Talk:Libertarianism/Archive 4

message: Ayn Rand was not a libertarian. She claimed strongly that the libertarian movement was a badly done rip-off of Objectivism.
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_campus_libertarians
This is an article by the Ayn Rand Institute showing all the comments she has made on libertarianism and the libertarian party.
I removed her name from the list of libertarians.
(Not sure if I'm doing this correctly, but this is someone else adding a note:)  Libertarians and Objectivists find a lot of common ground (centered largely around personal responsibility), and indeed they're often grouped together, but Objectivism is a broad moral code and libertarianism is just a political philosophy.  Ayn Rand stressed repeatedly that Objectivism was not a political philosophy, even if it has political implications, like any moral code (I can find exact quotes if necessary).  Some diehard Objectivists vehemently oppose libertarianism simply because Ayn Rand told them to; there is much less animosity the other way around.  The two really don't contradict each other, and in fact they tend to suggest each other.
An objectivist believes in a libertarian society. I think Rand was against people who were calling themselves libertarians at the time (and were libertarians) but that had no rational philosophical foundation for the advocacy of libertarianism. Apparently, she felt that her philosophy was the only or the only proper way of arriving at the belief in what libertarianism describes. So, I think it's clear she is a libertarian, but she would never join the Libertarian Party (large "L") because she would say that that that political party does not have a cogent philosophical foundation in its platform. RJII 05:09, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ayn Rand? 

message: I've never used a Talk page before, so if I'm doing this wrongly, please move my comments to where they should be. This statement caught my eye a little bit down the page:
"To me, this statement is meaningless. You can arbitrarily categorise rights as positive or negative. For example, the positive right to food could be categorised as the negative right not to starve. The negative right not to be robbed could be phrased as the positive right to property ownership."
The negative right not to starve will impede on someone's negative rights not to be taxed or to have property/food seized from them.
-nach0king
:You should sign with ~~~~ at the end of your comment. It does this: PhilHibbs 11:05, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm probably going to open a can of worms with this one, but perhaps a comparison to Negative and Positive Liberty (in the Political_spectrum#Alternative_spectra article might be useful.  Slightly different focus, but Negative Liberty is the liberty of being left alone, while Positive Liberty is the liberty to participate in government.  They are sufficiently different to be used as different axes, so one could have a benign monarch, anarcho-capitalism, mob rule, and despotism as the four extremes if they were made into a 4 quadrant chart. Harvestdancer 18:57, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Response to the Negative Rights Argument 

message: I am a life-long libertarian.  Until a couple of years ago, when I started getting interested in U.S. politics, I had never thought that the extreme liberalism detailed in this article might seriously be called "libertarianism".  
The U.S. has a Democratic Party, and "I'm a Democrat" declared by an American voter means allegiance to this party, and yet "Democrat" and "Democracy" have meanings that go beyond the petty politics of one country.  The U.S. has a Republican Party, and "I'm a Republican" declared by an American voter means allegiance to this party, and yet "Republican" and "Republic" have meanings that go beyond the petty politics of one country.  The U.S. has a Libertarian Party, and "I'm a Libertarian" declared by an American voter means allegiance to this party, and yet "Libertarian" and "Libertarianism" have meanings that go beyond the petty politics of one country.  
Why are the conclusions of the first two statements reflected in the contents of articles such as Democracy, Republic, etc. but not in Libertarianism?  Why does this article not actually talk about libertarianism?
Could it be that too high a proportion of contributors are ignorant chauvinists from a certain part of the world?  That's a rhetorical question.  Chameleon 23:19, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about libertarianism.  You may be interested instead in the United States Libertarian Party article for reference on that subject.  Could it be that you have shown up here in an effort to smear other editors by innuendo and suggestion?  Don't answer that, it's a rhetorical question. - Nat Krause 15:51, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment from a libertarian

message: I have noticed that most of the recent edits seem to be made by anonymous people without accounts on Wikipedia.  I would like to urge people to create accounts and therefore properly identify themselves if participating in any controversy or frequent editing.  Chameleon 13:25, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accounts 

message: I think the current libertarianism article is frought with difficulty.  For one thing, it is about anti-libertariansim as much as it is about libertariainsm.  For another, there is considerable redundancy, some of which is avoidable. And, it does not explicate several important issues critical to libertarian thought.  It is obviously controversial, so I thought a new attempt with several qualifications in defining libertarian philosophy might be in order.  I tried to capture all of the important links and major ideas, but did not include the Nolan Chart, though I addressed it, and I certainly would not object to its inclusion. In any event, I offer it for your consideration, improvement (which it certainly needs), and rejection/deletion. The new article is entitled Libertarian theory.  I have no objection if most of those who frequent this page simply want to can it, and I won't try to preserve it. icut4u 00:34, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: A new page for your consideration

message: Michael Badnarik said:
"RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES ARE POLAR OPPOSITES. A RIGHT IS SOMETHING THAT I CAN DO WITHOUT ASKING. A PRIVILEGE IS SOMETHING THAT A HIGHER AUTHORITY ALLOWS ME TO DO. IT IS UTTER NONSENSE FOR US TO ACCEPT GOVERNMENT PERMITS IN ORDER TO EXERCISE AN INALIENABLE RIGHT."
-[Project Vote Smart]
At least with regard to the US Libertarian Party-- 
Perhaps the argument on the use of the word "rights" in the article could center more toward this quote, since the paragraph in context is suppose to show what "Libertarians believe".
: Chuck's unjustified reverts are not a good thing. Reithy 11:41, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
: It might be usable as a quote, but in the unquoted context, it's pretty troublesome. In the same breath he's saying these rights are unalienable, and complaining about the government alienating them. He says rights are something one can do without asking, yet he's asking people to vote for him so he can ensure you can do them without having to ask. It's even more of a contradiction than what's currently in the article!
: It works well as a piece of election rhetoric, but surely someone can find something that better represents the Libertarian argument than that container of logical absurdities. I'm not a Libertarian, but if I was, I'd feel like someone was doing my views a disservice if that went in the article. Shane King 13:36, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
I agree.  He is one example of a libertarian politician, but not a particularly good libertarian theorist.  I should be no more inclined to quote him than, say, George Bush or John Kerry on federalism or democracy, notwithstanding the fact both of them are presumably examples of people who believe in both of these ideas. Besides, as you point out, it is not a well-constructed point icut4u 16:45, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Seen it. It's just one more salvo in the perpetual flamewar it purports to deride. It is not particularly informative, nor a well-formed critique; it is a flame. --FOo 02:01, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Positive Rights" "Negative Rights" 

message: Far be it from me to intrude on this nasty little edit war that has locked the page, but someone might want to fix a broken link one of these days.  "Revisiting Anarchism and Government by Tibor R. Machan." is no more.  http://www.liberalia.com/htm/tm_minarchists_anarchists.htm times out. -- Branden 01:48, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Seen it. It's just one more salvo in the perpetual flamewar it purports to deride. It is not particularly informative, nor a well-formed critique; it is a flame. --FOo 02:01, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  *cough, cough* 

message: Perhaps someone (wiser than me) could write a bit about the relationship between libertarianism and conservativism (or, more rightly, libertarians and conservatives)? It's relevant to the topic, and a complex and interesting issue.
:There's a bit on that subject already in the "Libertarianism in the political spectrum" section. I think Hayek's classic article (which is linked) goes a long way to explaining the distinctions of principle between libertarians and conservatives. --FOo 04:22, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conservativism should be mentioned 

message: You all are invited to visit and comment on a draft for a RfC on this and related articles that will eventually likely become a poll. Please remember we are not discussing the topic itself, just the suitable neutral number of issues we want to cover. --Improv 17:12, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Draft for a RfC on the issue 

message: I've never used a Talk page before, so if I'm doing this wrongly, please move my comments to where they should be. This statement caught my eye a little bit down the page:
"To me, this statement is meaningless. You can arbitrarily categorise rights as positive or negative. For example, the positive right to food could be categorised as the negative right not to starve. The negative right not to be robbed could be phrased as the positive right to property ownership."
The negative right not to starve will impede on someone's negative rights not to be taxed or to have property/food seized from them.
-nach0king
:You should sign with ~~~~ at the end of your comment. It does this: PhilHibbs 11:05, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Response to the Negative Rights Argument 

message: I am a life-long libertarian.  Until a couple of years ago, when I started getting interested in U.S. politics, I had never thought that the extreme liberalism detailed in this article might seriously be called "libertarianism".  
The U.S. has a Democratic Party, and "I'm a Democrat" declared by an American voter means allegiance to this party, and yet "Democrat" and "Democracy" have meanings that go beyond the petty politics of one country.  The U.S. has a Republican Party, and "I'm a Republican" declared by an American voter means allegiance to this party, and yet "Republican" and "Republic" have meanings that go beyond the petty politics of one country.  The U.S. has a Libertarian Party, and "I'm a Libertarian" declared by an American voter means allegiance to this party, and yet "Libertarian" and "Libertarianism" have meanings that go beyond the petty politics of one country.  
Why are the conclusions of the first two statements reflected in the contents of articles such as Democracy, Republic, etc. but not in Libertarianism?  Why does this article not actually talk about libertarianism?
Could it be that too high a proportion of contributors are ignorant chauvinists from a certain part of the world?  That's a rhetorical question.  Chameleon 23:19, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about libertarianism.  You may be interested instead in the United States Libertarian Party article for reference on that subject.  Could it be that you have shown up here in an effort to smear other editors by innuendo and suggestion?  Don't answer that, it's a rhetorical question. - Nat Krause 15:51, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment from a libertarian

message: I have noticed that most of the recent edits seem to be made by anonymous people without accounts on Wikipedia.  I would like to urge people to create accounts and therefore properly identify themselves if participating in any controversy or frequent editing.  Chameleon 13:25, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accounts 

message: I think the current libertarianism article is frought with difficulty.  For one thing, it is about anti-libertariansim as much as it is about libertariainsm.  For another, there is considerable redundancy, some of which is avoidable. And, it does not explicate several important issues critical to libertarian thought.  It is obviously controversial, so I thought a new attempt with several qualifications in defining libertarian philosophy might be in order.  I tried to capture all of the important links and major ideas, but did not include the Nolan Chart, though I addressed it, and I certainly would not object to its inclusion. In any event, I offer it for your consideration, improvement (which it certainly needs), and rejection/deletion. The new article is entitled Libertarian theory.  I have no objection if most of those who frequent this page simply want to can it, and I won't try to preserve it. icut4u 00:34, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: A new page for your consideration

message: Michael Badnarik said:
"RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES ARE POLAR OPPOSITES. A RIGHT IS SOMETHING THAT I CAN DO WITHOUT ASKING. A PRIVILEGE IS SOMETHING THAT A HIGHER AUTHORITY ALLOWS ME TO DO. IT IS UTTER NONSENSE FOR US TO ACCEPT GOVERNMENT PERMITS IN ORDER TO EXERCISE AN INALIENABLE RIGHT."
-[Project Vote Smart]
At least with regard to the US Libertarian Party-- 
Perhaps the argument on the use of the word "rights" in the article could center more toward this quote, since the paragraph in context is suppose to show what "Libertarians believe".
: Chuck's unjustified reverts are not a good thing. Reithy 11:41, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
: It might be usable as a quote, but in the unquoted context, it's pretty troublesome. In the same breath he's saying these rights are unalienable, and complaining about the government alienating them. He says rights are something one can do without asking, yet he's asking people to vote for him so he can ensure you can do them without having to ask. It's even more of a contradiction than what's currently in the article!
:: The word is inalienable. The meaning is that no-one has the right to alienate that right from you, and if someone tries to infringe your inalienable rights, you in turn have the right to defend yourself, even to the point of employing violence. Whether you choose to exercise the right of self-defence is up to you. It is entirely possible that someone can infringe on your rights by employing force. That does not mean that your rights are any less inalienable, it just means your rights have been infringed. There are no contradictions in Badnarik's statement, unless you intend a post-modern deconstruction of meaning. In which case, why bother?
: It works well as a piece of election rhetoric, but surely someone can find something that better represents the Libertarian argument than that container of logical absurdities. I'm not a Libertarian, but if I was, I'd feel like someone was doing my views a disservice if that went in the article. Shane King 13:36, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
I agree.  He is one example of a libertarian politician, but not a particularly good libertarian theorist.  I should be no more inclined to quote him than, say, George Bush or John Kerry on federalism or democracy, notwithstanding the fact both of them are presumably examples of people who believe in both of these ideas. Besides, as you point out, it is not a well-constructed point icut4u 16:45, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Seen it. It's just one more salvo in the perpetual flamewar it purports to deride. It is not particularly informative, nor a well-formed critique; it is a flame. --FOo 02:01, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Positive Rights" "Negative Rights" 

message: Far be it from me to intrude on this nasty little edit war that has locked the page, but someone might want to fix a broken link one of these days.  "Revisiting Anarchism and Government by Tibor R. Machan." is no more.  http://www.liberalia.com/htm/tm_minarchists_anarchists.htm times out. -- Branden 01:48, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Seen it. It's just one more salvo in the perpetual flamewar it purports to deride. It is not particularly informative, nor a well-formed critique; it is a flame. --FOo 02:01, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  *cough, cough* 

message: You all are invited to visit and comment on a draft for a RfC on this and related articles that will eventually likely become a poll. Please remember we are not discussing the topic itself, just the suitable neutral number of issues we want to cover. --Improv 17:12, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Draft for a RfC on the issue 

message: Why was Bill O'reilly deleted? He is very obviously a libertarian. If you think it isn't factual I've seen much bigger bullshit on this dog and pony encyclopedia.
:Bill O'Reilly is a libertarian and I'm the pope. Rhobite 16:28, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
::: Yes, Bill O'Reilly is no libertarian.  He routinely denounces secularists, people who would decriminalize drugs, and supports all manner of state intrusions, including the so-called Patriot Act, which certaily do not comport with libertarain tendencies.  He dislikes income taxes, supports capitalism, and claims to be politically independent, but these things hardly suffice to make him a libertarian.icut4u
::::Bill O'Reilly supports the legalization of marijuana.
No, not really.  In a transcript of one of his broadcasts he suggests that only usage in one's home should be permitted, and in another, he says it only ought to be allowed for medical use, apparently out of sympathy for his friend, Montel Williams. He was very uncharitable to the libertarian guest who advocated decriminalization of drugs. Of course, O'Reilly is notoriously inconsistent. icut4u 
::: Please cite in what ways Bill O'Reilly is libertarian. Generously, one could describe him as a fiscal minimalist, but in almost all social respects he has shown himself to be not exactly beholden to the cause of civil rights. As the poster above says, he displays a few aspects of libertarianism, but for the most part, he is simply an American conservative. 14:08, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Bill Maher is a "civil libertarian" not a generalized "libertarian." Apparently he didn't know the difference when he called himself a libertarian. RJII 18:53, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Libertarian Celebrities 

message: Hi, as part of the Wiki Syntax project we'd like to make a very minor correction at the start of this article, on this line:
This article deals with the libertarianism as defined in America and several other nations. For a discussion of the meaning of the term libertarian that is traditional in Europe, see libertarian socialism. 
Can we please get a  added to the end of that line, thus closing the wiki italics quotes? All the best, -- Nickj 04:49, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki Syntax 

message: 1) Anarcho-capitalism is a statist ideology.  What do you think Rothbard's "defense associations" are?  How else will business owners protect their property interests without a state?  Inherint in a state is some sort of political hierchy and unequal political power relations, WHICH IS IN THE VERY NATURE OF CAPITALIST RELATIONS BETWEEN WORKERS AND BOSSES.
2) You are NOT classical liberals.  A liberal conception of human nature neccessitates a mistrust of concentrated political power, since such power is inherintly authoritarian in nature.  The classical liberal thinkers warned against two types of centralized political power- CORPORATE power & businessmen, and GOVERNMENTAL POWER & political rulers.  The true heirs of classical liberalism are progressives such as Dennis Kucinich or Ralph Nader, NOT right-wing libertarianism.
3) Classical liberals never warned against socialism.  In fact, for almost a CENTURY socialism was the heir of the liberal tradition, from the early 1800's until von Mises and his propogandists came along and tried re-defining what "liberal" and "libertarian" meant.
4) Right-wing libertarians are just APOLIGISTS for corporate capitalism, and SHILLS FOR THE RULING CLASS, and thus the state.  Your ideology is FAR from being genuinely libertarian, even if you wish to call it "libertarian."  It is about as libertarian as southern slave holders who wished for the federal government to leave them alone.
5) I am sick of you people, your lies, manipulation, and "collectivist" baiting.  Your ideology needs to be properly labelled for what it is:  RIGHT-WING LIBERTARIANISM.  Not "Libertarian" (a libertarian is a type of socialist) or "Libertarianism" (opposition to central political power)  You are right-wing libertarians.  Period.  If you don't agree, then you can go argue with some REAL libertarians- www.infoshop.org
:BWAAA HAAAA HAAAA!  Ubernetizen 06:53, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Right-wing "Libertarians" and "Anarcho-"capitalists- STOP THE LIES 

message: I reverted some of RJIII's recent mass changes to the article because it seemed to me that they were inserting spit words and propogandising. One example is referring to Europe diminutively as "Old Europe". Please take a look over his recent edits to the page. --Improv 23:17, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Aww, but the "old europe" bit was just so funny.  Sounded like Bush.  Kev 00:24, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Was a joke. RJII 13:31, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:   Well thats pretty funny.  Unfortunately its also a bannable offense to deface an article for the purpose of making a point or humor.  Not that I would be participating in such a ban, that was probably the best edit you've ever made.  Kev 13:59, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  In that case, I was kidding when I said it was a joke. It wasn't a joke. I was dead serious. RJII 21:11, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: RJIII's Changes

message: WTF?  It is a known fact that the paris commune was brutally attacked by governmental forces.  Describing this as "crushed" was just fine, but then changing it to collapse was ridiculous.  Like it just fell apart on its own or something.  And that is exactly how you are describing it, whoops, it fell!  No, it was suppressed:  (www.m-w.com)  : to put down by authority or force : SUBDUE. Kev 20:55, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perfect, is was suppressed by the French government.  Kev 23:54, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Paris Commune simply fell?