Talk:Johan Norberg

Picture

Someone please add a picture of him. There's one here: Image:http://www.johannorberg.net/img/press/IMGP4456.jpg]

And other ones to select from here: http://www.johannorberg.net/?page=pictures

RichardT

Good Looking

Why is this guy so good looking —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.111.65.61 (talk) 08:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I know. I'm not even gay and I'm incredibly attracted to him.

RichardT

Todo

todo: http://www.johannorberg.net/?page=globisgood

I've mentioned it. Does it need any more? Tamino 10:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Anarchist

he mentions being an anarchist in defence for global capitalism, however he supports globalisation, would this make him a highly criticised "anarcho-capitalist"

I think he says that he was a anarchist in his youth, but left it later. Carl Logan 08:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism/Anarcho-capitalism/Alleged anachism/etc.

I've seen a few edits of this article dealing with Norberg's early political activities including his involvement in the "Anarchist Front" party that he claims that he and his friends formed while at the senior level of compulsory school. He claims himself in his biography the following:

"Otherwise my political involvement started with a number of friends and myself winning the school election at the senior level of compulsory school, with a party of our own, the Anarchist Front. I abandoned my anti-industrial anarchism, however, a few years later, for three reasons. Firstly, I was unable to romanticise the period preceding industrialisation and large-scale enterprise after reading history had taught me that it was not a pastoral idyll but a time of starvation, disease and premature death. Secondly, I came to realise that not only too much policing, but also too little, can lead to oppression and injustice. Thirdly, my reading of the classics of anarchism told me that they did not stand for liberty. Oh yes, everyone was to be free, but only as long as they lived in small, stifling collectives and shared everything equally. Then I discovered liberalism, which took freedom seriously."

I do not believe that this statement can be read in any other way than that Norberg was at the time an anarachist, not an "alleged anarachist" or an anarcho-capitalist, but an anarchist. If you have any verifiable source as to Norberg holding any other views at this time than anarchist, please provide such a source. If you do not, edits of that kind will be reverted. If you do not agree with my interpretation of Norberg's quote above, state your reasons on this page and let's have a discussion to settle the matter rather than edit back and forth. Sarnalios 00:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Liberal Vs. Libertarian

In U.S. English the adjective "libertarian" would more accurately describe Johan Norberg than liberal, even if he would describe himself as liberal. He is liberal in the classic sense of the word, or in the sense of how the word is used in the rest of the English speaking world. Use of the word liberal is misleading to most U.S. readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.46.71 (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Article nominated for deletion

Non-notable person. This is essentially a vanity bio created either by the subject himself or by like-minded fans of his think-tank work. Fails the criteria detailed in WP:Prof as the "honors" awarded to the subject were handed out simply by his think-tank colleagues and/or employers and publisher, NOT by independent academics or authorities. J.R. Hercules (talk) 04:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Disagree: Johan Norberg is clearly a notable person under WP:Bio. While much of his work has an academic style to it, he is not strictly an academic, but an author and contributer to the international debate on economic globalization. Sarnalios (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This discussion should not be taken here. The article was nominated for deletion here, where the result was speedy keep. /Slarre (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

So he's notable enough for you to want him not to be on wikipedia and for people to argue that his page should be kept, but not notable enough for the world to know that he exists? You contradict yourself.

Also, what are "independant academics or authorities"? Everyone has an opinion. 129.215.149.98 (talk) 17:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The thing that bothers me about this page is that its very existence gives this guy some credibility that he doesn’t seem to deserve. For example, he is quoted in other articles such as Shock Doctrine and Milton Friedman, yet as far as I can find out, there is no reason to value his opinion over any man off the street.

Just belonging to the Cato Institute does not give you instant credibility.

Bigger jake (talk) 12:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

He is notable in the same way that, say, Naomi Klein is notable. I assume you'll write a similar comment on that talk page? Janm67 (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Apparently Johan Norberg always upsets the socialist establishment, that alone makes him valuable enough to have a Wikipedia entry. --200.74.67.242 (talk) 18:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)