Talk:Libertarianism

; Archives
Archive 1	Archive 2
Archive 3	Archive 4
Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8
	Archive 9
	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).

Template:Featured article is only for Wikipedia:Featured articles. Template:Mainpage date

Libertarianism received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Template:Farcfailed

more criticism on anti-animal rights issues needed

american libertarians are known to be more anti-animal rights and anti-environmental issues than most republicans. the article needs to reflect it.

Fair enough -- if we can find sourcing, it may be worth a mention. The first question I see is: are you referring to the American Libertarian Party in particular, or libertarian philosophy as a whole? There's an important distinction, there -- as an example, while many people would generally consider the US Republican Party conservative, they don't necessarily define the historic concept of conservatism. Make sense? Luna Santin 04:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Luna here. Also, I believe that it would be a similar error to conclude too much about libertarianism by looking at liberarians opposed to animal rights. Nozick had some remarks in Anarchy, State and Utopia that could be read as supportive of animal rights. Most libertarians are probably opposed to governments using violence to defend animal rights, but this seems to be an issue where people could hold any number of views and still all be libertarians. JLW777 00:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with JLW777. Yes, most libertarians are probably opposed to government violating the rights of human individuals in order to protect the rights of animals. However, there is nothing inherent in libertarianism that says animals can't have equal rights to humans. Also, this is related to children rights. Does someone have the right, to, for example, trespass onto someone's property in order to stop that someone from beating his child? How about torturing his pet? Indeed, any number of views can all be libertarian on these issues. Libertarianism is only cut and dried once rights are well-defined. But when it comes to relative rights, and conflicting rights, things get murky. --Serge 01:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Environmentalism and the EPA (or any other State exercise of force) are not synonymous. It's possible to hold a view that both respects a sustainable environment and self-determination. However, self-ownership of the child trumps the trespassing infringement in that case, if the child requests aid and you choose to provide it. (The language of "his child" is inherently confusing. A parent cannot own their child as property; that would be slavery.) As for animal rights, all non-persons can be property. 71.162.255.58 20:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protected

I protected this page and also Minarchism because of Irgendwer who is using sockpuppets like crazy at the moment. I have a checkuser request up. If these are all proven to be him, he will be blocked. So this is a band aid to stop him from doing this. He's up to 3 socks and will continue to create them. This should just be for a day or two. --Woohookitty^(meow) 09:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A new user account is not automatically a sockpuppet. Nobody is taken in here by "sockpuppets". You are abusing your authority. --Ööööö 14:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A new user account used to evade a block is automatically a sockpuppet. Wikipedia has zero tolerance for block-evading uses of sockpuppets. — Saxifrage ✎ 17:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what? --Ööööö 18:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you indicating lack of comprehension of Wikipedia's rules, or lack of caring about them? — Saxifrage ✎ 18:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nor. I am not banned from Wikipedia. --Ööööö 18:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Irgendwer is blocked from editing (which is certainly not the same thing as being banned by the ArbCom), and the use of "new accounts" (aka sockpuppets) to evade a block is explicitly forbidden by the blocking policy. See User talk:Ööööö, because further discussion of this here would be disruptive. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"When it becomes clear that a user account is a "reincarnation" of an existing banned user, the new account should likewise be blocked." --Ööööö 20:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am a complete tyro as regards putting anything on Wikipedia. Just as I was about to try I find this page is locked. I would be happy to send the administrator who is protecting this page my brief list of suggested additional text and corrections, or paste them in here if that is more appropriate. Please let me know. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Caveat (talk • contribs) .

Currently, the page is what we call semi-protected (sprotected, for short), which means that anonymous and very new users can't edit, so you've got a few options. If it's something urgent, you can use {{editprotected}} to request a change or two, or you can list your changes and see if people will make them, or you can wait a day or two, come back, and edit yourself. Hope that helps, and I look forward to seeing your contributions. :) Luna Santin 22:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. I think I shall wait a little longer to try to do it myself. Caveat 15:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Negative liberty

Sry about writing in here i'm not familiar with wikipedia. I think theres a mistake in the first paragraph it should say (positive liberty) not (negative liberty).

"Negative liberty" is correct: the passage is talking about freedom from coercion, which is what negative liberty is about. — Saxifrage ✎ 09:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Libertarianism and politics' section

I'm removing this section because it is terribly written, indecipherable, and because the parts of it that are coherent violate WP:NPOV. It was successfully put into the article by the now-banned Irgendwer. He inserted it exactly three times a day for a month until everyone either got tired of reverting or got distracted by one of the many other disputes over his tenditious editing. --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 20:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Serge 17:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citation supporting "political"??

I have removed this citation:

<ref>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 accessed 24 June 2005). The Encyclopedia Britannica defines Libertarianism as "Political philosophy that stresses personal liberty." (link, accessed 29 June 2005) Anarcho-capitalist Murray Rothbard says, "Libertarianism is a political philosophy which says: Given any existent human nature, liberty is the only moral and the most effective political system" in "Myth and Truth About Libertarianism", Modern Age, 24.1 (Winter 1980): 9-15.</ref>

from the intro. C'mon, do we really need to spell it out? If there is anything in the intro that needs a citation, this would be last on the list, wouldn't you think? —Two-Bit Sprite 18:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A now-banned user edit warred for months to take "political" out of the lead. Yeah, I don't really think it's necessary, especially now that the Unique Point Of View of that one user is no longer influencing the article. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this same user was raising a ruckus over at Anarcho-capitalism over the same (non-)issue as well who was unable to formulate coherent sentances half of the time, let alone consistant arguments or even a convincing description of the users problem with calling it political... —Two-Bit Sprite 19:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gun Control

Not to be a bother and such. As a new member of the Wiki-world, I've never left a comment like this before.

Why does this article make it appear that a pro-gun stance is a requirement of Libertarianism?

I must assert that a Libertarian can be in favor of gun control. This is not in itself a contradiction.

At the very least, this should be mentioned in the category of conflict.

-Jon Ivy

Final bracketed material now added:

... Libertarian perspectives on political alliances: Most libertarians ally politically with modern conservatives over economic issues, free speech, and gun laws (but for a libertarian defense of gun control, etc., see here [1] )....

Caveat 18:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]