Talk:Objectivism and libertarianism

message: I think it's important to distinguish between big-L and small-L libertarianism.  This article as currently written seems to interchange the two as if they are one and the same.   Small-l libertarianism is simply the belief in the libertarian principle, for whatever reason.  Big-L Libertarianism is a reference to the organization, the political Libertarian party, its platform, and the members that constitute it.  Very different.  While all Objectivists and Libertarians are libertarians (by definition - see above), many libertarians are neither Objectivists nor even Libertarians.   I believe Rand's issues were not with the small-L libertarianism but with the stated beliefs of the particular adherents of big-L Libertarianism at the time.  If you interpret her arguments in that context (except the ones objecting to the term itself for aesthetic reasons), they make more sense. Serge 16:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What Rand believed about small-l libertarians, and the fact that she personally did not want to be labeled a libertarian, has nothing to do with the question of whether she and other Objectivists are in fact libertarians per the currently accepted Wiki definition.  Those points are completely and totally irrelevant from the NPOV perspective that we are supposed to be representing when we write and review Wiki articles. No?  --Serge 23:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distinguishing Big-L vs. Small-L libertarianism 

message: "However, the movement continues to regard its non-aggression "axiom" as the linchpin of libertarianism."
Newsflash for the LP propagandist who wrote this, the NAP is not accepted by all libertarians, only by the dogmatists.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.172.198.145 (talk) 22:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: True; but if you believe in the NAP - that nobody may initiate agression - you must perforce be an anarchist.  Objectivists (and most self-professed libertarians) are not anarchists; hence not libertarians by this definition.  Ergo, whatever "libertarian" means, if it includes non-anarchists it can't mean acceptance of the NAP (maybe it's acceptance of the OOOMIAP - the Only One Organization May Initiate Agression Principle?)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.165.200 (talk) 10:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objection 

message: The box on the right hand side that begins, "Part of the series on Libertarianism" blocks part of the text on its left. In my case it blocks one word (realize) of the paragraph on Nathaniel Branden. I have no idea how to fix it. Koro Neil (talk) 14:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info box obscures part of text 

message: On 2 January 2009, I added these two links to the article.
* article on Objectivism in Libertarian Wiki
* article on Libertarianism in Objectivism Wiki
Two days later these were removed by Kraftlos.
I think it adds to the article--what each thinks of the other.Kraftlos might think it's spamming.What say ya'll?Yartett (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The links were removed because they are links to open wiki's, which is specifically mentioned in WP:LINKSTOAVOID (see #12).  If you can find a similar topic on a more stable and/or reliable source, that would be a different matter entirely.  --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah yes, it refers to "Links normally to be avoided": implying exceptions. I suggest that an exception should be made because both wikis and the articles share the same name, offer their perspectives from readily identifiable groups (e.g. what does Conservapedia mean by "conservative," whereas Ltn and Obj are more identifiable), and I figure that it does contribute to the article with minimal space and attention used.Yartett (talk) 20:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As with every wikipedia rule, if a convincing case can be made that the inclusion of the link is vital to the understanding of the subject and that it meets WP:LINKS requirements that the exceptional site link have "a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors" than a link to an open wiki might be allowed.  However, by looking at the recent changes on those wiki's neither appear to have a substantial number of editors: the liberatarian wiki appears to have about 2-3 active editors and The objectivist wiki has about 3 editors with only five edits in the last six months.  I don't believe it it necessary for the understanding of the subject.  What purpose does this link serve other than to get people to visit those wikis?  What is covered there that isn't or can't be covered here?  Wikipedia is not a collection of external links, you can't claim an exceptional case without presenting an exceptional need for an exception.  --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  what they really think of each other 

message: An objectivist group is canvassing its members to edit Ayn Rand related articles.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Turnsmoney (talk • contribs) 18:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no one appears to have joined in the alleged canvassing, and the user making the charge has been inactive since the day after making it, the matter ought to be able to be put to rest.-RLCampbell (talk) 15:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the fact that there was no discussion of the comment for over seven months means it was at rest. :-) Anyhow, there was an Arbitration Committee case opened the day after the above comment. The ruling back in March included the canvassing charges (among a bunch of other misbehavior). The case was opened related to the Ayn Rand article, but the comment above was related to the same issues, as were similar comments that you've noticed on other Objectivism-related talk pages. ArbCom only put the ruling announcement on the talk page of the article that the case was first opened against, but I think you can rest assured that the matter was handled for all the related pages as well. FWIW, the charge of canvassing was upheld and the accused editor was topic-banned (broadly construed, so it would include this article also) for 1 year. --RL0919 (talk) 16:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canvassing alert 

message: Deleted *Neolibertarianism  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.159.231 (talk) 08:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead Link 

message: Removed these from '07. If still POV issues, should be put on a section basis, don't see discussion of same above. The article subject is a POV derivative so exposition of that the proper content. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 18:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not a valid reason for removal. Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Elapsed time is not a resolution. If you feel these tags are placed in error, begin the discussion on this Talk page, and then after the discussion is resolved take action. XINOPH | TALK 17:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's lots of disagreement here on the talk page, but no specific discussion of POV problems with the article itself. Binarybits (talk) 19:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV and No Ref Tags 

message: The following sentence strikes me as inappropriate: "Valliant, at one time a student of Rothbard, reports Rothbard once admitted that his critique of Rand was exaggerated."
Valliant is not a disinterested party, so it seems to me that we shouldn't mention this at all and instead let Rothbard's views speak for themselves. If we are going to include this, I think "claims" would be more appropriate than "reports," to make clear the hearsay nature of the allegation. Binarybits (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence also seems like this might qualify as a primary source under WP:PSTS. Binarybits (talk) 23:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue is now moot, because Valliant's book has been judged a non-reliable source.  At present it is referred to only as one of the negative responses to The Passion of Ayn Rand.-RLCampbell (talk) 15:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exaggerated 

message: Could you all please slow down on the editing.  If you have a dispute you need to stop editing and discuss it here after 2 reverts.  Its not acceptable to fill up almost a whole page of history in one series of edits.  --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 21:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Warring 

message: Regarding the sentence in the Anarchism section: "Some libertarians are anarchists, believing that the essential functions of government, such as courts and national defense, can be provided by private firms."
The claim that "[s]ome libertarians are anarchists" is contentious. Thus, I have added a WP:Citation Needed tag. BlueRobe (talk) 09:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is simply moving a debate on Libertarianism to another venue.  Citations have already been provided there  --Snowded TALK  05:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anarchism as a form of Libertarianism? 

message: The sentence "Some libertarians have argued that Objectivism is not limited to Rand's own positions on philosophical issues and are willing to work with and identify with the libertarian movement" seems to say that some libertarians are willing to work with the libertarian movement... which is true, but nearly tautological and not really on-topic. I suspect the intent was to say either that "some Objectivists have argued..." or "Objectivists should be willing to work with..." or maybe libertarians are willing to work "with the Objectivist movement." Does anyone know which?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eostrom (talk • contribs) 23:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're right, so I changed it. I suspect that it originally said "Objectivists" but some ARI Objectivist objected (no pun intented) to Kelley being called an Objectivist. The end result was, as you pointed out, a confusing mess. Kelley is an Objectivist, although not in quite the same way as the ARI camp. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Libertarians are willing to work with libertarians? 

message: An alleged sock puppet had their edit reverted. Looking at the contents, they seem quite accurate and well-sourced. Regardless of their origin, I see no good reason to exclude them. Would anyone object if I reverted them back in? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't just revert. There are problems with the sourcing used. The first source cited is a dictionary definition of anarchism, which is not a useful source because it says nothing about anyone's attitude towards Rand or Objectivism. The blog post linked for Keven Carson is about Rand's view of objective value, not about any of the claims made in the added material. The web page from David Friedman is also about a different topic. The Rebirth of Reason source is dubious as a reliable source. Some of the claims being made can probably be supported from other sources, but we should not put back in the poorly sourced version from the edit war. --RL0919 (talk) 05:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you come up with better citations? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the sock puppet said... 

message: What about something like this for the recent developments:
Rapprochement
In 2011, Yaron Brook, President of the Ayn Rand Institute, spoke at the Foundation for Economic Education (http://www.fee.org/news/ayn-rands-moral-defense-of-capitalism/). He was a keynote speaker at FreedomFest 2012 (http://freedomfest.com/2012/keynote-speakers/). He appeared on ReasonTV on July 26, 2012 (http://reason.com/blog/2012/07/26/yaron-brook-ayn-rand-vs-big-government).
Ayn Rand Institute board member John A. Allison IV spoke at the Cato Club 200 Retreat in September 2012 (http://www.cato.org/multimedia/daily-podcast/self-ownership-financial-crisis), contributed "The Real Causes of the Financial Crisis" to Cato's Letter (http://www.cato.org/pubs/catosletter/catosletterv10n1.pdf), and spoke at Cato's Monetary Conference in November 2011 (http://www.cato.org/multimedia/daily-podcast/fedas-destruction-wealth).
On June 25, 2012, Cato Institute announced that Allison would become its next president. In Cato's public announcement, Allison was described as a "revered libertarian." (http://www.cato.org/pressroom.php?display=news&id=209) In communication to employees, he wrote, "I believe almost all the name calling between libertarians and objectivists is irrational. I have come to appreciate that all objectivists are libertarians, but not all libertarians are objectivists." (http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/08/30/cato_shrugged_panic_about_an_incoming_leader_s_admiration_for_ayn_rand.html) Allison said he took the position at Yaron Brook's behest. (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jeremylott/2012/08/how-objectionable-is-john-allisons-objectivism/)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.189.155.98 (talk) 19:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rapprochement 

message: The article had a quaintly exclusively American-centric point of view, seemingly oblivious to libertarian perspectives elsewhere.  So I was Bold and noted that much of what was described was a U.S. influenced perspective, (as was Rand,) hinted at divergent global perspectives of libertarianism (as context, -and this needs expanding), plus noted similarities to the American Libertarian Party platform which might not be noticed by the obviously American authors in the same way that fish cannot see water. (This is not to deny there are some differences.) More precisely, characteristically LP (Party) assumptions and values are being implied as generically libertarian.  From a global perspective it seems silly to be discussing American Objectivism while 1) excluding the American LP, and 2) seemingly silently equating the LP to (mythical) generic libertarianism. 
It is my opinion that a whole new section should discuss this if this topic is to be taken seriously by the world, as more than a blindly provincial or self-shouting perspective from a kid raised alone in a cave.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.82.20 (talk) 15:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. perspective, global perspectives, & American Libertarian Party similarities. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Objectivism and libertarianism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070822182957/http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=media_america_at_war_israeli_arab_conflict to http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=media_america_at_war_israeli_arab_conflict
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: in Rand's view of libertarians section source, number 16 is wrong and it should be changed to "https://ari.aynrand.org/issues/culture-and-society/religion-and-morality/The-Age-of-Mediocrity".
5.29.32.156 (talk) 13:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  in Rand's view of libertarians section source number 16 is wrong