Talk:Libertarianism/Archive 5

message: The latest version of the above passage now contradicts itself.  A move has been made to include socialists in general into the passage, and that was proceeded with the reinsertion of the appended portion above which did not apply to anarchists but does to socialists.  But now the passage reads that socialists in general oppose centralized monopolies, which is plainly false in the case of state socialists, and the appended portion which is now properly replying to the state socialist position is -still- presenting an anarchist position that does not exist.  I'm trying to correct this, but it would be helpful if editors like RJ would discuss this rather than simply reinserting inappropriate edits.  Kev 04:54, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure you would like to see it removed. But it's an important part of libertarian/capitalist philosophy. I'll take out the reference to anarchism if it bothers you. RJII 05:05, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:   That doesn't fix the problem.  The referance to anarchism was there because it further informed on the libertarian position to indicate that it does not consider property to be coercive in nature.  But if this section is going to be used as nothing more than a soap box for deriding other ideologies, it needs to at least get its facts straight, and the fact is that state socialism is the only thing libertarianism is being compared to in your edits while it is not the only thing open to comparison.  Kev 05:16, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's relevant to socialism -state or stateless.  RJII 05:46, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:   The responses you have inserted are relevant -only- to those forms of socialism that believe that a "redistribution" of wealth is necessary.  Many anarchists, who are themselves socialists, do not believe that redistribution is necessary when the current active enforcement of capital ends.  That you want to suppress this view and conflate these different positions speaks volumes to your bias.  Kev 08:31, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest version 

message: Why is this party being deleted from this list of libertarian parties?  It is party whose philosophy is libertarian. A party doesn't have to have "libertarian" in the name to be a libertarian party; libertarianism is a philosophy. It may not be *as* libertarian as very small "Libertarianz" party, but their philosophy is still libertarian. RJII 17:45, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you misplaced the link for first (there's a "list of libertarian parties" further up for internal links, external links belong where you put it). Secondly, ACT calls themselves "The Liberal Party", they don't refer to themselves as libertarian. Philwelch 18:45, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter whether they call themselves "libertarian." If you look at their web page, it's clearly a libertarian philosophy --maybe not as extremist as some prefer. They call themselves "classical liberals." RJII 19:47, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, it's not that big of a deal, although libertarianism is arguably the radical wing of classical liberalism. Philwelch 19:56, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is from an article in Liberty magazine: "If by "libertarian," we mean a person who favors radically reducing the power of government, then it is safe to say that libertarians are vastly more influential and prominent in New Zealand than in the United States. New Zealand has two different libertarian political parties: ACT (more formally, the Association of Consumers and Taxpayers) and the Libertarianz."  RJII 20:13, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Some more info: "ACT's philosophy is spelled out in Douglas' book, Unfinished Business. ACT New Zealand wants to eliminate government in health, education and pensions, and abolish the income tax"  RJII 20:13, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: ACT Party of New Zealand