Talk:Libertarianism/Archive1

From time immemorial
I've no doubt that they could tell me its not but isn't that Anarchy? Keepmoißt 00:26, 26 July 2007 (CDT)


 * Libertarianism claims a small role for governments, primarily in national defense. So in other words, anarchy with an army.--MountainTiger 00:40, 26 July 2007 (CDT)


 * And a court system, since the only way in Libertarian Utopia to get anyone to do anything they don't want to (like stop selling strychinine as baby formula) is to sue them.  What's to stop the rich bastards from bribing the judges, I dunno. --Gulik 00:48, 26 July 2007 (CDT)


 * Oh, and a Mint, or multiple ones, since they need money to make their Free Market work. And some way to stop counterfeiters, I guess. --Gulik 00:49, 26 July 2007 (CDT)

So! They need taxes!! Keepmoißt 00:52, 26 July 2007 (CDT)


 * And of course they need cops to arrest the counterfeiters and trespassers. Don't forget about jails to house them, either.--MountainTiger 00:55, 26 July 2007 (CDT)



Sounds like a bust to me. Keepmoißt 00:59, 26 July 2007 (CDT)


 * Suppose someone 'd have to pay the legislature too unless they were willing to do it pro bono (snigger!) Keepmoißt 01:09, 26 July 2007 (CDT)

Another essay
While there is a range of opinion among libertarians as regards to government interference, no one has ever convincingly explained why Libertarians come off as kinda irresponsible and selfish if their political view is so correct...

Essay give away. Also, if you're really interested in opening your mind to another perspective, try "The Virtue of Selfishness" if you have not already. 22:37, 28 July 2007 (CDT)


 * Take a look at the page history. Also, the criticism is more about the attitude of many extreme libertarians, who can be as bad as, well, all other political extremists, than about the effectiveness of libertarian government.  While it'll probably have to go eventually (along with my reasoning on why so few are in office), I think that the article should remain mainspace.--MountainTiger 22:45, 28 July 2007 (CDT)
 * (got edit conflicted) Ooh, greed is good? Ayn Rand?  Sorry, I read her, she is at best an anachronism, and at worst, well, a really bad novelist and a worse "philosopher".  By the way, HG, please hang on and hold on, while I write my "peace treaty" on your user page.  You, and we, need to stop being so silly and so angry over political differences.  Please abide by my promise to write this thing.  Peace out, 22:48, 28 July 2007 (CDT)
 * I am not picking on you Human. I haven't read her in a long time, but I don't know that she argued that greed was good--but rather, that selfishness (self interest) was good.  If you want me to keep away from your articles, I will.  I am just trying to help you.  Making essay like comments in an article will not be taken seriously.  Dismissing my observations as petty revenge is just a wast of both of our time.   22:53, 28 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Wow, I am drunk, I did not think you got in such a way. Did you read what I wrote, above? I have read Ayn Rand.  I enjoyed the Fountainhead, didn;t know why I wasn;t "guided" to it earlier in my life.  "Atlas Shrugged" simply sucked, for like a thousand pages (paying my dues).  Made no sense whatsoever.  Her "Objectivism" is not a "philosophy", as it has no axioms or logic.  Anyway, see my above comment!  Relax for a day or two while I write it.  And, yourself - quit with the liberal/conservative dichotomy, as I have promised, I will discuss with you. human be in 23:20, 28 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Okay. Anyway, I agree that Atlas Shrugged droned on too long, and her philosophy is not a philosophy (but I loathe reading most philosophy books, as they not only beat dead horses, they usually make horse hamburger.  I didn't bring up liberal in this thread (unless you saw one of my previews).  Ayn Rand is interesting, and worth reading.  Had an English teacher in 7th or 8th grade assign Anthem.  And now that I think about it, Anthem was prophetic. 23:27, 28 July 2007 (CDT)
 * I am not for censoring - the books should be read to be discussed. I appreciate your perspective, re: Atlas Shrugged being a hard read.  Also, Ayn's sexual issues (as played out by her characters), are fairly sick and ugly.  Most of her sex scenes read like rape, to me.  She is best taken in context, as a Russian writing to combat what she saw as a rising tide of socialism in the West, after her own personal experience of fascism built upon socialism in her home country. human be in 00:00, 29 July 2007 (CDT)

This page made me cry a li'l bit. Really, it did
This page is based on a gross (and unfunny) misunderstanding of libertarianism. At best it describes anarcho-capitalism and at worst it describes Objectivism. Judging from some of the discussion above it seems the editors don't fully know what the meaning of libertarian is. Also, I don't know why the article has to be so hostile; both liberals and conservatives are hostile to libertarians, but libertarians can find huge areas of agreement with both groups. Why gain an ally and focus on where you agree instead of gaining an enemy and pointing out (in this case false) areas on which you disagree? JazzMan 13:49, 13 September 2007 (MDT)
 * Fix it and stop yer yappin'!User:PalMD
 * Bring up the errors here so we can discuss them. While some of the article is snarky, it seems to cover most of what I have encountered in "self described" L/libertarians.  But if it makes gross errors... well, then, we should fix them.  Shall we include a brief overview of the L. Party's platform for clarity?  In my experience, also, "the meaning of libertarian" varies depending on which libertarian I am am talking to. human be in 14:03, 13 September 2007 (MDT)
 * Ah yes, well that makes a lot of sense then. There are lots of various people who describe themselves as libertarians, even when they are closer to anarchists or anarchocapitalists (the anarchists get a little pissed about it... probably as pissed as when people call us anarchists!).
 * On re-reading the article I guess it's not as bad as I thought (it was the two conversations above that were misusing the definition; the article was just overly sarcastic but more or less going in the right direction). Here are some comments on the article:
 * I'm not sure whether or not the term was "stolen" from anarchists (I wasn't really around in the 70's) so that part very well might be true. I'm not sure what the use of defining libertarians from an anarchist basis is though. Really the whole first paragraph is just a little strange ( i.e. "They now push themselves as the real libertarians despite hundreds of years of libertarian-socialist history that says otherwise" uhhhh what? I don't even know what that means). Also there is absolutely no mention of property rights anywhere; there's really only a couple important libertarian points, and that's one of them.
 * I think the second paragraph was trying to be snarky, which is ok; it's what makes it an "RW article". However, it is basing it's snarkyness on a false premise, or at least a dishonest premise. Sure libertarians don't want the government to interfere with those issues, but it's not because they think those issues aren't important; it's because they think there are better ways of dealing with them.
 * -It probably appears to non-libertarians that they don't care because the only alternative they offer is letting "The Free Market" fix everything. This sounds every bit as rational as when a Christian Scientist recommends using prayer to fight a staph infection.Garble 22:02, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
 * I've never heard the pork thing before. I guess it makes sense, but there are other candidates who "say no to pork" but still get voted into office. Libertarians would say (with quite a large amount of evidence) that there aren't more libertarians in office because of the enormous blocks and hurdles they have to overcome. They also don't get free press, and are denied access to many candidate debates. (For example: the number one issue in last year's Ohio gubernatorial race was the economy, but the candidate who had a PhD in economics, a libertarian, was not invited to participate in any of the debates).
 * The difference between small-l and big-L is pretty much correct, though again it ignores the fact that the Libertarian party is socially liberal for the most part (and liberal in foreign policy as well; a pretty important issue right now).
 * -"Socially liberal" is more of a meme than a fact. Libertarians use it when being called Right-Wing in the same tone as when a bigot claims "Some of my best friends are (group I just insulted)!" It actually takes more than wanting to legalize pot and hookers to be socially liberal. Affirmative Action? Discrimination Lawsuits? A woman's right to choose even if she can't afford to bribe a doctor? Libertarians aren't socially liberal, they're socially indifferent. They have nothing against equality per se, as long as it happens on its own and doesn't get in the way of anyone making a profit.Garble 22:02, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
 * The quotes are more of the "snarkyness," I guess. They are really the only part of the article that's based on a misunderstanding of libertarianism. I guess you could argue that you are exaggerating libertarianism, but then you'd be describing anarchocapitalism or objectivism :) My favorite quote is from Penn Jillette (of Penn and Teller fame) but I can't find the exact wording ANYWHERE! It's something to the extent of "Libertarians are conservatives with their money and liberals in the bedroom". I don't do the quotation much justice.
 * Sooooo in conclusion the article's not *that* bad, I guess I just was shocked by it. JazzMan 18:14, 13 September 2007 (MDT)
 * Thanks for the careful and considered reply! I also agree that the article gets off to a weak start.  Whether the stuff is "true" or not, the lead para. is clumsy.  Like it was written by three drunk monkeys (well, chances are, itwas!)  It does mention "property rights", but mostly in snark about wealth.  Anyway, now that you have surely "paid your dues to Ed Poor", you are more than welcome to make this thing better - especially with stuff you know.  Please leave some or most of the snark, though.  Have you read our Dem. and Rep. articles?  We need one on the Greens now for "balance".  Although, of course, this article isn't specifically about the L. Party. human be in 18:26, 13 September 2007 (MDT)
 * Good call. I'll read over those and try to keep it within style (I'm learning it slowly but surely). *looks at clock* Uh... so that's going to happen tomorrow, since I just remembered I have a test that I haven't studied for yet. JazzMan 21:27, 13 September 2007 (MDT) heh, drunk monkeys
 * So uh, on viewing Democratic Party and Republican Party, I think this article is just fine how it is! JazzMan 15:18, 14 September 2007 (MDT)
 * Hahahahahaha, context is amazing, isn't it? Maybe they should all link to each other... or be in a small cat of their own... human be in 15:20, 14 September 2007 (MDT)

DogP I trust you're gonna see to that red link - you're being watched. SJG sjg  16:40, 14 September 2007 (MDT)

The conservative Ralph Nader?
Rackjite.com says that the vote to put a pro-choice position in the party platform was barely passed by 1. I think the John Birch Conspiracy theorists have largely been disaffected to the Constitution Party, leaving the party to the secular college idealists, but Libertarians don't really give a rat's ass about social issues anyways. On the other hand, we should bankroll the libertarians so they can have a Nader! Since the Constitution Party is Christian Reconstructionist at its MILDEST, bankrolling them would be a BAD idea, as the media DOES hate social radicals on either side. You might just remove one/third of the Republican Party's base (the NRA/skinheads), and the Republicans would be fucked in several local areas, and could even lose a lot of racist mountain states (i.e. IDAHO and WYOMING). Just some random ideas. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 68.34.218.216 / talk / contribs 20:58, 20 September 2007

Amusement
I question the entertainment value of the quotes in that section because none of them are true, and as Homer Simpson once said; "Its funny because its true." 12.75.66.221 21:10, 17 November 2007 (EST)


 * There are really two types of funny. "It's funny because it's true", and "It's funny because it's a lie." I find the quotes to be quite funny, because they present a strawman characture of a Libertarian, then smack it down, or otherwise leaves the strawman that they need not even smack it, as it will fall upon its own.  Presenting quotes by people that are fallacious against Libertarians, it kind of warms the heart... although a bit of a strawman itself.  --Eira yay!  14:32, 14 December 2007 (EST)

My Edit
Why was it reverted? 12.75.67.43 23:34, 17 November 2007 (EST)


 * Because it was pointless and failed to add information or lulz. --Kels 23:35, 17 November 2007 (EST)

About the edit war that has been going on
"Also many of them have jelly for brains"

OK, that is just slander. RW should not exist as a liberal soapbox used to slander other political ideologies. 98.17.56.87 22:39, 25 November 2007 (EST)

But it's true isn't it? & therefore not slander. Susan ... miaow ...  22:47, 25 November 2007 (EST)
 * No, its just being used as an insult to say that many Libertarians are stupid. 98.17.56.87 22:52, 25 November 2007 (EST)
 * Well, to be fair quoting something that says "many" and claiming that it's saying that "all" are stupid doesn't really help your case there. --Kels 22:58, 25 November 2007 (EST)
 * OK, its just being used as an insult to say that MANY Libertarians are stupid. Now stop annoying me over pointless small details. 98.17.56.87 23:04, 25 November 2007 (EST)
 * what kind of jelly?69.216.120.233 22:47, 25 November 2007 (EST)
 * I think grape is the international standard. --Kels 22:50, 25 November 2007 (EST)
 * lime flavour Susan  ... miaow ...  22:52, 25 November 2007 (EST)


 * How can it be an insult when all libertarians are stupid? Susan  ... miaow ...  22:59, 25 November 2007 (EST)

I'll be honest, I don't think all libertarians are stupid. Selfish and short-sighted yes, but not necessarily stupid in all cases. --Kels 23:04, 25 November 2007 (EST)

Since I'm part of this "revert war" I might as well say something. I'm pretty sure you were one of those vandals who went around changing crap on all the pages. I might be wrong about this, but this was all days ago and I'm too lazy to figure out if this is the case. Anyways, I said this in one of the edit comments, keep your jelly-for-brains part (RWers love to feel superior to libertarians -- almost as much as they love to feel superior to conservatives, people of faith, wealthy people, you name it); I could care less if you go around deleting crap that other people wrote. Just don't delete MY snark or I'll revert you as long as I feel like it. Lurker 23:06, 25 November 2007 (EST)

Oh, of course. Everything you do is right and can never be wrong. 98.17.56.87 23:22, 25 November 2007 (EST)

(BTW - that wasn't an edit war - that wasn't even a skirmish - that was vandalism & reversion. Susan  ... miaow ...  23:08, 25 November 2007 (EST))
 * Right, that's why I put it in quotes :) Lurker 23:10, 25 November 2007 (EST)
 * So its vandalism if i try to make it neutral? 98.17.56.87 23:22, 25 November 2007 (EST)


 * Who said we want neutral? & yes it is vandalism if you make repeated edits against reversion from an IP address. If you'd stated your point on this page first we might have agreed - as it is you've got our mutual back up. Susan  ... miaow ...  23:29, 25 November 2007 (EST)
 * I made 1 revert. You say the word "repeated". 98.17.56.87 23:34, 25 November 2007 (EST)


 * You made 1 revert, that just by sheerest coincidence happens to be the exact same edit done by a number of different IP's over the past month or so. Hmmmmm..... --Kels 06:37, 26 November 2007 (EST)
 * Thanks Kels: I fell asleep (@6:30 am) before I could post this:
 * I can't be bothered to search the history but you've made very similar edits before, admittedly on a different IP address, so don't play the "who me?" card here. Susan  ... miaow ...  10:23, 26 November 2007 (EST)


 * There is plenty of room for actual criticism of the article, if someone wishes to go for it on the talk page. The credibility of a vandals edit is low, but plenty of RW editors (or future editors) could work on this collaboratively.  And for the record, I always described brains as a bit like meat-flavored yogurt.  The zombie army may disagree, but who knows--i just won't be eating any more brains, libertarian or otherwise, again soon.--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 23:14, 25 November 2007 (EST)
 * Doc - do you have to bring in the sweet sense of reason & logic when we're having fun baiting an IP of strange ideology? Susan  ... miaow ...  23:20, 25 November 2007 (EST)
 * Mmmm...brains...--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 23:23, 25 November 2007 (EST)

All of this over one fucking paragraph? Let it die. Locke   Always Watching...... 23:43, 25 November 2007 (EST)
 * Not to mention we've got an anon IP trying to push around established editors. Please at the very least get a named account. EVDebs 00:55, 26 November 2007 (EST)
 * Of course. If a person is an established editor then they are always right. I see. 98.17.56.87 12:46, 26 November 2007 (EST)
 * Not as such, but it does make you look like you're avoiding any sort of accountability. Would it kill you to register? EVDebs 13:52, 26 November 2007 (EST)
 * Hopefully it didn't kill him/her. Our glorious ex-IP is now User:EndGhost.  Just mentioning it here for continuity's sake. human  14:21, 26 November 2007 (EST)
 * Sorry, i prob should have left the redirect. Anyway, hopefully peace now reigns throughout RW.--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 14:24, 26 November 2007 (EST)

Why do you always seem to confuse Libertarianism with Conservatism? They are two different things!
Why do you always seem to confuse Libertarianism with Conservatism? They are two different things! 98.17.59.198 02:40, 3 December 2007 (EST)
 * The current US type of "Conservativism" seems to be in favor of flaying the government of all functions not concerned with blowing things up, jailing people, or giving more money to cronies of George W. Bush, especially any kind of government oversight of business. This synchs up nicely with the Libertarian opinion that the Free Market is God's smarter younger brother, any taxation is the moral equivalent of a Viking raid, and that letting poor people die of infections in the street is a blow against creeping Stalinism. Also, both groups' attitude towards the environment can be summed up as "Eh, it'll grow back". Other parts of their ideologies don't match anywhere nearly as well, but when push comes to shove in the voting booth, an awful lot of Libertarians who say they love Freedom and Civil Rights For All turn out to love tax cuts JUST a little bit more. --Gulik 02:55, 3 December 2007 (EST)

Add into the fact that a lot of Conservative political commentators/pundits in the US claim to be Libertarian as a fig leaf, to try to make it look like they're centrist while unquestioningly supporting the Republican administration. --Kels 06:53, 3 December 2007 (EST)
 * While "philosophically" they may be different, in the US things get confusing with labels right now. The GOP, which is at least very right wing, spends like drunkedn sailors and backs intrusive govt over personal privacy.  Most Libertarians I have met are, on the one hand, philosophically opposed to any but minimal government, but then turn out to be, for instance, anti-choice and rather slow to condemn Bush for an unprovoked war.  So, in the US, it ends up being fairly accurate to say Libs are just Reps who want to smoke dope, or at least seem a bit iconoclastic. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human  15:05, 3 December 2007 (EST)
 * So what your saying is that many conservatives like the name "Libertarian" better so they call themselves a Libertarian even though they are not Libertarians. &mdash; Unsigned, by: EndGhost / talk / contribs
 * Yes, pretty much. I see Greens who parallel this - relatively natural constituents of the Democratic Party, but unwilling to associate with them by name.  Sometimes it's because they have stronger views than the party represents, sometimes they just want to be "cool". <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human  15:45, 3 December 2007 (EST)
 * I think its because those stupid neocons are infecting the Libertarian Party with stupidity.

For a good example of this, see Ron Paul. Researcher 13:12, 4 December 2007 (EST)

There is nothing rational about this
Libertarianism can be summed up with the following point:

'Freedom to the Individual from External restraint'

Modern day Libertarians trace their roots from the great thinkers of the Scottish Enlightenment (Such as Smith) but also in the likes of Mill, one of the greatest advocaters of individual liberty; 'over his own body and mind, the individual is sovreign'

The ridiculous simplicity and ignorance of this article is outstanding. You wouldn't see anything like it on Conservapedia.

Libertarianism is the ideology of principle - They strongly believe in private charity and work hard to ensure personal, individual liberties are there for people to enjoy. They do not support the creation of artificial 'group' rights based solely on peoples skin colour. That is racist.

I also speak this from a position of being a Libertarian Liberal (If that makes sense) I am in the centre economically but agree entirely with the US Libertarians Partys social platform - I feel the government should get its nose out of peoples private lives.

Next time this is edited, please look at it from a rational viewpoint. Thanks. MarcusCicero 15:26, 13 December 2007 (EST)
 * Yes, i agree with you. Then again this entire website is barely rational at all. 67.159.50.131 15:28, 13 December 2007 (EST)


 * There are a lot of very intelligent and witty people here. There are also a lot of people, though well intentioned, are filled with vitriolic hatred for the Religious Right. MarcusCicero 15:30, 13 December 2007 (EST)

It's not so much the "religious," or the "right" in and of themselves. But put the two of them together like that and I start to worry. PFoster 15:32, 13 December 2007 (EST)

American religious right. Susan purrrrr ...  15:43, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Oh, I don't know about that, Susan - the Saudi religious right, the Iranian religious right, the Canadian and Québecois religious right (small and marginal, but I gotta live in the same country as them) - they all scare me pretty equally. PFoster 15:49, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Susan, why did you undo my reversion? I'm changing it back. MarcusCicero 15:49, 13 December 2007 (EST)
 * She is a nmoron, and i already did it. EndGhost 15:52, 13 December 2007 (EST)


 * "vitriolic hatred for the Religious Right" - what's not to hate? They want to take away our freedoms and impose their religion on the rest of us. By the way, MC, I think it was I who put what you deleted back in. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human  15:51, 13 December 2007 (EST)

And I put it back in again. Please discuss what's wrong with it here if you object. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human  15:52, 13 December 2007 (EST)

It sounds and looks amateurish. It looks like something a 15 year old would write when he reads the first chapter of 'The Communist Manifesto' for the first time. The whole article should be rewritten from scratch frankly. Language should be neutralized - this isn't conservapedia. At least try to make it into a satire, not the sexually frustrated rantings of a 15 year old. MarcusCicero 15:54, 13 December 2007 (EST)
 * Then try offering up a rewrite of the section (or article), but arguing by deletion and ad hominenm won't get you far. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human  16:14, 13 December 2007 (EST)

It's the American religious right who have the potential for controlling the most powerful country in the world. The rest (of the r.r.) can only scream and stamp their feet (and perform the occasional atrocity of course). That's why they scare me and why I'm so against them. If you don;t like it, Marcus, why do you hang around? Susan purrrrr ...  16:03, 13 December 2007 (EST)


 * While I think that religion is whacky no matter what, I only really have a problem with it when it gets combined with conservatism. <font color="#00A86B" face="Comic Sans MS">--Edgerunner  <font color="#DE3163" face="Comic Sans MS">76 16:07, 13 December 2007 (EST)


 * Susan, I don't like when people behave irrationally. I expect a website that has the name 'rational' in it to behave rationally, and hold high expectations for it. Besides, Human, there is no need for the vitriol in this article. You mustn't be able to see it (Extremists can never see their own flaws) but the similarilty between this article and some of conservapedia's is alarming. As I said, at least if you are taking the piss, try and make it into a satire. MarcusCicero 16:35, 13 December 2007 (EST)

May I suggest that you start your own wiki/blog. You and your 'friends' can then take the piss out of RW much as we do out of CP. (Libertarianwiki? Or EffYouImAlrightWiki?) You might even get reference to it banned here! Susan purrrrr ...  16:52, 13 December 2007 (EST)
 * So this is what IRW is? Just a liberal version of conservapedia?!&mdash; Unsigned, by: 75.117.237.85 / talk / contribs

Well, I think the article could be a lot better. We could have an accurate representation of the libertarian ideology (perhaps issue-by-issue), followed by a bit more subjective, snarky, "rational" response. What does everybody think of this? GrandSoviet 17:14, 13 December 2007 (EST)
 * Fine with me - it's already headed that way, but probably could be better organized. The tough thing is self-identified libertarians will take issue with any part of that is not "them", while it has to cover the gamut. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human  17:30, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Susan
You really don't see the irony in what you said above then? RW may as well be a Liberal version of CP, if thats your real opinion. You don't do Liberalism many favours with attitudes like that. You remind me of Andy with your tone and level of hatred towards those with different opinions. And I include Human in that. MarcusCicero 17:28, 13 December 2007 (EST)
 * Wow, speaking of "tone". Did you miss where I suggested above that you might want to come up with some better text?  Or write an entire article on the subject?  Heck, if we continue to viciously censor you, you could always put it in the essay space. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human  17:31, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Marcus: I do have a dislike of those who push religious and/or rightist views. I see no virtue in allowing them space to air their distorted world views and wouldn't willingly facilitate them. If this makes me an intolerant socialist bigot then so be it but I've lived over 60 years on this planet and have seen more harm done by r.r. than any others. (Before you jump down my throat: The Soviet Union was the most right wing state there's ever been(might is rght) and had the state as religion and Mao's China was a variant on the theme). Of course I realise that without CP there would be no RW but fafuks sake it's only a wiki - we'll never change anything but we might as well have fun taking the piss out of those we despise, if that includes you then - tough. Most of the people on here I find I have a great deal in common with although the varying lulz tolerance/encouragement can be baffling from time to time. As usual I'm doing that streamofconsciousness thing again. Susan  purrrrr ...  18:03, 13 December 2007 (EST)
 * So... "People should have the right to free speech, except people I disagree with," huh? That just doesn't make any sense. This site is supposed to promote rationality and Enlightenment ideals, right? So what you're suggesting is roughly the antithesis to all of that. GrandSoviet 18:29, 13 December 2007 (EST)


 * Contradiction is human nature, but I would have to agree that the USSR and China were/are crazy right-wing states. They may have promoted leftist ideals, but remember that the leftist ideals that they were talking about said that once everything was done, there would be no need for government! Rather, both people picked themselves out to be the ones who know the best, and secured power and position with their abuse of those leftist ideals. --18:59, 14 December 2007 (EST)

Susan-

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

I don't know if you forgot what country your in, but your in the US, not freaking Myanmar. MarcusCicero 18:39, 13 December 2007 (EST)

P.S- (Sorry about that, But I'm pretty sure she stands for the principle of free speech enshrined in the US constitution) Please clarify this statement; "I see no virtue in allowing them space to air their distorted world views"

That doesn't sound like a very Liberal thing to say. If someone on Conservapedia said the same thing regarding Liberals, you'd go mad. I was born and raised in Ireland, a country which bred a generation of paedophile priests, magdalene laundries (Places were women who got pregnant before marriage went to - it was virtually a prison)

The Religious Right have done some horrible things. Get over it. MarcusCicero 18:43, 13 December 2007 (EST)
 * Allowing them to speak in their own spaces is one thing. Giving them additional space to speak is something else.  As we are a non-governmental organization, we are under no compulsions to grant them additional space.  (That being said, I tend to the American view of countering speech with more speech and giving wackos enough rope to hang themselves, but that's neither here nor there.) Researcher 18:46, 13 December 2007 (EST)

I'm not sure I know what your point is. Writing a satirical article on Libertarianism (Which is what I want) would be cool. Coming out with a load of cliched talking points is just something an adolescent would do. What I am saying is that right now it looks like a 15 year old wrote this. I was merely reacting to what others have said since that. MarcusCicero 18:50, 13 December 2007 (EST)


 * I think you just made a big mistake. She is British, i think.75.117.237.85 18:40, 13 December 2007 (EST)
 * Oh noes! It's like international law student city here! While pretty much all of the human rights treaties set out freedom of speech clauses, there are also restrictions included if it would lead to other rights being impinged - eg hate speech, and other related demagoguery (which a large portion of the American semi-far-right would count as. Compare UDHR articles 19 and 30, for example. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!

reply to gs - one coming up for you marcus in a minute
Ah but it's a mobocracy, which I respect. Everyone's got the right to say what they want, but I won't help or condone vews that are counter to mine. If RW ever becomes predominantly against my own views, which is quite possible, then I'll simply vote with my feet & go elsewhere, which is all I'm suggesting Marcus does. I just don't see the point in right wingers coming here to complain about us : presumably they've lurked & know what the site's about so they shouldn't be affronted if their views aren't treated with what they see as due respect. Th article is crap but deleting isn't the way to cure it. I'd suggest a rewrite in 'Essay' & let us see what they really think should be there. Susan purrrrr ...  18:55, 13 December 2007 (EST)
 * I guess I can see your point. GrandSoviet 18:58, 13 December 2007 (EST)


 * Marcus, first let me apologise for my slowness - I'm not broadbanded. As you'll see from the above, I'm not against free speech at all but this site is paid for by people with a particular ideology (or lack thereof) and I see no reason for them to advance anyone's counter beliefs. If you are not prepared to operate under the existing rules then why stay? If you want to change something there's ways & there's ways. The approved method for a radical edit (which I don't deny this article needs) is to discuss them first. Susan  purrrrr ...  19:13, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Ah.. I see where the confusion is now. By and large, I agree with most peoples beliefs here. At least socially. Economically I'm centrist minded - I don't like higher taxes for higher taxes sake. I live in a country with decent public services (Free education and healthcare) which I support. I respect the US Libertarian party though (Mainly for its principled stand on issues) and don't like the negative portrayal given to them here. I'm all for debate! MarcusCicero 19:17, 13 December 2007 (EST)
 * I don't think ANYONE, except maybe The Imaginary Liberals In Andy's Head, likes "higher taxes for the sake of higher taxes". But there's plenty of GOOD reasons to like higher taxes--stopping the ultra-rich from establishing a permanent upper class oligarchy, financing infrastructure, making Ron Paul spontaneously combust, etc. --Gulik 05:23, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

back on topic?
"I'm not sure I know what your point is. Writing a satirical article on Libertarianism (Which is what I want) would be cool. Coming out with a load of cliched talking points is just something an adolescent would do. What I am saying is that right now it looks like a 15 year old wrote this. I was merely reacting to what others have said since that. MarcusCicero 18:50, 13 December 2007 (EST)"

OK, the point varies from article to article around here. I'd say in general, we try to describe something fairly accurately, and then depending on what it is there might be more or less, er, humor smeared on or through it.

And if you want to help make this article better, that's great. But all I see is you, and then a stream of IPs (etc.) constantly deleting the same section of text (which I rewrote to make it more like English on my first reversion), with the only explanation being that you think it was adolescent. By the way, what do you have against 15 year olds? We have a couple on the site, and while one has typographic issues, they's pretty damn smart.

Can you suggest better wording of the section you disapprove of? Is there anything you want to add to the article?

Because endlessly reverting the endless deletion of the same paragraph over and over again is pretty easy. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human  19:32, 13 December 2007 (EST)

I have nothing against 15 year olds. I'm just using that as an example (There are always exceptions to the rule and all that) I think I've said it elsewhere, I don't want to write satire. I think the focus should be on satire, not cheap shots. Thats just my opinion. I'll stop posting on it from now on though. (I only reverted that once by the way) MarcusCicero 09:43, 14 December 2007 (EST)

Reverted edits by 98.17.60.108 (Talk); changed back to last version by PFoster
I think that is just a great argument for why that edit should be reverted. No seriously, why are you reverting me?
 * There you go, you found the talk page. Now, why not discuss what you want to do here, since your edits seem to be meeting with disapproval? And please sign your posts with four tildes: ~ <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human  15:14, 24 December 2007 (EST)
 * Anyone else think we should add (I think that's what it's called) to this article to make easier for the edit warriors to find? <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human  18:55, 25 December 2007 (EST)

Sorry bout the rollback, but we are SPOV, not NPOV.--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 19:59, 26 December 2007 (EST)

Hi
I removed the insult because its immature, and i added a link to Marxism because its a liberal form of Libertarianism. --12.75.67.34 02:48, 30 December 2007 (EST)
 * We pride ourselves on our occasional immaturity. Let's face it, "libertarianism" in its modern form is immature.    Marxism is libertarianism?  How so?  Just curious... <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human  02:59, 30 December 2007 (EST)
 * That's like saying that an airplane is a rabbit. I too am eager for the explanation.--<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore fiat justitia ruat coelum 16:25, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
 * I think it's actually, in a very broad sense - isn't the end result of the Marxist dialectic supposed to be a self-ruling proletariat with minimal government needed? <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  17:17, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Except that self-ruling proletariat exists because of a fundamental shift in values away from the capitalist competition that led to what William Morris called "useless toil." While the hypothetical end states that would result resemble each other superficially, they have virtually nothing in common aside from the most specious summary.--<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore fiat justitia ruat coelum 18:47, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

A load of crock
This entire article goes out of it's way to just disparage and discredit without even bothering to review the ideas or even quote from actual libertarian sources. The fact that you people even have the gall to put back up the quotes on libertarianism that have no merit after they have consistently been taken down because they are nothing short of an argument just goes to show the scholastic rigor here. This is just one huge strawman, which I'd expect more from creationists, not intelligent people. &mdash; Unsigned, by: AnarchoJesse / talk / contribs
 * Hee hee 16:49, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Well everyone here by now should know how I feel about quotes as a use for argument or evidence, they can be used to add color and show personality in a few cases but in general I think they should be avoided. I would like to see the justification for the quotes. 16:32, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
 * I for one would like it if AnarchoJesse added the ideas he is alluding to. Certainly we should have, what, "pro" Libertarian quotes,  and a description of what it is that a "Libertarian" could agree with.  Trouble is, I've never met two libertarians who agree with each other (yet).  Other than that they all hate this article. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  16:38, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
 * So we must appeal to anecdote in order to justify quotes that really have no relevance unless specifically stated as criticisms? Simply because you've never encountered two libertarians that agree on EVERYTHING it stands to reason that we should keep quotes with no scholastic merit? If I promised you a comprehensive layout AND criticism of libertarianism by Sunday (I don't have a lot of time this evening to do all of it), would you at least take the quotes and "Heroes" bit (Ayn Rand hated Libertarians, and Ron Paul is a Paleo-Conservative, not a Libertarian.) until then, replacing them if I fail to provide? (also, how does one sig?)
 * That seems pretty reasonable to me. You sign by either clicking the button up top that looks like a signature or by ending with four tildes ( ~ )--<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore fiat justitia ruat coelum 16:50, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
 * (Edit conflict! I hate you Tom!!) Try four tildes ( ~ ) :)
 * And yes, that sounds like a reasonable compromise. I think Tmtoulouse might have already taken the quote section out, anyway. 16:51, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
 * That "deal" above sounds pretty weird. How about we leave the quotes in (I changed the header out of sympathy and good sense), and you can add proLib. quotes whenever you want in a section above them, and as much description of Libertarianism as you want?  I don't see why we have to delete something in order to earn your contribution of something you clearly want said? <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  17:16, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
 * The problem is that it adds nothing of relevance. Simply using a quote doesn't in any way create a comprehensive defense OR critique of libertarianism. If one were to use the quote as a contextual reference, you might have some grounds for using it I'd say, but otherwise, it serves as nothing more than a cheap attempt to stifle discussion.(AnarchoJesse 18:54, 27 June 2008 (EDT))
 * "Stifle discussion"? Your first two edits were to simply delete two sections of the article.  Our reaction was to invite you to discuss your issues with the article.  I, the most vehement defender of the quote section, am also vigorously encouraging you to add more positive information about Lib.ism.  The quotes reflect what some of us think about libertarianism.  I also moved them down, or at least made sure the "positive" stuff comes first.  I also toned down the over the top snark in the "heroes" section. Is there anything else that's been on our site for ages you think we should delete because it offends your sensibilities? <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  19:09, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Two totally unnecessary sections- at least, two totally abused sections. Again, it is one thing to have real critiques- it's another to just totally misrepresent a view. Moreover, I can't help but wonder what the age of the content has to do with the necessity of it being there in the first place. If someone came in and made a totally false -nevermind totally malicious- statement about evolution or any other such thing YOU take seriously, what would be the criteria for keeping it? Is a few days long enough? A few hours? Arbitrary measurements of time are NOT indicators of whether or not a statement has any place in an academic setting. Ironically enough though, this is a view often held by conservatives- that the past is something to be viewed with as sort of a greater time, a utopia, and thus correct.(AnarchoJesse 19:57, 27 June 2008 (EDT))
 * I just noted Human made some corrections (grammatical, which I'm grateful for. It's difficult to stay on top of things such as this late at night), but I'd like to voice my disagreement with listing the "No True Scotsman" fallacy under the Neo-Libertarians. I was merely acknowledging their existence, and it's pretty much undeniable that given the most basic tenet of the libertarian philosophy, they really don't fit.
 * I agree. When someone clearly doesn't fit the criteria of a certain group, they are not a true member, and NTS doesn't apply. 23:53, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Yes... it was the wording that made me add that link (they're not one of us, kind of thing). If you can rephrase it so it doesn't trip my NTS buzzer, you can kill the link.  Do you see that I don't want to censor or stifle you, I just want good stuff added and built?  I appreciate the section you added, and created a blank one ahead of it to define the "Non-Aggression Axiom" thing, since it is kind of undefined so far?  I know you are still working... it's a wiki, after all.  PS, thanks for being the first libertarian to actually sit down and help make the article better.  We mostly have a history of what I referred to above as "drive-by deletion".  Some decent prose contributed by those intimate with the subject helps everyone, I think. PPS, I also went to the effort of finding some better references for the "negative quotes" section. Still working on that... <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  23:54, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

Re-write by new editor
The Libertarianism page was overwritten by a new editor User:Rembrandt.ryan as below: I have replaced the original and invited the editor to join the debate.--Bobbing up 06:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

 

Libertarianism is a political and social philosophy that advocates freedom and self-ownership for all people regardless of class or social station. This freedom extends to all economic and social spheres and is limited only by the same rights of others.

A Libertarian society is the polar opposite of a Totalitarian society.

As it is a principled philosophy rather than a set of specific issues, Libertarianism holds that freedom and liberty are good in themselves -- the fact that they also tend to bring about optimal financial prosperity and social/political peace is only icing on the cake.

Libertarians believe the biggest threat to freedom is government, which tends to interfere in the lives of its citizens, and do much more harm than good. They are not utopians and do not believe human nature will change significantly, regardless of attempts.

Libertarians do not believe that people have the right to interfere, through coercion, in the affairs of others, and that extends to other nations. This is sometimes referred to as a non-intervetionist foreign policy.

Libertarianism does however strongly promote the concepts of individual responsibility and self-defense.

Libertarian belief runs the gamut from minimum government to no government at all, and in the religious realm, the complete spectrum from Atheism and Agnosticism to faith in a Creator and a personal God.

Criticism

Several critics consider individual freedom doesn't really work and must be curtailed for the good of the many. That if government didn't step in, there would be far more disease and poverty, and if the economy weren't regulated, we could expect financial disaster.

 

Questionable decision
It would seem to me a good idea if you won't replace your current description with mine, that you at least blank the current one, which simply poisons the well. Maybe you might use my first paragraph -- i think you would agree that it is innocuous enough. I re-post it here:

// Libertarianism is a political and social philosophy that advocates freedom and self-ownership for all people regardless of class or social station. This freedom extends to all economic and social spheres and is limited only by the same rights of others. //

Consider goat, consider -- and the goat considered very much and gave the man a penny.

Rembrandt.ryan 10:17, 28 June 2008 (EDT)Rembrandt Ryan
 * Hi. Before I respond, I've written to you three times on your  user talk page? Have you read my messages?  --Bobbing up 10:22, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Note to rationalwiki controllers
You buried my version of Libertarianism at the bottom of your "Talk" page.

I had attempted to replace the hatchet job obviously composed by someone anti-Libertarian that made absolutely no effort to be accurate. And fairness was completely disregarded as well.

So why not allow me to replace it with a more accurate version?

Please reconsider. Your present version is heavily loaded with needlessly hostile comments such as:

1) The term was stolen from anarchists ...

2) They now push themselves as the real libertarians ...

3) Libertarians are not anarchists, however; their lack of concern for the community, ...

4) Libertarians claim to advocate for extensive individual rights. However, ...

5) ... they actually hurt most individuals and instead "protect" the wealthy and their profits.

6) ... better placed to look out for their own interests than others.

That's a lot of gratuitous smear phrases in such a small amount of text.

Your Heroes section is so bad i cannot understand why you haven't deleted it.

You have grossly distorted our views and demonized us -- why?

Is there something in my version that offends you?

Fairness dictates you allow me to replace your ridiculously flawed description of Libertarianism.

Rembrandt Ryan

Copied from the main page by Coarb 10:34, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

My note of defense
Bob has suggested that i could add my text to the Libertarian definition article, and that should my version be controversial, i ought to put a note on the talk page defending it.

It seems around these parts anything a Libertarian writes is ipso facto controversial, so here goes ...

It hardly makes sense for someone that is enthusiastically anti-Libertarian to decide that his defintion of Libertarianism should be the primary one. Balance is called for. I propose that my Libertarian definiton be the primary one, with his right below, headlined, "An Anti-Libertarian Point of View", or something like that. Truth in advertising.

He can still have the lion's share of the article.

Any objections? Rembrandt.ryan 12:11, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
 * It is possible that you have misinterpreted my role here. I know nothing whatsoever about the topic of Libertarianism.  I only stepped in because you re-wrote the entire thing without consultation.  That is not the way things are done – especially as the article was already in dispute.  I really did my best to give you some pointers and help you out in a disinterested way on your talk page. I was certainly not trying to protect “my” article as I did not write a single word of it and – as I said – it’s not something I know anything about. Furthermore, as Human says, even if I had written the whole thing it still wouldn't be mine.
 * If you follow my suggestions on your talk page and Human’s suggestion’s below then I am sure that the result will be a first class article. Bobbing up 15:48, 30 June 2008 (EDT)


 * First, can you try to rewrite your half-dozen bullet points so they read like a paragraph? Or, alternatively, reduce the sentence length and make it an actual bullet list?  Having a bunch of one sentence paragraphs all starting with the word "Libertarianism" makes for clunky reading.  Also, a reference of some kind to a major libertarian site or author that basically "agrees" with your description would be nice (although not absolutely required).  By the way, there is no "he" - this article, like all articles on this wiki, is a collaborative work. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  15:31, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Version two is ready
Clunky is the right word, no argument there. It was my first draft and i threw it together quickly, in the hopes of replacing the hostile defintion that was there. Alas, it was not to be.

Most of the advice given above i have incorporated. Due to the length of my second draft, i felt it unwise to include references to Milton Friedman and John Stossel, two that have identified themselves as Libertarian, and are widely recognized as mainstream Libertarians. I would like to squeeze them in eventually.

The phrase "mainstream Libertarians" has an oxymoron ring to it, i admit, but one fine day we hope our numbers will increase, and maybe get as much airtime as the Dems and the GOP. Okay, that last is a little far-fetched.

Rembrandt.ryan 17:01, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Put Friedman and Stossel under "Heroes"; feel free to rename the section. Also list "why" they are "leaders" of the movement.  Thanks!  Or write sections for them. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  17:24, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

The words were purely mine in the prose i composed, and i know some of it is awkward. A compatriot has given me suggestions to iron out the wrinkles, and i could incorporate them myself, but i suggested he join us and do the editing himself. Rem 12:31, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Rem's ramblings
Lots of great features here -- which ones should i learn first?

My rationalwiki confirmation email never arrived (i went thru the steps again), so what capabilies am i missing?

Why do i use i when I would be correct? Glad you asked that.

Reason one -- I without the dot is easily confused with l, depending on the font. A lot of my time has been burned by debugging programs in which the author uses I as a variable. Finally i got smart and always ask, and if the miscreant uses I as a variable, i refuse.

Reason two -- German uses ich and Dutch uses ik for "I", but for "you" they use Sie (or Ihnen) and U -- both capped, i think. Seems less arrogant and more respectful to lower-case oneself, but upper-case whomever you are addressing. I know, no big deal, and i'm weird and not consistent.

If it's the first word in a sentence. i cap it. When formal writing is called for, i'll take the prescriptive path and cap them all. It's not a do or die thing with me. It is a victimless crime.

Joe Horn got off and two burglars bit the dust. Comments? ( http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hotstories/5866865.html )

Brainlock is my problem -- i want to replace Heroes with a word that is apt, but i can't think of one. Mentors doesn't work, nor does Stars. Help me out.&mdash; Unsigned, by: Rembrandt.ryan / talk / contribs
 * Hi Rem. Most of this post should really have gone on your personal talk page. This page should be about things at least tangentially associated with Libertarianism or the article itself. For Hero - Champion, Protagonist, Proponent, Supporter, Backer, Defender. Any help?--Bobbing up 13:34, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
 * "Well-known Libertarians"? --Gulik 15:05, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Do libertarians have leaders? I know Libertarians do, at least as far as nominating people to run for office.  Proponent is a good one. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  19:26, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
 * "Icons" came to me as I slept. --Bobbing up 02:40, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Sleep is good for making brainz. "Icons" is a good idea.  Does not say "Hero" or "Leader" or "Prominent" explicitly.  Makes a button on yer desktop unless you tell it "no". <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  03:36, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Bob, thanks for the gentle nudge -- i can see that my ramblings should have been on my personal talk page. Now i thing i've got the hang of it, but of course i said that before. Once more and my credibility will have evaporated.

The AGW stuff i added below does properly belong on the Libt talk page, it seems to me. Tangentially, surely.

I like both "Icons" and "Well-known Libertarians", but i wish there were a word that captured a bit of both. ("Wish there were" -- is that correct? Sounds slightly off.)

Correction on the German: "ich" is 1st Person Singular = "I"; "du" is 2st Person Singular = "thou(old)/you(modern)"; "ihr" is 2st Person Plural = "you"; "sie" is 3st Person Plural = "they" (not to be confused with "sie" 3PS female = "she"). German has T-V-distinction (informal+formal address): in former times "ihr"(2PP), and in modern times "sie"(3PP) are used to formally address someone. If you address someone in written form the pronoun is capitalised: "Du" and "Sie". (Although the recent so-called-and-much-ridiculed orthography reform now also allows you to write a lowercase "du" when adressing someone.)

Bob Barr and climate change
While idly pursuing the internet I discover the name Bob Barr and I told that the is the official Libertarianism Party Candidate. I further seem to find that he is a Global Warming Denier. Can any of this be true, or has the internet deceived me again?--Bobbing up 13:59, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I wouldn't put it past him. The man is not libertarian by any means, no matter what he says. -- *Gen. S.T. Shrink*  Get to the bunker  14:11, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Ah. You mean " No true libertarian" or something of that nature?  But he is the party candidate, yes?--Bobbing up 14:14, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
 * No, I mean he is either mistaken or an idiot. He pushed to get Wicca banned from the military, he is ARDENTLY pro-life, he pushed for clinton to get impeached. I don't like the no true scotsman argument. True libs do exist, just google Loretta Nall. Bob Barr just isn't one of them. He's conservative. (I think at least.) He's the party candidate but he's a conservative through and through. -- *Gen. S.T. Shrink*  Get to the bunker  14:18, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Could you, Shrink, be an Anarchist? On the sly, maybe? Because what you say is EXACTLY what Anarchists say -- Barr is not a true Libt. But rank-and-file Libts are not Anarchists, and the majority at the recent convention believed Barr to be The Man, and voted him in. (I wasn't there.)

Everybody comes from somewhere, and Libts are no exception. If we didn't recruit from both Left and Right, our group could meet in a Morris Minor. We have to raid the ranks of our rivals and alienate their affections -- difficult most of the time, but essential if we hope to increase our numbers.

And that "ARDENTLY pro-life" bit, where is it written that no Libt is against partial-birth abortion? In fact, i can prove that some are -- it says so right on the Libertarian page. Rem 22:45, 3 July 2008 (EDT)


 * The Libertarian Party does not automatically mean libertarian. Just as Democrat doesn't automatically mean liberal. Barr is no libertarian by my understanding. He is a republican who had a dissent with Bush and left. You may disagree of course, but Barr is no Lib. By my understanding, no lib would've wanted clinton impeached for getting a blowjob, nor to ban any religion from the miltary. He authored the '96 Defense of Marraige Bullshit and campaigned for the Patriot Act, the least libertarian thing. Ever. He is not a lib. I am no anarchist either. -- *Gen. S.T. Shrink*  Get to the bunker  23:19, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Shrink ref: (s1) True (s2) Exactly (s3) There is no accounting for your understanding; you might be a Zoroastrian and a follower of Mithra. (s4) Hmm. I dunno. (s5) I'm only moderately good at mindreading (you are the master), but what would be Barr's purpose in running as a Libt candidate if he isn't a true Libt? (s6) Whoa -- You must be confusing Libertarianism with Liberalism -- not the same, not nearly. You seem to be overlaying (sounds like German) your personal political views. Clinton is no Libt; far from it. And how many Libts do you know who wouldn't gladly impeach EVERYBODY in Wash DC? And maybe just leave all the seats vacant in perpetuity? (s7) The Patriot Act is hardly "the least libertarian thing. Ever." Wow. And as bad as it is, you can bet there'll be a worse one after the next successful terrorist attack; just being realistic. And when is the last time that Congress cared about the Bill of Rights? How about you, Mr. Libt Wannabee? I'll be checking your creds before you come aboard. (s8s9) You may not be an Anarchist, but you play one on the internet.

When it comes to Libt heavy lifting, you better let me do that. Ain't nobody more Libt than me. Are you free Saturday mornings? I may start a class for guys like you. (It will be held immediately after the humility class i teach.)

As to Barr stepping onto hallowed ground, shouldn't the church make room for late vocations? Rem 14:56, 4 July 2008 (EDT)


 * This conflict about him is easily solved: what are the core policy beliefs of libertarians, as distinguished from conservatives? And does Bob Barr support them?
 * Inasmuch as I can see from the article, isolationism is almost absolutely one. The harshest definition of a separation of church and state appears to be another.  Interestingly, I adhere to both of these concepts.  Yet, I don't consider myself a libertarian.  Are there any other agreed-upon policy beliefs that make one a libertarian?  If so, they should be written in the article and can easily be used to determine if Barr is a libertarian (as he does appear to be).  If not, then the movement would not appear to be very well-defined.  Which would make sense, since it's so "rugged individualist;" it is probably like herding cats.--<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore fiat justitia ruat coelum 00:26, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

"This conflict about him is easily solved:" -- yo, Tom -- [that sound you hear is me choking on my Libt coffee as it streams out of my ears]. I'd like to be there when you announce that in a stadium filled with Libts.

The battle rages still among Libts as to whether Barr should be the Libt standard-bearer. Some threaten to burn their LP card; Anarchists wail that the LP has been hijacked, and they will not vote in the general election. (Boy, that'll really show 'em, eh?)

The catch phrase "separation of church and state", although uttered by an American Giant (yes, TJ does qualify), does not actually replace the First Amendment. The first two clauses in the First are not difficult to comprehend (as long as you have a pure heart and an agile mind) and should be read aloud thrice before breakfast. Even Obama and McCain understand them.

Most of us don't like the term isolationist; properly speaking, we're non-interventionist. Doesn't carry the same connotation.

You ask "Are there any other agreed-upon policy beliefs that make one a libertarian?" Most of us think so, but there's the rub. When it comes to some issues, we often disagree, and i'd rather not start an edit war. When it comes to principles, i don't see how you could be a Libt if you disagree on those.

You ought to take the Nolan quiz. I would think unless you score 100% on it, you shouldn't be allowed to wear the Libt badge. When i took it, i knew i had found a home.

http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html -- World's Smallest Political Quiz.

As to "the movement would not appear to be very well-defined"; it does seem that way to many of us, but some that are purer than thou define our movement so narrowly they want to throw most of us out. Perhaps it's in the eye of the beholder. Yes, i'll give that a definite maybe.

I do personally like the term "rugged individualist", but it conjures up in many minds selfishness wearing Jackboots. Touchy-feely we're not, but we are not unfeeling to the plight of our fellow man. We're in the same plight, and only Libertarianism will unplighten us. And we are, i think, more charitable than the average bear.

Your remark about herding cats? Cats are much more disciplined. Rem 15:14, 4 July 2008 (EDT)


 * I've always seen libertarian to mean the most freedom possible, with as little government possible. In a way, the complete opposite of socialism fiscally and conservatism socially. I have never viewed Barr as a social libertarian, because of the aformentioned points, specifically. If you are correct in a strong separation of church and state, would a Libertarian want, much less author a bill like the Defense of Marraige act? Or try to ban a specific religion from the military? I don't know if he wanted Clinton gone because of the scandal or because of perjury but he was at the very head of that battle. He is also a strong supporter of the War on Drugs which even goes against the gross simplification that libertarians are Republicans with drugs. I would call Barr more-so Constitutionalist than anything myself. If he is a libertarian (and I don't think he is), he only became one and radically shifted his views in the last 4 years, (though most Bush supporters have). I simply don't think he is, and was answering Bob's question about GW, when I was apparently accused of being an anarchist. -- *Gen. S.T. Shrink*  Get to the bunker  00:41, 4 July 2008 (EDT)
 * It was only in December of '06 that he said he was officially a card carrying libertarian. -- *Gen. S.T. Shrink*  Get to the bunker  00:45, 4 July 2008 (EDT)
 * The problem, ST, is that almost everyone wants "the most freedom possible, with as little government as possible." That is a principle you will seldom find people disagreeing with, because it sounds great.  But if you're a communist, you think that such can only be achieved in totality by having the government "own" everything, so everything is held in common.  Or if you're a socialist, you think that commonality in more things like healthcare helps ensure some of the most fundamental freedoms, like living. Or if you're a Republican... and so on.  It really should come down to policy issues, not a very broad statement like that, don't you think?


 * DOMA is a great example. Republicans, as an example, generally said that it would help PRESERVE separation of church and state, by not allowing the state to define "marriage," which is a church issue and traditionally defined as a man and a woman.  I think that's wrong reasoning, but nonetheless it occurred.  And how about Ron Paul, who a great many consider to be libertarian, yet who sponsored similar legislation called "We the People Act" that would have stripped jurisdiction from the federal courts to decide first amendment issues and establishment clause issues.


 * Many of these problems are inherent in the system, of course. What the hell is Joe Lieberman, for example, if we try to consider it objectively?  Ultimately, it comes down to self-identifying, doesn't it?  You're a libertarian if you say you're one, except in the most extreme cases.  Accordingly, he would seem to be one.--<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore fiat justitia ruat coelum 00:55, 4 July 2008 (EDT)


 * Well, I see your point. I just feel like if he is representing the word libertarian, he should actually....be a libertarian. Otherwise, everyone will think libertarians are all like Bob Barr, instead of George Carlin, who, by definition is decidedly more libertarian. I think Ronny just hates federal ANYTHING. Perhaps it's the same for Barr, it just seems so ridiculous to call him libertarian, when I've always thought of libertarians as one step away from anarchists, as opposed to one step away from Fred Phelps (hyperbole with Barr, obviously). I wasn't trying to start anything huge, just answering Rem. Aw hell, just write-in for Loretta Nall. -- *Gen. S.T. Shrink*   Get to the bunker  01:04, 4 July 2008 (EDT)


 * I think he's just as libertarian as you, since he appears to hold with the only two dominant policy positions I could find about the movement (isolationism and total separation of church and state).
 * I am hard-pressed to see the reasonableness of libertarianism, truth be told, especially with Paul as the current most prominent ideological figurehead (even if he is retaining the massive power of the GOP by staying Republican). Did you know Paul actually voted against a proposal to stop government contracts from benefiting those companies in Darfur that were involved in the genocide?  He was the only one.  I want to ask him, "How do you justify that, Congressman?"
 * Things like global warming require a strong government hand, since the only only alternative is market forces (which won't work). Civil rights also require government assurance.  Art and science requires government funding.
 * Sorry, I know you didn't want to make this into a big thing. I wasn't either, just trying to point out the easiest way to resolve your two guys' discussion.--<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore fiat justitia ruat coelum 01:21, 4 July 2008 (EDT)


 * I'm not a libertarian, at least I don't think. Because without government, we can't exist. But with too much, we can't exist. I put this up after saying liberal, libertarian, and a few other political stances I put myself in.

Here


 * So, I don't know what I am. I don't think I'm a libertarian, and I don't think Barr is either. -- *Gen. S.T. Shrink*  Get to the bunker  01:25, 4 July 2008 (EDT)


 * Hey STS, I fixed your link. You had the piping order backwards. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  18:11, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Anthropogenic Global Warming
A "Global Warming Denier" -- wow. I keep reading that that's like a "Holocaust denier". The debate has centered not on GW, but Anthropogenic GW, regardless of how many times the other is said.

Hardly anybody that knows any science denies GW, and that the greenhouse effect is real, and that the earth's climate is continually changing, and that we may be coming out of an ice age. AGW is another matter entirely. The evidence isn't there -- just the hucksterism. And the demonizing of all who disagree.

They keep giving each other awards, but i don't find that at all convincing. Al Gore gives those that agree with him awards, and they return the favor. That's pretty pursuasive in most circles, but it has nothing to do with science -- it's politics.

When i clicked on the "faith" link on the Libt definiton page, it referred to religion, sure, but it failed to include all the blind faith in everything that gets labeled "science". That is, by far, the largest cohort -- those that know nothing about science, sampling methods, or statistical analysis, but are so CERTAIN that AGW is settled science, that it can only be described as pure faith.

Who has heard anything about reports given at news events when the data had not yet even been submitted, or when anyone on the project that disagrees is fired, or when the US Congress sent the top statisticians to the UN's IPCC to get to the bottom of things and when the AGW proponents were shown that their statistics were wrong, they then said, okay but we believe it anyway? Well?

Consensus science is not science. Those scientists on the gravy train don't want to lose their sponsors. There should have been a double-blind study -- it didn't happen, sadly. And calling a news conference in Washington, DC to kick-off the fledgling AGW campaign is not the way to go. (I think Carl Sagan was involved.) Had the global winter guys got there first, we'd be poised to spend trillions on that. Rem 22:13, 3 July 2008 (EDT)


 * Interesting, um, rant, but why is it on this talk page? We surely have an talk page at GW where you'd be talking about the article?  <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  22:22, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Uh oh -- not okay in response to the "climate chage" comments on this very page?

And i don't think you understand what a rant is. That's when YOU write something -- when I write something, it's divinely inspired. Rem 22:53, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Haha to the joke, that was funny. So why didn't you reply under the climate change section (Bob Barr?) above?  The thing is, most of your divinely inspired (godawful aspiration?) thing had nothign to do with Bob Barr.  As I suggested, why not go to Global warming, and argue your case on the talk page?  Or do you want to argue every political/scientific issue of the day, or on which you hold strong opinions, here at "libertarianism"?  Is it libertarian to argue against AGW?  If AGW has a strong scientific basis and support, would a libertarian support government efforts to solve it? <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  23:42, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Yes, this would be better at Global warming.--Bobbing up 15:19, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Gushectomy in progress
Over its lifetime this article seems to have lost all semblance of critical analysis. I am trying to fix this; RationalWiki is no place for articles that lean into political propaganda, so any further libertarian-written content in this article had better be thoroughly sourced with third-party references (not just those supportive of libertarian ideology) or they will be fed to the sharks. Some of us don't find libertarian principles to be particularly rational or well-thought-out at all. We have an essay space for opinion pieces; please use it. EVDebs 03:38, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Eh, I saw some of your guckectomy in progress, and I wondered, how did this article get so so soft and stupid - by definition?! Enjoy yourself, I guess... "feel free"! <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  04:22, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Truthectomy -- killing with a hatchet
Some of us don't find Marxist principles to be particularly rational or well-thought-out at all, and shudder to think what your namesake, avowed Marxist Eugene Victor Debs, has in store for a definition of Libertarianism, especially since your political philosophy is diametrically opposed to Libertarianism.

Your "gushectomy" is proceeding not with a scalpel, but a hatchet, and you clearly don't want the patient to live. You are "trying to fix it"? That's a joke. Your approach of disdain for truth is consistent with leaders of all the Marxist regimes in the 20th century, around the world. Yes, the truth.

The main part of the article (which i authored) was a true and accurate definition of Libertarianism -- if you were honorable (honorable Marxist -- an oxymoron?) you would attempt to refute it. That is to say, point out how you disagree with the DEFINITION you are corrupting as opposed to the philosophy.

You are in favor of "critical analysis"? Really? Where were you when the definiton that was there was just a dumping ground for baseless attacks and insults? Did you consider that it was a piece of analysis?

It is obvious what you are about, and i don't care how many anti-Libertarians give you the green light to chop the definition to bits, the right thing to do would be to restore the text you are despoiling, and then debate it honestly on the Talk page. But that would be the honorable thing to do, and likely that holds little interest for you, or your hero, E.V. Debs.

-- Rem  Beau  07:12, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
 * So, as a libertarian, you are saying that the article should be a plug for libertarianism, and that non-libertarians aren't allowed to edit it? Totnesmartin 08:23, 6 August 2008 (EDT)


 * Rembrant, could you be a bit more specific? What do you object to in the changes? 08:32, 6 August 2008 (EDT)


 * Mostly what i objected to was his intention to screw up the top part of the article, the only part that wasn't an anti-Libt spin. Did you see the article before i added my part? Did you think it had a "semblance of critical analysis"? Would you prefer it be reverted to that?


 * -- Rem  Beau  01:13, 8 August 2008 (EDT)


 * Loser, have you checked out our other articles on political parties, besides your trough that you thin is so brilliant? Guess what?  You all are idiots (fundamentalists), by the book, by the letter politics.  You listen to Boortz maybe too much, without thought, I suspect. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  01:50, 8 August 2008 (EDT)


 * My choice of handle has little to do with my actual politics -- it was a troll that the morons at CP didnt pick up on. I am socialist but not Marxist and frankly I think Marxist economics is just as simplistic and stupid (not to mention dogmatic) as Libertarian economics. If you don't like someone trying to remove the puff from your puff piece, I'm sure Wikia will happily let you start your own wiki on the subject. Meantime, take your "true" definition to essay space with a disclaimer -- dogma is not truth. EVDebs 12:01, 6 August 2008 (EDT)


 * Just curious -- what is your objection to Marx?


 * -- Rem  Beau  01:17, 8 August 2008 (EDT)


 * I can think of a few off the top of my head. Marx's abuse of the dialectic is probably number one -- the dialectic is something of an iffy bit of logic as it is (I don't think it helps if I explain it as Pascal's Wager turned inside out, but that's how I see it), since it seems a little too dependent on the thesis and antithesis being sufficiently cut-and-dried that the synthesis is obvious. From that, I think Marx' economics went rather off the rails -- the anarcho-collectivist situation he imagined as True Communism doesn't really follow from a socialist system, nor does it take into account the presence of wild cards in the population (a weakness I think it shares with libertarianism), nor would it even follow as inevitable if it did make logical sense -- if a stable statist/socialist system developed, what incentive would there be to develop an antithesis, and why would one assume capitalism would be anathema to such a system anyway? (The economy still needs a driver, doesn't it?) So even if you assume that it's possible to implement theoretical Marxism (which neither Russia nor China ever really pulled off), there's still a Tiplerian level of "what if" that needs to be overcome in order for it to be viable. As for real-world results... well, they speak for themselves. China is not Marxist in any meaningful sense (collectivist-capitalist is my term of the moment for the Chinese system) and Russia is largely a Western-style parliamentary democracy, albeit a barely functional one. Neither one is particularly stable; China's human rights record remains a massive liability both internally and abroad, and Russia teeters daily on the edge of a dictatorship, with Medvedev yet to take a position on what he's going to do about it. Like any Big Theory program, Marxism fails because it suffers from hammer and nail syndrome (taking Marx's historically valid insights about class struggles and generalizing to an unknowable future); like any Utopian program, it fails because it assumes a fantasy land of fungible colony ants, not real humans with free agency and wild card tendencies.


 * Which is not to say I can't still be a socialist, which I am; I simply believe it's less a matter of a grand political program as a matter of common decency in a world where not everyone has access to the opportunities they deserve. But a pure socialist system is no more workable than a pure Marxist or pure Libertarian system. One must avoid overreliance on theory and go with what works; a socialist system driven by capitalist economics and democratic ideals seems to do very well in many countries. EVDebs 02:02, 8 August 2008 (EDT)



Unclear wording
While reading this I came upon a number of things that left me think "uhhh?" Perhaos the author courld clarify: --Bobbing up 08:26, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
 * a ...social philosophy that advocates freedom and self-ownership for all people "Self ownership"? Freedom to own yourself?
 * .... and the opinion that they also tend to bring about optimal financial prosperity and social/political peace is just a random theory. What does "random theory" mean"?
 * The United States is a truly libertarian country, even today, since the only laws it has are to "adjudicate between free men". Why should this follow?  For that matter, what does it mean?
 * would be allowed so long as it does not infringe on anyone's life, liberty, or property or initiate (or threaten to initiate) of force or fraud. I suppsoe the "of" before "fraud" is a mistake? But it still doesn't read very well.
 * The narrow usage of "libertarian" as a label is also a cause, Of what?
 * there are internal rifts and disagreement over what extent the Non-Aggression Axiom applies to. The "Non-Aggression Axiom" has not been previously defined, and this makes the sentence difficult to understand.


 * Someone needs to simply rewrite the whole intro, it's a mess. The US thing you quoted would fit better in the "seriousness" section. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  21:28, 10 August 2008 (EDT)


 * Bob -- this is a response to your six points.


 * 1) Basically self-ownership means no one else owns you. It makes it clear that slavery is utterly and unequivically morally wrong. It condemns all involuntary servitude, the opposite of the claims of some that the state owns you and can force you to do things against your will.


 * 2) "Random theory" was thrown in by someone that wishes Libertarianism ill, and wanted to corrupt the definiton in a way that would make it confusing.


 * 3) Ditto the "The United States is a truly libertarian country ..." piece. Wasn't there when i authored it.


 * 4) Wasn't there either. Someone hacked the text, probably to make it unreadable so that that same someone could request a rewrite to take it back to the hatchet job.


 * 5) Not sure i understand you on this one. Does this refer to the top part that i authored?


 * 6) This has to be a reference to the bottom part of the article, but i would be willing to address the NAP should you wish it.


 * At least half of the problems you alluded to above are gone now that i have reverted the top part to the previous definition. Please let me know if you believe any of that part is poorly worded.


 * -- Rem  Beau  18:44, 11 August 2008 (EDT)


 * Sigh -- it didn't last long. I guess this is a Liberal application of the "Fairness Doctrine". Liberals asserting their right to corrupt a Libertarian definiton article because they don't like Libertarianism -- hack it up and make it look bad rather than debate it in the free marketplace of ideas or add objections to it under the definition.


 * -- Rem  Beau  18:59, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Why did you think I as referring to you when I said "the author"? As for the first point ... so the main point about Libs is that they believe in freedom and are against slavery? In this they are opposed by whom ... the Romans?--Bobbing up 02:48, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

Didn't know you weren't -- as i had authored the part that you were referring to in your first point, it seemed clear you were asking me. Nobody else, i guess i assumed, would be likely to answer it.


 * Yeah, that is pretty much the main point of Libertarianism -- freedom of action, especially freedom from coercion -- the antithesis of slavery. The Romans were far from the last to enslave people in the totalist sense. Fascism, both of the Left and the Right, has not departed this world, even in the 21st century. Most folks, i suppose, think it isn't a major concern in Western Civilization, and Libts are weird for basing a political philosophy on it.


 * But i deg to biffer. Unlike Marxists that see everything in terms of a class struggle, my major interest is in preventing the state from progressing down the road toward slavery. There are those, right now, in the US Congress that want to bring back conscription. (I think it is mostly Liberals that back that. It was Libertarians that got it repealed after Vietnam.) It seems to me that is the most illiberal of policies. (In the classical Liberal sense.)


 * To the extent that govt interferes in the lives of its citizens, we are less free, and some would put a percentage on that. Kiddy-Libts and others see those that encroach on our rights as evil -- i don't; i just see it as wrong-headed. I see myself as battling flesh-and-blood control-oriented politicians, not demons.


 * Neither Obama nor McCain wish us ill -- it seems to me that they believe their causes to be in our best interests and seem to be completely oblivious to concerns of freedom; simply unanticipated collateral damage. Banning guns will save lives (only one side to the issue), statists believe, Ethanol is the way to go, and AGW is a slam-dunk reality -- we can't worry about counting the cost -- there isn't time. Alarmism is the order of the day.


 * With SO many important people thinking that way, how can they be WRONG? They can be, you know. Freedom is a dear casualty in wars -- not just actual wars, but wars on drugs, wars on poverty, wars on ignorance ... Libertarians are not crazy, we just believe govt is out of control, run by arrogant pols ignorant of anything outside of law. Alarmists and hucksters.


 * Any reason some of this couldn't be included somehow in the Libertarian article? Maybe a section on the bottom titled "One Libertarian's View"?


 * -- Rem  Beau  08:47, 12 August 2008 (EDT)


 * You mentioned this once before: "It was Libertarians that got [the draft] repealed after Vietnam." Care to explain what that claim is based on? <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  17:25, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

Self, self, self
At the head of this talk page, I said that I thought that Libertarianism was anarchy. I now know that (Rem's) Libertarianism is "Fuck you jack, I'm alright" - not anarchy but something far worse. 09:15, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
 * OOPS! forgot the generous measure of might is right in there, sorry.


 * Don't see anything i said that could be interpreted as, "Fuck you jack, I'm alright". Don't suppose you'd care to point it out -- you haven't ever in the past when you have attacked. Why not drop the hit-and-run this time, and back up your accusations?


 * -- Rem  Beau  21:09, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

Reductio ad absurdum
If you decide that you like my house & try to take it from me, then I'm entitled to defend with all the arms available to me and to call upon my friends to help me?

If you have a nice house that I like, then I am entitled to steal it from you take it using my superior fire power (I don't think that you'd have many friends to come to your aid, Rem)?

Or would you summon the forces of Law & Order to back you up?
 * Who has formulated the laws?
 * Who decides that you are right & I am wrong?
 * Who provides payment (if only temporary subsistence) for the forces?
 * Who is responsible for summoning them on your behalf?
 * Who tells them when to stop?
 * What if I get my forces of Law & Order to oppose your forces of Law & Order.

The whole idea's ridiculous even from this stupid scenario. 09:52, 12 August 2008 (EDT)


 * I'll grant you your scenario is mostly stupid. I'm guessing your s1 and s2 refer to Eminent Domain, a big problem over here. Govt forces you off your property, razes whatever is on it, sells it to their friends at a price they set, then let it lie a dormant eyesore until the value of the property goes up ...


 * Some answers to your questions: taxpayers, thru the govt, pay for those forces. Ditto who tells them when to stop. The "forces of Law & Order" you probably support, will win.


 * How do you know i don't have friends with rocket launchers that wear crossed bandeleros (Bob, do i have that right?), jump without parachutes, eat meat raw, and are spoiling for a fight, hoping to go out in a blaze of glory? But you are right, i'd probably just be a wuss and stand by while the forces of the state trample my property rights in front of me.


 * But i'd FIGHT BACK with letters to the editor -- they'd better watch out -- i'd be FEARLESS in a scathing denunciation of them, at least until they threaten me with lawyers. I do eat raw meat tho.


 * Here are my statistics, just try to refute them -- 100% of those myrmidons who are just following orders that carry out that govt policy, AND those that cheer them on, are Commie/Nazi creeps. (And they were not likely toilet-trained until they were twelve, but that's just a guess.)


 * -- Rem  Beau  21:02, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Oh Rem, did you have to go all Godwin on us? Silver Sloth 21:06, 12 August 2008 (EDT)


 * It's okay if it's only joking, not serious, right? I HOPE your're joking.


 * I just posted -- how'd you get here so fast?


 * -- Rem  Beau  21:13, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

The Non-Aggression Axiom is neither simple nor axiomatic, and may not even be non-aggressive. Discuss.
Simple statements hide complex meanings. The Wiccan Rede, for example, sets out in a very simple, two-clause statement a highly complex moral charge requiring one to evaluate the outcomes of nontrivial actions in rather great detail. The Non-Aggression principle seems to be much simpler than this -- isn't it just a more formal way of saying "elbows off the table"? Well, yes and no. It's actually more of a call to isolationism -- what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas, and you've no right to stop it any more than anyone has a right to stop you. It does, however, allow for retaliatory force, and there's where it gets complicated, as well as rather non-axiomatic -- after all, an axiom is something to be taken for granted in a mathematical sense. It's hard to take something for granted when one of the basic premises is virtually impossible to define objectively.

Part of the problem is that "initiating force" is often a matter of perspective. Take World War II, which is still cited to this day by many as one of the few examples in modern history as a just war. Who initiated the use of force -- was it Hitler vs the Jews, or against Czechoslovakia and Poland? Was it the Allies stepping in to stop Hitler's attacks? And let's not forget that Hitler convinced much of Germany that his actions against the Jews and Germany's neighbors were retaliatory as well -- the Jews for a supposed "stab in the back" and the Polish, Czechoslovakians, and French for the crushing sanctions placed on Germany after World War I. Hitler's obvious fabrications aside, the issue of multiple perspectives on aggression at the very least make for powerful propaganda tools. While history has shown that the unfathomable bloodshed of WWII was likely necessary to even contemplate peace in a Europe that had survived a millennium and a half of near-constant conflict, there is still no completely clear answer to the question "who shot first?". It follows from this that almost any use of force can be rationalized as non-initiatory, even if the evaluator has to jump through a few (il)logical hoops to get there. Simplicity indeed... --71.243.46.196

Some bunchanumbers added the above in a completely non sequitur place in the article so I cut and pasted it here. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  23:40, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
 * That was me. I figured it went rather nicely under the "Simple" section. EVDebs 00:39, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Can you write it less as a "comment" and put it under the "Non-A.A." section? IE, make it snarkier ;) <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  01:13, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

Left-libertarians and USA
I added a section on left-libertarianism. I am not sure how well it all flows if anyone wants to make it prettier. The section on how America grows from principles of freedom seems pretty hopeless to me. A great deal of our current laws are based on using the commerce clause of the constitution in ways it was not meant to be used. Using USA as an example of how complex it is to create a society from simple rules isn't that great, because a fair amount of the rules have been flaunted in order to make other, more complex ones. I am not saying that is good or bad, although I dislike some if it, but the example is a bit of a straw man. I don't want to delete it, especially because I am fairly new around here, but I was hoping someone else could try to shore it up. <font color="teal" face="comic sans ms">dream <font color="purple" face="comic sans ms">ing 14:32, 15 September 2008 (EDT)


 * This term really just kind of sounds like "socialist" to me... While I agree that, if you take economic and social liberties and graph them as perpendicular axis, there are libertarians (in the pro-economic freedom, and pro-social freedom) that occur closer to the Conservative side (pro-economic, anti-social), and others that occur closer to the Liberal side (anti-economic, pro-social). In fact, most of what you put in there almost applies to socialists completely.  It might be good to give a better indication of what you really intend to say there.  In America, we tend to focus either on one scale or the other, while ignoring the others... for republicans viewing libertarians, sometimes they're left-wing (with social issues) and sometimes they may even be more right-wing than they are themselves (with economic issues).  As pointed out in the LLama article, socialist are actually always left-wing, and not only are they always left-wing, but they're always "crazy" left-wing.  I find I get along with libertarians a lot more, because at least we can agree that the government should not be control personal behaviors, and choices.  We can work together to make sure that the state doesn't screw up economics by going too far one direction or the other.  As well, the odd idea of "voluntary socialism" is a little weird.  In perhaps the most socialist ideal, immigration to another country would be one of a person's essential freedoms.  Freedom to leave a corporation should be just as well applied to the state itself.  In that way, there really only _is_ voluntary socialism... there is totalitarian communism, but the socialism that socialists hold up today is voluntary, through and through. --Eira</b> <sup style="color: #220088">omtg!  The Goat be praised. 20:56, 15 September 2008 (EDT)


 * hrm, I will try to edit it tomorrow to make it more clear. Some left-libertarians are libertarian socialists (other minarchist and anarchist socialists think that a big state will lead to a withering away of the state, but that is not a traditionally libertarian view, as libertarians think shrinking government is essential), but most are not. Most left-libertarians differ more in focus than philosophy than right-libertarians, especially in regards to the environment. I will try to make it clearer that left-libertarians are still very much anti-tax, and would sound, in a liberal to socialist policy meeting more right than left in that area. However, libertarian socialists, or those that would choose collective living, generally do not like the idea of countries that are socialist, as once it spreads beyond smaller, voluntary groups, national ownership of land becomes an issue. For example, if there was a socialist country that was willing to let certain non-socialist groups secede and form a more competition based society, there would be no issue for libertarian socialists, but if ALL the countries are socialst, and none are in the realm of libertarian ideals, you cannot just leave one to join another, better fitting one. As such, even though the individual libertarian socialists would be okay with their own money, etc, being used for the public good, they would not be okay with taking from others who might disagree. If that makes sense, the way I explained it. <font color="teal" face="comic sans ms">dream <font color="purple" face="comic sans ms">ing 21:13, 15 September 2008 (EDT)


 * Socialism is not totalitarian communism. The GOVERNMENT doesn't have to own everything.  One option of socialism that the people who work at a company OWN that company.  For instance, electing executives, managers, etc.  Essentially, take a union working for a company, and give the company over to the union.  It's kind of like a Credit Union instead of a Bank.  In a Bank, you have people who dictate how things will work (hierarchy) usually based on seniority or "decree"... our current corporations are little different than feudalism.  Let's presume to take a company with 8 people per 1 manager.  You have 8 people at the company who have no say in policy and direction, for everyone 1 that does.  I'm sorry, I just don't see that as the right way to do things.  Why have pride in the company you work for, when you're little more than a peon or serf?  Were the peasants in the fields slaving away for their Lords proud of being British, or French, or whatever?  Usually, just because if they disagreed they got their heads chopped off (exaggerating), rather it were the Lords and higher that were the significant people who were proud of their land and nation.  Socialism is the idea that the PEOPLE control the companies, not the GOVERNMENT... in fact, if you put a government in charge of all the businesses, then you just end up with an OLIGARCHY, where the individuals in the government merely by their position have authority over the people.  Anyways, what I'm talking about is democratic socialism, which is definitely different from totalitarian communism. Socialists choose their jobs, their career paths, where they want to live, and what they want to do, just rather than working for "The Man", they work for their fellow workers, they work for what to them is US, not what to them is THEM. --Eira</b> <sup style="color: #220088">omtg!  The Goat be praised. 23:44, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Eira is right, although she used (as always, it's her "thing") ten times as many words as necessary. But she is right. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  00:36, 16 September 2008 (EDT)


 * I am probably failing to represent the distinction well, as I know some libertarian or anarchist communalists, and have read a great deal of related political philosophy, I do not subscribe to that particular philosophy. I was inaccurately conflating all non-libertarian socialism with something all libertarians dislike, state-sponsored, high-tax democracy. This is not the same thing as a totalitarian system, despite the rhetoric some libertarians like to use. The sort of company you are describing would fall into one type of thing libertarian socialists might like. The would generally chose not to, but want the option of, working in a more standard, hierarchical system as well. In many senses, they are very much like any form of socialism that does not endorse views on positive rights (rights derived from others). Hopefully further discussion will illuminate how to better explain libertarian socialism in the article. <font color="teal" face="comic sans ms">dream <font color="purple" face="comic sans ms">ing 09:23, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Eira, your page (I know it is a super quick description) says "Socialists want to pay lots of taxes in order to provide benefits to their fellow people, depending on their charity even if they're lazy bums, or abusing the system." Maybe the heart of the difference is that a lot of libertarian socialists don't mind paying taxes, but don't want others to have to if they choose not to. I know that is a really quick summary as well, but I hope it helps describe the difference a bit more. There are enough different types, so that it gets very complex (and I am including anarchists, such as anarcho-syndicalists and other anarcho-communalists), but standard libertarian socialism allows room for libertarian capitalism as well (and the reverse). Libertarians are the sort that would be open to communities trying all sorts of government, as long as individuals are truly free to not participate in them (barring some sort of crime involving initiation of force). <font color="teal" face="comic sans ms">dream <font color="purple" face="comic sans ms">ing 09:33, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

But really, can someone (perhaps less sympathetic to libertarian ideas) fix or delete the section on how America is developed as a libertarian country? Many libertarians consider America the best country to live in, especially in terms of economic freedom, freedom of speech (because many other socially free countries have less robust protection of offensive speech), freedom to protection (guns), and many other civil liberties, but it is not actually a good example of any particular ideal libertarian system, even at it's start. Under a big tent version of libertarianism, even constitutionalists, who are generally more okay with government than your standard libertarian, do not think our country is a good example of libertarian ideals because of some of the amendments and (from their argument) unconstitutional laws. If someone else wants to edit it to make it say that America might be the best we could reasonably hope for, I would disagree but be a bit happier with that. Saying America is actually libertarian in nature, however, is just wrong. (one main problem is that many libertarians don't like democracy for making laws, except under very strong limits. America's drug laws, prostitution laws, other victimless crimes - and even some arguably victimy ones relating to free speech, all would fulfill libertarian ire against the suppression of the minority by the majority.) <font color="teal" face="comic sans ms">dream <font color="purple" face="comic sans ms">ing 17:13, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Most of what libertarians don't like are things enacted since the constitution as you yourself point out. At the point of the constitution (and perhaps, say, after the Bill of Rights was passed), the US was about as libertarian as one could ever expect in a "real world" government.  Besides a very rights-friendly central system,  the only other laws were common law accepted and constitutions and laws passed in the various states. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  18:46, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
 * For example, slavery and women's rights? I know I am being a bit snarky, but even most constitutionalist libertarians don't think the old days were perfect. In fact, the constitution and the first government were arguably better then now, excluding civil rights problems such as those, but they and the first few administrations were shaky on what the constitution authorized (as one would expect with the federalist and anti-federalist factions). However, the article says that USA is a libertarian country, not was one. While most hate taxes, some would be willing to allow minimal taxes: our current tax rate is far beyond what any would consider okay, however. While it is interesting that whoever added that portion thinks that most laws derive from case law based on a rights foundation, it is not actually true. Some things could be argued, but other, especially morality laws, cannot be considered based on a person's individual rights. A weaker version of the same paragraph would be more accurate; the way it stands, however, is not really correct in either detail or overall "feel." <font color="teal" face="comic sans ms">dream <font color="purple" face="comic sans ms">ing 20:00, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Actually it says "The United States, for instance, is almost a true libertarian country," let me rephrase with emphasis: "The United States, for instance, is almost a true libertarian country" Please read better. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  23:57, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
 * I guess that would depend on what your definition of almost is. America wouldn't be close to ideal, and it keeps moving further away. Economically, I think it was rated 6th most free in the most recent CATO report, but I may be wrong. Freest would be nice, but not necessarily almost libertarian. Socially, even with the aforementioned benefits, it has a long way to go. Now if you are just saying that some of the founding principles were very libertarian, I agree. The way they were used, however, and later laws (especially abuse of the commerce clause), do not even come close. <font color="teal" face="comic sans ms">dream <font color="purple" face="comic sans ms">ing 06:51, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

"While most hate taxes, some would be willing to allow minimal taxes: our current tax rate is far beyond what any would consider okay, however. While it is interesting that whoever added that portion thinks that most laws derive from case law based on a rights foundation, it is not actually true. Some things could be argued, but other, especially morality laws, cannot be considered based on a person's individual rights." You wrote this as series of sentences. Do you even stand by your grammar, let alone your "philosophy"? YOu're mostly ranting, but welcome to the dollhouse! <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  00:01, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
 * The grammar may not be great, that is another good reason to have someone besides me edit that section. If ad hominems are a good way to rationally discuss article changes, then I would prefer someone who can capitalize correctly to edit it personally. <font color="teal" face="comic sans ms">dream <font color="purple" face="comic sans ms">ing 06:51, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
 * zomg capitalization and grammar and punctuation are totally unnecessary for everything everyone should know that but even after that you have problems with ad hominems i mean like thats perhaps the most common form of argument here on rw personally i think that if your too stupid to see that that you shouldnt be editing the article at all hows that for an ad hominem anyways rw works with different rules its a free market of discussion which makes it good for libertarians and socialists alike and totally offensive to conservatives and totalitarians rw has a libertarian and socialist bias and its open and honest about it if you dont like that bias you can go edit on conservapedia or if you want to edit somewhere where people play fair then wikipedia is likely your best choice but rw is and always will be confrontation and demeaning of views that disagree because wikipedia already tries to get the real and accurate and logical arguments out there we cant expect to duplicate that here instead we should be working to point out to people who already have a brain how stupid conservatives and totalitarians are as well lets reread what human posted "Please read better." wow thats a really nasty ad hominem human im glad your on my side as for me i would have said if you cant read a stupid simple message without throwing in your personal bias to make it say the opposite of what it means then i suggest you go to conservapedia where idiots like you prosper... but then as youve so eloquently pointed out before and i have personally acknowledged i say things with maybe ten times more words than is really necessary perhaps i should get into politics i mean thats all they really do right --Eira</b> <sup style="color: #220088">omtg! The Goat be praised. 20:17, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Hehe, good one... although I must admit to experiencing some mild disappointment when you deigned to use a punctuation mark... <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  21:30, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Do you know how hard it is to type that way? I mean, I naturally use capitalization and punctuation without even thinking about it. Then, there's the ellipsis... I just use that all over... I mean, how could I not? I mean... I guess it's the best way to show my mental pause... before I continue on with what I was saying.  Your criticism is however noted. --Eira</b> <sup style="color: #220088">omtg!  The Goat be praised. 05:16, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Oh yes, I realize, that's why I liked it... by the way, using three (or any number) dots to create a "pause" isn't really an ellipsis, is it? I suspect it isn't even a "recognized" punctuation - just a heavily used one. Anyone know? <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  16:54, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
 * The Elipsis is at Unicode U+2026, and considered a singular punctuation mark�. So, it is recognized, and as well, it is commonly accepted as a pause in speech. --Eira</b> <sup style="color: #220088">omtg!  The Goat be praised. 20:27, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
 * To clarify, I actually meant the (accurate) comment on my grammar as the ad hominem, not the comment about reading better, which, while incorrect, I think was justified. I don't actually mind ad hominems even if they get actually mean, I just discount them as a useful form of discussion. I am not going to change that section, but if someone else sees what I meant, I think with some cleanup that section could keep the utility of it's argument without weakening it with pretty big inaccuracies. Best! <font color="teal" face="comic sans ms">dream <font color="purple" face="comic sans ms">ing 21:43, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries! Now go away or I shall taunt you again! --Eira</b> <sup style="color: #220088">omtg! The Goat be praised. 05:13, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Correction, still currently smells of elderberries. We just can't keep him away from the stuff. <font color="teal" face="comic sans ms">dream <font color="purple" face="comic sans ms">ing 08:49, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Libertarian socialism = Anarchism, thus no taxes, and, unlike anarcho-capitalism, no hierarchies or classes. Usually no money either, or even labour vouchers. 'Authoritarian communism' is an oxymoron. Socialists hardly always believe in higher taxes, that's mainly reformists, as well as other idiots (hai thar SPUSA) who believe that you can just battle for reform and socialism will eventually be born. Marx and De Leon, for example, believed in labour vouchers (which work differently from money. Some people want labour vouchers that work the same as money, and they're just strange), and others, such as the Socialist Party of Canada, don't believe in money, labour vouchers, or anything similar. On the other hand, 'libertarianism' nowadays just refers to authoritarian capitalism. - Sρΐяαl.Дгсђıτέςτ stand up and shout  05:28, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
 * I think that is true of most, but not all, libertarian socialists. I do know, however, individuals who argue for a small role of government, generally also those that hold non-anarchist property rights views. <font color="teal" face="comic sans ms">dream <font color="purple" face="comic sans ms">ing 08:46, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
 * WHAT?! I'm totally confused here. "Authoritarian communism" is an oxymoron, well so is "intelligent Christian", but that doesn't mean that they don't exist.  Just because you believe the two terms to be opposed to each other doesn't mean that they are.  As stated by the article the only definition of "libertarianism" is the opposite of "authoritarianism", thus it's impossible to have "authoritarian libertarianism" by definitions, however "authoritarian communism" is and has existed often in the case of the USSR, where the notions of communism were subverted and abused to justify the actions of a totalitarian government.  While it is true that socialist generally don't always believe in higher taxes, (in the same way that not all communists believe in anarcho-communism!) they believe in an equality of rights for all, the dissolution of class and privilege.  And in that way, true socialists cannot condone "totalitarian communism" any more than any system that takes power and places it squarely in the hands of a minority.  I am totally all for a free-market if it worked like the theories say it would, however all evidence is to the contrary.  People find abuse of the system irresistible, and some people will always seek to abuse the system for their maximum gain.  Socialism (at least the socialism that I know and love) tells these people "uh... whatever, try and abuse the system, however we're all being treated equally, so you're not really getting any 'better' benefits than anyone else." --Eira</b> <sup style="color: #220088">omtg!  The Goat be praised. 20:39, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Thanks, Eira! ^_^ I needed a good giggle, and your near-godlike talent for inexplicably leaping onto the subject of Christianity (and it's many, exhaustively listed faults) provided it. Please continue! 20:51, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
 * I didn't understand any of that. Could you repeat it in simpler words? And perhaps write slower? Thanks. -- 20:58, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
 * The problem here is that communism is a classless, stateless society, and international by definition. Stalinism has nothing to do with Marx's theories. The USSR was not communism is any way, it was a new form of class-divided society separate from both socialism and capitalism. And certainly, 'libertarianism' is the opposite of authoritarianism, which is why I avoid using it when referring to capitalist ideologies. As for 'intelligent xian', it can't be an oxymoron if they exist. As it is, the Bible does not exactly say, "Be stupid". "Only those who equate socialism with nationalized state property under bureaucratic control, class inequalities, wage labor, police repression, the total absence of workers’ democracy, and one-party rule can hold that the U.S.S.R. is socialist. Both then and now, Soviet society has had little in common with the classless, stateless organization of the associated producers projected by Marx and Engels." - Sρΐяαl.Дгсђıτέςτ stand up and shout  04:05, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

socialism and taxes
"While it is true that socialist generally don't always believe in higher taxes" I had a total brainsplosion when I thought about that for a moment. Most people do equate socialism with high taxes and provision of many services by the government, but it ain't necessarily so. EG, the oil-rich countries (and Alaska...) use their oil wealth to pay for many of the services, not a tax on, say, income. Let's say a government took over one particular industry in a country, and ran it well for a decent profit. That profit would be the money the government could use to provide services. Of course, the government would have to run it well, but there are even examples of that happening (State Liquor Commission in NH comes to mind - cheap booze, great website, clean stores, etc.) <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  21:58, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

"some pedophiles pose as libertarians"
This line doesn't make sense, so I've removed it. Paedophiles pose as clergymen and scout leaders etc to gain access to children - libertarianism is a political movement that has no more appeal to children than any other political ideal. How many under-16s are into party politics and political theory? Very few indeed. Another point is that the staement implies that paedophiles are more likely to pose as libts than as conservatives or liberals, which doesn't sound very likely at all. Totnesmartin 18:22, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
 * I don't really buy it, personally, but I think there is a valid point it is probably making fun of. Some libertarians disagree with Age of Consent laws, and think they should be much lower and not just for Romeo & Juliet cases (where, for example, a 16 and 18yo are together, and considered similar). Some people think that pedophiles may adopt libertarian rhetoric to support their claims (much like pro-big business groups sometimes do about the free market, even if they don't agree with the underlying philosophy) <font color="teal" face="comic sans ms">dream <font color="purple" face="comic sans ms">ing  19:49, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
 * 'Romeo and Juliet' was a 14 year old and a 16 year old. The ages aren't given exactly in the play, though it's usually judged to be something like that. - Sρΐяαl.Дгсђıτέςτ stand up and shout  05:32, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Yes, I was talking about Romeo and Juliet laws. I am certainly not anything resembling a legal expert, but I think they range the age of consent by a few years, so that when both partners are under the age of consent, or one is slightly over it, but near in age to the other, if they engage in sex it isn't statutory rape. <font color="teal" face="comic sans ms">dream <font color="purple" face="comic sans ms">ing 08:38, 20 September 2008 (EDT)


 * Dream -- Good point about business groups touting the free market.


 * It's not so much that businessmen don't actually agree that a free market is a good thing (some do, some don't), it is that many find it irresistable to gain advantage thru unethical means, even those that are basically ethical individuals. Especially when push comes to shove and they're losing market share and in danger of bankruptcy.


 * Rationalization kicks in -- they may feel justified in that their competition has been unethical, maybe to the point of illegality. Even more powerfully, they may hate it that their employees would lose their jobs and suffer painful hardships due to the company having to shut down. Corners get cut, but no one should condone cooking the books. The deterrence of jail time should keep most of them honest.


 * There are some ends that justify some means, but fraud is over the line.


 * -- Rem  Beau  08:59, 20 September 2008 (EDT)