Talk:Libertarianism/Archive 9

message: I'm mildly insulted that this definition is noted as the "classic definition." If by classic, one means defined in the last hundred years... "Libertarianism" is classically a synonym for "anarchism." Maybe I misread. Mellesime 13:10, 5 May 2006
:"Classic definition" is incorrect. The current definition is merely the best-known in English today.
:However, I'm not sure where you're seeing "classic definition" in the article. Are you confusing this with the term classical liberalism? --FOo 21:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Uh, no.

message: This is no allowed practice in Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Verifiability (One of three policies which are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus.) calls for:
:: The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references.
When there are justified arguments against an entry (here: "political" philosopy), and there is no progress or prospect of substantiation for this claim, then the entry is decrepit in regard to NPOV.
I am sure, admins will agree to.
--Irgendwer 18:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you post on the adminstrator's noticeboard?--rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 19:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war by (rvt to consensus version - please do not change the main article unless consensus changes) 

message: I write it briefly because it is only recurrence.
Your references
:Don Franzen, Los Angeles Times Book Review Desk, review of "Neither Left Nor Right". January 19, 1997. Franzen states that "Murray and Boaz share the political philosophy of libertarianism, which upholds individual liberty--both economic and personal--and advocates a government limited, with few exceptions, to protecting individual rights and restraining the use of force and fraud." (Review on libertarianism.org). MSN Encarta's entry on Libertarianism defines it as a "political philosophy" (Both references retrieved June 24, 2005). The Encyclopedia Britannica defines Libertarianism as "Political philosophy that stresses personal liberty." (link, accessed 29 June, 2005)
are not expedient since the goal of the first sentences in an article must be to characterize precise. Political philosophy fits to the minarchism branch of libertarianism but doesn't really fit to the individualistic branch and the libertarian core, the NAP. The NAP is strictly ignored in political philosophy, and Rothbard is not even germane characterized as political philosopher.
So "political" philosophy is no basically characteristic feature. One may mark this pov to neutralize it (as I have often recommended unsuccessfully), or one may remove it. --Irgendwer 19:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any philosophy that criticizes anything that the state does, recommends what it should or shouldn't do, or even criticizes it to the extent that they recommend that it ceases to exist, is a "political philosophy." RJII 19:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you would be correct then political science would reference NAP, consensus, free markets, Rothbard, Hoppe, Friedman, private law enforcement and so on. Or, Rothbard, Friedman and Hoppe would speak at least seriously of their own "political philosophy". But this is obviously not the case. --Irgendwer 20:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Irgendwer, you are still interchanging the two meanings of "political philosophy" (not to mention confusing it with political science).  There is the academic subject covered in the Wiki political philosophy article, and there is the more general meaning obviously intended in the intro.  The "a political philosophy" usage makes it grammatically impossible for this reference to mean the academic subject.  It is disingenuous and disruptive to insist on one interpretation of a term when clearly another is intended, as is the case here.  --Serge 21:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, this is totally irrelevant, but most contemporary PoliSci courses have a section on libertarianism. --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 23:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes it is totally irrelevant, because they normally relate only to Nozick's minarchism. --Irgendwer 23:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  1. Political philosophy is content of political science. 2. "the more general meaning" is an aware inexact description. I have already stated about it. When you have objections you should make them at the right place. 3. "Libertarianism is a political philosophy" means that libertarianism is an accepted part of empiric political philosophy. That I prefer academic empiricism is obvious. 4. I don't think, I am unfair. --Irgendwer 23:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, "Libertarianism is a political philosophy" does not necessarily mean that libertarianism is "an accepted part of empiric political philosophy", just like "anarchism is a political philosophy" does not necessarily mean that anarchism is "an accepted part of empiric political philosophy", or just like "environmentalism is a political philosophy" does not necessarily mean that environmentalism is "an accepted part of empiric political philosophy".  Capiche?  --Serge 00:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Empiricism" should only mean that you must provide at last a reference from it. Anywhere it must come from. Or do you want to fudge a story? --Irgendwer 00:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  What you don't seem to understand, or pretend to not understand, Irgendwer, is that "X is a political philosophy" simply means that X is a philosophy that primarily addresses issues of a political nature.  The primary issue of libertarianism, whether people should behave in accordance with the NAP, is inherently political, by definition.  --Serge 00:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then I could understand it literally: "Libertarianism is a philosophy that primarily addresses issues of a political nature." This is also pov, because you don't have an evidence for your explanation. "whether people should behave in accordance with the NAP, is inherently political," is an opinion as I have already stated above. See politics. Politics is a process by which decisions are made within groups. Libertarian decisions are not about groups. They call it treaty, consensus, deal, but not politics. --Irgendwer 00:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Evidence?  ALL issues that libertarianism addresses are political in nature.  Libertarian decisions ARE about groups.  Treaties, consensus, deals, contracts, partnerships, etc., etc. only have meaning in the context of groups.  An individual alone cannot have a treaty or contract with himself, or reach a consensus or make a deal with himself.  Libertarianism deals exclusively with decisions made by individuals with other individuals (thus, within groups), and hence is political, because, like you wrote, politics is a process by which decisions are made within groups.  Any time you have more than one individual you have a group.  The NAP has no meaning outside of groups, for if you don't have groups of two or more individuals, you don't have the potential of one individual using force against another.  --Serge 01:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you. --Serge 00:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RJII 

message: On the right of the page there is a nav bar that states "Part of the Politics series on Liberalism"
I understand the relationship between Libertarianism and Classical liberalism, but I believe making Libertarianism "Part of the Politics series on Liberalism" is misleading.
Most libertarians tend to despise the socialist views associated with today’s liberalism.
The US Democratic party was created as the "Democratic-Republican Party", but you don't see "Part of a Politics series on the Republican Party" navigation on that page do you?
I say given the confusion in the similar names it is even more important to be clear in differentiating Libertarianism from Liberalism.
:The word "liberalism" in the series box is being used to describe the global sense of the word, not the American-specific sense. What Americans call "liberalism" -- e.g. the views of the left wing of the Democratic Party -- most of the world calls "social-democracy", "social liberalism" or "socialism" in the non-revolutionary sense. Contrast the articles liberalism and American liberalism. Libertarianism can be considered a branch of (global) liberalism, even though it is opposed to (American) liberalism (which is to say, social-democracy). --FOo 05:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Liberalism includes both social liberalism and classical liberalism --libertarianism being similar to, or a form of, the latter. RJII 05:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Rather than "includes both", I would say the term liberalism may refer to, or may mean, social liberalism, American liberalism, or classical liberalism. --Serge 06:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Mostly agree, but it's a myth that "liberalism" refers to classical liberalism outside of America. In the UK, it's a vague term that would generally refer to social liberalism unless further qualified. Cadr 16:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Liberalism in the American usage has little in common with the word as used in the politics of any European country, save possibly Britain."  RJII 16:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Libertarianism != Liberalism 

message: The site liberteaser.org has been added to the External links here; the same user 68.83.208.126 has added a link at The Kills. The user then employed a sock puppet (one edit) to endorse the inclusion. The user has been warned. I will allow editors of this article to determine whether the site per se meets the guidelines for notability (Technorati rank: 80,000+) and appropriateness (the site claims to be "a satire of libertarianism by libertarians", I don't have the time or inclination). But the guidelines strongly recommend against someone connected with a site adding links to it. --Dhartung | Talk 01:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linkspam 

message: When someone acts obstinately and irrationally about his changes, keeps on insisting on making changes in accordance with his POV, can find no one to agree with him, and engages in endless nonsensical debates on the associated talk page, it's time to simply ignore him, and just rvt his changes.  Please don't feed the disruptive troll.  --Serge 17:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please don't feed the disruptive troll 

message: See WP:CON#Consensus_vs._other_policies:
: "It is assumed that editors working toward consensus are pursuing a consensus that is consistent with Wikipedia's basic policies and principles - especially NPOV. At times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors and generate widespread support among the editors of a given article for a version of the article that is POV, inaccurate, or libelous. This is not a consensus."
So, when there should be a basis "that is consistent with Wikipedia's basic policies and principles - especially NPOV" then there must be at least a qualified argument towards basic policies. But threre is no one. "Essay" makes no qualified argument because a style is always improvable (although I see no reason to change it). When you remove it easily then it is bad faith. --Irgendwer 08:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saxifrage, consensus 

message: There have been a couple of reverts regarding whether requiring or preferring is the more appropriate term in this statement:
: Libertarians favor an ethic of self-responsibility and strongly oppose the welfare state, preferring aid to be voluntary.
I think preferring is more appropriate given the context - which appears to about libertarians living in a non-libertarian society.  While it may be accurate to say that libertarians would require aid to be voluntary in a libertarian society, that's not what this is about.  --Serge 16:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Preference implies that they want it one way but would accept another.  For example, I prefer chocolate ice cream but I'll eat vanilla, too.  Requirement implies that they demand to have it one way and are strongly opposed to any alternatives.  If I'd rather go without ice cream than have vanilla, then I require chocolate ice cream.  Of course, we live in a society where the laws force vanilla on us, regardless of our requirements, so libertarians do not get what they want. Al 16:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: With demand I get a mental image of a screaming two-year-old who is not getting (to extend the metaphor) his chocolate ice cream. That may not be the paticular connotation everyone associates with demand, but it has connotations that we should be prepared to address if it is used to as an alternative. Unfortunately, I cannot think of any alternatives. --D-Rock (Yell at D-Rock) 17:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Libertarians require or prefer aid to be voluntary? 

message: Irgendwer, I'm trying to put your passage into better English so that we're better able to debate its merits.  Lacking knowledge of your home language (German?) I cannot guess what idioms you are mistranslating.  Here is my attempt.
: The minarchist philosopher Robert Nozick posed the basic issue of all legal theory: "The fundamental question of political philosophy, one that precedes questions about how the state should be organized, is whether there should be any state at all. Why not have anarchy?" (Anarchy, State and Utopia, 1974)  This issue is not really answered by the major contemporary political philosophers and theorists, unless in a circular way to support a preconceived positive view of the role of the state, e.g. by citing Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan. Nozick himself did it in an other way (did what, answered his own objection?), attracting criticism from the anarcho-capitalist camp and rather positive attention from statists.  Given Nozick's premise that it doesn't make sense to debate subtypes of state when the state itself has no affirmative basis, the result must be as Hans-Hermann Hoppe describes: (omitted)
: So some of the most consequential libertarian scholars must work outside the academic establishment.  But what has been done instead in the official, political institutions by liberal and minarchist thinkers who (less consequential) are willing to use the state as a social regulator for whatever reason?  Milton Friedman and others have successfully promoted useful political concepts which may be necessary to the effective functioning of even an exploitative statist system (in the view of social scientists such as Franz Oppenheimer).
Milton Friedman is no anarchist!
: Rothbard (The Ethics of Liberty, 1982) explained his view of the actual task of political philosophy: (omitted)
Perhaps this passage ought to be a new section "Libertarians in academia" rather than part of "Libertarianism and politics".  —Tamfang 16:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tamfang, please don't feed this guy .  --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 23:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that I can better understand the arguments, I can see that it fails Wikipedia:No original research by providing a synthesis and numerous conclusions that are not found explicitly in its sources. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You will surely explain how it fails because I don't know it. --Irgendwer 05:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Wolf!" cried the boy.  —Tamfang 18:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nozick, Hoppe, Rothbard and all that 

message: I removed the  (Request for Mediation filed) because the request was rejected in April.  —Tamfang 21:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: mediation rejected

message: Not that this article is in jeopardy, do the editors think it would be wise for this article to go through a Featured Article review?  Libertarianism's last peer review was in March 2005, and input from outside editors could be useful to the general welfare of the article.  --  Wikipedical 04:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think it would be wise for someone to archive this 363 KB talk page.  --  Wikipedical 04:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article review? 

message: In the section, "Libertarian perspectives on political alliances", an incorrect definition is given for what a small "l" libertarian is. ALL libertarians are small "l" libertarian. The only distinction with the capitalization is whether or not a person is a member of the Libertarian Party. Big "L" is a member and thus gets the proper noun capitalization, but all libertarians, including big "L" Libertarians are also small "l" libertarians, although some like to separate the two entirely. The way that it's used here is incorrect in either fashion though. It claims that small "l's" are more willing to compromise, but even under the "only non-big L's are small l's" approach, it's the big "L's" that are more willing to compromise, not the small "l's". I'm not sure of the best way to edit this section to fix this, but I thought this incorrect fact should be brought to light. There's even an entry here on Wikipedia that disagrees with the way small "l" is used in this section.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small-l_libertarianism AlexMc 16:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect definition of small "l" libertarian 

message: # Here is a definition of tax from m-w.com:  "a sum levied on members of an organization to defray expenses".  When membership in the organization is voluntary, then so is the tax.
# More importantly, the context in this article is libertarianism, not a common dictionary.  Since, among minarchist libertarians, the concept of a voluntary tax is key to what they believe and promote, it is misleading, incorrect and illogical in this context to assert that all "taxes" must be abolished in order to be logically consistent with libertarianism's main tenet.  The implication of such a statement is that there would be no way to fund a minarchist libertarian government that was consistent with the NAP, which is false.
# Whether you, I or anyone else believes that a voluntary minarchist libertarian government could ever actually be sustained, or whether it's a "mystic, contradictory and extreme minority view", is irrelevant to a treatment of the libertarianism topic that is consistent with WP:NPOV.  The view that a "voluntary tax" is a practical solution is held by most if not all minarchist libertarians, and that's a fact that this article must reflect and not contradict.  --Serge 17:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have simply shown that "voluntary tax" is not a "new term", as you requested.      Your inability to respond intelligently suggests concession on the point of this discussion.  So taken.  Thank you.  --Serge 17:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  LOL --Username entered already in use. 18:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discounting the concept of the minarchist libertarian "voluntary tax" violates [[WP:NPOV]]

message: :::*Libertarian perspectives on taxes: The libertarian tenet indicates that logical consistency to fundamental libertarian maxims (non aggression, individual rights)The maxims are described in the introduction of this article. "Tenet is a principle, belief, or doctrine generally held to be true" (Merriam Webster). I.e. it is generally held to be true that (as a fundamental maxim) all human interaction should be voluntary and consensual allows no government at all,"The libertarian, if he is to be logically consistent, must urge zero crime, not a small amount of it. Any crime is anathema for the libertarian. Any government, no matter how “nice,” must therefore also be rejected by the libertarian." Walter Block, GOVERNMENTAL INEVITABILITY: REPLY TO HOLCOMBE, JOURNAL OF LIBERTARIAN STUDIES VOLUME 19, NO. 3 (SUMMER 2005): 71–93 while proponents of limited government support low taxes in the controversial belief that a society with no taxation at all could not provide certain public goods such as crime prevention. See also: Minarchism.''
:To the question "some libertarians"/"The libertarian tenet": Version B means that Block is one of "some libertarians" who "believe" something. This is not true. It is a logical knowlegde in its common terms. Block represents this only.
:To "in the controversial belief" or not: It is a controversial believe, isn't it? --Vahonia 19:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm impressed. Most brand new users wouldn't have taken the time to read all of the above debate. Thanks for your time. Luna Santin 21:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Version A

message: :::*Libertarian perspectives on taxes: Some libertarians believe that logical consistency to fundamental libertarian maxims (non aggression, individual rights)The maxims are described in the introduction of this article. Tenet is a principle, belief, or doctrine generally held to be true.(Meraim Webster) I.e. it is generally held to be true that as a fundamental maxim all human interaction should be voluntary and consensual allows no taxation at all,"The libertarian, if he is to be logically consistent, must urge zero crime, not a small amount of it. Any crime is anathema for the libertarian. Any government, no matter how “nice,” must therefore also be rejected by the libertarian." Walter Block, GOVERNMENTAL INEVITABILITY: REPLY TO HOLCOMBE, JOURNAL OF LIBERTARIAN STUDIES VOLUME 19, NO. 3 (SUMMER 2005): 71–93 while proponents of limited government might support low taxes, arguing that a society with no taxation would have difficulty providing public goods such as crime prevention. See also: Minarchism.''
# — Verision A is rather hard to read, and I do not think it is appropriate to characterize anything as being "The libertarian tenet". CaptainManacles 12:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great. We start again at zero. Not with me. See above. --Irgendwer 12:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Version B

message: I'm sorry if I'm posting improperly here, but I would argue that gun control is a violation of the aforementioned negative liberty principle. There are exceptions to every rule, with politics a perfect example, but I think the traditional libertarian stance would be against almost all forms of gun control. For the article's purpose, I don't think a pro-gun control stance should be included, but that's just my input. - Coons7
: I don't see how any libertarian can justify government disarmament of its citizens. While I found the page that's linked to rather difficult to follow, it seems the be saying that that property owners have the right to prohibit guns on their property, which is perfectly sensible. That's a very different thing to compulsory disarmament by government, since anyone can choose not to travel to areas which prohibit guns, or, alternatvely, to live in areas which do: we don't have the same choice with governments. Mark Grant 15:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you agree that a property owner can prohibit guns on their property (and that the government should enforce such rules) then you must agree that a community may make the same prohibition. Libertarianism is not Anarchy. To outlaw laws against gun control, you are creating a government endorsed position.  Though this may be a key fund-raising point for the Libertarian party, it has nothing to do with Libertarianism. --Jon Ivy 08:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unless you're claiming that the local government of the village I live in owns my house, that's nonsense. On the other hand, it would certainly be possible for a proprietary community to rent out houses in their community and ban gun ownership. Mark Grant 13:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: And that attitude could be used to justify absolutely anything: after all, if the government own the country, then what right does anyone have to prevent them from doing anything on their property? The reality, though, is that the government does not: government was set up by the people who do own the country to work for them, and not the other way around. Mark Grant 13:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The problem with that is the community doesn't own the streets.  If someone owned the land the streets were built on in some private neighborhood it would be alright for said community to ban guns on the streets they own. But so long as we're talking about public property built for use by everyone, it's hardly fitting for a community to prohibit certain uses of that peoperty just because they live nearby.  Timmie.merc 04:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Nay, imagine if all roads were privately owned and one had to pay to do something so basic now as to drive to the store.  Public property shouldn't be the norm (read: communism), but it's hardly always detrimental. Timmie.merc 16:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now imagine if all roads were privately owned and supported by advertising.  The obvious solution is not always the only one.  —Tamfang 18:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can imagine anything you want.  For example, I can imagine a society with no laws that just functions because of human goodness, but that hardly means that a society without laws is the better decision.  When was the last time you drove down a turnpike whose construction was financed through advertising?  How about tolls? I just think that yes, there are some (albeit few) things in a society that should be shared by everyone. Timmie.merc 07:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gun Contorl (frivolous discussion)