Talk:Paleolibertarianism

message: Rothbard was a utilitarian. In general, some paleolobs are "hostile" to utilitarianism, but that shouldn't be listed here as a defining characteristic! --Christofurio 13:11, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Rothbard wasn't a utilitarian. He did believe that anarcho-capitalism would lead to the best society, but he based his philosophy off natural law. See "For a New Liberty". 66.116.18.114 03:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Utilitarianism 

message: Rather than have a section starting: "Paleolibertarianism is commonly distinguished by:" where I put the tag "original research?", either a) include references for each point or b) have section on what each person means by it.
Carol Moore 00:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I drank a lot of coffee this am and ended up cleaning up this totally WP:original research article that contained constant claims articles were about paleolibertarianism when that phrase not uses. Plus lots of WP:BLP violations because there were no WP:RS that people did or do call themselves paleolibs. Feel free to put back info with WP:RS of articles mentioning the word or actual descriptions of people calling themselves paleo libs. Same old bad info will just get deleted. There are just too many misleading WP:OR libertarianism articles with few or no WP:RS so I took advantage of sudden motivation in my caffeinated state to clean this up. Now I'll go back to researching dirt for Rahm Emanuel article - unless others hopefully get there first. :-) Carol Moore 17:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Better ways to organize description

message: This is definitely a ridiculous claim, at least as Wikipedia currently defines the term: "While practically all paleolibertarians subscribe to a philosophy of anarcho-capitalism [...]" 68.83.72.162 (talk) 15:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: agree and removed. too contentious without a source. CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anarcho-capitalism 

message: For this article to bear any resemblance to NPOV, some part of it must contain responses to paleolibertarianism from people other than libertarians. the criticism from Hans-Hermann Hoppe hardly counts. and, if there is no critique from third parties, then the word is a nonencyclopedic neologism. i hope someone other than me can add some critiques to this, or even positive comments from nonlibertarians. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to find and put in some WP:RS info :-) !CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critiques? 

message: This would go a long way in debunking Mises supposedly Old Right economics. Some speculate Ludwig Von Mises was ambivalent about socialism versus free capitalism. Mises correctly uses the word capitalism as the use of capital, and states ambivalently that communists were merely capitalists who employed the state. I believe Mises was interested in innovation and effeciency in different market systems. --173.31.191.192 (talk) 18:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We all have our opinions and speculations, but what matters is what WP:Reliable sources say. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Federic Bastiat's Influence on Paleolibertarianism and/or Ludwig Von Mises 

message: The article needs a solid definition up at the top.  All that stuff about where the term came from should be down in the details.--LanceHaverkamp 16:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The definition was a bit vague. Does that new addition help? CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's the definition? 

message: First it's amazing when one looks at something one worked a lot on 4 or 5 years ago, all the WP:OR that one put in - other that others have let slip in.  Anyway, cleaned it up according to actual sources at this diff.
I'm not much into sectioning short articles. Thoughts on sectioning? CarolMooreDC 20:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Sectioning??

message: The final paragraph begins "During Ron Paul's run for United States Congress several sources mentioned 'paleolibertarianism' in relation to the issue of bigoted language in Ron Paul newsletters circa 1989-1994..." (emphasis added)  The problem is that the claim that Ron Paul's newsletters used "bigoted language" is in itself potentially libelous unless proven to be true.  Since the assertion lacks any primary sources, it would seem that it is not factual, but rather, someone's opinion.  Indeed, the only "source" cited in that paragraph is Salon.com, which is widely accepted to be liberal-leaning, and therefore, likely to be among Paul's detractors, rather than an objective source.  Consequently, I suggest that the statement be reworded or removed. Bricology (talk) 05:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claims of Ron Paul using "bigoted language" 

message: References #1 and #3 are broken and dont take you to Liberty but to Mises.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.201.21.30 (talk) 11:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: On removing the "Some critics have accused paleolibertarianism of racism" line: I think this line should be removed from the criticisms since it is overly general and gives an impression of a significant group of critics that is not sourced (one critic can hardly be deemed enough to claim "some").
Tigre200 (talk) 00:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not certain if there are variations within this political movement. But it was originally intended to attract paleoconservatives, and several of these people were also Neo-Confederates. Can you guess what they thought about race?Dimadick (talk) 01:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Race 

message: As a relative newcomer to the paleolibertarian scene, I’m unfamiliar with the works of writers such as Justin Raimondo and Karen de Coster, mentioned here (Paleolibertarianism|https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolibertarianism)  
However, I’ve read many of Ilana Mercer’s columns and two of her books. I’d like to recommend that her work be featured on Wikipedia’s paleolibertarianism pages.
Ms. Mercer is a familiar voice in this arena. Consequently, for WikiP to remain the go-to source for reliable, complete information on myriad subjects, it should chronicle all world-class paleolibertarian thinkers and writers, especially one as prolific as Ilana Mercer. Mercer’s weekly column is now in its twentieth year, published by numerous outlets as a significant paleolibertarian writer. 
Those publishers include WND [WorldNetDaily|https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorldNetDaily]; Mercer writes “The Paleolibertarian”:  <https://www.wnd.com/author/imercer/>
Junge Freiheit [Junge_Freiheit|https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junge_Freiheit], a German newspaper of the libertarian right, has published her translated column as The “Paläolibertären Kolumne” <https://jungefreiheit.de/author/ilana-mercer/> 
For several years, Russia Today (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)  published an Ilana Mercer feature  entitled, “Paleolibertarian Column.” <https://www.rt.com/search?q=ilana+mercer&type=>
Big League Politics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_League_Politics) has sought Mercer’s perspective on paleolibertarianism <https://bigleaguepolitics.com/interview-writer-ilana-mercer-takes-on-the-cato-institutes-left-libertarianism/> 
The Unz Review (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Unz#The_Unz_Review_and_other_activities) carries Mercer’s weekly column as the “Paleolibertarian Perspective.”   <http://www.unz.com/author/ilana-mercer/>
Dr. Jack Kerwick, a columnist for LewRockwell.com (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lew_Rockwell#LewRockwell.com), a leading paleolibertarian site, has argued that “it is imperative that Mercer be included in any discussion about paleolibertarianism:”  <https://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/attheintersectionoffaithandculture/2016/04/missing-right-wing-critics-of-american-conservatism.html>
Ms. Mercer has written three books from the paleolibertarian perspective; i.e., a hard-right, anti-state libertarianism. Her latest, “The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed,” was the first libertarian book about now-President Donald J. Trump: <https://townhall.com/columnists/jackkerwick/2016/07/20/the-trump-revolution-the-donalds-creative-destruction-deconstructed-a-review-of-the-first-libertarian-case-for-the-trump-process-n2195251>
Wmbscott (talk) 20:51, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leading Voices