Talk:Libertarianism/Archive 7

message: Archives:  
*Talk:Libertarian, discussion for a page which has been merged with this article.
*Talk:Libertarianism/Alfrem, discussion prior to the ArbCom decision banning User:Alfrem from this article.
*Talk:Libertarianism/Page move, a July 2005 vote on a proposal to make libertarianism a disambiguation page and move this to Libertarianism (capitalist).
*Talk:Libertarianism/Archive
*Talk:Libertarianism/Archive2
*Talk:Libertarianism/Archive3
*Talk:Libertarianism/Archive4
*Talk:Libertarianism/Archive5
*Talk:Libertarianism/Archive6
i suggest removing the "radcial" before "laissez-faire" in "Criticism of libertarianism from the left tends to focus on its economic aspects, claiming that capitalism of a radical laissez-faire (free market) character undermines individual liberty, or creates poverty and harms society and the economy." because
(A)it detracts from the overall objectivity of the article.  In a political context, "radical" has a definate derogatory or negative connotation.  For example, "radical liberal" or "radical conservative".
(B)it doesnt add anything to the article.  "Laissez-faire" only has one meaning- free from government intervention.  Adding "radical" doesnt modify that meaning in any way.  At the very least, saying "radical laissez-faire" is redundant.  In my opinion, it adds a hint of bias and unnecessary opinion that detracts from the overall reliability of the article.
I dont want to touch anything myself since I'm a noob and this is otherwise a great article.
:I'm not sure I agree.  Rand's brand of laissez-faire capitalism is indeed more radical than many other forms endorsed by libertarians.  And, in context, it's quite correct to point out that this radical nature is what leftists object to.  It's NPOV. Alienus 08:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm the one that put "radical" there. I didn't mean it pejoratively. I just meant to state a fact that libertarians want radically-free markets and that's what the left doesn't like. It's one thing to say you want a laissez-faire system, but libertarians really mean it. Like Alienus just said, the radical character of their economic policies is where a lot of the criticism lies. On the other hand, I understand your point. Laissez-faire is itself radical. I can maybe word it slightly different to get the point across. RJII 15:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a good point.  I think we do need some way to distinguish between wanting free markets in general and wanting a laissez-faire level of freedom.  If "radical" is too strong or negative a word, then we should find a better one.   There are many types of free markets, including a number that are constrained by direct and indirect government intervention, so just saying that Libertarianism is for free markets is misleading.  Lots of people are for some sort of free market, just not the -- dare I say it? -- radical freedom of laissez faire. Alienus 17:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

message: Some evidence that not all libertarians base their philosophy on the NAP . Quoting from the abstract:
:In 1988, only 10 percent of libertarians responding to the Liberty Poll disagreed with Ayn Rand's dictum that "no person has the right to initiate physical force against another human being." In 1998, fully 50 percent disagreed with the proposition. Based on this and other data from the surveys of libertarian opinion conducted by this magazine in 1988 and in 1998, Liberty editor and publisher R. W. Bradford concluded that there had been a substantial decline in the sort of libertarian thinking that emanated from Rand's non-aggression imperative.
Cadr 11:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NAP 

message: Guys, if you have to put justification for your edits in the edit summaries, that proves that you aren't attempting to reach agreement before you edit the article. Use the talk page for that kind of stuff, and please stop edit warring. Your edit summaries should only explain what you are editing, not why. The discussion of the rationale behind the edits belongs here, and the editing should only happen when we have at least rough consensus. --malathion talk 16:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: Why is this a seperate article? On its talk page it says it was moved for "space reasons." Yet the George W. Bush page is way longer that this. I think it should be merged. --pile0nadestalk | contribs 12:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: George W. Bush is much longer than Wikipedia pages are usually supposed to be. That page might benefit from having some pieces chopped out of it. Granted, Libertarianism's growth is not a very well-written page. To my mind, that's all the more reason not to merge it back in here. - Nat Krause 13:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Libertarianism%27s_growth]] 

message: When is the CIA, User:RJII and cohorts going to stop making POV articles like this one? Can't you keep the anarcho-capitalists over here??! -max rspct 12:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Get over it. Not all anarchism is collectivist/communist. RJII 14:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[American individualist anarchism]]

message: I did a bit of editing and forgot to login prior to it (actually, I hadn't created a username yet, due to normally
using a non-cookie-enabled browser on Wikipedia), sorry. 165.230.209.234 is me. There was a contradiction between this
page and the one for Minarchism, for which this page was claiming all minarchists want no taxation and the
Minarchism page stated (correctly) that some acknowledge taxation as necessary. I also noted that Classical 
Liberals tend to fall into the minarchist category (Adam Smith's acknowledgement of some governmental economic
intervention being necessary, for instance, would mean that those in agreement with Adam Smith would be minarchists). Allens 05:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minarchist vs Anarcho-capitalist edit 

message: I think it is important to include, in the opening sentence defining libertarianism, the concept of equal defense and preservation of individual rights.  The opening sentence currently states:
:Libertarianism is a political philosophy whose highest value is defending and preserving the personal and economic liberty or freedoms of individuals.
I'm thinking of simply adding "equally" to the statement, something like:
:Libertarianism is a political philosophy whose highest value is defending and preserving, equally, the personal and economic liberty or freedoms of individuals.
Or:
:Libertarianism is a political philosophy whose highest value is defending and preserving the personal and economic liberty or freedoms of individuals equally.
The reason I think it's important to add this concept is because it seems to me that libertarianism is often misunderstood to be non-egalitarian.  Of course, libertarianism does not stand for guaranteed equality of results (like communism tries to do), but it does stand for equal preservation of individual rights, and I think this should be emphasized in the opening sentence.
Because it's the opening sentence, even though I'm only suggesting adding one word, instead of being bold and just doing it, I'm asking for comments first.  So... comments?
--Serge 01:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, what you're talking about is equivalent to Spencer's "law of equal liberty": "Every man has freedom to do all he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man." But, I would take out the defense part. Defense is another topic. The primary imperative is that people refrain from violating the liberty of other individuals, so that all individuals have equal liberty. Here's some info on equal liberty:  RJII 01:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  opening sentence: EQUAL defense of individual rights 

message: The side box about the Statue of Liberty mentions that "Others" think it is ironic for Libertarians to use a "big government" project as a symbol. 
:Others comment on the irony of libertarians choosing "a big government statue" as the symbol of an anti-state movement.
First, "Others" implies a multitude, but there is only a reference to one person stating that this is ironic. Furthermore, this person is obviously going out of his way to discredit libertarianism and provides no evidence that this was actually "big government" project. Finally, looking at the Statue of Liberty article, it seems that the American side of the project was funded voluntarily, and while the French side of the project included "public fees" (which I assume are taxes), it also had significant voluntary funding. There's no reason for Wikipedia to repeat every BS claim that anyone makes--it just clutters the content. I'm going to remove this comment from the Statue of Liberty caption, and think that if anyone wants to replace it, they should first go to the Statue of Liberty page and elaborate on how taxes were used to fund the Statue. AdamRetchless 20:32, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statue of liberty as "big government" project 

message: Apart from the weasel wording, the response doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. If the argument for not giving children full freedom is (as appears to be implied) that they aren't fully rational, wouldn't this also argue against giving adults full freedom? (Where freedom = freedom as libertarians see it). Cadr 12:40, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Libertarianism and children (libertarian response)

message: " historically, the Left in Europe was a property rights, laissez-faire movement, until it turned against property rights and the free market, necessitating the invention of a new word -- "Libertarian" -- to mean this)."
What is up with that? Slizor 11:56, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
:This seems strange to me too. I think it rests on two rather dubious assumptions. 1) Classical liberals were libertarians. 2) Classical liberals were left wing. (1) is false. (2) is more or less meaningless, since the left/right divide of today just doesn't apply to 18th century politics. Many who are regarded as classical liberals (e.g. Locke) were highly educated and privaledged individuals who had quite conservative and reactionary views on some topics. It seems rather odd to suggest that they were part of some kind of leftist movement. Cadr 12:48, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the fuck? 

message: I haven't read this article in full yet. But under the Rights and the Law section, I found this:
Currently, however, many "rights" that must be provided by the actions of others ("positive rights") are now the status quo especially in politically thorny areas like racial discrimination and health care.
"Racial discrimination" appears to refer to affirmative action. One may see the two as the same, but it is disingenuous and out of place here (given the connotation of "racial discrimination") not to be forthright. It's a subtle insertion of POV.--Demflan
: I agree, racial discrimination is very different than affirmative action. Unless there are objections, I'll change it shortly. -GregAsche (talk) 20:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've gone ahead and changed it. -GregAsche (talk) 02:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brief Notice 

message: Right now, the intro seems to focus on the philosophical underpinnings of libertarian beliefs. Yet, as the article itself explains further down, these underpinnings are different for different libertarians. It would be much more helpful to the reader to describe libertarianism in terms of the actual things it supports: individual rights, private property and free market capitalism. This is particularly necessary since many of the philosophical justifications for libertarianism are not uniquely libertarian. The freedom to do anything you want as long as you don't infringe on the rights of others can be used to justify almost anything, depending on how you define "the rights of others". It is important to explain what the rights defended by libertarians actually are. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 19:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's says in the intro :"As libertarianism is an advocacy of negative liberty, it is asserted that no person (or government) may initiate coercion. Libertarians make "coercion" specific by defining it as the use of physical force, the threat of such, or deception (fraud) that alters, or is intended to alter, the way individuals' would use their property (including their body) if those elements were not present. Coercion is ethically permissible only when employed in defense against an initiation." I don't know how you could get anymore explicit or straightforward than that. The "rights of others" is the right for them to do what they want as long as they don't initiate coercion, as defined. Everybody has exactly the same rights. As far as private property, etc, it also says there in the intro: "Most support the existence of government but advocate reducing the size and scope of government to the essential functions of protecting individual liberty, private property, and a free market." Doesn't that cover it? RJII 19:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See my edits (I accidentally edited as anonymous because I'm working from a public computer that automatically logs me out after a set period of time; sorry about that). -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 20:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I believe my new intro has kept all the major points of the previous one (with the exception of "equal liberty", which is nonsensical; libertarianism aims for maximum liberty, and equal liberty could just as well mean that everyone is equally unfree). Please refrain from reverting out of hand. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 20:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Libertarianism is the liberty to do as one wishes as long as he doesn't use coercion to stop others from doing the same. In other words, Spencer's "law of equal liberty." That's the essence of libertarianism. Everything else, including advocting private property, is the attempted application of that principle. The intro was very adequate in laying out what's essential about libertarianism. Your changes, for lack of a better word, just screws it up. RJII 21:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that "the liberty to do as one wishes as long as he doesn't use coercion to stop others from doing the same" is claimed as a foundation principle not only by libertarians, but also by most other branches of liberalism, as well as libertarian socialism and anarchism. Many would say that advocating private property does not follow from this principle. To say that "Libertarianism is a political philosophy that advocates individual rights, private property and free market capitalism", on the other hand, is uncontroversial - libertarians often define themselves in this way, and everyone (both adherents and critics of libertarianism) agrees with it. Besides, if one advocates individual rights, private property and free market capitalism - but without caring about Spencer's law - is not that person a libertarian? You seem to want a definition of libertarianism that is ambiguous, disputed, and, most of all, restrictive. It is completely unrepresentative of the thousands of libertarians out there who support individual rights, private property and free market capitalism for other reasons than Spencer's law. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 21:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "If one advocates individual rights, private property and free market capitalism - but without caring about Spencer's law - is not that person a libertarian?" The answer to your question is no. He's a libertarian if he thinks a person's rights (or liberty) should be unlimited as long as that person doesn't initiate coercion on others. He's not a libertarian if he thinks people should have rights that are limited before the point where he initiates coercion on others. That's the essence of libertarianism. It's not a matter of merely having rights and private property (a lot of people believe in individual rights and private property), but to what extent you are allowed to do what you wish with yourself and your property. RJII 22:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent point; I will add it to the intro immediately. I see now what you mean, and you are indeed correct that this is a vital aspect of libertarianism. Many ideologies support individual rights and private property to some extent, but wish to put more limits on them than libertarians would accept. A complete definition of libertarianism has to include the idea that "a person's rights (or liberty) should be unlimited as long as that person doesn't initiate coercion on others". On the other hand, the definition must also include the part about private property and free market capitalism, because, as I pointed out before, it is important to specify what rights and freedoms libertarians want to be unlimited. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 01:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

text: In brief, my point is as follows: One who supports individual rights, private property and free market capitalism - for whatever reason - is a libertarian. That is how the World's Smallest Political Quiz, for example, defines libertarians. Do you disagree? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 21:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not true. See above. You can support individual rights, private property, and free market capitalism and still not be a libertarian. It depends on the extent of those individual rights, the extent of the right to property. Also, note you can support  "free market capitalism" while at the same time advocate minimal civil liberties. RJII 22:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, that is a very good point and I completely agree. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 01:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Besides, I did mention the opposition to the initiation of force and the non-aggression principle in the first paragraph. Honestly, I have no idea what you are objecting to. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 21:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hopefully, now you see the problem. RJII 22:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I do, and I think we can write a better intro working together than either of us could write separately. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 01:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A proposed change of focus in the intro 

message: Hey, it's Dave.  I used to do a lot of work on this article and others before college sucked up my life a couple months ago.  I have a request that some of you may be interested in.  I'm writing a paper criticizing libertarianism, (due Wednesday morning) and I thought some of you might want to look it over, since it includes a lot of arguments from literature that's not currently covered by Wikipedia.  I'd like to have feedback in the following two areas:
# arguments against libertarianism that I'm ignoring
# situations where I overgeneralize about all libertarians or ignore a good libertarian counterargument.
I'd like to be fair to both sides in this paper, and while I can't post it for online editing because it has to all be my own work, I'd appreciate any feedback you can offer.  If you're interested, send me an email or reply here with your email address and I'll send it to you as an attachment.  Even if you don't have a chance to read it before it's due on Wednesday, I'd like to hear what you think.
Thanks in advance, and I hope I have the time to contribute to Wikipedia again soon.  I learned a lot from working with ya'all.
Dave (talk) 01:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you could also post it online after it has been turned in on Wednesday? D-Rock 03:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure.  Are you interested in reading it before Wednesday? Dave (talk) 19:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remember me?  A request 

message: Hi there,
As part of the long, repetitive and fundamentally boring anarchism POV wars, I occasionally check the status of this article.  While I disagree with this article being at this position, the editorial votes have been taken and the status quo won by a long shot.  Can I complement other editors on the reasonably good disambiguation at the top, and on their handling of the term's usage in contemporary US inspired politics?  Well done.  I think that there's US-centrism in a number of the assumptions*, but the quality is very encyclopedic. *(I'm thinking "...in most English speaking countries..." should be "some", and I'd point to the use of libertarian in Australian, NZ and British political English.  1950s-US-inspired libertarians are outnumbered and outpublished by 1890s-Labour-movement-and-following inspired libertarians.  Perhaps the answer here is a page discussing regional uses of the word libertarian in English?)
In this context its a shame that idiots try and wreck what was a very slow and hard-fought movement to community consensus.  The proper place to revisit those issues is of course on a talk page.Fifelfoo 01:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish everyone on "my side" was as magnanimous as you.   Thanks for your comment.  Dave (talk) 07:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent overwriting of the article with the Libertarian socialism article 

message: To be clear, the following Jefferson quote does not express the non-agression principle, or any concept of negative liberty whatsoever:
:unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.
Let's say everyone is given the right to own a house, and each house is paid for by universal taxation. Everyone has their rights abridged to some extent by taxation (so their action is not entirely "unobstructed"), but since both the taxation and the right to a house are universal, this is an abridgment "within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others". Jefferson isn't (explicitly) arguing against positive liberties here. It's a straight misreading to see this quote as an articulation of any libertarian principle. Cadr 20:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. It's just another way of saying that a person has a right to do anything he wishes as long as he doesn't infringe on the same liberty of others. It's saying a person has a right to "unobstructed action according to [his] will" --meaning a right to do what he wants  --as long as the sphere of action is contained within the limit of allowing everyone the same right to unobstructed action ..."the equal right of others." It's pure libertarianism. Here's a fuller quote: "Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limit drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law', because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." RJII 22:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But RJII, as I just explained, the concept of liberty Jefferson is describing is perfectly compatible with positive rights, which libertarians are against. Can you explain how Jefferson's definition excludes positive rights? Because I don't see that it does. Cadr 18:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I also disagree with Cadr, and agree with RJII.  I will add that it's quite discouraging to see this lack of recognition of what appears to me to be blatant libertarianism expressed by Jefferson.  I can't help but wonder whether we understand the statement differently, or we understand libertarianism differently, or both.  --Serge 01:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine. Do you have any arguments to support your views? Cadr 18:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

text: And if you think Jefferson was a libertarian, check out what he wrote about property (some quotes here ). He certainly believed in strong property righs, but he was no doctrinare libertarian -- his views were far more tempered and sophisticated. In fact, they seem somewhat contradictorary. Sometimes, he expresses the right to porperty as a natural (even divine) right. At other times, he sees property as merely whatever a person has the ability to defend: "He who is permitted by law to have no property of his own can with difficulty conceive that property is founded in anything but force.", and "Nothing is ours, which another may deprive us of." Cadr 18:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Jefferson and NAP

message: This section is terribly written, unverifiable, and patchy.  I believe I nuked it when it was initially added over the summer, but it seems to have made it back in.  I don't know enough about the subject to improve it.  What should we do? Dave (talk) 19:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  libertarian philosophy in the academy 

message: Sansvoix recently reverted my reinsertion of "Critics of libertarianism argue that the philosophy actually undermines individual liberty, or creates poverty and harms society and the economy".  Now that I can see the reason for removing it, I agree.  Without specific citations, this could be seen as random criticism. Alienus 22:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very little of the intro is cited. This is normal, because intros are supposed to be summaries. Citations come later down in the article. And, if the sentence in question is removed, then there is hardly any mention left in the intro about the beliefs of critics of libertarianism. Certainly, something should be said about the views held by those critics (other than the fact that thy think libertarianism to be undesirable, which is self-evident). -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 08:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critcs 

message: I changed the statement that libertarianism came from classical liberalism, and changed it to the effect that it IS classical liberalism. This is from the Encyclopedia Britannica article on libertarianism: "Libertarians are classical liberals who strongly emphasize the individual right to liberty." RJII 05:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the Talk page of the classical liberalism article you argued the opposite (that libertarianism is not classical liberalism). Make up your mind. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 08:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You should listen to sources, not me. RJII 17:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: classical liberalism

message: I am surprised to see Reason described as a right-leaning libertarian magazine.  I always thought that Reason was considered a Left-Libertarian magazine or simply libertarian, but not right-leaning.  Am I alone in thinking this? --Ian Lewis 17:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Right-Leaning Libertarian Magazine 

message: I just joined the wiki community this month, and went a little wild on the edits on this page just because the "edit this page" button worked.  In other words, I operated in complete ignorance of the lengthy debates that this page had previously attracted.  I now realize that I may have ridden roughshod over dozens of sensitive toes, except that my changes seemed to have not drawn any reaction at all.  To be sure, my intent was not to add or delete anything substantive, but to simply clarify the intro, which I felt was poorly organized.  Still, I'm surprised that, given all the fuss over past, relatively minor changes that predated my arrival, not a peep has arisen since then.  I'd like to think that my extensive re-writes were viewed as the sensible edits of a knowledgeable, experienced, objective man, but it seems more likely that the excitable denizens of yore have simply moved on.  Anyway, I sincerely hope my additions were helpful.
Personally, I think several of the other sections could use additional editing, but I only have so much time...Mhodak 05:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone home? 

message: This isn't an authoritativee source(its my blog), but may give you some ideas about what to add to the criticism of Libertarianism section:
Thanks!-Urthogie 10:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  critcisms of libertarianism 

message: I noticed that all the footnotes were off by 2, and the first two didn't actually refer to a passage in the article, so I have moved them to the external links section. However, in the process, I was blocked from saving my edits by a spam filter, because of the previous inclusion of http://www.liberator.dk at the bottom of the section. I removed it, thinking it would be a simple matter to go throught the process of getting it removed from the spam filter later, but it's not such a simple process after all. So, if anyone's looking for it, my apologies, as it does appear to be a genuine site about Libertarianism, albeit in Danish. I'll try to get it off the spam list and back in place on the external links section.
DavidJField 21:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  accidentally removed external link 

message: The following seems biased to me:
"...liberals would typically support laws to penalize employers for discrimination on a basis unrelated to the ability to do the job, conservatives would typically allow or even encourage such discrimination, but libertarians could be expected to oppose any laws on this matter..."
I don't know any voting conservatives who would discriminate against a potential on a basis unrelated to ability to do the job. I do know one non-voting (convicted felon) liberal Democrat who would never hire a black person, and only because of the color of his skin. I agree with Alienus that the line should not be merely deleted, because the intent is to show  the distinction between the three viewpoints. But it should be re-worded to present a typical conservative viewpoint, and this is not it.
DavidJField 21:54 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I found this article that I think explains the conservative point of view on employment discrimination pretty well: 
This has helped me figure out how to rephrase the above paragraph without changing its meaning. I think it should say, "Here, liberals would typically support laws to penalize employers for discrimination on any basis unrelated to the ability to do the job, and conservatives would typically oppose racial or religious discrimination but would typically support laws that allow or even encourage other types of discrimination, for example, on the basis of sexual orientation. Libertarians, on the other hand, could be expected to oppose any laws on this matter..."
--DavidJField 21:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conservatives not supportive of discrimination