Talk:Libertarianism/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about Libertarianism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

spaces between sentences

in a recent sweep through the article i tried to conform spacing after sentences to one space, not realizing at first that it doesn't matter (apparently). if you enjoyed those larger spaces immensely in the courier new font for editing, let me know and i'll change everything to two. SaltyPig 08:07, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

I think its proper grammer to have two spaces after a period, not one. --Kross 09:53, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

That's typewriter style, for use with fixed-width fonts; typesetter practice with proportionally spaced fonts is to use a single space. However, it doesn't really matter with HTML, where excess spaces are collapsed anyway. (I'm used to using two spaces myself from when I learned to type in the pre-PC age.) *Dan* 11:08, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

If you cannot spell "grammar," you do not have much business commenting on proper grammar, let alone style, which this matters concerns (not grammar).

I think it's better to have two in the edit font and one in the page font. Fortunately, two in the edit font shows as one in the page font.

Categorically Biased

The primary problem with this article is that linking it directly with the search term "libertarianism," et al, is inherently suffused with a POV. Libetarian/libertarianism requires a disambiguation page with links to its varied meanings, instead of an article that gives priority ownership to one usage of these words.

Convention is not categorical bias

I disagree with the above paragraph. Libertarianism conventionally, and in the first historical instance, means what the article describes. Socialists, both academic and non-academic, have, in recent years, attempted to co-opt the term by saying 'right libertarianism and left libertarianism' or 'socialist libertarianism and capitalist libertarianism' because God forbid there be a popular, trendy political movement that doesn't advocate the coerced redistribution of wealth.

Also, the etymological and philosophical roots of libertarianism are found in classical liberal thought, like Hobbes, Hume, Mill and especially Locke. This makes socialist co-opting of the term nonsensical.

Using academic convention as an adjudication of sorts, libertarianism there is recognized as the term that denotes the work of such thinkers as Robert Nozick, Jan Narveson, and David Schmidtz, while left-libertarianism has come to denote the work of thinkers like Peter Vallentyne and Michael Otsaka.

If you don't like the article on libertarianism, write one on left-libertarianism. Don't demand that the article on libertarianism, a type of liberalism, carry a type of socialism. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to socially engineer the ideological landscape to meet your preferences, only to act as a mirror of what actually exists.

I agree; a link to Anarcho-Syndicalism would be fine; left-libertarianism is descended from anarcho-syndicalism in an exactly parallel way to liberatarianism's descent from anarcho-capitalism.

First of all, whether or not Hobbes, Locke, etc. were libertarians or proto-libertarians of any kind is highly disputable. Hobbes was a pretty extreme statist in some respects, for example:

Sixthly, it is annexed to the sovereignty to be judge of what opinions and doctrines are averse, and what conducing to peace; and consequently, on what occasions, how far, and what men are to be trusted withal in speaking to multitudes of people; and who shall examine the doctrines of all books before they be published.

Second, the restriction of the term libertarianism to anarcho-capitalism is primarily an American thing. It's simply not true to suggest that "libertrian socialism" is merely a recent attempt by the left to coopt the term. The use of libertarianism to refer to anarchosyndicalism apparently goes at least back to the 1870s. Cadr 5 July 2005 15:18 (UTC)

use for industry front groups

Nat Krause deleted my text "The adjective "libertarian" is sometimes applied to front groups for industry interests, such as the Center for Consumer Freedom." with the reason: "sorry, I disagree with this edit; either CCF is really libertarian, in which case it is redundant; or else it is not, in which it is irrelevant vis a vis the intro". I assume it is the latter, but I am not sure what you mean by "it is irrelevant vis a vis the intro". I would believe it is relevant if a word is used in a meaning that a normal user would not imply from the definition.

i think he meant that it's not relevant for a disambig slot. i suggest mentioning it at a good spot later in the article, rather than at the beginning. if you're frustrated because it seems an arbitrary call, i agree; my opinion is that even the libertarian socialist one is perhaps doubtful as a disambig, and this addition even more so. don't see a hard line there though. SaltyPig 13:36, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

I don't think this is a case of an additional meaning of the word, therefore it doesn't require a disambiguation (unlike libertarian socialism). If CCF calls itself "libertarian", it probably means the same thing that anybody else would be the term, although the claim may or may not be accurate. Generally, I think an instance of someone claiming to be something they are not isn't notable enough to be worth mentioning in an introduction. In any event, these are all just allegations (that CCF is not libertarian in the normal sense of the word, or that it is an industry front-group), and thus there is an NPOV problem here. - Nat Kraus e 13:40, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

If the above claim is true, it could probably go in the "political spectrum" or "criticism" section. Something like "some industry front group call themselves libertarian for political reasons, even when their goals run contrary to free markets. On the other hand, many corporations are leery of libertarianism because they depend on the government for economic protection." If you can find a source for the front groups, I can find a source for the latter part. Dave (talk) 14:49, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, that's a good plan. So I went to their site and investigated a bit. I didn't find a quote where they directly call themselves libertarian, but I found the following:

"The Libertarian Party provides a compelling rebuttal[[1] to the nannies' war cry for new fat taxes, using research from recent Center For Consumer Freedom articles." [2]. I'm really puzzled now. It attacks the Center for Science in the Public Interest for "want[ing] to [...] mandate calorie labels on restaurant menu boards."

I simply can't imagine freedom of choice without free access to information about the choice. How can one fight for one and slam the other?

To Nat Krause: Why do you think the argument that it's an industry front group is an allegation? If only half of the CCF article is true then there can be no doubt. Common Man 19:59, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

To me, a group that cites the libertarian party chairman and opposes "twinkie taxes" is not necessarily libertarian or a "front group." If you have better evidence, you're welcome to provide it. Dave (talk)

spelling of willful

not going to revert war this, but the assertion that "The OED (http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/wilful) is a better source than Google" is false in this context. dictionaries follow common use. google hits are not a precise indication of use, but in this case, in combination with a reputable american dictionary (m-w.com), the difference is notable (it doesn't have the OED snoot factor, but that's perhaps in its favor). Chameleon changed a spelling that even his primary source lists freely as a US variant, and that m-w.com lists as the preferred. considering that the way it was was at least as "correct" as the change -- and arguably far more so -- it shouldn't have been done. the question here is not which spelling is "correct" (i don't care), but rather if there was a reason to change something that was well suited to the article. i believe such change should be avoided.

the wikipedia style manual agrees. Chameleon's primary source states clearly that "the spelling willful is American)." the wikipedia manual of style: "If an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type rather than provoking conflict by changing to another. ... If all else fails, consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article." the article is written predominantly with american spelling (e.g., criticize, programs, centers, argument), and therefore should not have been changed to british.

Are you sure you posted on thee right page? I don't see the word "willfull" or "willful" on this page. Dave (talk) 20:34, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

you could check the recent page history or click on User:Chameleon and look at his contributions. SaltyPig 01:31, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

Oh. I searched for "willfull" or "willful," not "wilful," which I'd never heard of before. I clearly need to read things like this more carefully.

My view on the spelling: between a factor of two on Google in favor of two L's and the predominantly American spelling in the rest of the article, SaltyPig is correct. Dave (talk) 01:42, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

yeah, the differences on the tail side of british/american words are plentiful too, and that's where british is often 2 "L"s while american is 1. well, do call me when chameleon drops by to defend his britishizing of the article ; ) SaltyPig 02:05, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

"Republican Congressman Ron Paul is a life member of the Libertarian Party."

The meaning of this statement is not apparent. What's a "life member"? I'm guessing it is jargon (which should be avoided) meaning he gave some money to the LP. Who cares? Ron Paul is worth mentioning, sure, but make it relevant. Mirror Vax 13:14, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how it's jargon. Life memberships in some types of organizations are fairly common. The point is -- and this should be as clear as possible in the article -- that the situation is ambiguous: Paul is technically a dues-paying member of the LP, although he has not actually paid dues (or revoked his membership) in many years. - Nat Kraus e 14:31, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I clarified it a little. Nat, if you could find a source for that and put it in, that would be great. Thanks, Dave (talk) 15:11, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

system of law

I don't understand the justification for this statement: " To the extent that libertarians advocate any system of law, it tends to be common law, which they see as less arbitrary, more consistent, and more adaptable over time, and emphasize protections of individual freedoms against majority rule." I think libertarians are likely to support a constitution and a bill of rights. RJII 16:24, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I guess that is pretty unclear. The means of interpreting the constitution and bill of rights (and other laws) is called common law, meaning that judges work from precedent (like in the U.S.). I'll clarify that now. Dave (talk) 16:29, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Libertarians view "Natural Law" as the highest law, of which Common Law is only an approximation; this Natural Law is essentially what the Declaration of Independence refers to in the phrase "the Law of Nature and of Nature's God". Though there are a number of ways of deriving the origins of the Law - created by a god or gods, part of an intrinsic quality of the universe like the law of gravity, or simply the only rational mode of civil human interaction - the end result is the same, and it essentially boils down to "what's mine is mine, and what's yours is yours". Much like John Locke, libertarians, whether they be of the minarchist or anarchocapitalist variety, view the right to property as the primary right from which, through self-ownership, all others are derived. Libertarians believe these rights are inherent and unalienable, and as such they entail sovereign authority; if you need to get permission to use them, they aren't rights, they're privileges. Probably the best description of the libertarian theory of law can be found in 'The Law' by Frédéric Bastiat. Though Bastiat was himself a minarchist, extending his ideas to the point of viewing taxation as essentially nothing more than theft brings one to anarchocapitalism, at least on principle. On utility, Bastiat's 'What is Seen and What is Not Seen' pretty well covers things, though books such as 'Human Action' by Ludwig von Mises, and 'Man, Economy, and State' by Murrary Rothbard are central as well. Constitutionalists are slightly different from libertarians, in that they would support the Constitution over Natural Law, whereas libertarians would view the Constitution as ultimately unacceptable compared to Natural Law. Gradualists such as myself would certainly prefer it to the tyranny of despotism or democracy (i.e. tyranny of the mob, the murderer of Socrates), though, and minarchists would certainly accept the Constitution if changes were made to restrict government to courts, police, and military roles. One should note that the Constitutionalists of which I speak, and the (newspeakishly-named) "Constitution Party", bear little to no relation.

Common Law, at least in its original meaning, isn't only from precedent but also from culture; it was originally law made by traveling judges who settled disputes between individuals, and the decisions were only binding on those individuals. Their decisions were based on precedent, but only in so far as such precedent was accepted by the general public, so bad decisions generally had little impact as they would be unpopular and only affect a handful of people. It is because these arbitrations dealt with disputes between individuals that the Common Law came to approximate Natural Law, as it naturally took on the character of recognizing certain inherent individual rights. Though it may seem inflexible at first glance, "good laws" generally only took a few years to become a matter of tradition and culture. Civil Law, on the other hand, is like that which ruled Rome, and it evolved from dictates from above, so it recognizes no individual rights; this is the type of law found in the "Uniform Commercial Code", which covers all monetary transactions, which is why civil suits, as opposed to common law suits, are so common these days. FYI, you can state up front, in an otherwise Civil Law transaction, "I reserve my rights", and/or "any disputes over this transaction shall be resolved by Common Law", to cover yourself. Rich333 22:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

"geolibertarianism" and the libertarian template

Atreyu42 has introduced a Geolibertarianism article and added the libertarian template to it. shall somebody now create a doctrine called fascistlibertarianism and add it to the libertarian template? i object to this, and invite those interested to visit the article in question and see whether its doctrine, despite an absurdly POV claim that "Geolibertarians are as strong on property rights as any other libertarian,...", is libertarianism.

enough with pseudo-communists attempting to glom on to libertarianism. read this: "When someone owns more than their equal share of land, that land gains rental value, which geolibertarians believe should be paid back to the community."

please! the libertarian template on that page should be removed. pronto. further, no attempts to pollute the libertarianism article should be tolerated, except as criticism of libertarianism (marked appropriately). SaltyPig 13:55, 2005 May 22 (UTC)

related discussion here. SaltyPig 03:03, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

wrong

I know to effect any change here would be impossible at this stage, but I have to register my anger that this entry on right-wing libertarianism appears as 'libertarianism' in wikipedia, rather than something more general. Admittedly, there is some disambiguation between libertarianisms at the start of the entry, and the concession that anarchism and libertarianism are still largely understood as synonymous in Europe, but this is insufficient. Europe here includes the UK, not just foreign-language communities - where I come from (viz. England) libertarianism is still in current usage to mean anarchism as well as US-style libertarianism, a usage which I find far more logical, since anarchists believe in a far higher degree of liberty than do minarchists. XmarkX 10:46, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

great heading there, XmarkX! is that a special strategy, where you tell all who've been working on an article how ignorant they are, so they'll want to work with you to add your changes? LOL. BTW, i'm still a semi-newbie at wikipedia, but i don't think talk pages are for registering anger -- especially on an article you apparently haven't had anything to do with (yet). i'm new to this article, and everybody's been pretty cool from what i've seen. maybe with a heading more along the lines of "changes i think would be good", you'd crack some ear holes a little wider for your opinion to get in and your changes to stick. far as i know, there's no agenda to keep this primarily a US-based article. people just write about what they know. nothing to get upset about. stick your toe in the water and swish it around a bit. the sharks won't bite (i don't think). you, um, aren't a shark, are you, XmarkX? SaltyPig 11:42, 2005 May 31 (UTC)

Incidentally, this has been discussed thoroughly before (that doesn't necessarily mean we came to the right conclusion!) Most of it is in Talk:Libertarianism/Archive4. - Nat Kraus e 12:30, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

XmarkX, you are 100% right but there are too many Americans here, and their weight has won the battle for now. — Chameleon 12:48, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

what's the correct number of americans for here? SaltyPig 13:53, 2005 May 31 (UTC)

More information on non-American libertarians would be welcome. Dave (talk) 22:35, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Non-American (British) libertarian: The article is in the right place. I tend to regard other political philosophies/groups which describe themselves as libertarian as merely hijackers of name. I also object to the use of "US-style" libertarianism to disambiguate. Chrislloyd 05:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What makes you think that the right-wing libertarians have any more right to the name than anyone else? There's certainly a long traditiona of left-libertarianism. Cadr 13:15, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But is there a "long tradition" of using the term libertarianism (without the left- prefix) to mean left-libertarianism? Got any examples? --Serge 17:52, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your question is a lot like Eddie Izzard's 'But do you have a flag? No flag, no country.' You can't simply colonize a term that has an existing meaning! That's as bogus and unsupportable as any other sectarian religious claim. Katzenjammer 28 June 2005 12:13 (UTC)

The term has already been "colonized" for decades. Besides, the term "libertarian" originally referred to a view of free will, not to socialism. Be consistent and oppose the term "libertarianism" as applied to people like Chomsky, too. Dave (talk) June 28, 2005 12:43 (UTC)

Neither Chomsky nor I use the unadorned term 'libertarian' to refer to the philosophy we share. We both use the fully-qualified term 'socialist libertarian' (or 'libertarian socialist'). And it doesn't matter how long you've been trying to colonize the term-you still can't do it and expect people to agree! What about your sect's alleged respect for contracts? A contract is an agreement. You don't have an agreement on this issue! In effect, you're trying to *steal* the term, and that runs exactly counter to everything you claim to believe in! So why do you continue to do it? Katzenjammer 28 June 2005 13:51 (UTC)

I never said I was a libertarian. And your "argument" would prove nothing, even if I were. Why are you so adamant that the term "libertarianism" is the "property" of socialists? I thought you didn't believe in property :-).

By the way, the fact that neither you nor Chomsky calls yourselves "libertarians" without the use of a qualifier proves my point that unless the term "libertarianism" is qualified, it refers to the philosophy discussed on this page. Thanks for the argument, Dave (talk) June 28, 2005 16:46 (UTC)

Of course you're a cap-lib -- you wouldn't be arguing so one-sidedly if you didn't have a personal stake in the issue. And my argument is that the bare term cannot be colonized by you or me. My use simply reveals what honest people do. Please, join us: your sect's emphasis on freely-agreed contracts demands that you give up this attempt at linguistic imperialism. Katzenjammer 28 June 2005 18:01 (UTC)

And so, it turns out that socialists don't understand how property works. I'm shocked, shocked! A lot of libertarians are against intellectual property altogether, but nobody thinks you can own the definition of a word. You don't need a contract to use a word, either. Anyway, as Harry/Dave pointed out above, you have already stated that "libertarian socialists" don't usually call themselves "libertarians", so I don't see what the problem here is. - Nat Kraus e 29 June 2005 04:49 (UTC)

You certainly seem to feel that you can own the definition of a word. That's what this is all about. I'm among those saying that your claim to ownership (i.e., your claim to the right to bind the word to your partisan definition) is rubbish. Katzenjammer 29 June 2005 11:45 (UTC)

Okay, now I'm starting to understand Katzenjammer's argument. Is it different from a Nazi complaining about socialists "colonizing" the unadorned term "socialist" when Nazis have been using the fully-qualified "national socialist" term for almost a century? Even there, at least national socialism is arguably (and arguably not) a type of (unadorned) socialism; you can hardly contend that "socialist libertarianism" is a type of (unadorned small-l) libertarianism. Isn't it actually libertarian socialism anyway? Seriously. We're talking about a term X that, when "unadorned", has a specific meaning in common usage, and a substantionally different meaning when fully-qualified with a specific qualifier. Does the Wiki for X need to cover Y X (where Y X is not a type of X)? Do we have any examples of that? --Serge 28 June 2005 16:55 (UTC)

No, it doesn't "have a specific meaning in common usage". You need to talk to people besides your co-religionists. Dictionaries, not the Inet, are the impartial arbiters of what words mean. My dictionary, Am. Heritage (New Coll. Ed.), gives 'libertarian' as 'believing in freedom of thought and action' and, as the second and only other meaning, 'believing in free will'. The idea of counting google hits, if meant seriously, should be deeply embarrassing to the person making the suggestion. Search-engine hit counts are a function of *money spent*, nothing more. If I had the money, and were sufficiently obsessed, I could easily see to it that any search on 'libertarian/ism' returned tens of thousands of hits for socialist libertarianism or cherry-vanilla ice cream or whatever I liked!

As an aside, you should review Nix v. Heddon for what the Supreme Court of the United States thinks about dictionary definitions: great as an aid to the court, but will not necessarily always define words legally. - Ta bu shi da yu 28 June 2005 23:44 (UTC)

Yes, and five members of the court also abandoned their oaths, disabled what little democracy we have, and appointed GWBush President. They're hardly unbiased.

You guys claim that everything should be contracts arrived at by free agreement. Okay, you don't have such a contract. By your own rules, then, you need to step back from this, stop your colonizing attempts, and allow the word to point to a neutral lead-in page. Will you play fair per your own rules and do that?Katzenjammer 28 June 2005 18:01 (UTC)

I, for one, am just discussing this for now. -- Serge 28 June 2005 18:49 (UTC)

I can't verify your dictionary, but we can both look at dictionary.com, where we will find the following definition for libertarian: "One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state." Doesn't sound anything like libertarian socialism and everything like the libertarianism covered on this page. And, coincidentally, that IS the specific meaning used in common usage (when the term is "unadorned"). The more archaic meanings, "believing in freedom of thought and action" and "believing in free will" I have not seen in common usage (in contemporary books, newspapers or magazines). If you disagree with me, please produce some examples of actual usage of this term with those meanings. And, by the way, a quote from a century old book hardly qualifies as "common usage". You contend that (unadorned) libertarian does not have a "specific meaning in common usage", yet you cannot produce any examples of usage that does not comply with the specific meaning addressed on the page in question, much less enough to warrant "common usage". I am very open to change my mind on this point and supporting your view, but need some evidence. -- Serge 28 June 2005 18:49 (UTC)

If you want to discuss this awhile, then I hope you'll agree in the interests of fairness that the page should be unbound from the term meanwhile.

As to the lib-soc entry, I didn't have anything to do with writing it and don't think it's anywhere near as clear as it could be (particularly the 'denies the legitimacy of private property' bit), but even so I can't imagine how you could possibly believe that the definition you quote doesn't map onto it: The basic philosophy of libertarian socialism is summed up in the name: management of the common good (socialism) in a manner that maximizes individual liberty and minimizes concentration of power or authority (libertarianism). Libertarian socialism denies the legitimacy of private property, since private property, in the form of capital, leads to the exploitation of others with less economic means and thus infringes on the exploited class's individual freedoms. Maximize individual liberty and minimize concentration of power. Maximize individual rights and minimize the role of the state. It seems to me as though the psycholinguistic deep structures of those statements would be identical.

Where socialist and capitalist versions of libertarianism part company is in the purpose of society itself, and in the nature of government.

Some people believe that human society is nothing more than a 'concrete jungle' in which a few are born to be predators and the rest prey (a formulation Jefferson categorically rejected, as I hope you know). Such people always see themselves among the predators, of course, and get really indignant if someone else turns them into prey. I believe a fair case could be made for including cap-libs among that number, based on the emphasis on self-centered asociality and the legitimizing of only one form of predatory behavior: contracts.

Socialist libertarians see society as the sort of 'mutual insurance' organization touched upon in, among other places, the Bible ('woe to him who falls and has no one to help him up again'). We acknowledge the role of chance in human affairs, and believe with the late Abe Maslow that a person has zero freedom when everything they've got is going into keeping body and soul together. Freedom is indeed another word for 'nothing left to lose'.

We believe that the anthropological record supports our view of society and rejects the 'concrete jungle' formulation. Katzenjammer 28 June 2005 20:12 (UTC)

I don't know of anyone, certainly no (unadorned, small or big l) libertarians, who believe "that human society is nothing more than a 'concrete jungle' in which a few are born to be predators and the rest prey". Do you? Or is that your impression of what they believe? If so, do you think it's possible you misunderstand what they believe? If that is your belief, I believe it to be a misconception that explains much about why you believe some other things you seem to believe. In any case, this type of discussion, however interesting, is beyond the scope of a Wiki talk page, I believe.

Your continued inability to provide any evidence to substantiate your denial of my assertion that there is one specific meaning for the (unadorned) term libertarian in common usage speaks volumes. In the absence of such, I see no basis in reason upon which to unbind this page from the term. -- Serge 28 June 2005 23:23 (UTC)

When you assume in all seriousness that some definition put forward in general terms is referring to you and your specific political sect, that's a psychological failing called having 'ideas of reference'. It's like seeing something talking about 'blue eyes' and assuming they're talking about you because you have blue eyes! The goal of maximising personal freedom and minimising or eliminating concentrations of unaccountable power is NOT uniquely characteristic of your personal political sect! Katzenjammer 29 June 2005 14:26 (UTC)

One more point. The goals of libertarian socialism, "maximize individual liberty and minimize concentration of power", is fundamentally different from the goal of libertarianism, "maximize individual rights and minimize the role of the state". The former has a fundamental logical problem that the latter does not. How does a society "minimize concentration of power" without using concentrated power of the state to do so? Answer: it's not possible. -- Serge 28 June 2005 23:41 (UTC)

You should think about that more carefully. You minimize concentration of power by distributing it, and that does not require action by the state, it requires action by the people. Katzenjammer 29 June 2005 14:26 (UTC)

But whenever power is decentralised, there is an opportunity for groups of people to gain greater power by organising into a state (or a state-like institution). So long as individuals want power, they will create institutions to concentrate power. It is very difficult (perhaps not impossible, I honestly don't know) to prevent one institution gaining power without creating another institution to rival it. Fortunately, it's possible to replace totalitarian institutions with more humane organizations, but its hard to see how powerful institutions can be got rid of altogether -- at best they can be made democratic and acountable. Cadr 3 July 2005 01:13 (UTC)

Sure, they are fundamentally different. But that doesn't change the fact that they are both libertarian. As you say, libertarianism seeks to "maximize individual rights and minimize the role of the state." How does libertarian-socialism, a libertarian philosophy, not seek that as well? As you say, it seeks to "maximize individual liberty", which is the whole rights bit. It also seeks to minimize concentration of power. Minimizing the role of the state would be part of that. If you see contradiction there on the part of the libertarian-socialist theorists, then so be it: it doesn't change the philosophy. Just because you or I think that libertarian-socialism could never work doesn't make it un-libertarian. Just like if the libertarianism refered to by the current article was thought by him or her to be impossible, doesn't make it un-libertarian.

The definition of libertarianism in the most general sense is a philosophy which says that all associations should be voluntary: no initiations of coercion as the current libertarianism article says correctly. Libertarian-socialism absolutely, undeniably says that all associations must be voluntary. That's all that requires a philosophy to be libertarian.

I think all that is being asked here is that the libertarianism page refers to libertarianism only in this general sense and that all other philosophies which are libertarian can be linked to from there, rather than just the most popular or most favoured libertarian philosophy having the page. I'll have to say that that doesn't sound very bad. --I know who my sister is. 3 July 2005 09:54 (UTC)

I agree. Libertarian socialism certainly seeks to limit (or even remove) state power. In fact, since libertarian socialists often adovcate voluntary cooperation, you could have a libertarian socialist society constructed which was entirely consistent with right-libertarian principles. One of the interesting things about right-libertarianism is that it essentially has nothing to say about how society ought to be organised. Step 1 of the right-libertarian program is to remove almost all government power, but there is apparently no step 2. So the right libertarian is essentially saying, "limit government power and then transfer the power to whoever happens to get their hands on it first (corporations, the mafia, popular organisations, whoever...)". Cadr 3 July 2005 19:13 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the current approach taken by Wikipedians on libertarianism is consistent with how Britannica has described libertarianism: "Political philosophy that stresses personal liberty. ... Libertarians believe that individuals should have complete freedom of action, provided their actions do not infringe on the freedom of others. Libertarianism's distrust of government is rooted in 19th-century anarchism. Typical libertarians oppose not only the income tax and other government impositions but also programs seen by many as beneficial, such as social security and the postal service. In the U.S. their views often crosscut traditional party boundaries (e.g., libertarians oppose gun control, as do most Republicans, but support the legalization of prohibited drugs, as do some liberal Democrats). Among the thinkers embraced by libertarians are Henry David Thoreau and Ayn Rand." Sounds like the same "specific meaning in common usage" that is described in the libertarianism Wiki... -- Serge 28 June 2005 19:10 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not impressed. There's a lot of propaganda floating around under the guise of Objective Truth. (and please, it's not 'taken by Wikipedians'. At most it's 'taken by the cap-lib faction of Wikipedians') Katzenjammer 28 June 2005 20:12 (UTC)

If you can provide reliable sources to backup your assertions, then I think we'll all be more impressed by your argument. Stating that there is a lot of propaganda floating around under the guise of Objective Truth seems a little disingenuous to me. - Ta bu shi da yu 28 June 2005 23:44 (UTC)

P.S. I also find it odd that you call the Encyclopedia Britannica an organisation that spreads propaganda. If EB agrees with our approach, then I would have to say that your understanding (even in the UK!) would have to be out of kilter with general speech. - Ta bu shi da yu 29 June 2005 07:26 (UTC)

How disingenuous of you. Unless you're maybe 10 years old, you know as well as anyone else does that there are two entire industries--four if you count politicians and the churches--dedicated to passing off propaganda as objective truth. Katzenjammer 29 June 2005 18:16 (UTC)

And I shall leave this particular thread with this comment: I think that your answer sums things up quite nicely. I especially feel that the touch of paranoia, mixed in with the ad hominem attack, reflects the general direction this conversation is going... - Ta bu shi da yu 3 July 2005 05:51 (UTC)

He's referring to the arguments in Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing of Consent, among other works. And he's not interested in "general speech" or Wikipedia policy. He believes that the term has been "colonized" by pro-property libertarians (so-called "right libertarians") and that (even though they don't use the term to describe themselves), this page should link to libertarian socialism. Dave (talk) June 29, 2005 12:02 (UTC)

No I am not arguing that the word should point to soc-libbism! It should not point at any sectarian page. It should point to a neutral lead-in/distributor page.

I'll bite. What pages, besides this one, do you believe the "neutral lead-in/distributor page should point to? -- Serge 29 June 2005 18:46 (UTC)

All of them that address belief in personal liberty, of course. Katzenjammer 30 June 2005 10:35 (UTC)

Like, for instance, Liberty? - Ta bu shi da yu 3 July 2005 05:53 (UTC)

Just my two cents worth, if the "left" (originally, and correctly, known as the reactionary right) hadn't stolen the names "liberal" and "progressive" from us, along with our side of the political spectrum, we wouldn't have taken the name, and political side of the spectrum, you abandoned when you stole them. The terms stayed on the same side of the political scale, but the ideas got swapped from side-to-side, and in the process you guys tried to pull a 1984 and simply erase any possible mention of us. That was really funny putting authoritarian collectivism on both ends of the scale, as though Hitler and Stalin weren't practically twins, after cutting off the entire right half of the scale, erasing everything from Locke to Mises in the process. It's much like the usage of the word "economist", which originally referred exclusively to those who actually understood economics (namely us), but you created oxymoronic terms such as "socialist economist", "marxist economist", and "keynesian economist". Give us back our names, and you can have yours back. Rich333 22:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Eh? If you were a bit more specific about who you mean by the "'left'" and didn't try to claim that Keynes wasn't an economist, your comment might make some kind of sense. FWIW, many on the left would agree that Hitler and Stalin were pretty similar. In fact, George Orwell (who was just a bit of a leftie) was one of the first people to talk about totalitarianism as a political philosophy common to both Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany. Cadr 22:51, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

"big government statue"?

the caption for the statue of liberty now reads, "Many libertarians, including the Libertarian Party of the United States consider the Statue of Liberty to be an important symbol of their ideas. Others comment on the irony of libertarians choosing "a big government statue" as the symbol of an anti-state movement^[3]."

a couple of points: while i think it's important to link to the snide and often illogical huben site in this article (especially since he's right about a couple of things), it doesn't have to be taken to the self-flagellation, ultra-self-conscious point. the fact on the statue of liberty is that it was largely paid for and organized by private donations. yeah, government had to get in the way eventually, but it was about as pure a private project as one could hope for -- surprisingly so considering that there was the usual populist whining about how it should be "funded" by that bottomless pocket: government. in a world where almost everything gravitates to statism, are libertarians to be prohibited from pointing to anything? i say zap the entire caption, but leave the link to the anti-libertarian stuff in the criticism section and at the bottom. in any case, the way the caption's written now, it somewhat implies with "others comment" that "others" means other libertarians. i don't think that's the case for the ref. if it's to remain, it should be tightened up by either modifying the text or finding a statue symbol criticism that is from a libertarian. SaltyPig 11:20, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

I'd prefer a libertarian comment to no comment at all in this case. My original wording made it clear that Huben's view was not a libertarian one. I can't think of a good reason to remove the line, and I don't think that it's "self-flagellation" to include it since the article is about libertarianism, not for libertarianism to begin with. Dave (talk) 22:42, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

you can do far better than giving it up to that negative baloney w/o balance. if you're going to go so far as to say "others comment" big government blah blah, certainly it's appropriate to mention the real, majority, private funding of the statue (if not the pedestal). not everything has to have a comment, ya know. it's overboard with the negative, and the negative is wacko. knives and forks can be turned into a big government symbol. what can't be? whatever. can't believe we're even having this discussion. you do whatever you want. libertarianism's hijacked to the core anyway. have fun. means nothing. SaltyPig 00:49, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)

I can't believe we're having this discussion, either. Dave (talk) 02:35, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The statement appear to be factually false, the statue being privately funded, and such comments belong in the criticism section, if at all. Second, most libertarians are outside the US and have no special attchment to the statue. Third, the comment insinuates that liberatrians somehow worship the statue, as if it was the God Baal.

I had assumed that "big government statue" in this article meant a symbol of the state, in the same way that the memorials and monuments in Washington, DC, do. But it actually commemorates the Declaration of Independence a hundred years earlier (1776) rather than a government event, action, or figure -- such as the formation of the United States (1789), past presidents, or wars. So if the caption actually means a state symbol, then it should be scrapped because it is wrong.

HELP!

Need a few good souls to help on the United States wiki and discussion
See "Goverment Type" and "Democracy." I can't do this alone...
--Cuimalo 19:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Further questions

Some criticize the motives of libertarians, saying that they only support libertarian ideas because they serve as a means of justifying and maintaining what these critics perceive to be their position near the top of existing social hierarchies. They claim that libertarians view the very wealthy as having earned their place, while the classical liberals were often skeptical of the rich, businesses, and corporations, which they saw as aristocratic. Thomas Jefferson in particular was critical of the growth of corporations, which such critics claim would form an important part of a libertarian society.

Not knowing as much as others about this subject, could I please find out who critizes the motives of libertarians? How do I know that it is not just the POV of those who dislike this philosophy? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are large numbers of such critics. One good example is this article. They're pretty easy to find. By the way, I'm the one that included that phrase. I'm less knowledgeable about the Thomas Jefferson part, but some relevant quotes are here.

Libertarianism is uninformed capitalist greed in civil-rights clothing... The simplistic and persuasive messages circle the globe to infect other brains with their half-baked and self-serving idealism.

...

There are a few issues libertarians tend to ignore when talking about the promise of a future without government interference: inherent cultural disadvantage and affirmative action; public-works projects like freeways for all those new-money Jags around Silicon Valley; funding for the arts; child-abuse prevention and intervention; medical care for the elderly; and too many more to list. They are also not likely to complain loudly about capital-gains tax cuts or other tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy.

"The geographical neighborhood is important as a resource for living a satisfying life," said Charles Murray, author of What It Means to Be a Libertarian, in a debate with Michael Sandel on Slate. Translation: Pay attention only to things directly related to YOU. See the world as if it revolves around YOU.

It's a bootstrap ideology that can be traced back to the late 1800s, with its cowboy culture and rugged individualism embodied so mightily by Teddy Roosevelt. Nevermind that many native people were murdered and their cultures plundered in the name of our national obsession, Manifest Destiny. But bring up niggling details like that, and short of calling you a communist, your local libertarian will throw some stale and long-since-debunked sociological theory and deliberately misleading statistics at you to shut you up. All the while they insist that, though they disagree with what you say, they'll defend to the death your right to say it.

The ironic thing is that many of today's loudest libertarians were once marching in university squares and stuffing daisies into the barrels of loaded guns. They were once the core SDS corps. Funny how once they are financially secure, suddenly world peace and economic justice seem less important, crazy ideological college hijinks. Defending one's own wealth is so time-consuming!

...

the libertarians call themselves social darwinists... So if the wealthiest survive, what happens to the poor? Well, carried to the extreme they don't survive - they starve or die of exposure ... or they get up off their lazy butts and go get jobs.

...

With the rise of this new economy - in direct correlation to the rise of the online industry - so has risen the disparity between rich and poor (in terms of both money and information), not only in the United States but worldwide. Yet in the online media, it's called a "boom." Coincidence? No way... It's simple Darwinism: Those who have more, get more; those who have less, get less. Those who struggle and fail must fail and die in the interest of a greater good.

But it is, in fact, sociopolitical policy without morals. No libertarian will tell you that it is good for society for there to be poor people. But what they won't tell you is that the only thing wrong with uneven distribution of wealth, to them, is the priming of the pump for social revolution. Were that to happen, these way-new rich could lose their spiffy cars and châteaux.

Hey, that's a good reference! I didn't notice you had highlighted the stuff in bold... interestingly, I chose the same passages you bolded when I added this to the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd be careful with the critiques of libertarianism site. It's been around for years; much of it is simply a straw man attack on certain purported libertarian arguments. And a lot of it has been debunked by other libertarian sites. Rhobite 04:40, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Ah... didn't actually look at that site... I only viewed the Wired article. Thanks for the heads up though. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Response to the edit summary

I notice that in the edit summary it says "reworked first two sentences. by the way the explanation of what it means for something to be a political philosophy doesn't belong there, does it?". Well, not strictly true. If something must be clarified in the article to resolve a dispute or make the article clearer, then it's perfectly valid to give a brief description of what is being talked about. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:10, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Notes are screwed.

~~Check it out. Anyone feel brave enough to give try to fix this? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)~~

No more! Have fixed. A note to note makers: making a 2 word summary in the link is pretty helpful. See W. Mark Felt for an example. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:36, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

is communism opposed to liberterianism?

I hardly think so. If you look at anarcho-communism for instance, it classifies itself under the Liberterian philosophy. -- Natalinasmpf 22:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, two very distinct groups both choose to call themselves "libertarian," and it confuses a lot of people. Anarcho-communism is like what's commonly called libertarian socialism or left-libertarianism, and opposes property. This page is about what's sometimes called "right-libertarianism" or a propertarian version of the philosophy. The short answer to your question is: yes, this kind of libertarianism is very opposed to communism. Dave (talk) 22:46, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Get rid of Statue of Liberty picture; misleading and opinionated

The Statue of Liberty and its history have nothing to do with the political ideology of Libertarianism. Please don't try to delude readers by taking a popular icon and combining it with a political agenda. I understand what the author was trying to convey, but no one can deny that the picture is not trying to leach off the favorable and patriotic sentiments associated with the image to increase Libertarianism's own popularity. That would be akin to showing a picture of Darwin for an article about Social Evolution. Liberty and Libertarianism are different ideas as anyone would realistically understand. Liberty is the state of freedom, and Libertarianism is a political ideology. One is just a definition; the other is a belief that has supporters and critics. The Statue of Liberty represents just the former.--Acefox

The statue of liberty is a symbol for several Libertarian Parties including New Zealand's and the United States Libertarian Party. And if you define "liberty" the way libertarians do, then there's no other ideology that supports it. If you think that no one opposes liberty, you've never heard of most governments. Dave (talk) 14:20, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

I did not say that no one opposes liberty. I said that the Statue of Liberty was built to symbolize liberty. Whether one is in favor of liberty or not is irrelevant. That Libertarians have a political agenda and choose an already built symbol, and use it to promote their own beliefs is what I disagree with. I suppose the same argument can be made about the swastika and the Nazi party; but their emblem was custom designed specifically. In support of my argument why isn't a picture of a cross used as the featured picture for the Moral Majority movement in the US? They are obviously Christians. Perhaps it is because the Moral Majority is only one group of people, and the cross is universal to all Christians that by symbolizing a smaller group with a well-known symbol would be misrepresentative. Also, if the Statue of Liberty was the Featured Article, wouldn't the same picture be used? I can pick any well-known symbol and call it the official symbol of my own beliefs, but that's highly misleading and could be libel [or whatever equivalent of libel is for images].--Acefox 19:08, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here's the Statue of Liberty on an Italian libertarian site: [4]

You're still missing my point. There are many individuals who are proud of the Statue of Liberty as a symbol of freedom, but only a minority of those support Libertarianism. For modern Libertarianism as a political ideology to take on the former as its symbol seems a bit like theft to me. Libertarianism is just one interpretation of liberty; it's not implied by the Statue of Liberty. Equally important, are the differences between the concept of Liberty and Libertarianism (the origins of both philosophies being separated by centuries). Consider this: modern Libertarians have a political stance on many current issues such as taxation, health care, public education, and arms control. These issues are totally separate from the concept of Liberty which the Statue of Liberty symbolizes.--Acefox 16:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

How do they 'oppose the prohibition' of victimless crimes?

Does this make sense?

Libertarians believe that if individuals are not initiating coercion against others, then government should leave them in peace. As a result, they oppose prohibition of "victimless crimes."

a 'victimless crime' by definition is not coercive to others. so why 'oppose the prohibition' of it?

im not sure if i'm reading that right, so i have not made an edit yet.

Also, i agree, the use of the Statue of Liberty is misleading. It should be removed at least from the front page.

Are you drunk or tired? ;) ...they oppose the prohibition of victimless crimes because, as you say, they're not coercive. Therefore to prohibit such crimes would not be conducive to libertarian philosophy, therefore they oppose the prohibition of them. It's a clumsy phrase, I don't blame you for misreading it (I did too).

The Statue of Liberty has been commonly used by a variety of libertarian causes and organizations for some time, so even if you don't like the fact that they use it, it's still appropriate to show the image since it does pertain to the topic at hand. By the way, it's not all that carpet-bagging (as a previous commenter complained) — after all, it is called the Statue of Liberty. --Daniel11 06:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's just a poorly worded sentence. "oppose the prohibition of victimless crimes" means that they don't want victimless crimes to be considered crimes anymore. They oppose the prohibition of victimless acts. - Nat Kraus e 06:22, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that is a better wording, they oppose victimless acts, or alternately, believe that the victimless crime is an oxymoron. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:17, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)

I would phrase it as "oppose criminalization of victimless actions"; I think that's a far clearer way to put it. Rich333 22:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I included some complementing sentences in the section "property rights". These are somewhat critical, but I feel they belong to that section since, as it stood before, it simply isn't conclusive. "Right to life" is proclaimed as an element of Libertarian philosophy, but it isn't said why this right should only extend to those that already have property. --Fountaindyke 09:45, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Name bias

In my view, the naming of this article and the introduction are NPOV. (Ednote: Author meant to say POV -SV|t) In the introduction, it is said that "The term "libertarian" is also claimed by libertarian socialism". This is nonsense: For nearly 100 years, "Libertarian" meant approximately "Anarchist". This is admitted later in the article:

"The term "libertarianism" in the above sense has been in widespread use only since the 1950s. [...] After the French Government banned anarchism, some French anarchists adopted libertaire as an alternative term. It was first used in print in 1857 by French anarchist Joseph Dejacque in a letter to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon."

Therefore, it is simply nonsense to write "the term is claimed by libertarian socialism". First, anarchists and socialists don't see themselves to have much in common: "Libertarian socialism" is seen by anarchists as a derogatory term (the "second Internationale" between socialists and anarchists broke up 130 years ago, because they realized that the differences were to fundamental). This term is used simply to decry anarchists as socialist.

I propose to make a "disambiguation page". I will change the wording of the introduction to "was first used by". This is simply a fact and, therefore, should be admitted. -Anon

"In my view, the naming of this article and the introduction are NPOV." I agree with this sentence completely. The rest of what you say is quite debatable. The anarchists I've talked to, other than anarcho-capitalists, are enthusiastically in favor of being regarded as socialists. - Nat Kraus e 11:04, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"My friends tell me" is not a valid argument, and your argument Nat, is simply a play on words. Of course anarchism and Bakunin socialism are virutally equivalent - but for that matter so is left libertarianism. Youre saying that left libertarianism is indistinct from socialism, but forgetting to say that right libertarianism is equally equivalent to capitalism. How can "libetarianism" = capitalism. Your "I agree with this sentence completely" is likewise insincere and disingenous - you know the anon intented to say "POV," for which he would be correct. -SV|t

Either I misunderstood anon above, or you misunderstood my response. He says, "First, anarchists and socialists don't see themselves to have much in common". As far as I am aware, that is untrue. As far as I can tell, all anarchist schools of thought, except for anarcho-capitalism, are socialist, usually self-described. I have to say that I really have no idea what this anon is getting at above; I understand the logic of "I propose to make a "disambiguation page"", but the rest of what he wrote appears to be irrelevant and unnecessary quibbling. It didn't really merit a serious reply. - Nat Kraus e 20:14, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree completely with Anon. Having a main article overrun by "right libertarianism" is bigtime POV, and it has no business being a featured article as such. -SV|t 19:48, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Nat Krause. Read the Anarchist's FAQs before you say something silly. Anarchists did at one point call themselves libertarian (and many still do), but many also call themsleves libertarian socialists because it is a way of disassociating themselves with the other people who call themselves libertarian. millerc 20:39, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, sorry, we call ourselves 'socialist libertarians' because that fully-qualifies the term in a way that 'libertarian' alone does not.

Just because a couple directionless people call themselves something does not mean that it goes in Wiki. We do not have a page for the 2 people that makes up the "free communists" nor does Wiki have section on the "tolerant KKK." --Noitall June 28, 2005 14:12 (UTC)

Yes, but unfortunately there are lots of pro-capitalists using the term "libertarianism" so we have to represent them, instead of making Libertarianism a redirect to Anarchism, as would otherwise be logical. — Chameleon 28 June 2005 14:17 (UTC)

Proposed general disambiguation

libertarian socialism (also called left libertarianism). The article "Libertarianism (metaphysics)" deals with a conception of free will. See also civil libertarian
right libertarianism - a modern, post-socialist variant which accepts doctrines of individualism and property rights. (sometimes called right libertarianism).

I wouldn't call "right libertarianism" a "variant" as it isn't from the same ideological tradition. The leftists come from the Nero, Caligula, Proudhon, Marx, Stalin, and Hitler tradition, while the rightists come from the Locke, Smith, Jefferson, Bastiat, Mises, and Rothbard tradition. Rich333 23:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, no one except maybe some libertarian socialists in some very specific contexts refers to libertarian socialism as libertarianism. Also, no one, except, again, maybe some libertarian socialists in some very specific contexts, refers to the libertarianism that is the topic of this page as right libertarianism. The NPOV (held by non-libertarians) is that libertarianism is the libertarianism of this page, and libertarian socialism is libertarian socialism. --Serge 19:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I dont like the page move

Can an admin move the page back? This issue has been discussed before ad nauseum, and the consensus was to keep the page here with the prominent disambiguation at the top. Dave (talk) 20:05, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Err... I did that, but I'm not an admin. You can move pages over redirects, FYI. Unless you're talking about my page move... Ambush Commander 20:07, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

now it's moved back. Good. Would people care to discuss? Dave (talk) 20:06, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Do not move this article while it is featured on the main page. I have no objection to discussing it now, and moving it later, but for now, it stays put. →Raul654 20:08, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

...ditto for NPOV disputing it. →Raul654 20:09, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with the first, part. The second part seems to violate the wiki spirit. -SV|t 20:44, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC) P.S - not that I'm in love with template overuse at all. It seems that if its too ugly for a feature, its too ugly for general use as well. -SV|t 20:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reverted Page Move

Someone moved Libertarianism to Right libertarianism. No notes, no explanation on talk page at all. Sorry, I'm moving it back. Ambush Commander 20:05, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

I wish it went without saying that you should refrain from moving an article on the one day that it's featured on the main page. I guess that's too much to ask. Rhobite 20:15, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Consider it just another form of vandalism. After all, pretty much every article that's featured on the front page gets defaced, and you'd think that not doing that would also go without saying. --Daniel11 04:42, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Page Name

Here is what I put up last time this dispute was an issue. I know Google isn't a perfect resource for this, but there was corroboration for this view from the Australian version and from searching books. See Archive 4 of this page.

I went through the first hundred hits in google for “libertarian.” Here are the first 20 hits with the reason they fit my definition (except for Libertarian rock, which I think is civil-libertarian):

Libertarian party (advocates “individual liberty and personal responsibility,” and “a free-market economy of abundance and prosperity”: check)
Libertariam party again: check
Liberty guide (“classical liberal” books: check)
Michael Badnarik (libertarian party: see above: check)
Self-gov.com (links to the IRS definition on the page: check)

Don't you mean self-gov.org, the site of the (noncommercial) Advocates for Self-Government? I think the .com version is held by a cybersquatter. *Dan* 22:07, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Libertarian rock (civil libertarian, mostly a wash. Certainly not socialist)
LewRockwell.com (An anti-state/pro-market site on the net run by the president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute: Check)
Samizdata.net (slogan is “don’t tread on me” and advocates individualism and the free market: check)
Libertarian Alliance (links to CATO and Hayek as other libertarian groups: check)
Libertarian Futurist Society (their publication is named after an Ayn Rand character and honored her work as good libertarian fiction: check)
Libertarian Party of Canada (their platform begins “Each individual has the right to his or her own life, and this right is the source of all other rights.” And “Property rights are essential to the maintenance of those rights.”: Check)
Libertarian Party of Florida (check: see above)
Libertarian Enterprise (defines libertarian as "a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being” and advocates free trade: check)
Libertarian International (advocates the gold standard and links to the Free State Project: Check)
Libertarian Party of California: Check (see above)
Libertarian Party of Indiana: Check (see above)
Libertarian party of North Carolina: Check (see above)
Libertarian.com (links to free-market.net: check)
Libertarian Party of Washington State: Check (see above)
Libertarian Party of Colorado: Check (see above)

…..

After the first 20, I stopped listing ones that support my position, and just looked for exceptions. I couldn’t find anything “socialist” at all until hit #29 (nazi.org). Until then, everything fits my definition except possibly the “libertarian rock” site above. The next site that wasn’t libertarian was #45, and it was ‘’about’’ libertarianism, as I’ve defined it. #54 is Wikipedia’s “Libertarian Socialism” article. #68 is the same as 45. At hit #79, we get a the second site that uses libertarianism in a way other than the article. And they always qualify the term with something like “people’s libertarian” or “left-libertarian” or “libertarian communism.” Hit # 96 is the same as 79.

So really, in the first hundred hits on google, we have ‘’zero’’ sites that use “libertarian” without a qualifier to mean “libertarian socialism” except for Nazi.org. I think we should all agree that the definition the article currently uses is the most common and move on to the article itself.

Dave (talk) 20:14, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Google is great for reading up on the 00s and late 90s. For other than that you need something else. In any case, libertarianisms direct roots are Bakunin anarchist, after corruptions (Marxist socialism, communism) failed. Any general discussion of libertarianism must deal with the fact that, though more visible, the right variants are much newer. Its important to put these things in context --a balance between private capital and the public is not a new idea, and this context is what needs to dominate any general article. --SV|t 20:59, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think that contemporary usage should have greater weight than archaic usages in determining the primary focus of a term, though, of course, historical usages should also be noted and explained. Anyway, I've read much literature from the libertarian movement going back to the 1970s and earlier, and the usage to mean the combination of free minds and free markets goes back well before the modern Internet era. And libertarians usually don't like to be referred to as "right-wing", since they consider their philosophy to transcend the old one-dimensional political spectrum. *Dan* 22:07, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

ditto. And while libertarian socialism's direct roots are anarchist/socialist, one couldn't say the same thing about, say, the philosophies of ayn rand, robert nozick, or f.a. hayek. Dave (talk) 22:32, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

I prefer referring to myself as right-wing, as I view the end result as important, and that does produce a one-dimensional scale, with hell on earth at the authoritarian collectivist (left) end, and a peaceful and prosperous Ancapistan at the libertarian individualist (right) end. It is a little backwards from the old scale, but they wanted to steal our names, our slogans (as though living like a cockroach could ever make one free, lol), and our side of the old political spectrum. Though we've taken their name in response to their theft of ours, and their side of the political scale, in response to their theft of ours, we're still the genuine liberals and progressives; we're the "liberals" Mussolini and Gentile bitched about in the Dotrine of Fascism, not them. It is the authoritarian collectivists like them, and like those who stole our names, who've plagued humanity for the past five millennia, at the least, with every great atrocity that has ever been committed, for they were all done in the name of "the common good" with no regard for the individual. I do kind of think their theft was for the best, though, because Liberty's right in our name now, and "rightist" has a triple meaning for us: it represents our side of the modern political scale, it represents the fact that we're pretty much always correct in our assessments and predictions, and it represents the fact that we're the only consistent defenders of individual rights. Rich333 23:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Our naming policy is to use the most english common name, and I think "liberterianism" most commonly (by a demonstrably wide margin) refers to the concepts described in this article. →Raul654 23:20, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Binding the term to that one definition hardly meets the 'neutral point of view' test. Historically, and in Europe today, the term is associated with socialism, not capitalism. The US usage is anomalous, regardless of how often it comes up when googled!

The author(s?) of the article also misused the terms 'republic' and 'democracy' (they're not antonyms, they're on different axes--like apples and oranges) and mis-stated in a self-serving way Madison's motives for effectively eliminating democracy in the Constitution. I tried to fix those errors, but my changes were subsequently overwritten again.

I think that if authors aren't prepared to hold themselves to a high standard, then there needs to be a 'PROPAGANDA' label on each such page. Katzenjammer 21:00, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Federalist 10, which is where the footnote leads, was written to "examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy" and to demonstrate the "advantage which a republic has over a democracy." He concluded that the only way to protect individuals was to have "the majority... rendered... unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression." Nowhere does the word "plutocracy" appear.

Now, if you want to take the existing text and add "some critics of Madison argue that his restrictions on democracy were self-serving ways of preserving plutocracy" and provide a source, you probably could. But it's simply wrong to say that Federalist 10 advocates a plutocracy.

As far as the name goes, the copious discussion of the term's significance and the link and discussion at the very beginning of the article are pretty clearly sufficient, given that this use of the term "libertarian" overwhelms others in modern discourse.Dave (talk) 21:12, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

But are you trying to provide clear information, or propagandize people? I ask because the 'Federalist Papers' were propaganda. They weren't intended to be dispassionate expositions of truth, but to persuade. They were advertisements. And, as we can clearly see from reading the essays of the anti-federalists, Madison and Hamilton (Jay wrote little) didn't scruple to ignore unpleasant truths or make claims that they must have known were false.

One of the his ...I don't quite know what to call them. Lies?... is in his misuse of the term 'republic'. He was a highly intelligent and well-educated man, so there's no way that he didn't know the standard meaning of the term (any state in which ultimate power is held by the people rather than by a monarch), the Latin etymology supporting that definition, and the fact that it is not any sort of antonym for 'democracy'. But people were hot to have a republic rather than a monarchy, so by falsely contrasting 'republic' and 'democracy', he adroitly 'forced the card', as it were.

Madison's true motives can be seen more clearly in his transcript of the discussions at the Convention itself...see in particular May 31st's. The only individuals he was interested in protecting were the very wealthy. And as Patrick Henry scathingly pointed out during the ratification debates in Virginia, Madison's plan for House representation virtually guaranteed that it would be the wealthy, not the best, who would be elected, which in turn would all but guarantee that the only class to be represented would also be the wealthy.

I don't really see how you can claim that you're being 'pov neutral' when you try to exclude legitimate definitions that disagree with yours. I understand *why* you want to do it, but that's a different issue. Socialist libertarians have a prior claim on the word that has never lapsed. If your goal is to be pov-neutral, the thing to do is have a lead-in page that makes clear that your ownership claim to the term doesn't begin to be universally accepted. Katzenjammer 23:13, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Katzen, are you sure that "republic" and "democracy" weren't contrastable at the time Madison was writing? Beyond that, the two versions of the passage in question seem to be saying essentially the same thing, although one phrases it in terms of evil plutocracy. - Nat Kraus e 01:44, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It was first attested with the current meaning in 1604 (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=republic): "1604, "state in which supreme power rests in the people," from Fr. république, from L. respublica (abl. republica), lit. res publica "public interest, the state," from res "affair, matter, thing" + publica, fem. of publicus "public" (see public). Republican (adj.) "belonging to a republic" is recorded from 1712; in noun sense of "one who favors a republic" it is recorded from 1697; and in sense of a member of a specific U.S. political party (the Anti-Federalists) from 1782, though this was not the ancestor of the modern Republican Party, which dates from 1854. Republicrat in U.S. political jargon usually meaning "moderate," is attested from 1940."

I agree that my edit was minimal and localized. My editing that text doesn't mean, of course, that I'm okay with the idea of capitalist libertarians white-settlering the term 'libertarian'. Katzenjammer 28 June 2005 10:18 (UTC)

In comparison Dave, try OED3: No records detailing libertarianism as the support of propertarianism. Most usages reflect the religious/metaphysical usage of libertarian. Then most usages reflect civil libertarianism. Only one usage deals with politics seperate to civil libertarianism: "2. One who approves of or advocates liberty." usage 5 "1969 Listener 15 May 666/1 The political activists..belong to what is known as the libertarian Left." (OED3 Headword: Libertarian). Fifelfoo 01:11, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My question at this point is: why hasn't the page been moved already, with 'libertarian'/'libertarianism' pointing to a neutral lead-in page? What generally-accepted principle permits this continued sectarian colonization during discussion? Katzenjammer 28 June 2005 11:37 (UTC)

I repeat: What generally-accepted principle permits this continued sectarian colonization during discussion? Katzenjammer 28 June 2005 11:37 (UTC)

Raul 654, a respected administrator has already said "Our naming policy is to use the most english common name, and I think "liberterianism" most commonly (by a demonstrably wide margin) refers to the concepts described in this article." Additionally, as you yourself proved above, the only ones that call themselves "libertarians" as opposed to "libertarian socialists" are the thinkers discussed on this page. Dave (talk) June 28, 2005 20:31 (UTC)

Raul needs to recuse himself as being an interested party. I didn't know he holds an admin position, but it took me no time at all to see that he's not unbiased. The very existence of the discussion would be a tipoff to any unbiased person that the requisite 'neutral pov' is lacking.

Wikipedia has a general bias in favor of keeping things the way they were "before" (where "before" means the last time there was no active dispute). The fact that Raul is an administrator has nothing at all to do with it—he has no authority in this matter, so there's nothing for him to recuse himself from. I don't know if it's always a good idea to stick with "before", but in this case, especially since this has been discussed before and something of a decision was reached, I don't see why we wouldn't keep it here while we hash things out. - Nat Kraus e 29 June 2005 09:04 (UTC)

I was misled by Harry/Dave's citation of Raul as an authoritative resolver (as intended, I suppose). As to the rationale for moving it -- one of the favorite tactics of the soviets was to be willing to talk about a disputed action forever, as long as, meanwhile, they could continue to do whatever it was that was being disputed. So long as that biased article remains bound to that general term, visitors continue to be propagandized by it, thus achieving cap-lib goals and making any accommodation unnecessary.

And you really need to stop with the 'you yourself proved' shtik. Someone can call themselves Masters Of The Universe or All-Knowing Gods Incarnate if they want to...but the fact that they're the only ones making such a claim doesn't mean they are whatever it is, it only means that they've got a mental disorder!

You know who the people are who make grandiose claims about themselves and try to get them printed up in 'straight' places as true? It's not the people who are in good shape. It's the Papa Docs and the Idi Amins and the G.W.Bushes. The dangerous loonies.

When you openly and persistently violate the very principles you claim to be guided by, it really doesn't speak well of you. Katzenjammer 28 June 2005 22:08 (UTC)

If you define "biased" as disagreeing with you, then he's "biased," but only under that definition. I suggest you read our policies on personal attacks. I don't appreciate having my sanity being called into question. I don't have a "mental disorder," thank you very much, and I hope you'll retract your comparisons between various tyrants and me.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I was using what're called 'bright line' examples, my points being that (a) someone can call themselves whatever they like, and their communicants can agree, but that proves nothing and the claim should not be made to appear as fact in any context that claims to be neutral; and (b) people who feel secure in themselves tend to be easy-going, tolerant, and accommodating.

For example, the Roman Catholic Church claims (or did when I was being indoctrinated as a child) to be the only true, universal, apostolic church. Would that justify having the entry for 'catholic' or 'apostolic' be an exposition of RC dogma?

The people running the USSR knew they were perpetrating a massive fraud. So they made damned sure they stuffed their fraud down people's throats at every turn and did their best to prevent them from seeing anything different. Had Communism really been what they claimed it was, they wouldn't have needed to do any stuffing--a good product sells itself. Which is also why the Pinochet coup, the Cuban embargo, and the attempts on Chavez in Venezuela. Were Capitalism really wonderful, our rulers wouldn't need to propagandize us--they could say go, look, compare, decide for yourselves. Similarly, were cap-libbism really attractive, there'd be no need to try to stuff it down our throats by white-settlering the term 'libertarian'. Katzenjammer 29 June 2005 13:39 (UTC)

As far as the "you proved yourself" bit, that's merely referring to the fact that you said that neither you nor other libertarian socialists call yourselves "libertarians." Since you don't call yourself a libertarian, there's no reason that the page should link directly to your philosophy. Dave (talk) June 28, 2005 23:52 (UTC)

Do please point out where I suggested that it should link directly to soc-libbism. I'm arguing against any such pointing. The term needs to point to a neutral distributor page. Katzenjammer 29 June 2005 13:39 (UTC)

For the record, I've already said I'm not a libertarian, so your arguments about the "very principles [I] claim to be guided by" is irrelevant. If you want to know where my political sympathies lie, my user page has a brief summary, and I'd be happy to give you more details if asked. I have sympathy for classical liberalism, centrism, modern liberalism, and a few smatterings from the radical left. For the most part, my sympathy for libertarianism has been overridden by experience that it doesn't work very well, though I like it in theory. Please stop making assertions about my beliefs. Dave (talk) June 29, 2005 03:36 (UTC)

Actually, you didn't say that as far as I'm aware. What you said was "I never said I was a libertarian.". And, while I acknowledge that I hear your disclaimer, your actions are those of a complete partisan. So I'm afraid that you'll have to do more than disclaim before I'll believe you. Katzenjammer 29 June 2005 13:39 (UTC)

The trouble with labeling modern-day libertarianism as right-libertarianism is that libertarians do not see themselves as associated with the right. There are 4 basic quadrants on the political landscape: libertarian, authoritarian, liberal, and conservative. One might say that one is a liberal-leaning libertarian (a person who favors personal freedom, but favors SOME economic controls and programs by government) or a conservative-leaning libertarian (one who favors economic freedom, but favors SOME social controls on people), but once a person passes the 50% mark on either the personal or economic scale of the Nolan chart, that person is no longer a libertarian, but rather a liberal or conservative. Almost all so-called left-libertarians are way past the 50% line, making them liberals, which is why the left-libertarian label has always been cryptic to me. Why do these people not simply wish to label themselves as liberals? --Kyle

Read the libertarian socialism page. Their whole paradigm is different - they're hard to place on the Nolan Chart. They seem to think that it would be possible and desirable to prohibit the use of "economic force". They seem to viewowning property to be an initiation of force. It's a mind twister. Calling them "liberals" wouldn't do it. By I agree "right libertarian" is an inappropriate term for, uh, libertarians. --Serge 01:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Hm, yes, they do seem difficult to classify. This statement "Libertarian socialists believe in the abolition of both private control over the means of production and the state" baffles me. How could you take away private control of property without a mechanism like the state? I wouldn't give up mine freely unless confronted with superior odds, as would be the case with the state. And if you created a mechanism to arrest control of the property away from the former owners but didn't call it a government, wouldn't it, in a sense, become the government/authorities? I guess this contradiction does make them hard to classify. Regardless of that, "libertarian" has had a common meaning of what is portrayed in this article for decades, and were I to say someone was a libertarian, any reasonable person who hasn't even read these discussions would assume I was talking about the philosophy described on this page. The explanation at the top seems like plenty of lip service to other groups that have incorporated "libertarian" into their name. --Kyle

It's not really contradictorary. For example, workers could seize control of a factory without support from a government. Since workers are more numerous than large-scale property owners, owners are against superior odds, whether or not a state organisation is against them. As you say, the workers organisations which redistributed property would in a sense become a government, but this doesn't lead to a contradiction since libertarian socialists aren't against having a state. However, the kind of state they favour is highly decentralised, based on a network of workers councils. Cadr 21:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

To clarify, libertarian socialists want to abolish the "state" as a defender of private property, but they don't want to get rid of government altogether. This misreading of their ideas is what leads you to thinking there's a contradiction. (You might still think that libertarian socialists are living in cloud cookoo land, but the contradiction you describe doesn't in fact arise.) Cadr 21:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

To put it more bluntly, libertarian socialists see themselves as economic liberals. They don't advocate government control of the economy. The Nolan chart is hardly the be-all and end-all of political categorisation. It's a fairly crude attempt to make libertarianism look good by putting it in the "liberal corner" of the chart. Many different political philosophies claim to maximise personal economic and social liberty, not just libertarianism. Cadr 12:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

What we don't understand is how a society prevents ownership and control of private property without giving government control of the economy. --Serge 23:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Ownership of private property is only possible when that property is defended by the government. The government doesn't need to do anything to prevent the ownership of private property (except on a small scale, but libertarian socialists don't generally object to that kind of private property anyway). Insofar as workers councils are a government, the government does control the economy in a libertarian socialist society, but this isn't "government control of the economy" in the usual invidious sense. Libertarian socialists would argue that this form of economic organisation is most condusive to individual economic freedom, since it could potentially eliminate iniquetous and explotative forms of economic organisation. If your question is actually the one that Kyle asked (how do you take away existing private property without having government control of the economy?), see above. Cadr 23:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Or another way of responding is: how do you stop collective onwnership and control of property in a capitalist society without giving government control of the economy? The fact is that in order to maintain any kind of economic system, you either have to rely on the majority of the population to work within this system voluntarily, or use the government to prevent aletnative forms of economic organisation developing. There's no difference between libertarian socialism and capitalism in this respect. Sorry to give two slightly incompatible answers, but I find these sorts of questions very, very complicated (in contrast to right libertarians who apparently know The Truth about these things!) and I can never get the different ideas properly sorted in my head. Cadr 00:12, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

In order to have specialization of labor in any society, which is required to support even a fraction of the Earth's current human population, you have to have some kind of economic system that determines effectively who is responsible for what. Under capitalistic systems, ultimate responsiblity lies in the hands of certain individuals who generally have a proven interest and ability in being responsible for whatever they are responsible for. This is why clarifying and protecting property rights is a recognized legitimate function of government by most libertarians and minarchists. So far as I can tell, this issue is not even addressed by libertarian socialism. Various forms of collective ownership, if you will, for example, have proven to lead to economic failure in all but a few exceptional cases. --Serge 00:41, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

What issue isn't addressed by libertarian socialism? The issue of ecomonmic organisation and responsibility? Take a look at Parecon for one detailed set of propsals. Libertarian socialists of course disagree that collective ownership has been proven to fail, but unless you make some specific points against it no debate is possible. Cadr 13:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

That may have been Nolan's motivation, and the motivation of many libertarians in promoting it, but it classifies most all political philosophies fairly well, save anarchic ones, which it is, of course, silent on. --Kyle

Lead section

What exactly is wrong with the lead section that made it necessary, against the Wikipedia:Lead section guideline, to reduce it to one sentence? That is not standard practice in Wikipedia. According to that guideline:

The lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text is accessible, and some consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article (see Wikipedia:Summary style and Wikipedia:News style). The first sentence in the lead section should be a concise definition of the topic unless that definition is implied by the title (such as 'History of ...' and similar titles).

To get a better understanding of what a great lead section should do, the perfect article: "Begins with a definition or clear description of the subject at hand. This is made as absolutely clear to the nonspecialist as the subject matter itself will allow. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to codify human knowledge in a way that is most accessible to the most people, and this demands clear descriptions of what the subject matter is about. So we aren't just dropped into the middle of the subject from the first word—we are eased into it."

The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article. As a general guideline, the lead should be no longer than two or three paragraphs. The following specific rules have been proposed: (table then follows).

I oppose changing the lead section to one sentence. The article loses its oomph and power. The lead section is the most important part of the article: leaving the lead section of one sentence on a featured article is not sensible. - Ta bu shi da yu 29 June 2005 06:53 (UTC)

Please see A Libertarian Elevator Pitch, below (David Z.)

POV tag removed

I have removed the {{pov}} tag from this article. I request that the user who placed this on the article, User:Katzenjammer provide us with evidence that shows that this article is not NPOV, along with a brief overview of what in particular he/she dislikes about the article. Until this is done, the NPOV tag will stay off the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 29 June 2005 07:29 (UTC)

I agree 100% with the above. →Raul654 June 29, 2005 08:03 (UTC)

There are many ways that an article can fail to adhere to the NPOV policy. Some examples are:

The article can simply be biased, expressing viewpoints as facts (see Wikipedia:POV)

- The very existence of the article expresses a viewpoint (that cap-libs have the right to colonize the general term) as fact.

Some viewpoints, although not presented as facts, can be given undue attention and space compared to others (see Wikipedia:Balance).

The text and manner of writing can insinuate that one viewpoint is more correct than another.

The subject or title of the article can imply a particular point of view.

Again, allowing colonization of a general term gives the colonizing viewpoint undue attention and space, implies that the colonization is correct, and not merely implies but trumpets the colonizers' particular point of view.

A type of analysis of facts that can lead to the article suggesting a particular point of view's accuracy over other equally valid analytic perspectives.

The author's own viewpoint is mentioned or obvious.

Alternate viewpoints are compared in persuasive terms.

I'm not sure whether I would call it 'analysis' of facts, but 'presentation' of facts, certainly. I tried to correct 2 minor but very partisanly-presented 'facts' within the body of the article, and was rebuffed. The author viewpoint is definitely obvious to anyone with any political sophistication at all--a good comparison would be a description of Soviet Communism appearing in Pravda ca. 1930--and alternate viewpoints are either absent or treated in minimising ways (beginning with the first parenthetical paragraph).

I'm really disappointed by the partisan intransigence I see here. This whole issue looks more and more like a case for intervention. Katzenjammer 29 June 2005 11:10 (UTC)

Katzenjammer, the article is not as pro-libertarian as you make it out to be. Just about every sentence has the phrase "libertarians believe" or "libertarians argue" or "they support", and I don't think you'll find many places that the libertarian position on a controversial issue is presented as truth. The examples I've seen you complain about (the name of the article and the bit about Madison advocating "plutocracy") are not libertarian viewpoints but mainstream viewpoints. I know you believe that the mainstream is corrupt, but Wikipedia has to show their viewpoint as well as other sides.

Speaking of other sides, the longest section of the article is devoted to criticism (much of which I wrote originally, so I'd appreciate it if you stop assuming I'm blind to libertarianism's flaws), and the criticism is pretty damning. If the criticism here is not enough, there is a prominent link to a long article with more, including three long paragraphs about radical left criticism.

It is not and never will be balanced as long as it attempts to colonize a general term. The term 'libertarian' does NOT refer only to cap-libbism!

The point of the article is to provide information on libertarianism. If Pravda wrote an article in 1930 that was about libertarianism, I'd have no problem including it, though I don't see why we should write "Libertarians believe that taxation is theft, and incidentally, Pravda says the Soviet Union was wonderful." Incidentally, it's unlikely that Pravda did write an article on libertarianism in 1930, because the movement didn't really exist then.

Go back and read it again. I wasn't talking about Pravda having an article about cap-libbism.

"Intervention" wouldn't work very well since we (especially TBSDY and Raul) are experienced users in good standing, and you are so far out of the mainstream. Dave (talk) June 29, 2005 12:20 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right. I'm willing to find out.

I forgot to mention that if this does get to the point of intervention, the most likely course of action would be to prohibit you from editing this article or worse, given your persistent personal attacks (suggesting I have a mental disorder, comparing me to dictators, suggesting that TBSDY has the intellect of a ten-year-old...) Dave (talk) June 29, 2005 12:23 (UTC)

Perhaps. Other people read things more carefully, though, so it's possible they won't see the 'insults' in quite the same light you do. As to my response to Ta, I don't like being dismissively insulted, as he did by demanding that I provide evidence that propaganda is being passed off as objective truth. Katzenjammer 30 June 2005 10:50 (UTC)

I believe it's a violation of wiki principles for Ta to have removed my POV marker, btw. As far as I can tell, the marker is meant to remain in place til the dispute is resolved, not until the defendents decide that there is no POV dispute! You guys are being astonishingly high-handed in general, so I really have few worries about the outcome of intervention.

Care to sign your comment next time? I thought that Raul654 had said these things. - Ta bu shi da yu 29 June 2005 23:45 (UTC)

Perhaps you should think more carefully before complaining? We're talking about you removing my POV flag, remember? Who is the referent of 'my' if not me?

Sorry, maybe I was not clear. It is general practice that when posting to a talk page that editors sign their comments using the ~~~~ markup so that we (the Wikipedia community) know who they (the Wikipedia community) are talking to. Hope this is clear. - Ta bu shi da yu 30 June 2005 12:43 (UTC)

"I believe it's a violation of wiki principles for Ta to have removed my POV marker, btw." (A) You're wrong. "As far as I can tell, the marker is meant to remain in place til the dispute is resolved" (B) By asserting the NPOV tag, you are expected to say (with specificity) what is wrong with the article. Your objection to the name is flatly against Wikipedia naming policies. So no, we do not have to humor you and leave it tagged as POV. "You guys are being astonishingly high-handed in general, so I really have few worries about the outcome of intervention." (C) You are not the first person to come into a perfectly well-written, neutral article, complain that it is horribly biased because it doesn't comform to what you think it does. In fact, it's common enough that it's my 5th law of wikipedia. So you can expect the same treatment that they got, which is pretty much what harry491 described above. →Raul654 June 29, 2005 20:33 (UTC)

We'll see, I suppose. I'm happy to go all the way to arbitration on this, if need be, because what you guys are trying to do is wrong. If you want to colonize the cap-L terms 'Libertarian' and 'Libertarianism', then I'd have no objection--capitalizing a word makes it a proper noun in English, and thus suited to be a term of art. But trying to colonize the general term 'libertarian' and evict its existing meanings? No, no way. That's like Opus Dei deciding that the entry for 'catholic' should point to Roman Catholicism. It's partisan and completely unjustified in anything purporting to be an NPOV encyclopedia. Katzenjammer 30 June 2005 11:31 (UTC)

By all means, put a request through the ArbCom. However, may I suggest that you first review the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution page first? - Ta bu shi da yu 30 June 2005 12:38 (UTC)

Discussion between User:I know who my sister is and user:Harry491 moved to the bottom of the page.

Where does this "right libertarianism" term come from?

I've never heard of "right libertarianism", and I didn't find any citations for the usage in the archives or on the article page by doing a search on "right libertarianism". I happen to place libertarianism on the very right end of the totalitarian-anarchy scale, just to the left of anarchy, so I think of libertarianism as right-wing. But, if we are going to cite an obscure usage, it should be attributed to the scholar or politico that originated it.--Silverback June 29, 2005 12:48 (UTC)

Libertarians almost never use the term to describe themselves. I don't know who originated the term, but I suspect it was some kind of libertarian socialist. Here, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy uses the term to distinguish various philosophies that all call themselves "libertarian." It looks like an excellent resource that we could use to improve the article. Dave (talk) June 29, 2005 12:52 (UTC)\

Hmmm, I don't think the article states that this is a term that used in the real world. It may be no more than a short hand for the distinctions this author is making in this article, as is often done in journal articles. He could have easily chosen RL and LL.--Silverback June 29, 2005 13:29 (UTC)

Incidentally, the article I cited refers to Georgism, not libertarian socialism, as "left-libertarianism" Dave (talk) June 29, 2005 12:56 (UTC)

I'm familiar with georgism at least the original work and not libertarian socialism. Georgism is basically a property tax or property rent system, not that different from libertarianism except for its use of the rent system to balance the concentration of land in a few hands. Other forms of wealth are more important today, although as the population continues to increase, the scarcity of land may once again become a concern. Any libertarianism short of anarcho-capitalism, will have to have some sort of tax system, why not this georgian system? However, property based tax or rent systems have the disadvantage of requiring the land owners/renters to obtain legal tender to pay the rents. This would be oppressive to communists and socialists who just want to subsist on their communes or within their gift economies, by forcing them to participate in the market economy to obtain the legal tender. I have always opposed property taxes for this reason. There should be no forced participation in the market in a free society. People should be able to "opt out"--Silverback June 29, 2005 13:29 (UTC)

Libertarianism Intro

I drafted an accurate and concise definition of libertarianism as it it generally used, which means applying broadly to various political thoughts:

Libertarianism is a political philosophy^[5] favoring personal and economic liberty or freedoms to the extent that they do not infringe on the same freedoms of others.

What is currently there, and what a couple keep reverting, would not get a decent grade in a course in an 8th grade politics class:

1. It is inaccurate: libertarianism is used extremely broadly and describing what one political party does or a narrow section of beliefs is inappropriate for the summary. If you want to describe various beliefs, describe down below.

2. It is poor writing: Proper editing requires a concise definition in the summary. Every single issue does not have to be addressed in the summary. Major articles that are well written all have a concise and accurate summary generalizing the subject. See Political progressivism, Paleoconservative, Islam, Christianity.

My edit as to the summary is both accurate, concise and proper. As for the section that I moved down below, it should be changed, but I intended to do this in more than 2 step.

--Noitall June 29, 2005 13:24 (UTC)

Fine - I don't have a problem with a better lead. I do have a problem with you leaving the lead section on a featured article with a one sentence lead. My suggestion is to post the new lead section to the talk page, then once this is done replace it. - Ta bu shi da yu 29 June 2005 13:36 (UTC)

I do not understand the suggestion. --Noitall June 29, 2005 13:40 (UTC)

Firstly: read Wikipedia:Lead section. A one or two sentence lead on an featured article is not acceptable. So, my suggestion is to write a new lead section that satisfies the guideline but do it below, then add it to the article. Leaving an article with a bad lead section while you work out how to fix it is not acceptable! - Ta bu shi da yu 29 June 2005 13:46 (UTC)

{Noitall's lead section here}

PLEASE READ MY COMMENTS AND RATIONALE ABOVE: I HAVE POINTEDLY ADDRESSED YOUR ISSUE AND YOU ARE WRONG. You do not know about either writing or about libertarianism as a broad philosophy. My edit above is a good edit. If you can improve it, do it. But don't bring in your F grade in 8th grade writing and politics and tell others what to do. --Noitall June 29, 2005 13:57 (UTC)

Could you please point out which sentences are wrong in the lead section and what it is about those sentences that are wrong? If you could be more specific, perhaps we could resolve the issue. - Ta bu shi da yu 30 June 2005 07:26 (UTC)

P.S. Political progressivism is hardly a good article and shining example of our quality. Don't believe me? Try getting it through FAC. - Ta bu shi da yu 30 June 2005 07:28 (UTC)

And one more thing, YOU ARE ENTIRELY WRONG AS TO YOUR PROCEDURES. My edit is far better than what is there now. Therefore it should be the edit in the article. If others improve upon it later, so much the better. But requiring Ta bu shi da yu approval is neither needed nor required. --Noitall June 29, 2005 14:03 (UTC)

What part of my reading is incorrect? Besides, it's not that I wish to stamp approval of all edits that you do: nothing could be further from the truth. But the following text in Wikipedia:Lead section is clear:

The lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text is accessible, and some consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article (see Wikipedia:Summary style and Wikipedia:News style). The first sentence in the lead section should be a concise definition of the topic unless that definition is implied by the title (such as 'History of ...' and similar titles).
To get a better understanding of what a great lead section should do, the perfect article: "Begins with a definition or clear description of the subject at hand. This is made as absolutely clear to the nonspecialist as the subject matter itself will allow. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to codify human knowledge in a way that is most accessible to the most people, and this demands clear descriptions of what the subject matter is about. So we aren't just dropped into the middle of the subject from the first word—we are eased into it."
The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article. As a general guideline, the lead should be no longer than two or three paragraphs. The following specific rules have been proposed:

< 15,000 characters 15,000 characters - 30,000 characters > 30,000 characters

one or two paragraphs two or three paragraphs three paragraphs (consider splitting up the article)

The length of the individual paragraphs again depends on the article length.
For the planned paper Wikipedia 1.0, one consensus recommendation is that the paper version of articles will be the lead section of the web version. Summary style and news style can help make a concise intro that works stand-alone.

What part of that guideline am I misunderstanding? Please clarify. - Ta bu shi da yu 30 June 2005 05:46 (UTC)

Noitall, could you please provide a summarized situation report describing what you see as the current outstanding issues with the recent history of the page? You are passionate about the subject, and seem more approachable then Alfrem, and I would value your insight. It is possible that the fragmented nature of this conversation is interfering with clear communication. As a newcomer to the text, the nature of the dispute is hard to follow, it seems to have turned into an rv war, or, at the very least, an rv skirmish. Chairboy 29 June 2005 14:45 (UTC)

Your lead section is indeed not appropriate. It does not summarize the basic points covered by the text, it is too short, etc. Christopher Parham (talk) 2005 June 29 14:12 (UTC)

That's splitting hairs! Take "What is libertarianism?" as normal text and you have your length.

And then say me why libertarian thinking must be political. --Alfrem 29 June 2005 14:29 (UTC)

Certainly, I would like to address in further detail. Later on we can go into all my critisisms of what is there now, but I think what I have above neatly summarizes it. First, I don't know what the other arguments are about, but this is clearly a political philosophy (which includes but is different from a political party), and anything else libertarian can move to another page. As for my own edit, I object to anyone making an article longer because they think that makes it better or more important. The contrary is the case. The best articles have a short and concise summary, and I provided 4 examples. It can't always be done. And maybe this needs another sentence or two to address political parties or influence on other politics. But details as to what some accept as a theory should not be in the summary. As for the section that I moved down below, I have many critisisms of that section including the comment in the previous sentence, only I did not yet edit it because I intended to first address an accurate summary and then edit that section. --Noitall June 29, 2005 16:43 (UTC)

Alright, first off, I'm not sure why you are replacing Alfrem's POV tag if you don't disagree with the consensus (see earlier talk page) on the political philosophy issue. Still, I apologize for my somewhat tart response to you earlier as I was assuming you were entering this debate on the side of an obvious problem user. Regarding the lead, I think that a two sentence lead cannot stand on its own as a concise summary of the article. The lead of Christianity is an example of this, it provides no more information than a dictionary would. If you told someone that is a concise summary of Wikipedia's work on Christianity, I think they would assume our efforts are fairly poor -- no mention of divisions between Christian denominations, etc.

In the case of libertarianism, I think the lead should summarize the major schools of the philosophy, its modern political relevance, and the major opposition schools -- the things covered later in the article. Procedurally, I don't think that wiping out all of the lead but one sentence is going to be an effective way to improve the lead with the opposition that exists, and is likely to be a great way to get into a revert war. Christopher Parham (talk) 2005 June 29 17:04 (UTC)

political? read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Alfrem#Response --Alfrem 29 June 2005 17:22 (UTC)

Please see A Libertarian Elevator Pitch, below (David Z.)

For the record, I have requested input from the wider community on which lead section is best or how we can improve it. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Philosophy. - Ta bu shi da yu 30 June 2005 05:59 (UTC)

A Libertarian elevator pitch

This may be helpful to the intro debates...

Forgot to login. This is David Zetland. :)

If you had 30 seconds to present the libertarian agenda, in an inclusive manner, it would be:

1) You know your wants and needs - I don't. Therefore, I cannot take care of you.

2) You have to make tradeoffs between these to stay within your (time, money, etc.) constraints.

3) The government's job is to make it as easy as possible for everyone to satisfy their wants and needs.

I include some comments that others have made here but leave the basic text for your comments.

1) Therefore, my care of you might never be what you want.[?]

2) the notion of 'needs' does seem to concord well with an approach which does not reduce everything to mere social construction. 'Wants' are more obviously accounted for as social constructions; if one talks of 'needs' also, one can in so doing remain open to there possibly being 'a human nature' to speak of (i have the Evolutionary Psychology point of view here explicitly in mind).

3) What I would like to suggest is that folk-economics, by endorsing the needs vs. wants distinction, naturalizes a historically contingent view of what is to be considered a 'need' and what might be considered a 'want'. Let me illustrate this with a modest example. Think of bathrooms. Yeah yeah, you understood right: bathrooms, i.e. toilets, W.Cs.! If you folks were living in central or southern Italy, you'd see a lot of buildings built by the end of the nineteenth and the first half of twentieth centuries were bathrooms were designed to be shared by several flats. One bathroom per floor was the standard. Architects and constructors would have argued that a bathroom per floor was enough to satisfy the "needs" of the tenants, while in-flat bathrooms were a luxury for whimsical riches. Now, if one thinks of a bathroom as a place for basic physiological activities, one might consider that a bathroom per floor is always better than going out and get your relief in the fields, so why bother about having a bathroom in the apartment (don't forget we are talking about a century ago)? After all, weren't we sharing our bathrooms too in the dorms last week?

But if one thinks of bathrooms as sources of contagious diseases than everything changes. When people became aware about the importance of raising hygienic standards, then a bathroom per flat (to say nothing of a bathroom per room) became no longer a want but a basic need!

Conclusions. A libertarian elevator pitch must acknowledge the "needs" vs. "wants" distinction in order to be persuasive towards the laymen. But at the same time it must show the relativity and historical contingency of this distinction in order to familiarize the audience with an alternative and more scientific view of economic demand, which is also I think a fundamental building block of any argument in favour of libertarianism: i.e. the principle of marginal utility.

It's a good idea. Will reread what you wrote and see if we can apply this. - Ta bu shi da yu 30 June 2005 07:21 (UTC)

Where would 'we' apply it? -David Zetland

I really do like the idea of a bullet-point summary of Libertarianism to put near the top of the article; I think it's difficult for a skim-reader to quickly get a sense of libertarianism from the article. However, I don't think these three points in particular describe libertarianism well.

1. You know your wants and needs - I don't. Therefore, I cannot take care of you. Someone might say, "Of course government knows your wants and needs. You need food and shelter and clothing and health care; you want movies and vacations and job security. A government controls these things. Anything else is anarchy."

This is a strawman complaint. The obvious notion that one person does not know what another wants is central to libertarianism. Any government which claims to know is just passing propaganda. (See also Hayek, F.A. On the Use of Knowledge in Society, 1945.) -David Zetland

If we don't know anything about what others want, how can we know that they want any particular degree or kind of liberty? How, for that matter, can we know that totalitarian regimes don't provide for the wants and needs of their people? It's absurd for libertarians to pretend that they aren't making any assumptions about what ordinary people want. It's also absurd to pretend that you can never know what another person wants -- ask them! Cadr 5 July 2005 03:04 (UTC)

This is another strawman. If you assume that you do not know what someone wants, then no regime will know either. If what people want is a totalitarian regime, which means they will establish one, then you should leave it to them to do that from a state of no government, not assume that the totalitarian regime that exists can justify itself as what people would have formed had they taken the time. In sum, there is a difference between an ex post justification for existing totalitarianism and an ex ante desire to have totalitarianism. Libertarians back the latter, not the former. -David Zetland 4 Aug 2005 15.00 (PDT)

2. You have to make tradeoffs between these to stay within your (time, money, etc.) constraints. Is this ever untrue for any style of government? Even totalitarianism agrees with this.

This is the notion of personal responsability that also prohibits taking from others. Redistribution is the role of most governments, minimizing that requires that (2) holds. -David Zetland

3. The government's job is to make it as easy as possible for everyone to satisfy their wants and needs. Again, this fits any government, including totalitarianism, which tries to make it possible for everyone to satisfy wants/needs by controlling freedoms and economy tightly.

Sorry - economics (my field) has abundant evidence that totalitarians are bad at doing this. If you accept (3) as a goal, it points the way towards freedom of action, ie, libertarianism. The most obvious place for this is a free-market. -David Zetland

I myself might sum up libertarianism by discussing personal freedoms and personal responsibility, and by saying that the role of government is to defend its citizens and nothing more; but I'm coming from an America-centric view, and I don't know how accurate my description is for libertarianism as a whole. I'm also a little uncomfortable describing libertarianism as an "elevator pitch" as if it's something that other people must be convinced of. - Brian Kendig 30 June 2005 13:20 (UTC)

Last things first: libertarianism suffers from endless discussion. An "elevator pitch" is useful to any group that has trouble explaining itself. People do not need to be convinced; they should at least have a decent idea of what libertarianism means to thos ewho practice it.

Your own version does not operationalize libertarianism, ie, what does it mean in practice? "Disussion" is not a philosophy. Personal freedom and responsability results in some sort of action (ie, (1) and (2) above). The government does have to defend citizens (from each other) but can also play a role by reducing their transaction costs (See, eg, Coase, R.H. The Problem of Social Cost, 1960) -David Zetland 30 June 17.35 (PDT)

Can I just say that I don't feel that a bullet point summary in the lead section would be appropriate. - Ta bu shi da yu 30 June 2005 23:33 (UTC)

Can you say why? Can you say that it would be unhelpful to others? -David Zetland

As a rule, bullet points can make our work look unprofessional. Prose is almost always better than bullet points (this has been pointed out several times in FAC), especially in an encyclopedia. Lead sections really should be in standard prose. It's an unofficial style issue that we have been following for quite some time - check the rest of the featured articles, none of them have bullet points in the lead section. - Ta bu shi da yu 1 July 2005 01:23 (UTC)

There is no need to be rigid about a style. Bullets are useful and an obvious form for an elevator speech. There is plenty of prose on the page. The elevator speech needn't be in the lead--I put it after the lead before it was reverted. -David Zetland 4 Aug 2005 15.00 (PDT)

1) You know your wants and needs - I don't. Therefore, I cannot take care of you.

What's preventing you from asking me what my wants and needs are, and then taking care of me accordingly? Or, for that matter, writing me a check and letting me take care of my wants and needs with it as I see fit? Every "kept" man and woman in the world would beg to differ with this point. Not knowing someone's wants and needs does not preclude one from finding out what those wants and needs are, and, hence, taking care of that someone.

Hayek (Am Econ Review 1945) pointed out that the information/coordination problems of me taking care of you (many yous...) are too great. Delivering cash is fine, since you can then spend it, but this statement is not about transfers but the conduct of everyday life. -David Zetland 4 Aug 2005 15.00 (PDT)

2) You have to make tradeoffs between these to stay within your (time, money, etc.) constraints.

By these you mean wants and needs, I presume? Hmm. I never thought about it that way. I want to go sit on the beach, but I need to work. Or do I want to work so that I may satisfy my need for food and shelter, and my want for recreation? In the former construct, they are a tradeoff, but in the latter, they are complementary. I prefer the latter view. No, I don't see wants and needs as an obvious tradeoff.

Economists hate the word need, but people use it (eg, "I need food"; an economist would say "no - you want food beause you want to live.") The tradeoff is due to an opportunity cost of one thing for another, ie, you can't eat your cake and have it. The words 'want' and 'need' are not central to the tradeoff. -David Zetland 4 Aug 2005 15.00 (PDT)

3) The government's job is to make it as easy as possible for everyone to satisfy their wants and needs.

It is? I thought the libertarian perspective was that it is the government's job to protect everyone's right to do whatever they want, as long as they do not violate the right of anyone else to do the same.

--Serge 1 July 2005 01:35 (UTC)

You're right Serge, it is. --Atlastawake 1 July 2005 02:20 (UTC)

This is the libertarian's idea of the government's job. The point of the elevator pitch is to explain libertarian ideas in a way that 99 percent of people (non-libsertarians) can understand. -David Zetland 4 Aug 2005 15.00 (PDT)

My E-summary for libertarianism is short, but imperfect because it doesn't capture the dynamic nature of classical liberalism. I say, "Democrat on civil issues, Republican on economics issues."

How about starting off with: "Have you ever spent a day at the DMV?" Then follow that up with: "How did that compare to your last visit to your local supermarket?" I think you can see where I'm going with this: government's a habitual screw up, always has been, and always will be. More intelligent thought can be observed while watching a monkey shit-fight at the zoo than can be found in any bureaucratic office building of the governanny. All you have to do is point that fact out, and remind people of it. Rich333 23:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with both. The first is over-simplified and not a statement of what libertarians stand for (neither of those, especially since both parties are big-gov't parties). The second is just an example of inefficient monopolies. Microsoft and your local phone company have monopoly power. They are just as incompetent as the gov't. -David Zetland 4 Aug 2005 15.30 (PDT)

Hmmm... the theory of non-aggression

Out of interest, if libertarians cannot initiate force, then what happens if they exist in a society that does not accept or allow their citzens to be libertarians? Let's say that one group of people in that society attack them because of their philosophy, then obviously they may defend themselves. Yet if they follow the non-aggression principle they may not demand or force the community's leadership into a position where they stop their citzens from attacking them. What, then, happens if they then try to educate those who attack them but find the community blocking these attempts? For instance, say they would like to educate the community about libertarianism to stop the attacks, through a television network, but that society blocks their transmissions, and thus block their voice. Will they then be able to initiate force to allow their viewpoints to be heard? - Ta bu shi da yu 30 June 2005 08:54 (UTC)

Theoretically, libertarians can't force anyone to help them defend themselves (ignore for the moment that a lot of libertarians believe in a "night-watchman" state to do just that). So, if people are attacking me, I can't threaten you or use force to get you to take action against them—that would be initiation of force. However, this might change a little once you bring in the idea of a "leader". Certainly, if you're actively supporting the attackers, that's a different story. By a leader, do you mean something like a mayor and the police brass? These people, in the libertarian view, have already initiated force by making themselves a monopoly government—a monopoly which is very likely getting in the way of the aggrieved parties' self-defense. Having made themselves mayors and police chiefs, the least they can do is actually defend the people they've claimed responsibility for.

Similarly, I can't force you to let me communicate with people, unless your obstruction itself is aggressive. That said, I don't know anything off the top of my head about the libertarian position on jamming broadcast signals.

It's this sort of case, though, that leads me to believe that the "non-aggression principle" is not sufficient to describe libertarian theory (although it is necessary to most forms). The principle is important, but it requires explanation. - Nat Kraus e 30 June 2005 09:27 (UTC)

This is the point I am trying to make. There is a school of thought that says that the NAP is not a sufficient definition for libertarianism, because it can lead to a situation where there is a lack of liberty. For instance, when a group attacks an individual, it is not possible for another individual who follows the NAP to assist if they themselves have not been attacked. From my limited knowledge of libertarianism, I understand this has led to a more nuanced view that the only groups that may exist in society are ones that do not oppose libertarian values. This, however, does not mean that individuals cannot give up their rights and live voluntarily in organisations where it is a condition that they must give up those rights. What it does mean is that they may only voluntarily give up rights and may not be coerced into giving them up.

There is a view that an individual may have a representative who will work for their liberty if that individual is living in a non-liberated state. The individual may ask for another individual or group to be their representative and work towards their freedom. This may require the use of force because when the individual is attacked and coersed, the representative is also being attacked because they have been requested by the individual to represent them.

Further, there is a view that libertarianism must stop groups that keep their members in a state of ignorance that there is a world where individual liberties exist. This is because there may be a society where communication with the outside world is forbidden. In this case, it is believed that libertarians may forcibly inform those citzens of their liberties, and furthermore there is a view that libertarianism must not allow societies to exist that do not permit liberty!

So, yes, I believe that is wrong to say that all libertarians believe that the sole axiom of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle. - Ta bu shi da yu 30 June 2005 10:46 (UTC)

"For instance, when a group attacks an individual, it is not possible for another individual who follows the NAP to assist if they themselves have not been attacked." I believe that this is a misunderstanding of the NAP. It is not initiation of force to defend someone who is being attacked. The force is initiated by the attacker alone. I believe almost all libertarians agree with that. - Nat Kraus e 30 June 2005 16:12 (UTC)

In my reading, there are some who believe that it is a wrong view of NAP, and others who do not agree with this. I found an excellent review of this the other day at http://www.mises.org/journals/scholar/libertarian.pdf I would be interested in hearing your view on this PDF, Nat. - Ta bu shi da yu 30 June 2005 23:32 (UTC)