Talk:Libertarianism/Archive 2

message: Mihnea, some of your edits in this section seem like a passive insertion of POV.  Specifically, the article previously stated that libertarians "propose a propose a two-dimensional space with personal freedom on one Cartesian axis and economic freedom on the other."  Inserting the modifier what they call in front of each proposed label seems both redundant and an attempt to cast doubt on those concepts or the group employing them.  Similarly with putting what they see as in front of liberty and autonomy.  Those words mean specific things in this context and I find these edits to be a bit calumnious (at the very least prejudicial), especially in light of the fact that you don't seem to see a need for inserting them in places like this: "...socialists who believe that economic regulation is necessary for personal freedom."
I might add that if we followed this pattern across the board, most articles would lose a significant degree of clarity in their slide toward an over-modified, indefinite mess. Every imaginable concept can be put in quotations and prefaced with "what they call".  It's not a good practice.  The concepts in question each have their own articles and disambigs; I think the proper thing to do is to make sure that there are links to them so that readers can make up their own minds. Ubernetizen 20:20, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political Spectrum 

message: Certainly, the recent additions by GreenPartyActivist/PoliticalNerd require a lot of NPOV work.  However, his or her edits bring up a more significant point.  So far, this article has specifically been about capitalistic libertarianism, with a disambiguation notice at the top for other meanings, but we have now introduced a fair amount of information about libertarian socialism and left-anarchism as well (so far none about philosophical libertarianism, don't know why).  So, we should have a clear sense of what this article is supposed to be about.  I invite suggestions. - Nat Krause 07:27, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the future of this article 

message: In regards to both the NPOV and significant omissions.
First off, whats up with this quote-
"These classical liberal thinkers therefore came to call themselves libertarians; and from the United States the term has spread to the rest of the world."
We have already been over this.  Classical liberalism refers specifically to the thinkers of the liberal enlightenment of the 17th century.  20th century is not CLASSICAL, so no 20th century thinker can rightly claim the label "classical liberal".  The correct term is Neoliberal.
:I can't believe this stuff and what follows are really the biggest problems you could come up with.  As for the quote above, who cares?  Just two sentences earlier, we defined "these classical liberals" as "20th century thinkers who saw themselves as continuing the classical liberal tradition of the previous century."  Then the next sentence talks about a different group of modern liberals.  What else do you propose to say?  "Neoliberals" doesn't work because we are trying to distinguish them from a different group which is also "neo". - Nat Krause 15:06, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: a) the sentence says "liberalism or socialism"; b) the very next sentence goes on to explain purportedly idiosyncratic usage of the word socialism by libertarians. - Nat Krause 15:06, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: So, it's modern but not new? The article goes so far as to put "new" in scare quotes for you anyway.  Regardless of your theories explained below, "new liberalism" is one of the things that political scientists call it, and it's the name of the relevant Wikipedia article.  If political scientists called in rhinoceros liberalism, then this article would say "rhinoceros" or "welfare" liberalism.  It has nothing to do with this article. - Nat Krause 15:06, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: This is the separate article. - Nat Krause 15:06, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: That is an irrelevant opinion. - Nat Krause 15:06, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: It says this The validity of the Nolan Chart is disputed by many non-libertarians. Socialists, modern liberals and conservatives often argue that the libertarian definition of "freedom" is flawed or incorrect. In addition, the placement of Communism and Fascism so close together is controversial, and some critics may see this as evidence for their view that the Nolan Chart is overly simplistic. For more information, see main article: Nolan Chart What more do you want? - Nat Krause 15:06, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: I don't get it. Where does the article say that the Whigs supported royal power? - Nat Krause 15:06, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: We had already settled on 1.  The article begins by saying, that is, the very first line of the article says: This article deals with libertarianism as understood in the United States. For a discussion of the meaning of the term libertarian that is traditional in continental Europe, see libertarian socialism. - Nat Krause 15:06, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with this article 

message: And Hayeck is a right-wing libertarian.  He and von Mises were among those that erroneously equated fascism with socialism.
::Along with the fascists themselves I guess.  Fascism was a marriage of socialism and nationalism.  Read the source texts written by those in the Italian and German fascist movements. Ubernetizen 22:05, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: My opinion is that someone who claims his blatantly POV opinions are scientific fact should not be surprised when his contributions are edited out of an encyclopedia. - Nat Krause 15:44, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that, Nat. Ubernetizen 22:06, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Moreover, neither Rand nor Milton Friedman are "anarchists" in any sense of the word, contrary to what this website says. - Nat Krause 15:44, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chuck- 

message: I think the results of the google search only confirm what I am saying.  There are more then 2,000 examples of "right-wing libertarian" and "libertarian capitalist".  
:Not that google is the end-all-and-be-all definitive answer, but there are over 200,000 entries for "libertarianism" and over 1,000,000 for "libertarian", so none of these qualified terms in very substantial at all relatively. - Nat Krause 15:44, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's true that it would have you believe that, if you missed the prominent explanation in the first sentence of the article. - Nat Krause 15:44, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note: Majority does not mean all 

message: Nothing could be more inimical to liberty than to expropriate a person's fairly acquired property, including his labor, an extension of the property a person has in himself, or to prevent him from using or exchanging his property as he sees fit, assuming he does so without harming others. No ideology that would steal a person's property or his labor ought to characterize itself as allied with liberty.  And as for authority, I would agree, one ought to look upon it with great suspicion, especially the monopoloy power of governments.  Corporate monopolies are undesirable, too, but they tend not to last long in open markets. icut4u 02:50, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for the record, Orwell was definitely not a libertarian socialist.  He was a Marx-influenced state socialist with libertarian inclinations that were constantly in a state of tension with his socialist ideas.  And I do not agree that "Libertarian Socialism" is newspeak; it's actually a quite old usage, meaning roughly the same thing as leftwing anarchism.  Certainly, in my opinion, it's deeply flawed, but from the encyclopedia's perspective, it's as valid an ideology as any other. - Nat Krause 05:47, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Libertarian Socialism=Orwellian Newspeak'''

message: I did not say that I subscribed to Orwell's entire weltanschauung, or anyone else's for that matter, though I do agree with his trenchant analysis of statism...I meant only to suggest that his descpritive word "newspeak" characterizes the frequent misuse of the word liberty and its various derivitives.  I am quite familiar with Marx's Kapital and his labor theory of value (which is mistaken from the get go).  And, I, for one, am no right winger, for unlike right wingers and left wingers, I do not feel compelled to tell others how they ought to order their lives, and I certainly do not want them telling me how to arrange mine.  I have no use for ideologues or true believers of any stripe.  When they tire of civil argument, they resort to invective, rage, and name calling, some of which has been evident here, and when they have the power, they like to put people who disagree with them in camps. icut4u 04:47, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Ad hominem after ad hominem

message: First off, all the libertarians that have posted here, save me, are  right-wingers, so don't try denying that you're not left or right.  If you subscribe to Friedman, Hayeck, von Mises, etc... then you are a right-wing libertarian.  I happen to believe that the capitalist marketplace is an incredibly authoritarian institution, so I would question how "libertarian" these thinkers really are.  That fact is that the term libertarian does not only refer to the right-wing brand.
In addition, it is not me who is injecting political views into this article.  As it stands, this article is a one-sided ideological rant on the part of the right-wing libertarians, and completely ignores the libertarians who describe themselves as anti-authoritarian or anarchist.  It does not even come close to the NPOV, and completely ignores the gapping holes in many of the claims made, most importantly the Nolan Chart and the horribly erroneous claim that right-wing libertarianism is the same thing as classical liberalism.
You don't have to agree with the views I have expressed regarding capitalism within this discussion thread, but you cannot continue manipulating the content of this article to suit your own ends.  The word libertarian is not exclusive to the capitalist brand, and everytime you whitewash this article to remove any information which doesn't fit your views, it only proves how bent you are on the ideological agenda that so many of your stripe are fanatical about.  STOP IT!
As I have said upthread, the only valid reason to delete information is because 1) It is false or misleading or 2) It is irrelevant or redudant.  None of the information that I have added to this article meets either of these criteria.  If you have a rebutal to the facts I added, then by all means add your information in as well, and point out that it is the rebutal to the criticism.  But you cannot just go around deleting perfectly valid information because it raises questions about your particular viewpoint.
:I am not trying to deny that I am right or left....I am denying it.  Moreover, I am not a libertarian.  I subcribe to no overarching view of the world that purports to have all of the answers. I do not need a religion.  And I would suggest that you have added very few facts to rebutt, so do not flatter yourself.  You are intent on convincing people of your POV with quaint phrases from the Marxist playbook of the 60s in an article that is merely supposed to describe libertarianism viz. as the theory is commonly, though perhaps not exclusively, understood. As is the case with most true believers, right or left, you simply cannot stand it when others disagree with you.  Deal with it.icut4u 16:11, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hello 

message: I have left Libertarianism intact instead of having a seperate article for Market Libertarianism.  I hope this makes the right-wing libertarians happy, since they seem to turn into a vicious pack of wolves everytime I change anything.
PLEASE DO NOT DELETE ANYTHING I HAVE ADDED!  I have carefully gone through and added information carefully, and maintained a NPOV throughout.  There is absolutely nothing in this article that warrants removal.  IF YOU WANT TO ADD MORE INFORMATION, THEN BY ALL MEANS DO SO!  But please do not delete any of the new information, as I have not deleted anything.
-PoliticalNerd
: These amateurish edits are appallingly biased. It is an embarrassment and ought not to be allowed to stand.  icut4you is correct: you simply cannot tolerate disagreement and you are obviously contemptuous of anyone who thinks differently, so you call them names. And I have news for you, a good many libertarians do not defend their acceptance of capitalism on utilitarian or economic grounds (what is most efficient), but on moral grounds, and that is because they think it is wrong to take someone else's property. In other words, they are not libertarians because of capitalism, but they accept capitalism because liberty requires it. You really need your own article where you can set forth your own views. Ockham 16:32, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  IMPORTANT: Please read this before making any changes