Talk:Libertarianism/Archive 8

message: Im not sure how to address this but Libertarianism and Liberalism are two completely different view points and I am wondering why they have a table about Liberalism on a Libertarianism site.  Im not trying to make waves.  It just doesnt sound right and if you know anything about libertarianism you would agree.  I feel that the Liberalism table should be removed but I will not do that im just expressing my feelings.  Can someone explain this to me.  Thank you.  John R G 05:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps when you read liberalism you're thinking american liberalism? --Serge 05:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I moved the above passage to where it seems to belong.  GoOdCoNtEnT appears to be in the habit of top-posting with new section headers, whether or not a new section is called for.  —Tamfang 21:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Libertarianism vs Liberalism 

message: Sadly...I am thinking of it. My complaints with the article are extensive: acronyms are too used without disambiguation. Terms are wikified later on, when they could be wikified later - in fact the definitions of other concepts need to be established early on. The article is well-organized, but the length needs to be imported somewhere else. Furthermore, there's a lot of informal formatting, there are too many "see this" and "see that" (not referring to the main article declarations). This especially occurs with the listcruft (in the sense of, needs to be prose'ised) established in the "controversies" section. There is also a mixing of inline and footnote refs, and some refs are cited inproperly (using parentheses!). 
The problems are tedious to fix, but they are very possible. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 00:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Incorrect footnote refs are my fault. I will fix it now. I was preoccupied with other article for a while. I will fix it. Figure that it is easy to fix so I left it as it is. Because we are currently in the process of adjustment after a major rearrangment section, I ask you to wait for a bit to see till the clean up settle.  FWBOarticle 15:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  featured article removal 

message: If I delete footonte, lot of people feel that I went too far. But clearly, footnote reference has problem keeping up with Wikipedia edit process.  I think I found the solution.  I'm going to delete the reference "link" and rearrange the reference in alphabetical order of authors. Then the reference section is valid and correct in itself even if the reference in the main article does't exist any longer. FWBOarticle
:Take a look at the anarcho-capitalism article and do the footnotes like that. It's a new kind. You put them inline in the text and they're automatically built in the table in the reference section. If you move one in the text it automatically gets rearranged in the list. RJII 05:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnote Reference 

message: I would like to see the four subsections beginning with Libertarian philosophy in the academy funneled into a few sentences within the "Libertarian policy" and "Controversy" discussions.  There are entire articles on Left-lib, Objectivism, etc.  They can be adequately summarized here without all the detail which, though interesting, simply doesn't fit in an encyclopedic article.  Neither does a cataloging of every person with a monograph in the libertarian library. That's my suggestion, anyway.--DocGov 02:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose serious condensation 

message: :[07]  Pat8722, part of your two sentence definition is redundent. Once an individual has inititated the use of force (for instance by mugging another), it is not considered an inititation of force for the victim to use force in self-defence, nor is it considered an inititation of force for law enforcement officers to apprehend the mugger. It is the mugger and the mugger alone who inititates the use of force. Thus it is incorrect to phrase it, as you do, that "This includes not initiating, or threatening to initiate, physical force against those who have not violated this doctrine", because in situations where an individual has violated the doctrine, using force against the violator isn't an initiation of force.  --Matthew Humphreys 19:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: [09]It is not redundant - see below. Initiation of force amongst a given group of people occurs the first time one (or more) person(s) within the given group use or threaten to use force against other persons. If persons A and B attempt to rob person C, force is introduced into the situation (i.e. initiated) by A and B at the point when they begin the attempted robbery. It is then permitted for C to use force in retaliation (if he can) precisely because the use of force in the relationship between A B and C has already been initiated by A and B. Initiation of force is always wrong, using force to defend one's person from those who initiate force isn't wrong and isn't an initiation of force. --Matthew Humphreys 13:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

text: [10]  You seem to be trying to edit the definition so that it better fits your stance in the dispute on Talk: Timothy McVeigh (where I see you have now quoted your own "more accurate" one sentence definition), but both your definitions are flawed.  --Matthew Humphreys 19:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: redundancy

message: :[12]  I see your suggested concise definition as flawed simply because it excludes any mention of NIOF. The NIOF principle is critical to libertarian theory and therefore ought to be mentioned in some way in any brief definition. But so is individual freedom, so I would see the following concise definition as equally flawed: "Libertarianism is a politically philosophy advocating the principle that no one may initiate the use of force or fraud in human affairs". The ideas are interlinked. Some libertarians may arrive (from whatever philosophical basis) at the principlce that individuals have a right to do as they wish with their person and property, and see that this implies NIOF. Other libertarians seem to regard NIOF as the axiom, and see individual freedom (as understood by libertarians) as a consequence of this. Like I said above, I'm not sure of how best to word it but I honestly think that a definition of libertarianism has to mention both NIOF and individual freedom. I'd like to read the thoughts of others who work on this page though. --Matthew Humphreys 13:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: discussions on NIOF 

message: :[14]  In fact it is you who are confusing the inititation of force with the use of force. The use of force in retaliation against those who initiate force is not prohibited, and my concise definition in no way suggests otherwsie. The problem is entirely due to you not understanding what is meant by initiation, despite my repeated efforts at explaining it (which have been met by nothing but unjustified insults). My concise definition could be expanded to say "Libertarianism is a politically philosophy advocating the principle that no one may initiate the use of force or fraud in human affairs. On the other hand the retaliatory use of force against those who initiate it is not prohibited." Is it any clearer to you now? (This expanded definition is still flawed, it is used here only in an effort to explain the difference.) I've tried my best to debate with you in good faith but my patience is just about exhausted. --Matthew Humphreys 15:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: [16]  Pat8722 - The current definition doesn't work because it is circular.  As it stands, the wording implies a definition of "the same liberty" as "the right of individuals to be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property as long as it allows others the same liberty."  While this roughly conforms to Spencers "law of equal liberty" or Bloch's "non-aggression axiom," it basically defines libertarian in terms of liberty in a way that does not delimit the concept of "the same liberty."  The prior definition provided that delimitation by specifying non-initiation of force or fraud, etc.  You are correct in saying that non-initiation is implied in the current, circular definition, but so are all sorts of other things that anyone can claim to be part of their doctrine.  For instance, I can claim to be perfectly comfortable allowing everyone the right to the same liberty I have to beat up gays and have gays try to beat up on me.  Or I may be perfectly comfortable allowing everyone the equal freedom to set up a competing mafia.  Or I can define away liberty as the equal freedom to do whatever Hillary wants us to do, as long as she does it to us all equally.  It may be difficult for libertarians to conceive that most encyclopedia readers could seriously believe such statements, but you know what--they do.  Defining liberty in terms on "non-initiation of force, fraud, etc." adequately delimits the sense of what most libertarians think of as "equal liberty" by defining the precise boundary of "person" as a physical person capable of being coerced (as opposed to merely insulted or offended) or "property" as personal property capable of being taken away (as opposed to communal property, or property capable of being defiled by witches).  So, Pat8722, it's not that the current definition (excluding NIOF) is inaccurate; the problem is that it is incomplete for the purposes of an encyclopedia directed to the general reader trying to get a sense of what distinguishes "libertarianism" from any other doctrine that promises "equal liberty."  We should clearly include NOIF in the definition.--DocGov 14:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: what does "initiate" mean?

message: :[20]  FWIW, Pat's interpretation of the terms use of force and initiation of force are more restrictive than I have ever known them to be meant by any libertarian.  For example, when Pat writes, "excludes from the libertarian doctrine the right to initiate force against someone who violates the libertarian doctrine without using force in doing so (such as in fraud or tyranny)", he explicitly excludes fraud and tyranny as being acts of force, yet I know of no libertarian who would agree with that.  The only interpretation that ever made sense to me includes fraud and tyranny as being acts of force, by definition.  Further, threating the use of force is technically using force in and of itself.   Therefore, the or threat in "initiating the use or threat of force" is redundant.  Finally, initiation of force can only mean use of force in a context where force is not being used.  Having said that, I agree with Pat that the NIOF principle is not fundamental to libertarians, but is necessarily implied.  It is in a sense, the flip-side of the libertarian coin, which has the same value either way. Each implies the other.  --Serge 03:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: [22] How libertarians should or shouldn't use terms like force is a separate matter from how they do use it.  Look at lp.org.  The "pledge" all member are supposed to agree to says, simply, "I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals."  I hope you would agree that the LP does not mean to exclude fraud in that.  As far as some libertarians adding "or fraud" to clarify their meaning, I think that comes from encountering instances where they were misunderstood, and, frankly, doing so has confused matters, this discussion being an example of that.  Clarifying with "(including fraud)" would be just as effective and more accurate. If you insist on your strict (albeit dictionary correct) interpretation of the term force, then much of the use of term in published libertarian theory becomes nonsensical.  --Serge 23:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: [25] The LP is but one example (the first one I thought to check on) of a libertarian source that clearly includes fraud in their intended meaning of the term force.  It's been about 20 years (!) since I've read much libertarian literature, but back then, at least, the intent was quite clear, and consistent with the usage in the LP pledge.  Do you have any examples of libertarian literature that excludes fraud from their meaning of force?  At any rate, I do agree that the current definition is more clear.  --Serge 05:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: [27]  Pat, the use of specialized terminology and jargon within various fields is quite common, and political philosophy is no exception.  To insist solely on dictionary definitions would make most technical works unintelligible.  I did take a moment to find this: "Some laws, such as those prohibiting murder, rape, robbery, and fraud, are laws against the initiation of force."    This is but one example of the type of usage within libertarian writing with which I am familiar, in which the meaning of term force is clearly inclusive of the concept of fraud.  Now, how many more examples would you need me to show you before you would concede that many libertarians mean to include "fraud" when they're writing or talking about "initiation of force"?  Two?  Five?  Twenty?  One hundred?  One thousand?  How many? And, again, the issue here is not whether they should, whether it's effective, or any kind of valuation of doing it.  The issue is whether that's what many of them mean, or not.  --Serge 20:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: [29] You're not even participating in a discussion with anyone other than yourself.  Your points would be relevant only if we were discussing the question of whether libertarians should be using the term force to include fraud.  I've said from the beginning, and repeated multiple times, that that is not my beef.  Our only dispute, so far as I can tell, is about whether many libertarians do use the term in that manner, not about the merits of doing so.  You asked for references, and I gave you two, asking how many you need.  Now you say even a thousand would not persuade you on this point.  You are being obstinate, irrational, and a waste of time.  --Serge 23:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: [30.1] I honestly interpreted your words in [26], The distinction between "force" and "fraud" is so well documented in libertarian literature (I no longer have my library), that I will let you find your own sources, to be you asking for me to find the references.  Maybe I misunderstood what you meant here, and stated a falsehood as a result, unintentionally, but I did not lie. --Serge 07:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What does "force" mean?

message: [43] I have removed the statement of "Most libertarians interpret the limit of this common freedom as the point at hich one initiates, or threatens to initiate, physical force or fraud against another, i.e., with force being appropriate only in defense of one's person or property", as being grammatically incorrect. The sentence is grammatically incorrect in that "i.e." is a term used to indicate a restatement of what has previously been stated in the same sentence is about to occur, and is not correctly used to introduce a new concept, such as the aforesaid sentence does. In otherwords, the second part of the sentence is NOT implied by the first part, therefore the use of "i.e." is grammatically incorrect. I have added the grammatically correct derivative libertarian doctrine on force stated as "not initiating, or threatening to initiate, physical force against those who have not violated the libertarian doctrine, nor fraud against anyone".  I have re-added the re-statement of the definition "Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating the right of individuals to be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long as whatever they wish to do with their person or property allows others to do whatever they wish with their person or property, respectively" because RJII expresses he is grammatically confused without it, and as it is useful to the reader in understanding the "more elegant" definition which precedes it.pat8722 15:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What does "i.e." mean?

message: [72]Pat8722, ok let's look at what's wrong with what you're putting in. 
"Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating the right of individuals to be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long it allows others the same liberty. Another way to state this is, "Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating the right of individuals to be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long as whatever they wish to do with their person or property allows others to do whatever they wish with their person or property, respectively." This includes not initiating, or threatening to initiate, physical force against those who have not violated this doctrine, nor fraud against anyone. Libertarianism has as its predicate that no one wants to be raped, battered, murdered, robbed, or defrauded." RJII 03:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: [73.1]The grammatical use of "it" in the sentence, was explained to you in paragraph 44.1.  You have not refuted the accuracy of paragraph 44.1, so you must accept that you "don't understand the basics of good grammar".  There is NO EXCUSE for that.  I have also shown in paragraph 44.1 that you can't replace "it" with "they" as it lead to a TOTALLY FALSE definition.  Again, you have not countered the argument of that paragraph, so you have no point for further dispute over DEFINITION A. pat8722 04:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: [74.1] The reason I state it the second way, [DEFINITION B], is that you indicate you are grammatically confused when the definition is stated using the "more elegant" language of [DEFINITION A].  If the more elegant language confuses you, it may confuse others, too.  It is useful to the less sophisticated reader to substitute for the pronouns, and what we want is for people to understand, so there's no harm in including the second ACCURATE definition.  I deleted [FALSE DEFINITION C], because IT IS CIRCULAR, therefore it is not accurate, therefore WE CANNOT USE IT.pat8722 04:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: [75.1]  I added this last sentence only because Serge expressed confusion over the predicate.  Yes, I believe the predicate is obvious, and that it does not need to be stated, but it does no harm to state it.  You contradict yourself, by stating that what you claim is "obvious" is "incoherent", as it cannot be both at the same time.  I have replaced it with "Libertarianism has as its predicate that no one wants to be physically forced, or threatened with physical force, or defrauded", as being the more common terminology used among libertarians. pat8722 04:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating the right of individuals to be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long they limit their action to that which does not infringe on the liberty of others to do whatever they wish with their own person or property.  Libertarians specifically define infringing the liberty of others as initiating, or threatening to initiate, the use of physical force against others or defrauding them.
RJII 03:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: [78]It's stylistically awkward to come up with a make believe quote and preface it with "another way to state this..." RJII is correct, we should define libertarianism concisely and correctly. That said, the current lead sentence (in both versions) is much too long. Both versions also have grammatical errors, I fixed the error in RJII's version. Rhobite 03:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: [80]Quotation marks indicate the beginning and end of someone else's words. Even if your usage were correct, it is unnecessary. Encyclopedia articles should be written plainly, without creative punctuation. I do understand how quotes are legitimately used, I just looked it up in a writing manual. Aside from the style issue, there is no reason to provide two equivalent definitions in the lead section of an article. Rhobite 04:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: pat, I have read this entire discussion (including paragraph 89) and I fail to see how the definition you keep reverting is circular. The original issue about the word "right," which was wasn't totally without merit, has been resolved. rehpotsirhc 23:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion of Pat8722's definition

message: [82]RJII's proposed definition is: "Libertarianism is a political philosophy[1] advocating the right of individuals to be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long they limit their action to that which does not infringe on the liberty of others to do whatever they wish with their own person or property." 
:[82.1]Read the definition that you don't like and study it. It appears to me that you don't understand the libertarian maxim. RJII 04:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: [84]You're throwing the term "circular" around without reason. "Circular reasoning" is fallacious, but that's not what this is. It's just a definition of libertarianism. Libertarianism is a doctrine that says each person should be allowed to do as he wills as long as he stops short of preventing another from doing as he wills. If you wan't to call that "circular" fine, but that's what libertarianism is. RJII 05:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: [86] No it doesn't. RJII 05:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: [87] Pat, it defines libertarianism; it does not define right.  Since it does not define "right", it cannot be a circular (or any other kind of) definition.  See [42.6].  --Serge 05:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion on RJII's proposed definition 

message: [89]Rhobite's definition is as follows: "Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating the right of individuals to be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long as they do not infringe on the same liberty of others.".  This definition is circular, in that it uses "liberty" to define "right".  See the section titled "what does "circular definition" mean?" above.  Broken down into its component parts, Rhobite is saying:  "Libertarianism is a political philosophy.  Under the political philosophy there is a right.  This right is the right to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long as they do not infringe on the right of others to do whatever they wish with their person or property."  As right is used to define right, it is circular. There is a dependency here, using "right", that cannot be resolved. So I have reverted to my non-circular definition, with the minor grammatical corrections which Rhobite requested.  I have not removed the quotes as quotes can be used for "setting off" a word, sentence, or phrase, and do not affect its accuracy, but I would not revert if someone uses a different way to state the same thing, without using the quotes.  I only know we can't replace it with a circular definition, which is no definition at all.  As this is my third revert for today, and as User talk:William M. Connolley and his friends will not permit me to revert vandalism occuring in the form of "nonsense" (which is what a "circular definition" is) until the debate at Wikipedia talk:Vandalism is settled, I presume we will have to suffer with "no real definition" for the next 24 hours, if rhobite again replaces the undisputedly accurate definition with his circular one.pat8722 02:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: [89.1] Pat writes, "Rhobite is saying: ... 'This right is the right to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long as they do not infringe on the right of others to do whatever they wish with their person or property.'"  Not quite.  What Rhobite (and all of us) are saying is more accurately paraphrased as, "this libertarian right is the right to do ..., as long as they do not infringe on the right of others ...".  In other words, the specific term libertarian right is being defined in terms of the general term right, and there is nothing circular about that.   This method to define specific meanings for terms in particular contexts in terms of the more general meanings is used all the time in all kinds of fields, even in dictionaries.  Your reverting on this feeble basis needs to stop.  --Serge 18:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: [89.2]You are using "right" to define "right", and there is no excuse for your failing to acknowledge that.  I have placed in a call for help on the talk:grammar page.  The definition is  CIRCULAR. pat8722 18:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: [90]It doesn't say what you are saying it says. It doesn't say "as long as they do not infringe on the RIGHT of others..." It says "as long as they do not infringe on the same LIBERTY" as others. "Liberty" and "right" are not synonymous. It is saying an individual should have the right to do what he wants with his person or property as long as he allows everyone else the same liberty.." What liberty? The liberty to do what they want with their person or property --not the RIGHT to do what they want. See? RJII 02:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

text: [92]Because the lead section doesn't define "right" or "liberty", there is no problem with circular definitions. Since RJII removed the word "right", do you have any more objections, Pat? Rhobite 04:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

text: [94]Your analysis is flawed.  There is nothing circular about using the meaning of the term right to define the meaning of the libertarian right concept.  --Serge 18:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: [96]Good idea.  Let's look at the definition in question in this section: "Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating the right of individuals to be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long as they do not infringe on the same liberty of others."  Now, in this case the term right, alone, means "prerogative".  So we can substitute... "Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating the prerogative of individuals to be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long as they do not infringe on the same prerogative of others."  Note that while we are using prerogative twice, we are not defining the term itself.  When you substitute these words with their close synonyms, right and/or liberty, the meaning is not affected, nor does it become circular. --Serge 20:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: [98]I'm not defining prerogative (or liberty or right).  These terms are already defined - in any dictionary.  What we are defining is libertarianism, and, perhaps, the related concept of a libertarian right.  Using the dictionary definitions of right, liberty, prerogative and the for that matter, does not make it a circular definition.  Either you're playing dumb, or you are dumb.  In either case, the fact that you can find no one who agrees with you should tell you something.  Stop vandalizing the libertarianism page by replacing the introduction accepted by consensus (except for you) with one that has been rejected by consensus (except for you), or you will be reported, again. --Serge 22:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: [99]And why don't you look up fire truck in the dictionary.  Gee, it's a truck that is used to carry firefighters.  Is that a circular defintion?  Using fire and truck to define fire truck???  What nonsense!  --Serge 22:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: [101]The word "right" does not appear in the consensus introduction. The closest thing to a synonim for "right" which appears is "liberty", but at no point does the consensus intro define "liberty" in terms of "liberty". Please clarify what you mean because you're not making sense to anyone here (it would seem). Cadr 23:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: [102](I'm talking about the most recent consensus intro; previously the word "right" did appear, though the definition was still not circular.) Cadr 23:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It isn't, because [89] is talking about an earlier revision of the consensus intro with a different wording (as you would have noticed if you'd read my previous comment!). In any case, the older revision did not "define 'right' using 'liberty'", it just used the words "right" and "liberty" in the definition. Get a grip. Cadr 23:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what Pat's talking about any more. Despite the fact that he's wrong about circular definitions, the intro has been changed to address his complaints. Yet he's still complaining about the old version of the intro, while reverting the new one. I don't think Pat will be happy with any intro unless he is the one clicking the save page button. Rhobite 00:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Once again, it does not use the word "right"! Could you please read the current lead section before reverting it? Rhobite 21:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: [108]Of course these definitions allow A to batter B if B is gay, assuming B also initiated force on A or someone else, and battering is appropriate retaliation (say B is battering C, and battering B is the only way to get him to stop).  Whether B is gay is irrelevant, of course.  If you mean to imply that these definitions allow A to batter B simply because B is gay, that's utter nonsense (though not vandalism necessarily). --Serge 22:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: [109]To answer your "What same liberty?" question...  the same liberty is the freedom to do whatever one wishes with his person or property that does not interfere with the "same liberty" of others.   It's not a circular definition, it's  a recursive definition, which is perfectly valid linguistically (look it up).  --Serge 23:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Please read other people's comments. You said: "[substitute] for the phrase 'the same liberty' with whatever you mean by "the same liberty". In his previous comment, Serge suggested the phrase "the freedom to do whatever one wishes with his person or property" as a substitute. It's impossible to have a discussion with you when you just don't seem to be listening. Cadr 18:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion of Rhobite's proposed definition

message: This is a warning to pat8722.  The Three revert rule states: "This does not imply that reverting three times or fewer is acceptable. In excessive cases, people can be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day."  If you revert again, I, for one, will report your for edit warring AND disruption.  Before you make a controversial change on any Wikipedia page, no matter how right you may be, you need to provide a compelling argument on the Talk page.  And the argument has to be compelling to others, not just to you. --Serge 06:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: pat, from what I've seen, virtually everyone on Wikipedia except you seems to be of the opinion that a) You're mistaken about definition of Libertarianism on this page being circular and b) Your accusations of vandalism and edits to policy pages are out of line. Doesn't this tell you something? --rehpotsirhc  14:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It's hard to "meet the merts" of your argument, as it consists of little but the assertion (usually in all caps) that everyone except you is vandalizing the article. I can see this is probably going to have to go to an user conduct RfC. --rehpotsirhc  15:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pat8722: violating 3rr with less than 3 reverts 

message: "Such critics may argue that the libertarian definition of 'freedom' (as visualized in the Nolan Chart) is flawed because it ignores the effects that powerlessness and poverty have on liberty."
^^ The principal problem of libertarianism. Under libertarianism, there is right to life or liberty because there is no welfare state. That idea should be eloborated in the article.
Masterhomer  01:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Libertarianism != liberty 

message: Pat, why do you keep putting these meaningless {ref} tags in? They go nowhere. If they are meant to refer to an actual footnote, please insert such. -- Calion | Talk 17:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spurious footnotes 

message: I have a feeling I'm wandering into a hornet's nest here, but can I ask why Pat8722 is numbering every paragraph? This is not the convention on any other Wikipedia talk page.. It doesn't seem to serve any purpose, and I'm not sure what happens if you post a reply in an earlier section.. do you use decimals? Letters? Could you refrain from inserting these numbers and reordering sections, please? Rhobite 03:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is supposed to be an informal discussion, not a courtroom. Please try to follow talk page conventions in the future. Rhobite 04:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraph numbers 

message: (I am inexperienced, please forgive/correct any violation of protocol.)  To say that conservatives "typically allow or even encourage" ... "discrimination [in the workplace] on a basis unrelated to the ability to do the job" is a ridiculous statement and should be removed.  It certainly undermines the objectivity of the article.  Neil 7 April 2006
:Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. --FOo 06:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should say "conservatives typically allow or even encourage discrimination without requiring that the employer prove to a third party that the discrimination is related to the ability to do the job", which is not the same thing at all (although critics will argue that it amounts to the same thing in practice). - Nat Krause(Talk!) 06:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slur on conservatives 

message: Here is the current version of the intro:
:Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating that individuals should be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long as they do not infringe on the same liberty of others. Libertarians hold as a fundamental maxim that all human interaction should be voluntary and consensual. They maintain that the initiation of physical force against another person or his property, the threat of initiating it, or the commission of fraud against any person, is a violation of that principle.  Force used against others is considered by libertarians to be illegitimate except in retaliation for initiatory aggressions.
The purpose of the context tag is to bring attention to the introduction, "The introduction to this article provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter."  Can we remove the context tag on this article now?  --Serge 04:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove context tag? 

message: * I prefer A because some of the language in B is conversational.  For example, "Another way to state this is ..." and "Libertarianism has as its predicate ...".  The entire final sentence, "Libertarianism has as its predicate that no one want to be physically forced, or threatened with physical force, or defrauded." is bordering on violating WP:NOR (since it's an unpublished concept).  In short, B is not as polished as is A.   --Serge 00:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Okay.  I have some ideas on how to build on the first paragraph in the intro, but for now we're trying to achieve consensus on the definition of libertarianism introduced in the first paragraph of the intro, primarily to put an end to a revert war. A couple more paragraphs expanding on the definition of the first paragraph would be appropriate.  --Serge 14:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion/Comments 

message: # A rehpotsirhc 02:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voting in favor of A 

message: I'm considering moving the two paragraphs from the Anarcho-capitalism and Minarchism subsection up into the intro, to follow the definition paragraph.  They can be refined after the move of course, but unless there is objection posted here, I'm going to go ahead and move them.  I think this will help round out the intro.  Here are the two paragraphs as they currently stand:
:Most who self-identify as libertarians are minarchists, i.e., supportive of minimal taxation as a "necessary evil" for the limited purpose of funding public institutions that would protect civil liberties and property rights, including police, armed forces, with no conscription, and judicial courts. Anarcho-capitalists, by contrast, oppose all taxation, rejecting any government claim for a monopoly of protection as unnecessary. They wish to keep the government out of matters of justice and protection, preferring to delegate these issues to private groups. Anarcho-capitalists argue that the minarchist belief that any monopoly on coercion can be contained within any reasonable limits is unrealistic, and that institutionalized coercion on any scale is counterproductive.
:With the exception of some true anarchists and orthodox Objectivists, the policy positions of minarchists and anarcho-capitalists on mainstream issues tend to be indistinguishable as both sets of libertarians believe that existing governments are too intrusive. Some libertarian philosophers such as Tibor R. Machan argue that, properly understood, minarchism and anarcho-capitalism are not in contradiction.
--Serge 23:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanding the intro 

message: The two navigational templates at the top of the article are not 100% different and they share some links. Could someone merge them, or modify them in order to justify the huge space they're taking? CG 16:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The navigational templates 

message: *rehpotsirhc 21:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Human nature is costumary law, a spontaneous order. Chimpanzees have politics, too. What is making this to a libertarian philosophy? The concept of rights is also controversial. Many libertarians reject the concept of rights. You attack a straw man. Anyhow, you may claim that l. is a political philosophy in the kind of scholars. For example here: . But there is not much to address for political philosphers or theorists. Not enough to claim in the abstract as response of the content that it is the characteristic feature. The characteristic feature is the NAP, the way of thinking, and a movement which is in some parts political or anti-political. --Irgendwer 18:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Many libertarians reject the concept of rights?  Can you provide any examples? (preferably web links) --Serge 21:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  exactly explained by Paul Wakfer here  see: why not rights? David Friedman and Bruce Benson argue in this line. --Irgendwer 15:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Votes for libertarianism is a [[political philosophy]]

message: This is vandalism  and misuse of adminstriation rights. --Irgendwer 19:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Rehpotsirhc is not an administrator, and content disputes are never considered vandalism. Please reread Wikipedia:Vandalism. Please do not falsely accuse other users of vandalism. Rhobite 19:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Irgendwer, you need to read up on the Three Revert Rule. You've violated it twice. I left a warning on your talk page to try and help you. I am not an admin. --rehpotsirhc  21:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: Do a diff and proof-read the changes I reverted.  There's a general downgrading of language quality, including the insertion of repetition and gender-specific terminology.  The change is not acceptable. Alienus 01:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Libertarianism is a moral and political philosophy which says that the individual is free to do whatever he wishes with his person or property, as long as it allows others the same liberty. Another way to state this is, "Libertarianism is a moral and political philosophy under which the individual is free to do whatever he wishes with his person or property, as long as whatever he wishes to do with his person or property allows all others to do whatever they wish with their person or property, respectively." This includes not initiating, or threatening to initiate, physical force against those who have not violated this doctrine, nor fraud against anyone. Libertarianism has as its predicate that no one want to be physically forced, or threatened with physical force, or defrauded
#It repeats "Libertarianism is a moral and policial philosophy".
#It uses "he" instead of "they".
#It rambles.
#It is a bad edit that is unacceptable.
Now, if you want to edit war for it, best of luck.  I don't care enough about you or this topic to get blocked.  Let the article suffer due to your incompetence and the apathy of others. Alienus 01:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The apathy of others? You kidding? This entire talk page is one giant 10,000-word attempt to convince pat his definition is inferior. --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 03:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Serge already gave an expansion for "the same liberty" in paragraph 111a. Cadr 23:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Paragraph 113 doesn't make any sense. It can't possibly "be using 'right' to define 'right'", because "right" isn't being defined at all! Cadr 01:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Look before edit-warring. 

message: A request for comment has been filed in response to User:Pat8722's behavior on libertarianism. You are encouraged to certify or respond at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pat8722. Rhobite 14:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pat8722 RFC