, you can say it is a political decision like a sesssion, because it is also a question of power. But this would be a political and hypothetical decision and no political and libertarian philosophy. Power is no part of a libertarian philospohy. In your example of libertarian communities in seems to me that people agree that someone or something may make decsions for the group and has might to make decisions. Therefore, this process is political. But this is an internal (no libertarian) problem in the community, isn't it? --Alfrem 20:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Every political group decision must be a breach of NAP? What if you buy a home in a private community, which involves explicit agreement to abide by the R&Rs of that community, which includes adhering to the decisions made by the home owners association (HOA) board (within some well-defined paramaters). Say the board decides that it's time to repave the community's shared roads (a decision clearly within the paramaters), and you want to wait a year. Is the "group decision" to fine you (as per the R&Rs) for not adhering to the "group decision" (to which you agree to abide by) a breach of the NAP? This is not a subtle point. I am illustrating that libertarian communities can be formed that make group decisions without requiring unanimity every time, and without violating the NAP. A frequent criticism of libertarianism is that libertarian communities could not be formed since the unanimity that would allegedly be required to resolve community issues is practically impossible to achieve. But the HOA model, which I contend does not breach the NAP (by establishing a priori consent), shows otherwise. --Serge 18:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- It should also be pointed out that virtually all forms of libertarianism endorse a conception of physical property. Property is a political arrangement because it declares that one individual or group has certain rights over something. Let's say you and I are trying to decide what to build on a piece of land. Property affects this decision making process because if you own the land, you can decide. To the extent that libertarianism includes a specific framework of property, this makes it a political philosophy. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:37, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
- The social question of propertery don't allude enough the topic on political philosophy. It is also no question for groups. I can also say: It is a question of justice. --Alfrem 21:24, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- It should also be pointed out that virtually all forms of libertarianism endorse a conception of physical property. Property is a political arrangement because it declares that one individual or group has certain rights over something. Let's say you and I are trying to decide what to build on a piece of land. Property affects this decision making process because if you own the land, you can decide. To the extent that libertarianism includes a specific framework of property, this makes it a political philosophy. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:37, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
Alfrem: Please provide sources for your assertions. Wikipedia typically excludes opinions such as these that cannot be found in the literature. See the page on Original research. As far as I can tell, your views fall into the category of "statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation". Dave (talk) 22:43, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
- It is not my assertion that libertarianism must be a political philosophy. Where is the evidience of this assertion? Therefore, I cant know, why you mean, that it should be. I can not examine it without reason. It's a quest with infinte possibilities. You make a reversal of the burden of proof. --Alfrem 23:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The evidence was the half dozen articles, webpages, essays, and book reviews I linked to. You're the one with the novel interpretation unsupported by the literature. What makes you think you know more than, say, law professors do on this issue? Is it possible that it's a translation issue? Dave (talk) 02:22, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Which evidence? In the first link above from the "professor", you give the assertion: Libertarianism would be also called "classical liberalism" or just "liberalism". Such nonsense should be an evidience? And your political philosophy seems to be without political philosophers. Where are the political philosophers of Libertarianism? --Alfrem 09:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The terminology varies from country to country and over time. Friederick Hayek called himself a liberal, though he wouldn't be considered one today in the U.S. See for example Why I am Not a Conservative, which discusses the terminology. I'd say that Murray Rothbard, David Boaz, Ayn Rand, and especially Robert Nozick are all political philosophers that support variationss on libertarianism (including anarcho-capitalism and Objectivism). Friederick Hayek (though he called himself a "liberal" for historical reasons) and Randy Barnett have written in detail about the best kind of government for implementing libertarian views.
- If you're interested in learning something instead of continuing to spout your preconceptions, I encourage you to look at this page which has information on Hayek and calls him a "great Austrian economist and political philosopher." and then read chapter six from this document, which is all about different types of law, democracy's role, and designing a constitution. Lastly, libertarians look to political philosophers of other persuasions as well. If the Federalist Papers aren't political philosophy according to your definition, you need to change your definition.
www.adamsmith.org is a classic liberal page and "great Austrian economist and political philosopher." comes only from a book review. And Hayek was by defintion a claasic liberal, so he must be a political philosopher, but he must not be a libetarian political philosopher. Stop this nonsense!!!!!!!!!! --Alfrem 14:57, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
footnotes
- Don Franzen, Los Angeles Times Book Review Desk, review of "Neither Left Nor Right". January 19, 1997. Franzen states that "Murray and Boaz share the political philosophy of libertarianism, which upholds individual liberty--both economic and personal--and advocates a government limited, with few exceptions, to protecting individual rights and restraining the use of force and fraud." (Review on libertarianism.org).
- MSN Encarta's entry on Libertarianism defines it as a "political philosophy" (Both references retrieved June 24, 2005).
Is nonsense as evidience. Rothbards libertarian theory advocated not a government limited. Maybe this error was a product of his membership of the LP. And the MSN Encatra is not checkable. --Alfrem 09:19, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Further questions
- Some criticize the motives of libertarians, saying that they only support libertarian ideas because they serve as a means of justifying and maintaining what these critics perceive to be their position near the top of existing social hierarchies. They claim that libertarians view the very wealthy as having earned their place, while the classical liberals were often skeptical of the rich, businesses, and corporations, which they saw as aristocratic. Thomas Jefferson in particular was critical of the growth of corporations, which such critics claim would form an important part of a libertarian society.
Not knowing as much as others about this subject, could I please find out who critizes the motives of libertarians? How do I know that it is not just the POV of those who dislike this philosophy? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There are large numbers of such critics. One good example is this article. They're pretty easy to find. By the way, I'm the one that included that phrase. I'm less knowledgeable about the Thomas Jefferson part, but some relevant quotes are here.
- Libertarianism is uninformed capitalist greed in civil-rights clothing... The simplistic and persuasive messages circle the globe to infect other brains with their half-baked and self-serving idealism.
...
- There are a few issues libertarians tend to ignore when talking about the promise of a future without government interference: inherent cultural disadvantage and affirmative action; public-works projects like freeways for all those new-money Jags around Silicon Valley; funding for the arts; child-abuse prevention and intervention; medical care for the elderly; and too many more to list. They are also not likely to complain loudly about capital-gains tax cuts or other tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy.
- "The geographical neighborhood is important as a resource for living a satisfying life," said Charles Murray, author of What It Means to Be a Libertarian, in a debate with Michael Sandel on Slate. Translation: Pay attention only to things directly related to YOU. See the world as if it revolves around YOU.
- It's a bootstrap ideology that can be traced back to the late 1800s, with its cowboy culture and rugged individualism embodied so mightily by Teddy Roosevelt. Nevermind that many native people were murdered and their cultures plundered in the name of our national obsession, Manifest Destiny. But bring up niggling details like that, and short of calling you a communist, your local libertarian will throw some stale and long-since-debunked sociological theory and deliberately misleading statistics at you to shut you up. All the while they insist that, though they disagree with what you say, they'll defend to the death your right to say it.
- The ironic thing is that many of today's loudest libertarians were once marching in university squares and stuffing daisies into the barrels of loaded guns. They were once the core SDS corps. Funny how once they are financially secure, suddenly world peace and economic justice seem less important, crazy ideological college hijinks. Defending one's own wealth is so time-consuming!
...
- the libertarians call themselves social darwinists... So if the wealthiest survive, what happens to the poor? Well, carried to the extreme they don't survive - they starve or die of exposure ... or they get up off their lazy butts and go get jobs.
...
- With the rise of this new economy - in direct correlation to the rise of the online industry - so has risen the disparity between rich and poor (in terms of both money and information), not only in the United States but worldwide. Yet in the online media, it's called a "boom." Coincidence? No way... It's simple Darwinism: Those who have more, get more; those who have less, get less. Those who struggle and fail must fail and die in the interest of a greater good.
- But it is, in fact, sociopolitical policy without morals. No libertarian will tell you that it is good for society for there to be poor people. But what they won't tell you is that the only thing wrong with uneven distribution of wealth, to them, is the priming of the pump for social revolution. Were that to happen, these way-new rich could lose their spiffy cars and châteaux.
- Hey, that's a good reference! I didn't notice you had highlighted the stuff in bold... interestingly, I chose the same passages you bolded when I added this to the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I'd be careful with the critiques of libertarianism site. It's been around for years; much of it is simply a straw man attack on certain purported libertarian arguments. And a lot of it has been debunked by other libertarian sites. Rhobite 04:40, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Ah... didn't actually look at that site... I only viewed the Wired article. Thanks for the heads up though. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Response to the edit summary
I notice that in the edit summary it says "reworked first two sentences. by the way the explanation of what it means for something to be a political philosophy doesn't belong there, does it?". Well, not strictly true. If something must be clarified in the article to resolve a dispute or make the article clearer, then it's perfectly valid to give a brief description of what is being talked about. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:10, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Notes are screwed.
Check it out. Anyone feel brave enough to give try to fix this? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- No more! Have fixed. A note to note makers: making a 2 word summary in the link is pretty helpful. See W. Mark Felt for an example. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:36, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Non-aggression principle as the first sentence of the article
Alfrem has twice edited the article to add this as the very first sentence: "Libertarianism is a philosophy which is completely based on one axiom - the non-aggression principle."
I think absolute statements like this one are inherently POV. In this case it's also inaccurate - libertarianism is too vague of a concept to apply such black and white thinking here. It means too many different things to different people. Civil libertarians and left libertarians don't believe in the non-aggression principle as an absolute, for example.
On a side note, libertarianism is obviously a political philosophy. This isn't even a debate. Please stop adding these POV notes and removing words from the article, Alfrem. Rhobite 06:41, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Although semantically it seems like they are, philosophically civil libertarians and left libertarians are not necessarily libertarians, or followers of libertarianism, unless they also happen to subscribe to the non-aggression principle. Otherwise, you're right, "libertarianism is too vague of a concept" to apply to anything, and would be essentially meaningless. Serge 17:27, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I would love it if you or Alfrem could cite a source for the "one true definition" of libertarianism that you seem to cling to. Of course you can't, there is no such thing as a single correct definition. I hate arguing about definitions. Why do people go around forcing absolute definitions on broad terms such as capitalism, libertarianism, etc? Rhobite 19:27, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
- All what I do is that I ward your absolute political attribute off. --Alfrem 20:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Of course, there is no source for the "one true definition" of anything. So my inability to produce such for "libertarianism" means nothing. However, I contend that virtually all references to the term "libertarianism" (and "libertarian") -- used without modifiers like "anarcho", "civil" or "left" -- in common usage today, are consistent with the philosophy based on the NAP. If this is not true, it should be pretty easy for you to cite sources where the term is used with a meaning inconsistent with this definition. --Serge 21:09, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Where are you coming from? The Libertarian philosophy makes the absolute statement of NAP by defintion, not Alfrem.
- And "political" is disputed. The libertarian movement is political. But the philosophy is no movement. --Alfrem 06:48, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- So where is this "one true definition" you're using? You keep speaking about the "definition of libertarianism". That's just silly, there is no such thing. And if you link to a dictionary I will be diasppointed. Rhobite 06:51, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
- It is the first axiom of the ideology. Do you need refereces? No problem! --Alfrem 06:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Ooh, an axiom of an ideology. Sounds important - who wrote it? Rhobite 06:56, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Why do you not look for this in non-aggression principle ? --Alfrem 07:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- So Walter Block came up with it in 2003? What was libertarianism "completely based on" before Block's epiphany? OK, so I'm being sarcastic. My point is that there is no single definition of libertarianism. Rothbard agrees with you. Political libertarians such as Harry Browne approach the philosophy from the small government side, not from the non-aggression side. Many more moderate libertarians believe in limited government, but I suppose you'd exclude them from the "one true definition of libertarianism". Convenient. Rhobite 07:17, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Harry Browne is a politican. He makes political demands, but not a philosophical definition. We are speaking about the philosopical description. Politics of Libertarians is an other additional view. Show me only one - ONLY ONE - libertarian who dont accept the NAP! --Alfrem 07:58, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- So Walter Block came up with it in 2003? What was libertarianism "completely based on" before Block's epiphany? OK, so I'm being sarcastic. My point is that there is no single definition of libertarianism. Rothbard agrees with you. Political libertarians such as Harry Browne approach the philosophy from the small government side, not from the non-aggression side. Many more moderate libertarians believe in limited government, but I suppose you'd exclude them from the "one true definition of libertarianism". Convenient. Rhobite 07:17, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
- You are imposing artificial restrictions on this debate, one after another. I won't have any more part of it. Please quit pushing your POV in the first sentence of this article. Rhobite 08:24, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
- You tell nonsense. You make a revert and you have no empiric evidience of your position. Your unique argument is that the most people have problems with my point. So what? Populism. Troll. --Alfrem 08:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- You are imposing artificial restrictions on this debate, one after another. I won't have any more part of it. Please quit pushing your POV in the first sentence of this article. Rhobite 08:24, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
Is there anyone who can follow the "arguments" of Rhobite? --Alfrem 08:50, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- This from a guy who thinks that a Geocities site called "Jacob's libertarian press" is a better source than Harry Browne. Rhobite 15:20, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
- On homepages is sometimes very good stuff. So what? And Harry Browne is a politican at first. So all what he say is to assess in this view at first. --Alfrem 17:48, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
is communism opposed to liberterianism?
I hardly think so. If you look at anarcho-communism for instance, it classifies itself under the Liberterian philosophy. -- Natalinasmpf 22:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately, two very distinct groups both choose to call themselves "libertarian," and it confuses a lot of people. Anarcho-communism is like what's commonly called libertarian socialism or left-libertarianism, and opposes property. This page is about what's sometimes called "right-libertarianism" or a propertarian version of the philosophy. The short answer to your question is: yes, this kind of libertarianism is very opposed to communism. Dave (talk) 22:46, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
Get rid of Statue of Liberty picture; misleading and opinionated
The Statue of Liberty and its history have nothing to do with the political ideology of Libertarianism. Please don't try to delude readers by taking a popular icon and combining it with a political agenda.
I understand what the author was trying to convey, but no one can deny that the picture is not trying to leach off the favorable and patriotic sentiments associated with the image to increase Libertarianism's own popularity. That would be akin to showing a picture of Darwin for an article about Social Evolution. Liberty and Libertarianism are different ideas as anyone would realistically understand. Liberty is the state of freedom, and Libertarianism is a political ideology. One is just a definition; the other is a belief that has supporters and critics. The Statue of Liberty represents just the former.
- The statue of liberty is a symbol for several Libertarian Parties including New Zealand's and the United States Libertarian Party. And if you define "liberty" the way libertarians do, then there's no other ideology that supports it. If you think that no one opposes liberty, you've never heard of most governments. Dave (talk) 14:20, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Here's the Statue of Liberty on an Italian libertarian site: [4]
How do they 'oppose the prohibition' of victimless crimes?
Does this make sense?
Libertarians believe that if individuals are not initiating coercion against others, then government should leave them in peace. As a result, they oppose prohibition of "victimless crimes."
a 'victimless crime' by definition is not coercive to others. so why 'oppose the prohibition' of it?
im not sure if i'm reading that right, so i have not made an edit yet.
Also, i agree, the use of the Statue of Liberty is misleading. It should be removed at least from the front page.
- Are you drunk or tired? ;) ...they oppose the prohibition of victimless crimes because, as you say, they're not coercive. Therefore to prohibit such crimes would not be conducive to libertarian philosophy, therefore they oppose the prohibition of them. It's a clumsy phrase, I don't blame you for misreading it (I did too).
- The Statue of Liberty has been commonly used by a variety of libertarian causes and organizations for some time, so even if you don't like the fact that they use it, it's still appropriate to show the image since it does pertain to the topic at hand. By the way, it's not all that carpet-bagging (as a previous commenter complained) — after all, it is called the Statue of Liberty. --Daniel11 06:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I included some complementing sentences in the section "property rights". These are somewhat critical, but I feel they belong to that section since, as it stood before, it simply isn't conclusive. "Right to life" is proclaimed as an element of Libertarian philosophy, but it isn't said why this right should only extend to those that already have property. --Fountaindyke 09:45, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Name bias
In my view, the naming of this article and the introduction are NPOV. In the introduction, it is said that "The term "libertarian" is also claimed by libertarian socialism". This is nonsense: For nearly 100 years, "Libertarian" meant approximately "Anarchist". This is admitted later in the article:
"The term "libertarianism" in the above sense has been in widespread use only since the 1950s. [...] After the French Government banned anarchism, some French anarchists adopted libertaire as an alternative term. It was first used in print in 1857 by French anarchist Joseph Dejacque in a letter to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon."
Therefore, it is simply nonsense to write "the term is claimed by libertarian socialism". First, anarchists and socialists don't see themselves to have much in common: "Libertarian socialism" is seen by anarchists as a derogatory term (the "second Internationale" between socialists and anarchists broke up 130 years ago, because they realized that the differences were to fundamental). This term is used simply to decry anarchists as socialist.
I propose to make a "disambiguation page". I will change the wording of the introduction to "was first used by". This is simply a fact and, therefore, should be admitted.
- "In my view, the naming of this article and the introduction are NPOV." I agree with this sentence completely. The rest of what you say is quite debatable. The anarchists I've talked to, other than anarcho-capitalists, are enthusiastically in favor of being regarded as socialists. - Nat Krause 11:04, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)