Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:46, 20 July 2006

Template:Featured article is only for Misplaced Pages:Featured articles. Template:Mainpage date

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

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

Template:Farcfailed

Archives
Archive 1	Archive 2
Archive 3	Archive 4
Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7
Talk:Libertarian, discussion for a page which has been merged with this article.
Talk:Libertarianism/Alfrem, discussion prior to the ArbCom decision banning User:Alfrem from this article.
Talk:Libertarianism/Page move, a July 2005 vote on a proposal to make libertarianism a disambiguation page and move this to Libertarianism (capitalist).

Libertarianism vs Liberalism

Im not sure how to address this but Libertarianism and Liberalism are two completely different view points and I am wondering why they have a table about Liberalism on a Libertarianism site. Im not trying to make waves. It just doesnt sound right and if you know anything about libertarianism you would agree. I feel that the Liberalism table should be removed but I will not do that im just expressing my feelings. Can someone explain this to me. Thank you. John R G 05:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps when you read liberalism you're thinking american liberalism? --Serge 05:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Liberalism is a large political school that primarily focuses on individual freedom. Libertarianism is a radical division of liberalism that emphasizes individual sovereignty, self-control, and free trade. It is quite similar to classical liberalism and neoliberalism. However, many people confuse liberalism with social liberalism,american liberalism, keynesianism that emphasizes social welfare and large government spending. --GoOdCoNtEnT 20:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I moved the above passage to where it seems to belong. GoOdCoNtEnT appears to be in the habit of top-posting with new section headers, whether or not a new section is called for. —Tamfang 21:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

This page is 72 kilobytes long

The article is in clear violation of section 5 of featured artice criteria, which state that the article "should be of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail; it should use summary style to cover sub-topics that are treated in greater detail in any "daughter" articles." The ideal recommended length is around 32 kb which mean the article should be halved and the rest should be transfered to "daughter" article. FWBOarticle

Introduction

I have shortened the introduction of Libetarianism to the bare minimum while transfering everything else to "overview" section. I'm not suggesting that this should be final. However, I believe we can try to slim down "overview" first so we can figure out the way to make this article more readable (shorter). FWBOarticle

I agree that the introduction (much of which I had written or re-written) was too long and appropriately segregated into an "Overview," but I'm concerned that we are on the verge of another edit war regarding the basic definition when I see the "except in defense of liberty" phrase being dropped, which I see as a dispute between the majority of those who self-identify as libertarians and the anarchist version who don't agree with any exceptions to governmental non-intervention. I think the original formulation about opposing the initiation of force or fraud against persons or their property provided the most comprehensive distinction between libertarianism and all other political philosophies. It was very good and should not have been removed. Mhodak 14:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted the second sentence. I don't think anyone would disagree with defnition of libetarianism as the champion of liberty. If the role of state is main point of contention, it should be dealt in separate section. Still, this has nothing to do with the article but I'm quite suprised with strong anarchist flavour of American libetarianism. Me and quite few friends (u.k.) are sort of libetarian by default, liberal on economic and social issue. Call us "the Economist" libetarian. But none of us is hostile to the state. Most classical liberals like Adam Smith or David Hume weren't either. Is this something to do with the fact that Ayn Rand is so popular in US? She is pretty much a no one here in Europe. FWBOarticle

Actually, most American libertarians are hostile to the state with the improbable exception of Randian libertarians, who view the state's defense of individual rights to be a positive good (as opposed to the minarchist attitude of necessary evil). I still think the "non-initiation of force..." terminology is a clearer distinction that unites all libertarians and should be included in the intro. Lot's of people believe in "liberty"--this is not a sufficient distinction. We've been through this debate on this side before. Mhodak 22:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm a minarchist but I agree with the new limited intro. While my libertarianism is not anarchistic, I recognize that there are libertarians who are true anarchists, and do believe that government intervention is never justified, even in the defense of individual liberty. In fact, that's the difference between anarchist libertarians and minarchist libertarians, but we're all libertarians, and the intro should not be defined in terms of one or the other. --Serge 20:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, i think anarchist libetarian argument would be that police/army/school should be private or at least community based militia or churchschool. All probably agree about "non-initiation" but theoretically at least, it doesn't require state. "Non-initiation of force" is also implicit in "liberty for all" so the statement is also bit redundant. The reason I prefer bearest minimum intro is that I want to see the whole table of content in top screen. Comparing this with this make it obvious that, at current size of 72kb, this article is heading into the later case. Though it is aethetic opinion, one thing I like about libetarian thinking is that it is simple, clear and efficient while the current state of progressive liberalism is not, which is probably a part of the reason why the current state of liberalism page is impressively comprehensive at the same time being un"wiki"pedian. I want to aim at this, thinking in term of totality of portal rather than particularity of the page. FWBOarticle

By the way, what the difference between anarchist libetarianism and anarchism? It looks like anarchists are appropriating label of libetarianism to avoid negative implication of terrorist. IMO, the whole cause of past edit war (whatever it was) is do with the lack of disambiguation between classical liberalism and anarchism. If one attribute the origin of "denial of state" idea to anarchism, it will make it so easy. Or should I add distniction that the differece between libatarianism and classical liberalism is the hostility to state itself rather than state policy.FWBOarticle

Terminology/History

Terminology section has been changed to History section with majority of terminology content being transfered to "History of Libetarianism". Though the placement of this section is appropriate from chronogical perspective, details about anarchism/libetarianism disambiguation is a minor detail. I also believe that we need more coherent narrative of how the original 18th century idea evolved through 19th and early 20th century. This can be achieved by poaching lots of content from liberalism. :)The current article make it looks like 18th century ideas suddenly jumped to 20 century. The current section doesn't provide "overview" of the history of (classical) liberalism and libetarianism. At least, Popper, Hayek and Keynes should be mentioned. Despite Kynesianism, I actually believe Keynes himself was an exemplary example of libetarians. His lifestyle at least was. :D FWBOarticle

Proposal for Merger

I believe that "Libertarianism in the political spectrum" can be absorbed into "Libertarian politics and philosophy". My rule of thumb is that anything which does't really deserve seprate sister page such as "political spectrum" should be merged into something which does. On the other hand, I think we need a separate section dealing with more through comparative study of classical liberalism and libetarianism. Because this will involve major overhaul of this article, I will wait and see if people are happy with my "History" section edit.FWBOarticle

Principles

I have changed the title of a section, "political spectrum" to "principles. I think, "overview"->"history"->"princiles" is a better sequence of narrative. Plus, "political spectrum" can be considered as a topic within the principle, because it is merely a comparative definition of ideological philosopies. Also, "Political Spectrum" does not deserve sister wiki page while "Principles of Libetarianism" does. I believe, every section should be part of portal given that this page is the platform page of libertarianims. I know this section somewhat duplicate "Libertarian politics and philosophy". But as I said above, I intend to eventually merge two so please bear with me. Plus, "politics and philosophy", in my opinion is better be separated. So philosophy section should deal with principles (where consensus view exist) while politics section should deal with application/implimentation of such principles (where no consensus exist among libetarians). FWBOarticle

I believe that definition of liberty paragraph should be revived. Firstly, I don't think we can avoid defining liberty in the principle section. Secondly, the section provide disambiguation between liberty and freedom (at least in term of classical liberals). Is this some sort of throw back from intro revert war? We should be bit mature and debate each edit for its own merit. Thirdly, the section provide disambiguation between libertarianism and anarchism (but not nimarchism which I intend to explore in History section). Are anarchist trying to poach libertarian bland to avoid implication of outlaw? FWBOarticle

Clearer distinction of liberty, rights, and freedom in intro

I have attempted to better define "liberty" in more traditional terms as a right to freedom within an expansive, but clearly defined boundary. The prior definition was stylistically challenged ("advocates individuals should have," "in regard to use of") and confused the term "liberty" for "rights", and "liberties" (presumably as the plural of liberty) for rights or freedoms, among other things. Hopefully this definition will be viewed as more precise without sacrificing the intent or brevity, or the full range of "libertarian" sympathies.--DocGov 06:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

What you are saying were all implcit in previous edit. One reason the intro was trimmed so short was to avoid inevitable disambiguation attempt which cause the section to bloat, which in turn restart out edit/revert war. Liberty/freedom/right means different thing to different people especially among conservative, modern liberal, classical liberal and anarchist. By reverting this, I don't intend to imply that your edit is incorrect. I'm merely suggesting that we could avoid all sort of troubles which is better discussed in separte section(s). FWBOarticle

Opps, it appear that the initial edit was done by someone else and, since then, people are keep disambiguating the section. Sorry. FWBOarticle

In my view, two innocent looking terms "right" and "freedom" in fact NPOV minefield in this page so best being avoided in the intro. FWBOarticle

What's essential in a definition of libertarianism is not that it advocates liberty, but the extent of that liberty. Lots of philosophies advocate some liberty. Libertarians thinks liberty should be unlimited up to the point that action infringes on the liberty of someone else. So, FWBOarticle, I think you were wrong to revert back to the previous insufficient definition. RJII 06:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

ahhh, your argument exactly demonstrate why the original edit was superior. "unlimited" is a position adovocated by anarchist wing of libetarianism so it is a NPOV violation. It grossly overlook the fact that classical liberal such as Adam Smith advocated role of state not only in the general case of taxation but also of state funded "compulsary" educations, state enforced trade patent and so on. So some libetarian might wish to add, "except in the defence of liberty" (classical liberal) or "except in case where good utilitarian argument can be made" ("pragmatic" libertarian). Adding these disambiguation slant the presentation to classical/pragmatic libertarianism while ommiting it slant the presentation to anarchist libetarianism. So we are in Catch 22. On the other hand, "state of liberty" or "state of natural liberty" (as used by classical liberals) can mean anything. FWBOarticle

I don't intend to participate in the debate, but I would like to point out that "a political philosophy that advocates individuals' liberties in all aspects including civil, political and economic matters" could mean just about anything, because nearly all political philosophies advocate at least some individual liberties in all aspects of life. Please don't make the definition of libertarianism so vague as to be meaningless. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 08:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Nikodemos, I think you violated three revert rule. You can probably avoid admin sanction if you revert the article back by yourself. Quick! Do it now. (^^) FWBOarticle

Ambiguity is the whole point. Each different type of libertarianism can be explained by defining what their interpretation of "liberty" is. This can be done in the section of "history of libertarianism", "principles of libertarianism" and "libertarian policies/pllitics". This is more consistent to NPOV policy of this site. Some European who call themselves libetarian especially in Nordic countries advocate guranteed health care, minimum living standard and state funded education. In u.s. this is probably be regarded as socialism. But in Europe, anarchist libertarians are so rare that most would be categorised as just anarchist and will not be included in the family of libertalianism. The second edit is slanted toward anarchist libertarianism while adding "except in defence of liberty" or "except in case of good utilitarian justification" would slant the intro to other side of the debate. My Catch22 objection to 2nd edit still stand. If you can find alternative to the original edit which doesn't have NPOV time bomb, let me know. FWBOarticle

Libertarianism is an ideal, like most definitions in political philosophy, or economics. Sure, a doctrine that says a person should be allowed to do whatever he wishes as long as he doesn't forcefully prevent someone else from doing the same is, is anarchism. Was Marquis de La Fayette who drafted the 1789 French Declaration of the Rights of Man which asserted as one of its principles: "Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights" an anarchist? Was Thomas Jefferson who said ""rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others" an anarchist? Some libertarians are truly anarchists, while others are anarchists only in a philosophical sense --anarchism as an ideal that they think probably could not be realized in practice --so they advocate taxation and minimal government to approximate the libertarian ideal. But, as I said, it's essential to a definition of libertarianism that it's said that liberty is limited only by the equal liberty of others --or in other words, that liberty is absolute up to the point where an action infrings on the liberty of someone else. RJII 15:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

No, anarchism is characterised by its hostility to the state itself. Classical liberals such as Adam Smith were definitely not, so it is very wrong to even imply that they were somewhat anarchist. But this debate is pointless. These kind of debate, especially the extent of right and freedom should be discussed elsewhere. If you see the edit history, the original edit was "Libertarianism is a political philosophy that favors both civil and economic liberty. Libertarians oppose government intervention in private affairs except when made in the defense of liberty.". The second sentence was dropped because anarchist libertarian would object to it. This version is just more concise (and better) but it is essentially the same as your edit. What is happening is just repeating the whole process which has been done countless times in this page. As I said, give me a definition of Libertarian aside from the one you reverted which avoid sectarian disambiuation and Catch22 NPOV dillenma. FWBOarticle

• Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating individual's liberties (the right of individuals to be free to do whatever they wish with their persons or property as long as they do not initiate the use of physical force, the threat of it, or fraud against others; or, in other words, as long as they allow others the same liberty) in all espects including civil, political and economic matter (hey see no ethical distinction between civil and economic freedom). Libertarians oppose government intervention in private affairs except when made in the defense of liberty (they believe that the state should not trespass on those liberties)."

I like libertarianims because it is simple, concise and efficient. It certainly not the case here. (T_T) FWBOarticle

It is simple, but not quite as simple as you make it out to be. It does take a modicum of abstract thought to conceive. It's not just the advocacy of liberty, but the advocacy of the extent AND limitation of that liberty. That can't be ignored in the definition --that's what distinguishes it. It's liberty that is limited only by the liberty of others. RJII 19:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

FWBOarticle, I think the current definition is pretty good. One may have some critique about definitions of certain terms, but I definitely don't see a NPOV objection. I don't understand your objection on those grounds. The definition you are pushing is too vague.--DocGov 20:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

At this point, any revert would degenerate into revert war given that disagreement is aesthetic. I believe intro or for that matter, wikipedia articles should be short, concise, efficient. The current intro is a representative of this page which is +70kb, a clear violation of featured article criteria. Second objective I did not mention so far is that use of "right" and "freedom", strictly speaking, is not appropriate substitute of "liberty". This is more obvious if you know bit more about the orign/history of classical liberals. Adam Smith, Ricard, and David Hume, for example, make very little use of "right" and "freedom" in their writing. The current intro is slanted heavily in favour of modern libertarians who just appropriated the bland but don't really care what the classical liberals actually said or wrote. But obviously, Principles and History section need to be expanded. I will come back to this issue when I find the enough material to make this attribution more clear. FWBOarticle

Ops, it was quicker than I thought it would be. Clearest example is the difference between positive/negative right and positive/negative liberty.

• a negative right is a right to not be subject to an action of another human being (usually abuse or coercion). Meanwhile, a positive right is a right to be provided with something through the action of another person or group of people (usually a state). The former proscribe action, while the latter prescribe action.
• "Positive liberty is an idea that was first expressed and analyzed as a separate conception of liberty by John Stuart Mill but most notably described by Isaiah Berlin. It refers to the ability to act to fulfill one's own potential, as opposed to negative liberty, which refers to freedom from the interference of others in one's affairs.

I hope you can see that by sticking to "liberty" you get to make more clear distinction between libertarianism and modern liberalism espeicially when we start explaining why libertarianism endorse right of private establishment (such as Boy Scout) to exercise discrimniation while modern liberal doesn't because modern liberal believe everyone is "entitled" to be free from discrimination. It is also o.k. from libertarian view point for someone to form racist political party which is banned in many European countries. As long as there is no restriction on political participation, the fact that some voters or parties are racist is irrelevant. It also explain why it is o.k. for some libertarians to advocate free state funded education. FWBOarticle

Rearranging the section

Given the negative/positve liberty insertion, I believe that Principle section should be moved up. If negative/positive liberty follow immediately after the intro section, it is much better narrative in my view. I just don't know how to do it without ruining the structure of this page. :( FWBOarticle 11:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I rearranged the structure of this page. Yes, some subsection isn't a good fit to the new section but I believe this is improvement in term of narrative. Plus, we really need to shrink the article from the current state of +70kb, transfering much of detailed explanations in some section to sister page. The same things are repeated in various sections of the page. I believe, principle->history->policy->politics and movement->criticism is good basis for such transfer. Honestly, I don't really know where "political spectrum" fit. It doesnt deserve separate sister page. Plus, given the principle section, I think the section became bit redundant. May be, it should be absorbed into "criticism" section. Hope you liked my edit. FWBOarticle

I also believe that "politics and movement" section can be split into two. Politics section should deal with different libertarian (ideological) groups while movement section should deal with different libertarian organisation (such as think tank like Cato institute or the magazine such as the Economist). FWBOarticle

I intend to transfer or delete (after wikilined) some sections of the page to sister pages so to reduce the size of this page. But i will wait and see how people feel about my rearrangement. See ya. FWBOarticle

Let me tell you how I feel about the edits in the intro and overview--I think they look like shit. The intro before your edits looked just fine. The overview was the best part of this article, and now it gone. I think you're causing more problems than you're solving. I vote we should revert the whole thing back to the way it was last week, and discuss the pruning you wish to do BEFORE you take your ax to this in a more systemmatic manner.--DocGov 00:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Instead of a massive revert, I decided to go along with the new outline and do the best I could with it. All the prior changes have left an article riddled with duplications and extended expostulation of philosophical details (or, in fairness, the reorg amy have simply highlighted this), details best left for other pages. How did a featured article get so muddled?--DocGov 02:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It was probably because, different wing of libertarians kept insisting on introducing a just and equitable counter-balance of "The Judean People's Front", "The People's Front of Judea" and "The Judean Popular People's Front". I felt that it was impossible to trim the article without having more streamlined narrative structure. FWBOarticle

Reason for my deltion of "Overview" section is (1) (Well stcurtured) Table of content serve as overview in wikipedia (2) It is focus of disambiguation process which bloat which confuse readers unaccustomed to libertarianism (3) and cause unnecessarily repetition of information. FWBOarticle

Positive rights

I recently changed "Modern liberalism is distinguished from libertarianism by its emphasis on positive right." to "Modern liberalism is distinguished from libertarianism in that it endorses positive rights." However, this was immediately reverted by FWBOarticle, without a stated reason. On this basis alone, I'd be justified in restoring my text, but I'd rather discuss it here than launch an edit war.

The way I see it, besides being more grammatical (pluralizing "rights"), I think my version is clearer and more accurate. Liberalism doesn't just emphasize positive rights, it endorses them as a good idea. In contrast, libertarianism doesn't just have a lack of emphasis on positive rights, it says that they're a violation of liberty. For these reasons, I would like to suggest that the edit I made be kept. Alienus 19:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Based on his definition, I don't think FWBO has a clear understanding of what libertarianism is. But, I agree with you. Your change makes sense. RJII 19:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll drop a note in his Talk page to give him a chance to defend himself. It's always possible that we're missing something here. Alienus 19:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

This reversion is a mistake. I was about to wiki link it. When I pressed "save" I was told that someone altered the section. I just copied the section i made, reloaded the page and overpasted my edit without looking at the sentence. The immediate reverse is not indication of my strong objection. The mistake is entirely my fault and I apologise. FWBOarticle

Oh, ok, that explains it. I've restored the text, since there's no objection to it. Nothing to apologize for; we all goof up sometimes. If anything, the way this issue was handled is a model for how disputes should be resolved. Alienus 20:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

FWBO, I hope you plan on re-arranging the reference list. You're moving things around without modifying that list. Otherwise, you're going to get this article delisted as a featured article. RJII 20:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, the reference list is a bad idea. The wikipedia assume that page eventually bloat and require split (at about 50kb). Alteration of the structure is inevitable in editing process. So what am I supposed to do about something which isn't really my fault. Misplaced Pages page aren't meant to have footnote like in academic paper. Secondly, the article does need serious copy editing. I hope most of you agree that my rearrangement isn't too bad. This article's current size is 72kb, a clear violation of featured article criteria. That means we need to cut it down to at least below 50kb. I felt that we need a better overall structure first. I will start from "history" section.

As of me not having "a clear understanding of what libertarianism is", oh come on, I admit that my Engrish is atrocious but my Principle section isn't that bad. After all, the entire section was constructed by pragerising from other wikipedia pages. Plus, I take a view that both my intro and yours are technically correct. The difference is in aesthetic. I prefer simple, concise and efficient edit. Some might feel that mine is too concise and prefer more expanded explanation. Because no one can settle aesthetic dispute, I did a middle of the road compromise, which is to have mine in the intro immediately followed by yours in the principles section. If you are not happy with mine coming first, I'm sorry but what am I supposed to do. Mine is the simplified version of yours. FWBOarticle

Hmm another revert. I think this is the fourth revert. This is the second time this happened. I let Nikodemos's revert pass but if this revert stay, I'm rather offended. FWBOarticle

I can see the value of organizing the sections in a more logical sequence and eliminating the redundancies and philosophical parsing across sections, and especially of shortening the whole article. These are welcome changes to what has certainly become an unwieldy article. But I'm starting to agree that maybe you don't have a good handle on the most relevant distinctions of libertarianism. Maybe we should hash out what each section should do or say in a more systemmatic way before you do a whole lot more wholesale changes, because there is a lot of stuff that used to make sense that no longer sound good or seem logical since you began to make them. I'm finding myself making a lot of wholesale changes just to keep up (which is a shame at this stage for a 'featured article'), and they invariably seem to be to sections you have tried to re-organize. Just a suggestion to minimize frustration.--DocGov 07:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

My "subjective" opinion is that the previous version would not have kept the featured article status, had it be nominated for removal. At the current state, we could ask for pause of nomination process until we fix our problem. Major cause of duplication was that appropriate section was absent, duplicated or merged with other topic. I created principle section and separating policy, politics and movement. I know it was a major revamp but I didn't think I could sort the mess without doing this first. At this point, I feel that the movement section ought to be put before the policy section. Attributing different policies according to different school of libertarianism is good NPOV as well as being a better narrative structure. However, I understand that my revamp caused lot of chaos so I will no longer make radical rearrangement of sections. FWBOarticle

As of your feeling that I don't have good grasp on libertarianism, you are partially correct. That is, I don't believe that description of classical liberalism in this page is accurate. This can be made clear only by explaining the historical basis of classical liberalism during 17th and 18th century and the rise of anarchism (and individualism) in 19th century. Obviously, without such clarification,, what I'm doing looks like morphing libertarianism into some sort of liberal socialism. This is not my intent. I merely wish to make proper attribution of classical liberalism and modern libertarianism. FWBOarticle

Thanks. By the way, I'm not saying that this article wouldn't benefit from a lot of changes, including possible re-arrangement of sections. I'm only suggesting that they be made more gradually, or discussed beforehand. Otherwise, it's too difficult to keep up with the dizzying pace of wholesale changes for an article that has already borne a lot of discussion before we came along.--DocGov 04:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'll let you take it up with others. I'm registering my complaint here. The footnotes no longer link to the sources. You're being careless and lazy. And, the article will lose featured article status as a result. RJII 20:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Didn't anybody think in the begining that footnote is a very very bad idea in wikipedia. Misplaced Pages doesn't have automatic footnote adjustment function while it is subject to constant edit including article split. I'm not sure I'm really responsible for this. I let you take it up with admin. If they say it's my responsibility, I will fix it. FWBOarticle

First of all you are misguided when you say "Misplaced Pages page aren't meant to have footnote like in academic paper." You're missing the whole point of the editing process on Misplaced Pages. There is a rule against "original research," which means saying things that there is no source for (your personal arguments, definitions, etc). Misplaced Pages articles are indeed supposed to stand up to academic scrutiny, and sources need to be provided. It may be hassle to adjust the position of the references in the list when you move things around, but that's what we have to do until they program something automatic. Either you do it, or be inconsiderate and let others clean up your mess. RJII 21:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Read my statement bit more carefully. I'm not against reference. I'm just against reference being footnoted. Footnoting lock the page, which is not what wikipedia should be about. It is rediculous that someone who introduce a reference at the top becoming responsible for going through the entire article to synchronise footnote numbers. That is why, i think I shouldn't be responsible for something quite damb. My advice is to conslut Help Desk to see if what I did constitute vandalism. If they say yes, then I will fix it. FWBOarticle

Adding a footnote at the top of the page just requries citing it at the top of the reference list. The numbering is automatic. It's not an arduous task. RJII 22:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'm missing something here. What is automatic and what isn't automatic? FWBOarticle

The numbering of the references is automatic. You just put a "#" in front of the cite in the reference list and make sure the reference list sequentially matches the sources cited in the text. RJII 22:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

So basically, I still have to copypaste? o.k. i will do it after I finish editing the main article. If someone nomiate this site for removal, the reference can be fixed immediately so no hurry here. Who read the footnote anyway. :) Still the size of this article can't be easily fixed and at +70kb, it is a good reason for removal of the status. me going so see ya tommorrow. FWBOarticle

History

Before I edit History section, I want to clarify what my intention is in this section. While editing "principle" section, I agnoised whether I should include more about Adam Smith's "natural price". In the end, i decided against it because if I do it, someone might come up and introduce reference to "minarchism" or other aspect of libertarianims (like objectionism), which is a slippery slope toward another disambiguation edit. So I decided to stick to liberty, right and freedom with bit of mention of liberal democracy and free market capitalism. In history section, I intend to touch more on this. Not just minarchism and free market but also Austrian school, Chicago school and Open Society (Karl Popper and others). Anyone who feel that the "Principle" section is too concise (causing lot of revert war in intro:P), then, if you can, can you elaborate it in "history" or "policy" section? FWBOarticle

Oh, my idea of history narrative is "enlightenment", "classical liberal", "anarchism/minarchism", "Austrian/Chicago school", "Open Society" and "(modern) liberalism", . Did I miss anything major? FWBOarticle

Forgot about ethical neutralism (G.E. Moore and possibly Bertland Russell). Not sure how important this is in libertarianism though. It is certainly implicit. FWBOarticle

One thing I don't understand is what was happening in 19th century sandwitched between classical liberal of 18th century and modern libertarian of 20th century. Does anyone know any important political thinkers or movement of this period? FWBOarticle

Oh, i've forgotten about John Stuart Mill. Did him in my course. Me bad. FWBOarticle

I also realise that many important political changed has occured through out this period including abolition of slavery, sufferage movenent (including women) as well as u.s. civil rights movement and so on, large part of it happening in 19th century at least in the West. I'm not sure I can integrate the history of politics and the history of idea in coherent narrative. FWBOarticle

Yep, I believe the article including my history section can be trimmed. natural law, social contract and economics section is a must. individualism, utilitarianism, anarchism and free market economy is another must in romanticism section. If you want to cut out reference to historical event, it is fine by me. Hope this made attribution of different libertarian thought much easier. We can probably rename "movement" section to "contemporary libertarianism" but i will see if people are happy with my edit, my engrish notwithstanding. FWBOarticle 17:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm planning to expand on neoclassical economics, austrian school of economics, open society and ethical neutralism. Probably the section ought to be damped in sister article. FWBOarticle 17:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are trying to do. After all that talk about trimming, you took a perfectly concise history of libertarianism section and inflated it into a huge dissertation. Please revert it back to the few simple paragraphs we had before, and place the details somewhere else.--DocGov 17:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, if you or someone didn't trim it, I was going to do it myself and shift the original article to a sistter page, history of libertarianism. I just wanted to demonstrate that, previous edit had a fundamental NPOV attribution problem, where individualism (liberty principle) was not properly attributed to Jhon Stuart Mills and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. Plus portion of the current history section edit (Natural Law, social contract, property, liberty principle, utilitarianism) probably belong to the principle section. Late 18th century separate the Enlightenment period and the Romatiticism period. This present some NPOV problem as to what does it mean to be "classical liberal" in historical term. I was wondering why 19th century was left blank. It was amusing when I discovered what is in it. FWBOarticle

Hey, someone should explain me how do a person would use confusingly a term that coined to refer to himself! Historical origin of the term is still used here in Europe: libertarian, here, means (left-)anarchist. Please, stop robbing terms: the entire article would be changed here in Europe, because anarchists are always against the free-market. Libertarian Party did pocket an anarchist term, but there are still plenty of anarchists who claim for it. Sorry for my english.

featured article removal

Sadly...I am thinking of it. My complaints with the article are extensive: acronyms are too used without disambiguation. Terms are wikified later on, when they could be wikified later - in fact the definitions of other concepts need to be established early on. The article is well-organized, but the length needs to be imported somewhere else. Furthermore, there's a lot of informal formatting, there are too many "see this" and "see that" (not referring to the main article declarations). This especially occurs with the listcruft (in the sense of, needs to be prose'ised) established in the "controversies" section. There is also a mixing of inline and footnote refs, and some refs are cited inproperly (using parentheses!).

The problems are tedious to fix, but they are very possible. Elle _{vécut heureuse} (Be eudaimonic!) 00:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect footnote refs are my fault. I will fix it now. I was preoccupied with other article for a while. I will fix it. Figure that it is easy to fix so I left it as it is. Because we are currently in the process of adjustment after a major rearrangment section, I ask you to wait for a bit to see till the clean up settle. FWBOarticle 15:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I'm back. I will get back to fixing ref. It appear that some referene were already misplaced before I did anything. I really think this footnoting craze stink. FWBOarticle

After encountering four missing reference in a row, I gave up. It is just pointless when the original refernce is missing. There are several reference made to "Critical Reviews" but there is only one appropriate reference. Any reference should appear in the main article. This footnoting thing is just not suited for wikipedia. FWBOarticle

Private Property Right under classical liberalism

Adding Lockean interpretation of property right. I believe we may need to have separate section discussing property right. FWBOarticle

Should we rearrange the sections

It appear that "Classical Liberal" position was far more nuanced than Libetarian version of individualism, anarchism and free market economy. All these distinct characteristic of libetarianism only appear in the later period. Most classical liberal didn't advocate unversal francise. They supported various welfare programme such as Poor Law and State sponsored education. And they didn't know the meaning of the term "capitalism" or "free market" or "lazzise fair" until later romanticism thinkers coined it. The issue should be discussed and disambiguated in more detail so that the readers would know where Libetarianism fit into within overall Liberalism. I know (Classical Liberalism) = Libetarianism is a popular rallying cry among non academic libetarian. But I believe some sort of clarification ought to be made for it. There are tons quotes origating from classical liberals themseves which directly contradict this assertion. Of course, the other can quote many writing to support this contention but still, this deserve discussion. I believe we should have "Classical Liberals/Liberalism" section. FWBOarticle

We should eliminate sections and simplify the article. The first few sections are compact, balanced, and sufficient. Much of what comes after the first section on "Policy" is redundant or too detailed. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a dissertation. What you, FWBO, have written (for the second time now) in your most recent edit is much more background than is needed to support a reasonable explanation of libertarianism. If you want to do more of an explanation of classical liberalism, then please focus on that page.--DocGov 23:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

You can simplify the article only if one has clear understanding of the overall context of the debate. This isn't the case in libetariansim. Most can't even agree on what the libetarianism is. Main reason appear to be that most non academic libetarian have no idea where their idea originated from. None made distinction between 18th century and 19the century liberalism until I came along. And understanding of classical liberalism is very poor. As a result, debates pop up everywhere, each demanding fair and equitable presentation of their view (such as my more Euro oriented libetarianism). IMO, only way to trim article is to

(1) Identify important libetarian principle within the correct historical context of overall liberalism

(2) Attribute different branch of libetarianism according to different principle ideitified in the previous section.

(3) Attribute different policies according to differnt the principles and the movement of libetarianism

(4) Clarify and Attribute controversies within Liberalism according to previous principle, movement and policy

(5) Attribute and clarify criticism of Libetarianism according to the context within the overall debate of political philosopy (such as liberalism).

We haven't done the step (1). So the article will bloat no matter what. FWBOarticle

I don't agree with your premise. A "clear understanding of the overall context of the debate" is a hopeless cause. This article seemed perfectly stable in terms of "overall context" for at least three months before you began your very significant edits. We don't need to reach back to the 17th century to resolve phantom issues about this subject.--DocGov 02:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

This article has gone through several edit war before I came here. The article was stable in the sence that it bloated to the point of saturation. The cause of edit war in politics is almost always about the lack of proper attribution. In this article, most edit/section/opinion has no clue as to what that attribution ought to be. If you don't like history, substituting it with academic discussion of political philosophy might help. I don't see it any other way. FWBOarticle 03:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we agree about the need to bring this article into compliance with standards, but have differing opinions about how to achieve it. I have begun a process of consolidation of material.--DocGov 06:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

There was a lot of good stuff that's gone now. FWBO should have worked the information in properly. He provided some good stuff --but not sourced. I'm tempted to revert to pre-FWBO and let him edit it in properly. RJII 06:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

When I rearranged it, I didn't really delete anything. It was just copyedit transfer.  :( FWBOarticle

I have tried to winnow this monster down to a proper length while preserving as much as possible and clarifying content along the way. This thing should be no more than 35 kilobytes long. I have shaved a bare three KB from 72 to 69. I think that most of the stuff after "History" should be consolidated by reference into the first several sections, with their details placed in daughter articles.

One step forward, two steps back. I spent way too much time carefully re-arranging and winnowing to cut five percent of the article toward getting it back into compliance with length guidelines, and someone comes along and dumps ten percent more. Is there any way to announce a policy for this page that people can't add anything without removing something else?--DocGov 21:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The usual way to handle excess content is to fork out sections, leaving behind a short summary and a link. Alienus 23:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I believe that's what I have been doing. I think we need to be aggressive about cutting, but I'm still trying to preserve as many distinct points as possible consistent with a focus on the topic. Please let me know if you think I'm overreaching on a particular area. I see you've been involved with this site for a while, too.--DocGov 02:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

One way we could handle this is to identify bloated sections here, first. Alienus 05:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll begin doing that for significant edits.--DocGov 04:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Footnote Reference

If I delete footonte, lot of people feel that I went too far. But clearly, footnote reference has problem keeping up with Misplaced Pages edit process. I think I found the solution. I'm going to delete the reference "link" and rearrange the reference in alphabetical order of authors. Then the reference section is valid and correct in itself even if the reference in the main article does't exist any longer. FWBOarticle

Take a look at the anarcho-capitalism article and do the footnotes like that. It's a new kind. You put them inline in the text and they're automatically built in the table in the reference section. If you move one in the text it automatically gets rearranged in the list. RJII 05:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Propose serious condensation

I would like to see the four subsections beginning with Libertarian philosophy in the academy funneled into a few sentences within the "Libertarian policy" and "Controversy" discussions. There are entire articles on Left-lib, Objectivism, etc. They can be adequately summarized here without all the detail which, though interesting, simply doesn't fit in an encyclopedic article. Neither does a cataloging of every person with a monograph in the libertarian library. That's my suggestion, anyway.--DocGov 02:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The most accurate definition should be used.

I sense an attempt at carefully constructed double-speak here. What distinguishes libertarians from other civilized people is that they advocate the right of individuals to be free to do whatever they wish with their persons or property as long as it allows others the same liberty. That definition captures it. Inclusive of that is necessarily not to initiate, or threaten to initiate, physical force or fraud against those who have done no wrong under the libertarian doctrine, as doing so would not be "respecting the equal rights of others to do the same". Libertarians DO intiate "violence" (death penalty, war) and "physical force" (taking into custody) against those who have done wrong under the libertarian doctrine of what is a "wrong", i.e., "not respecting the rights of others to do whatever they wish with their persons or property as long as it allows others the same liberty", such as in the more particularly egregious violations involving rape and fraud and murder, and tyranny. Once a man violates the libertarian doctrine, he loses his "equal right" to live his life without the initation of physical force against him. So, the definition of "Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating the right of individuals to be free to do whatever they wish with their persons or property; as long as they respect the equal rights of others by not initiating, or threatening to initiate, physical force or fraud against them" is really nonsensical, and the more concise defintion must be used, i.e. "Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating the right of individuals to be free to do whatever they wish with their persons or property as long as it allows others the same liberty". This latter definition encompasses everything the former editor hopefully intended, while allowing for the situation where physical force is applied. pat8722 19:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I accept that there is a problem with the wording - indeed the opening seems to have been reworded numerous times in the past months (including by Pat8722), but as I understand it, libertarianism holds that inititating (or threatening) force or fraud is the pretty much the only way in which it is possible to violate the rights of another. The more concise wording clouds this. Pretty much all the libertarian literature that I have come across gives weight to this doctrine of not initiating force, whereas I have come across a variety of views on issues such as the death penalty (some are for it, others against). I'm not sure how best to put it but perhaps the longer definition could be parsed into two sentences, something along the lines of "Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating the right of individuals to be free to do whatever they wish with their persons or property as long as they respect the equal rights of others. Libertarians therefore generally advocate that individuals may not initiate, or threaten to initiate, physical force or fraud against others"? --Matthew Humphreys 20:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

You are still missing the heart of it. The following definition would work. Do you see the difference between this definition, and yours?

"Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating the right of individuals to be free to do whatever they wish with their persons or property as long as it respects the equal rights of others to do the same it allows others the same liberty. This includes not initiating, or threatening to initiate, physical force against those who have not violated this doctrine, nor fraud against anyone." pat8722 20:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your desire for brevity, but this definition has been parsed many times, and the initiation of force or fraud was one area of consensus. I think it captures a key distinction or how libertarians define liberty.--DocGov 01:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Which definition? The two sentence defintion cited above treats of the use force or fraud, while keeping it clear that libertarianism does not exclude the use of force against those who violate its principles. I would agree to its inclusion in the article. pat8722 03:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

redundancy

Pat8722, part of your two sentence definition is redundent. Once an individual has inititated the use of force (for instance by mugging another), it is not considered an inititation of force for the victim to use force in self-defence, nor is it considered an inititation of force for law enforcement officers to apprehend the mugger. It is the mugger and the mugger alone who inititates the use of force. Thus it is incorrect to phrase it, as you do, that "This includes not initiating, or threatening to initiate, physical force against those who have not violated this doctrine", because in situations where an individual has violated the doctrine, using force against the violator isn't an initiation of force. --Matthew Humphreys 19:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

But the same is true about the original definition, i.e. I showed in my first paragraph that the mention of force in the definition is redundant. Technically speaking, all that is needed to define libertarianism is "Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating the right of individuals to be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property as long as it allows others the same liberty", as all use of force is self-contained within that definition. But if redundant talk about the use of force is going to be included in the definition, as you seem to be advocating, then it must be redundant in a fairly clear way, stating clearly that initiation of force against those who have "done wrong" under the libertarian doctrine (rape, murder, theft, fraud, tyranny) is also an element of the doctrine (typically not commenced prior to the filing of a "complaint"). Using force against a violator is, technically speaking, an initiation of force, as nothing compels it, and as those initiating it don't have to be the one who was wronged. pat8722 21:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not redundant - see below. Initiation of force amongst a given group of people occurs the first time one (or more) person(s) within the given group use or threaten to use force against other persons. If persons A and B attempt to rob person C, force is introduced into the situation (i.e. initiated) by A and B at the point when they begin the attempted robbery. It is then permitted for C to use force in retaliation (if he can) precisely because the use of force in the relationship between A B and C has already been initiated by A and B. Initiation of force is always wrong, using force to defend one's person from those who initiate force isn't wrong and isn't an initiation of force. --Matthew Humphreys 13:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be trying to edit the definition so that it better fits your stance in the dispute on Talk: Timothy McVeigh (where I see you have now quoted your own "more accurate" one sentence definition), but both your definitions are flawed. --Matthew Humphreys 19:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I seek only accuracy in the definition of the term. You have not demonstrated how the concise definition "Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating the right of individuals to be free to do whatever they wish with their persons or property as long as it allows others the same liberty" is in any way defective, and it is the centuries-old concept. The discussion on the Timothy McVeigh (Talk: Timothy McVeigh at "Libertarian?" March 2006) page just serves to demonstrate how important it is that we avoid all double-speak and ambiguity in the definition of the term. pat8722 21:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

discussions on NIOF

I see your suggested concise definition as flawed simply because it excludes any mention of NIOF. The NIOF principle is critical to libertarian theory and therefore ought to be mentioned in some way in any brief definition. But so is individual freedom, so I would see the following concise definition as equally flawed: "Libertarianism is a politically philosophy advocating the principle that no one may initiate the use of force or fraud in human affairs". The ideas are interlinked. Some libertarians may arrive (from whatever philosophical basis) at the principlce that individuals have a right to do as they wish with their person and property, and see that this implies NIOF. Other libertarians seem to regard NIOF as the axiom, and see individual freedom (as understood by libertarians) as a consequence of this. Like I said above, I'm not sure of how best to word it but I honestly think that a definition of libertarianism has to mention both NIOF and individual freedom. I'd like to read the thoughts of others who work on this page though. --Matthew Humphreys 13:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

It has been shown above in the first paragraph that "Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating the right of individuals to be free to do whatever they wish with their persons or property as long as it allows others the same liberty" is NOT flawed, because it is necessarily inherent to that statement that the use of physical force against those who have not violated that doctrine is prohibited (i.e. it does not need to be specifically mentioned as it is already "stated".) Your concise definition is not only flawed it is patently false as it prohibits, by definition, the initiation of physical force against those who have initiated it against others, which is a different doctrine altogether. My second proposal of ""Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating the right of individuals to be free to do whatever they wish with their persons or property as long as it allows others the same liberty. This includes not initiating, or threatening to initiate, physical force against those who have not violated this doctrine, nor fraud against anyone", encompasses your desire to specifically elaborate on the libertarian philosophy regarding "force", doing so in a way that is unambiguous. You have not alleged or shown any falsehood in either of my proposed definitions, so unless you are deliberately trying to introduce doublespeak/falsehood into the definition (the standard communist technique for destroying the meaning of terms, so that coherent discussion on opposing philosophies is rendered confusing and difficult), you have no grounds for dispute. pat8722 14:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

what does "initiate" mean?

In fact it is you who are confusing the inititation of force with the use of force. The use of force in retaliation against those who initiate force is not prohibited, and my concise definition in no way suggests otherwsie. The problem is entirely due to you not understanding what is meant by initiation, despite my repeated efforts at explaining it (which have been met by nothing but unjustified insults). My concise definition could be expanded to say "Libertarianism is a politically philosophy advocating the principle that no one may initiate the use of force or fraud in human affairs. On the other hand the retaliatory use of force against those who initiate it is not prohibited." Is it any clearer to you now? (This expanded definition is still flawed, it is used here only in an effort to explain the difference.) I've tried my best to debate with you in good faith but my patience is just about exhausted. --Matthew Humphreys 15:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Intoducing defintions you believe are "flawed" does nothing but waste everyone's time. Your "flawed" definition is really another totally false definition, as it is excludes from the libertarian doctrine the right to initiate force against someone who violates the libertarian doctrine without using force in doing so (such as in fraud or tyranny). As the initiation of retaliatory force is, also, strictly speaking, "the initation of force", we must use words which don't introduce confusion over what the word "initiate" means in any definition of "libertarianism". The filing of a "complaint" (threat of force) or the "arrest" (force) are the initiation of force, no matter whether they are retaliatory against force, or even justified, or not. "Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating the right of individuals to be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property as long as it allows others the same liberty. This includes not initiating, or threatening to initiate, physical force against those who have not violated this doctrine, nor fraud against anyone" leaves no room for confusion about what definition of "initiate" is being used, as it covers all possible definitions. pat8722 17:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Pat8722 - The current definition doesn't work because it is circular. As it stands, the wording implies a definition of "the same liberty" as "the right of individuals to be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property as long as it allows others the same liberty." While this roughly conforms to Spencers "law of equal liberty" or Bloch's "non-aggression axiom," it basically defines libertarian in terms of liberty in a way that does not delimit the concept of "the same liberty." The prior definition provided that delimitation by specifying non-initiation of force or fraud, etc. You are correct in saying that non-initiation is implied in the current, circular definition, but so are all sorts of other things that anyone can claim to be part of their doctrine. For instance, I can claim to be perfectly comfortable allowing everyone the right to the same liberty I have to beat up gays and have gays try to beat up on me. Or I may be perfectly comfortable allowing everyone the equal freedom to set up a competing mafia. Or I can define away liberty as the equal freedom to do whatever Hillary wants us to do, as long as she does it to us all equally. It may be difficult for libertarians to conceive that most encyclopedia readers could seriously believe such statements, but you know what--they do. Defining liberty in terms on "non-initiation of force, fraud, etc." adequately delimits the sense of what most libertarians think of as "equal liberty" by defining the precise boundary of "person" as a physical person capable of being coerced (as opposed to merely insulted or offended) or "property" as personal property capable of being taken away (as opposed to communal property, or property capable of being defiled by witches). So, Pat8722, it's not that the current definition (excluding NIOF) is inaccurate; the problem is that it is incomplete for the purposes of an encyclopedia directed to the general reader trying to get a sense of what distinguishes "libertarianism" from any other doctrine that promises "equal liberty." We should clearly include NOIF in the definition.--DocGov 14:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The current definition is not at all circular, as to be circular a definition uses in the definition of the term, the same term it is trying to define. In the present definition there is no use of the same term, nor essentially the same term, to define another term.

The "general" issue of whether it is permitted to "beat someone up", is decided before the "subset" issue of whether the beating can take place over whether one is "gay or not". "Beating someone up" isn't permitted under the definition of "libertarianism" because "beating someone up" doesn't allow others to "do whatever they wish with their person or property as long as it allows others the same liberty." In other words, since a man isn't interferring with any one's right to do what they want to with their person or property by not being beaten up, he is entitled to not being beaten up. (This does not preclude the use of self-defense, to the extent necessary to defend against someone who is "interferring with someone's right to do what they want to with their person or property as long as it allows the others the same liberty". I.e., it is a "given" that "beating someone up" is NOT allowing the person being beaten up to do what they wish with their person or property, therefore it is permitted when, and only when, a violation of the libertarian doctrine has occured, and then, only as necessary to stop the violation. In otherwords, where a man is engaging in physical violence, such as beating someone up because he "doesn't like them", the case can must be made that he is "interferring with someone's right to do what they want to with their person or property as long as it allows others the same liberty by not being beaten up. But if you've got handcuff's to stop him, then that wouldn't be true, as it would only be true that that he is "interferring with someone's right to do what they want to with their person or property as long as it allows others the same liberty by not being handcuffed, as the lesser liberty-impacting means was all that was necessary to stop him.

The present definition of "Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating the right of individuals to be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property as long as it allows others the same liberty" is what distinguishes libertarianism from all other doctrines and is inclusive on the use of force, and is therefore, technically, the "necessary and sufficient" definition. "This includes not initiating, or threatening to initiate, physical force against those who have not violated this doctrine, nor fraud against anyone" emphasizes the point you want to make about physical force, while creating no ambiguity about the fact that "self-defense", "civil and criminal prosecutions", "incarceration", "the death penalty", and "war" are permitted under the libertarian doctrine against those who violate the libertarian doctrine. I do not object to its inclusion. pat8722 21:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

What does "force" mean?

FWIW, Pat's interpretation of the terms use of force and initiation of force are more restrictive than I have ever known them to be meant by any libertarian. For example, when Pat writes, "excludes from the libertarian doctrine the right to initiate force against someone who violates the libertarian doctrine without using force in doing so (such as in fraud or tyranny)", he explicitly excludes fraud and tyranny as being acts of force, yet I know of no libertarian who would agree with that. The only interpretation that ever made sense to me includes fraud and tyranny as being acts of force, by definition. Further, threating the use of force is technically using force in and of itself. Therefore, the or threat in "initiating the use or threat of force" is redundant. Finally, initiation of force can only mean use of force in a context where force is not being used. Having said that, I agree with Pat that the NIOF principle is not fundamental to libertarians, but is necessarily implied. It is in a sense, the flip-side of the libertarian coin, which has the same value either way. Each implies the other. --Serge 03:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Libertarians must use the same dictionaries as everybody else, and why wouldn't they want to, if they want to be understood? "Force" means "strength, active power, might, violence, coercion" (New Webster's Expanded Dictionary (2005), Weston Florida). "Fraud" means "artifice, deception". There is no use of "force" whatsoever explicit or inherent in the dictionary definition of "fraud". "Tyrant" means "an oppressor", again no "force" whatsoever explicit or inherent in the definition. (Tyrants typically reign through "implied threat of force", the need of actual force, and of explicit threat of force, usually being minimal once the tyrant is ensconced (which can occur through either fraud (non-force) or war (force).) Your proposal that "threat of force" should mean "force" (absurd), is to propose that the english language should lose the distinction between the two terms (a standard communist technique for destroying the meaning of terms, so that coherent discussion on opposing philosophies is rendered confusing and difficult). As I stated in paragraph 15 preceding, "The filing of a "complaint" (threat of force) or the "arrest" (force) are the initiation of force under the common law, no matter whether they are retaliatory against force, or even justified, or not". We at present have a definition (and a proposed elaboration on the definition as found in paragraphs 4, 13, 15 and 19) that allows for no ambiguity or for confusion over what defintion of "initiate" is being used, as it covers all possible definitions, and which uses the word "force" to mean "force" in its only defined sense. (I will furthermore add that we also know most libertarians don't mean "force" when they say "fraud", as they make a point to say "force OR fraud".) pat8722 04:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

How libertarians should or shouldn't use terms like force is a separate matter from how they do use it. Look at lp.org. The "pledge" all member are supposed to agree to says, simply, "I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals." I hope you would agree that the LP does not mean to exclude fraud in that. As far as some libertarians adding "or fraud" to clarify their meaning, I think that comes from encountering instances where they were misunderstood, and, frankly, doing so has confused matters, this discussion being an example of that. Clarifying with "(including fraud)" would be just as effective and more accurate. If you insist on your strict (albeit dictionary correct) interpretation of the term force, then much of the use of term in published libertarian theory becomes nonsensical. --Serge 23:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I suppose, given the war going on between the opposing philosophies of communism and libertarianism, and given the standard communist technique of co-opting the opposition and creating confusion by detroying the meaning of terms, you can probably find "libertarian" spokesman who will say all kinds of false and confused things. Failing to use standard dictionary definitions would be reason to suppose a self-proclaimed "libertarian" is really just a "communist undercover", "doing what communists do". There is no reason not to use standard dictionary definitions unless you want to confuse people and create misunderstandings. The point here is to get the most accurate defintion, necessarily using words according to their true meanings, and requiring as few "pre-definitions" as possible.

The LP is just a small group of people who took on the name of a centuries old movement; they have no inherent right to the title, nor any "claim to authority" nor any pre-supposed "special expertise". I haven't read their pledge, but if it is as you state, then they are pledging not to arrest people for fraud (an "arrest" being "force" for the social goal of protecting society from criminals) nor to oppose an ensconsed tyranny with war ("force" against "threat of force", with the political goal of establishing a libertarian form of government), both of which are permitted under the "l"ibertarian doctine. pat8722 03:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The LP is but one example (the first one I thought to check on) of a libertarian source that clearly includes fraud in their intended meaning of the term force. It's been about 20 years (!) since I've read much libertarian literature, but back then, at least, the intent was quite clear, and consistent with the usage in the LP pledge. Do you have any examples of libertarian literature that excludes fraud from their meaning of force? At any rate, I do agree that the current definition is more clear. --Serge 05:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You have not shown that the Libertarian Party defines "fraud" as "force". We have to take their pledge at "face value", until they tell us they are no longer using the dictionaries that the rest of the world uses (and then they will have to explain "why not", as they will look, at best, like asses). (Do you think they are defining "tyranny" as "force", too, in their definition? How can we know? Would they be meaning to allow the intiation of war against tyrannical goverments? Why wouldn't they just say, explicitly, what they mean, i.e. using standard dictionaries, so that everyone can understand them?) Do they "explain" their non-dictionary meaning of terms before requiring the average man to take their pledge? The distinction betwee "force" and "fraud" is so well documented in libertarian literature (I no longer have my library), that I will let you find your own sources, beyond referring you to the past history of this article, which finds the distinction between force and fraud always clearly being made among the libertarian editors and the readers of wikipedia. To propose that we should not use dictionaries is ABSURD. pat8722 14:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Pat, the use of specialized terminology and jargon within various fields is quite common, and political philosophy is no exception. To insist solely on dictionary definitions would make most technical works unintelligible. I did take a moment to find this: "Some laws, such as those prohibiting murder, rape, robbery, and fraud, are laws against the initiation of force." This is but one example of the type of usage within libertarian writing with which I am familiar, in which the meaning of term force is clearly inclusive of the concept of fraud. Now, how many more examples would you need me to show you before you would concede that many libertarians mean to include "fraud" when they're writing or talking about "initiation of force"? Two? Five? Twenty? One hundred? One thousand? How many? And, again, the issue here is not whether they should, whether it's effective, or any kind of valuation of doing it. The issue is whether that's what many of them mean, or not. --Serge 20:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you can find a thousand people who use the word "fraud" to mean force, as there are SEVERAL BILLION who don't. A definition, to be useful, must use words as the readers use and understand them. I would suggest that those who pervert dictionary defintions have fallen prey to the standard communist techique of destroying the meaning of terms, so that coherent discussion on opposing philosophies is rendered confusing and difficult, such as you are recommending. There is simply no reason NOT to use dictionary definitions the rest of the world uses, IF YOU WANT TO BE UNDERSTOOD. "Specialized terminology and jargon within various fields" are not created so as to lose the basic meaning of words, they are in addition to the dictionary definitions, not inconsistent with them, so there is no comparison here, to what you are proposing.pat8722

You're not even participating in a discussion with anyone other than yourself. Your points would be relevant only if we were discussing the question of whether libertarians should be using the term force to include fraud. I've said from the beginning, and repeated multiple times, that that is not my beef. Our only dispute, so far as I can tell, is about whether many libertarians do use the term in that manner, not about the merits of doing so. You asked for references, and I gave you two, asking how many you need. Now you say even a thousand would not persuade you on this point. You are being obstinate, irrational, and a waste of time. --Serge 23:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Too bad you make me call you a liar. No, I never asked you for references. I stated explicitly, in paragraph 23, "I suppose, given the war going on between the opposing philosophies of communism and libertarianism, and given the standard communist technique of co-opting the opposition and creating confusion by detroying the meaning of terms, you can probably find "libertarian" spokesmen who will say all kinds of false and confused things", just as you are doing. pat8722 00:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I honestly interpreted your words in , The distinction between "force" and "fraud" is so well documented in libertarian literature (I no longer have my library), that I will let you find your own sources, to be you asking for me to find the references. Maybe I misunderstood what you meant here, and stated a falsehood as a result, unintentionally, but I did not lie. --Serge 07:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

What I was doing was telling you to find your own sources for THE CONVERSE. Reread the paragraphs. pat8722 15:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

what does "circular definition" mean?

The initial defining sentence was this:

Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating the right of individuals to be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property as long as it allows others the same liberty.

I changed it to this, to reflect the symmetry of libertarianism within the definition:

Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating the right of individuals to be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property as long as doing so does not violate the rights of others to be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property.

Then Pat8722 changed it back to the above, claiming that "'rights' is an ambiguous term". Now, if the basis for making this revert is because "rights" is an ambiguous term, then why is it okay to use the term "right" ("the right of individuals") in the current version? This makes no sense. It's the same usage, only in plural form. It is no more or less ambiguous. This rejection is based on a red herring, or am I missing something? --Serge 20:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Your proposed defintion is a problem because you are using the word "right" in one part of your definition to define "right" in the other part, in other words, it is circular. You use the word "right" twice. My definition defines the libertarian right in a way that does not use the word it is trying to define. It only uses the word "right" once, as the thing being defined. pat8722 03:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

What??? As you noted in above, for a definition to be circular, the term being defined has to be used in the definition. In both of our versions, we are using the term right, not defining it. The definition is defining libertarianism, not right, nor any other term. And I started a new section on this because it's a separate discussion, about the symmetry (or lack thereof) in the definition, versus what we were discussing here, which is whether the intended meaning by many libertarians of the term force includes fraud. The two topics are hardly even related, and having both discussions in one section is confusing. It's starting to appear that you're emotionally attached to the current wording, and are willing to use any rationalization, no matter how absurd, to reject changes to it. I'm not going to participate in such an irrational and pointless endeavor. --Serge 23:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The definition of "libertarianism" defines what is the meant by the libertarian right. You are using "right" to define "right", so your definition is circular. This section is about how to define "libertarian" accurately, and a circular definition does not do so. pat8722 00:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The second sentence in is based on a false premise: "you are using 'right' to define 'right'". It is a false premise because I'm not defining right. I am using the basic term right to define libertarianism, and arguably, to implicitly define libertarian right, but that is also true of your version. It's not circular, because I'm not using a term to define the same term. If you can't understand something so simple, you probably should not be editing Misplaced Pages articles. I will leave it to you to respond with a rational explanation, or revert back to my version. Thank you. --Serge 07:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

My premise is not false. If you will revert to your basic grammar textbook, you will see that you use "right" as the subject, and then again in the portion of your sentence where you are defining the subject. If you are having difficulty seeing this, try breaking your compound sentence down into it's component parts, i.e. begin one simple sentence with "Libertarianism is a political philosophy" and then state the rest of what you are saying in a series of simple sentences.pat8722 15:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Pat and Serge- The revert war you guys are engaging in does not seem productive. Revert wars rarely are, especially once at least one party seems attached, if not married, to a specific formula to the point of resorting to ad hominem attacks. For example, not to pick on Pat, but I sincerely doubt that Serge is a communist plant intentionally trying to undermine the definition of libertarianism, as seemingly implied by a few prior comments. Let's please stick to the objective of providing a definition that is accurate and broadly understandable.

To the specifics of the current definition, I believe it is still flawed in the sense of being insufficient. I'm surprised that in all the debate about circularity, no-one has considered that the phrase "the same liberty" has no antecedent. Clearly the "right to be free..." needs an additional modifier that "the same liberty" cannot provide. That was the basis for my originally suggesting NOIF as a preferable, and most commonly used method for distinguishing the usual libertarian understanding of that right. As any legal expert will tell you, there is no right absent an enforceable prohibition against infringement of that right. In this case, the prohibition implied by the "right" in the current definition, as commonly understood by libertarians, is against the initiation of force (or fraud, a secondary distinction in my view), as opposed to a prohibition against "heresy" or "exploitation" or any of dozens of other potential interpretations of "rights" that could yield plausible prohibitions in someone's book as providing "the same liberty."

Pat's prior response that such a distinction was unnecessary was belied by the voluminous, if impressive, intellectual gymnastics needed to demonstrate the sufficiency of the current definition. I suggest that if one gets way outside of their own head in looking at what is currently sitting on the page, one can't plausibly conclude that the current definition is sufficient from the perspective of the average reader not steeped in legal or political thought. So, what can we do to get to agreement on an accurate, concise, yet reasonably complete definition?--DocGov 17:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

DocGov I've long given up on attempting to have a rational discussion with pat8722, but I don't think you really need pat's "agreement" for there to be a "consensus" as to what the definition ought to be. How about just reverting to the definition that was used back when the article was awarded featured status? --Matthew Humphreys 17:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Matthew - I agree with your assessment of pat8722's limited capacity for rational discussion, as you can tell from my prior note labeled . I'm not sure what the definition was at the "featured status" time, but I doubt that it will be stable with successive round of manual assaults I've seen on it since last July. I actually don't think the def is too bad right now, if we can clean out the pronouns without antecedents, which Pat continually reintroduces in between his lectures on grammar. It's very frustrating though, speaking to someone who's basically talking to himself--enough to get one to abandon topics like this to the cranks. I hand it to people like RJII who stick it out through what has obviously been many rounds of debates.--DocGov 21:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Pat, you have again reverted a change (this time RJIIs) on the grounds that it is "circular" when it isn't. Contrary to what you claim in , using a term in the subject and in the predicate does not a circular definition make, unless it is the term being defined in the sentence. Look at the sentence I just wrote. Is it a circular definition of the word "a"? According to your argument it is, since I used the term "a" in both the subject and the predicate. Please. --Serge 15:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. You can use a word throughout a sentence, you just can't use it to define itself, such as you have been doing. You were using "right" as both the subject of the sentence and the object of the predicate. As I stated, if you are having trouble seeing how your definition is circular, try breaking your compound sentence down into its component parts, i.e. state what you are trying to state in series of "simple" (I mean in the grammatical sense) sentences. pat8722 18:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I have removed "Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating the right of individuals to be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property as long as the same liberty of others is not infringed." as being CIRCULAR. It uses "liberty" to define "right", i.e. uses substantially the same word to define substantially the same word. I added the below, as hopefully addressing everyone's outstanding concerns.

"Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating the right of individuals to be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property as long it allows others the same liberty. Another way to state this is, Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating the right of individuals to be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long whatever they wish to do with their person or property allows others to do whatever they wish with their person or property, respectively. This includes not initiating, or threatening to initiate, physical force against those who have not violated this doctrine, nor fraud against anyone. Libertarianism has as its predicate that no one wants to be raped, battered, murdered, robbed, or defrauded." pat8722 21:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Pat - I don't get the feeling that you in a conversation. It looks like you are in an argument, mostly with yourself.--DocGov 17:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I have removed "Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating the right of individuals to be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long they limit their action to that which does not infringe on the liberty of others to do whatever they wish with their own person or property. Libertarians specifically define infringing the liberty of others as initiating, or threatening to initiate, the use of physical force against others, or defrauding them" as being CIRCULAR, i.e. it uses "liberty" in the latter part of the sentence to define "right" in the former, i.e. uses substantially the same word to define substantially the same word.pat8722 22:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

That would make sense, Pat, IF this version of the definition of libertarianism also defined right and liberty. But, it does not, so your point is nonsensical. Let me put it this way: You say the version quoted above defines the term right. Fine, what is the definition? You say the version quoted above defines the term liberty. Fine, then you should have no trouble identifying what that definition is. Well? Complete these sentences: According to the above, the definition of right is _________. According to the above, the definition of liberty is ___________. --Serge 05:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The answer for the blanks above is "liberty" and "right", respectively. Please see paragraph 89, where I provide more detail regarding Rhobite's proposed definition, which is equivalent to the above.pat8722 02:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

What does "i.e." mean?

I have removed the statement of "Most libertarians interpret the limit of this common freedom as the point at hich one initiates, or threatens to initiate, physical force or fraud against another, i.e., with force being appropriate only in defense of one's person or property", as being grammatically incorrect. The sentence is grammatically incorrect in that "i.e." is a term used to indicate a restatement of what has previously been stated in the same sentence is about to occur, and is not correctly used to introduce a new concept, such as the aforesaid sentence does. In otherwords, the second part of the sentence is NOT implied by the first part, therefore the use of "i.e." is grammatically incorrect. I have added the grammatically correct derivative libertarian doctrine on force stated as "not initiating, or threatening to initiate, physical force against those who have not violated the libertarian doctrine, nor fraud against anyone". I have re-added the re-statement of the definition "Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating the right of individuals to be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long as whatever they wish to do with their person or property allows others to do whatever they wish with their person or property, respectively" because RJII expresses he is grammatically confused without it, and as it is useful to the reader in understanding the "more elegant" definition which precedes it.pat8722 15:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

What are the rules of basic grammar?

Pat's The intro sentence says: "Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating the right of individuals to be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property as long IT ALLOWS others the same liberty." Am I the only one that sees this obvious grammar problem? I keep fixing it but someone keeps putting it back. It should say: "Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating the right of individuals to be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property as long THEY ALLOW others the same liberty." RJII 02:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

"They" is a pronoun that is used to refer back to the subject of the sentence, "it" is a pronoun used to refer back to the predicate. Use of either pronoun is "standard english", you just needto pick the pronoun that conveys the meaning of the term. "They" doesn't work because it is produces another totally false definition, in that it permits a man to "beat someone up because he is gay" (see paragraph 18 preceding)" provided he is willing to allow that man to also beat HIM up if HE is gay. This is not permitted under libertarianism. So you can't replace the pronoun "it" with "they" - as it totally changes the meaning. pat8722 04:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow. You really don't understand the concept of libertarianism then. The definition means that as long as you don't violate the liberty of someone else, you're allowed to be free. RJII 04:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

RJII, Pat misunderstands much, and he has no business editing this article. Consent, of course, is key to libertarianism. For example, contrary to Pat's claim, there is nothing unlibertarian about a gay boxing match. --Serge 06:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. I think I can come up with a better definition. I'll give it a shot. RJII 06:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

What the current definition eliminates, that RJII's didn't, is the situation where you have a non-gay beating up a gay for his beliefs. We selected a poor choice of words in using the term "beating up" in all of our above paragraphs. We would have been more concise if we had said "battery", which is what we were all meaning to be talking about, not sporting matches. pat8722 13:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

And what you seem unable to comprehend is what philosophically differentiates beating up someone as part of battery and beating up someone as part of a sporting match. It's consent in the latter which is missing in the former. --Serge 15:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

] How about the following? "Libertarianism has as its predicate that no one wants to be raped, battered, murdered, robbed, or defrauded". As this statement is a common agreement among all men, it isn't necessary to defining the term. pat8722 16:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's look at the current definition again:

Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating the right of individuals to be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property as long it allows others the same liberty.

My problem with it is the same as that which DocGov pointed out above in , the same liberty has no antecedent. In other words, it is not clear what is meant by the same liberty. The same liberty as what? This is why I suggested the rewording at the top of this section, to clarify what same liberty. --Serge 17:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no missing antecedent. Here is the less elegant way of stating the same thing. "Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating the right of individuals to be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long whatever they wish to do with their person or property allows others to do whatever they wish with their person or property".

We can agree to disagree on which way is more or less elegant, but I certainly agree that both ways are "stating the same thing". However, now you've got me confused. Do you agree with yourself in where you assert that they are two different ways of saying the same thing, only differing stylistically (in terms of "elegance"), or do you agree with yourself in where you contend that they are substantively different in that one is a circular definition while the other is not? --Serge 19:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Para 34 isn't talking about the subject of para 60. The restated definition in para 60 is not circular, just as the original definition is not circular. pat8722 21:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree it's not circular. I just don't see the substantive difference between my version discussed in 34 (which you say is circular) and this version. At any rate, while your "less elegant" version explains what you mean by "the same liberty" in your "more elegant" version to those of us reading this section, it is not clear in the actual definition posted on the web page. Since you keep reverting everyone else's attempt to fix this, why don't you do it yourself? Thanks. --Serge 22:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Is forbear version readable?

I disagree with Pat about the current version,

Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating the right of individuals to be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property as long as they forbear from preventing others from having the same liberty.

It's got the SAME problem as your first definition, only using a stranger form of speech. See paragraph 43 preceding. You have got to re-study what libertarianism is, as I presume every proposal you make will be a variation on the same false definition.

I do not comment on the below proposals as I do not know what new version you two are going to agree on. Once you have settled on something I will respond to it. pat8722 01:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

He says it doesn't make sense. It makes sense to me. But I don't find it very readable. How's this?

Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating the liberty of individuals to do whatever they wish with their person or property unless doing so conflicts with the liberty of others to do the same with their person or property.

--Serge 00:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. The "with their person or property" could be left out of the second part though. Alternatively, you could say "unless doing so prohibits others from having the same liberty." RJII 00:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought of that. So like this?

Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating the liberty of individuals to do whatever they wish with their person or property unless doing so conflicts with the liberty of others to do the same.

But that does not preclude the absurd but technically just as accurate interpretation that the "same liberty" refers to others doing whatever they wish with the person or property of the "individuals" noted earlier. I haven't been able to find a wording that precludes this possibility without looking redundant (Pat mistakenly calls it circular). --Serge 01:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's look at some of the ways the maxim has been stated in history:

• "Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights." - Marquis de La Fayette in the French Declaration of the Rights of Man, 1789
• "Every man has freedom to do all that he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man." -Herbert Spencer
• "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others." -Thomas Jefferson

RJII 01:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I much prefer the version in proposed by Serge, albeit with two reservations. First, I think the term "liberty" should in both instances read "freedom." I admit that the distinction between terms is fuzzy in the minds of the average reader, but it is adequately explained in the "Principles" section where "Liberty" is defined as a state of "freedom to..." which is also consistent with the historical formulations usefully provided above by RJII.

My second reservation is that I still think the lay reader needs additional delimitation of what is meant by "the same," which I think was a deficiency of the 19th century formulas later rectified by the NOIF idea. This objection seems to have been ignored the first two times I raised it, so let me propose a couple of concretes. How does this definition preclude "the same" as meaning, say, Serge's ability to publish anti-American propoganda? You and I might say this comfortably falls into our equal freedom to use privately owned printing presses or Internet connections any way we please, but most people, including many with whom we share a vote, are perfectly comfortable thinking of certain "offensive" publications as an assault on their sensibilities, one that can be equally prohibited to everyone as certainly as physical force or fraud. Also, how does this definition preclude "the same" as meaning, say, Hillary's ability to spend our money on things we "agree upon" through democratic processes? You and I might say that democratic processes don't trump our freedom to use our own property as we see fit, but most readers don't make that distinction, certainly not when it comes to the boundary between common defense and police powers (i.e., the prevention or punishment of initiated force, which most libertarians support) versus anything else Hillary can dream of.

I appreciate that a purist can argue that these distinctions are inherent in the "equal freedom" ideal. It certainly is as I read it. But I don't believe the average reader can come close to seeing how an undefined "equal freedom" idea really distinguishes classical liberals from modern "liberals," or even modern "conservatives," who also say that everyone should have "equal freedom" or "liberty" delimited by something other than the initiation of physical force or fraud.--DocGov 17:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of Pat8722's definition

Pat8722, ok let's look at what's wrong with what you're putting in. "Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating the right of individuals to be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long it allows others the same liberty. Another way to state this is, "Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating the right of individuals to be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long as whatever they wish to do with their person or property allows others to do whatever they wish with their person or property, respectively." This includes not initiating, or threatening to initiate, physical force against those who have not violated this doctrine, nor fraud against anyone. Libertarianism has as its predicate that no one wants to be raped, battered, murdered, robbed, or defrauded." RJII 03:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• "Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating the right of individuals to be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long it allows others the same liberty." As long as IT allows the same liberty? What does that mean? This is incoherent. It should say as long as THEY allow others the same liberty. The idea is that people should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as they limit what they do to those activities that do not prevent others from doing what they want to do. Or, to say it another way, people should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as THEY allow others the same liberty. RJII 03:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The grammatical use of "it" in the sentence, was explained to you in paragraph 44.1. You have not refuted the accuracy of paragraph 44.1, so you must accept that you "don't understand the basics of good grammar". There is NO EXCUSE for that. I have also shown in paragraph 44.1 that you can't replace "it" with "they" as it lead to a TOTALLY FALSE definition. Again, you have not countered the argument of that paragraph, so you have no point for further dispute over DEFINITION A. pat8722 04:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• "Another way to state this is, "Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating the right of individuals to be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long as whatever they wish to do with their person or property allows others to do whatever they wish with their person or property, respectively." Why say it another way? Why not just say it properly the first time? Besides that, this sentence sounds like it was written like a 5 year old. It's very badly written and very inefficient. What you keep deleting is much more cocherent: "Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating the right of individuals to be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long they limit their action to that which does not infringe on the liberty of others to do whatever they wish with their own person or property." Stop replacing it with your inferior bizarre version. RJII 03:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The reason I state it the second way, , is that you indicate you are grammatically confused when the definition is stated using the "more elegant" language of . If the more elegant language confuses you, it may confuse others, too. It is useful to the less sophisticated reader to substitute for the pronouns, and what we want is for people to understand, so there's no harm in including the second ACCURATE definition. I deleted , because IT IS CIRCULAR, therefore it is not accurate, therefore WE CANNOT USE IT.pat8722 04:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• "Libertarianism has as its predicate that no one wants to be raped, battered, murdered, robbed, or defrauded." What the hell is that? That's incoherent. A person cannot logically WANT to be raped or murdered, because by definition rape and murder are done against a person's will. The sentence is silly and useless. Stop putting in. RJII 03:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I added this last sentence only because Serge expressed confusion over the predicate. Yes, I believe the predicate is obvious, and that it does not need to be stated, but it does no harm to state it. You contradict yourself, by stating that what you claim is "obvious" is "incoherent", as it cannot be both at the same time. I have replaced it with "Libertarianism has as its predicate that no one wants to be physically forced, or threatened with physical force, or defrauded", as being the more common terminology used among libertarians. pat8722 04:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

This version covers everything and is much better and is coherent. Stop deleting it and replacing it with your nonsense:

Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating the right of individuals to be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long they limit their action to that which does not infringe on the liberty of others to do whatever they wish with their own person or property. Libertarians specifically define infringing the liberty of others as initiating, or threatening to initiate, the use of physical force against others or defrauding them.

RJII 03:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

As I stated in paragraph 42.5 your definition is CIRCULAR, therefore it is NOT ACCURATE, therefore IT CANNOT BE USED. To defeat my ACCURATE defintion, you will have to come up with another ACCURATE definition pat8722 04:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It's stylistically awkward to come up with a make believe quote and preface it with "another way to state this..." RJII is correct, we should define libertarianism concisely and correctly. That said, the current lead sentence (in both versions) is much too long. Both versions also have grammatical errors, I fixed the error in RJII's version. Rhobite 03:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It is a grammatically correct use of quotes, to "set off" a re-statement. Such is not a "make believe quote", you just need to understand how quotes are legitimately used. If you have ideas on how to "shorten" sentences or improve grammar, while maintaining the ACCURACY of the defintion, by all means do so. Criticisms without constructive solutions are not helpful. pat8722 04:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Quotation marks indicate the beginning and end of someone else's words. Even if your usage were correct, it is unnecessary. Encyclopedia articles should be written plainly, without creative punctuation. I do understand how quotes are legitimately used, I just looked it up in a writing manual. Aside from the style issue, there is no reason to provide two equivalent definitions in the lead section of an article. Rhobite 04:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The article requires only one accurate definition. But I don't see a problem with two, given that some have evidenced a great deal of confusion in the paragraphs above over what libertarianism IS. Whatever helps them understand, is useful. If you want to delete one of the two ACCURATE definitions, it likely won't result in a revert, as long as you don't replace it with an INACCURATE definition. pat8722 04:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

My use of quote marks is "standard english", not "creative punctuation". Hopefully, some grammarians will respond to the call for help on the Misplaced Pages:Vandalism page, as you have been reverting to circular definitions, which are, of course "nonsense" by definition. pat8722 21:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

:It isn't part of standard English, please check your style guide again. You will find out that quotation marks are only used for indicating the beginning and end of someone's exact words. Other grammar problems: "as long it allows" should be "as long as it allows", and "Libertarianism has as it's predicate" should be "Libertarianism has as its predicate". Anyway, those are beside the point. As several people have explained, the consensus version of the article does not use a circular definition: it doesn't define the concepts of liberty or rights, only the concept of libertarianism. And it's sloppy to have two equivalent definitions in the lead section of an article. For these reasons I am reverting. Rhobite 01:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Please see my response at paragraph 89.pat8722 02:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

pat, I have read this entire discussion (including paragraph 89) and I fail to see how the definition you keep reverting is circular. The original issue about the word "right," which was wasn't totally without merit, has been resolved. rehpotsirhc 23:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on RJII's proposed definition

RJII's proposed definition is: "Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating the right of individuals to be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long they limit their action to that which does not infringe on the liberty of others to do whatever they wish with their own person or property."

Read the definition that you don't like and study it. It appears to me that you don't understand the libertarian maxim. RJII 04:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC) Another thing you may not be getting is what "initiation" of force means. If you initiate force, it means you're the first one to throw the punch. If someone punches you back, they're not initiating force, but responding to your initiation. You're using force proactively, and they're using it reactively (or defensively). Libertarians don't oppose force, per say; they oppose initiation of force. Their position is thatif you initiate force against someone, you're not allowing them to act voluntarily. Likewise, for fraud --if you sell someone a box with a brick in it and tell them you're selling them a DVD player, it's not a morally voluntary transaction --the buyer didn't volunteer to buy a brick, but a a VCR. Libertarians want people to interact on a voluntary basis; initiation physical force, threatening it, or defrauding someone is prohibiting them from acting voluntarily. RJII 04:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I haven't complained about the use of "force" or "initiate" in your definition. As I stated in paragraphs 42.5 and 77, your definition is CIRCULAR. THAT is the problem. Therefore it CANNOT BE USED. pat8722 05:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

You're throwing the term "circular" around without reason. "Circular reasoning" is fallacious, but that's not what this is. It's just a definition of libertarianism. Libertarianism is a doctrine that says each person should be allowed to do as he wills as long as he stops short of preventing another from doing as he wills. If you wan't to call that "circular" fine, but that's what libertarianism is. RJII 05:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

We aren't talking about "circular reasoning", we're talking about "circular definition". If you don't know what "circular definition" is, re-read the section herein titled "what does "circular definition" mean?". A definition is either circular, or it is not. And yours is CIRCULAR, as it uses "liberty" to define "right". pat8722

No it doesn't. RJII 05:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Pat, it defines libertarianism; it does not define right. Since it does not define "right", it cannot be a circular (or any other kind of) definition. See . --Serge 05:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The current lead section is "Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating the right of individuals to be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long as doing so allows others the same liberty. It is based on the premise that to be physically forced, or threatened with physical force, or to be defrauded, is a violation of one's fundamental right to liberty." There is no circular reasoning here - the only word being defined is 'libertarianism' and it is not used to define itself. 'Right', 'free', and 'liberty' are not defined here. If a user wants to read the conventional definition of these words, they can refer to a dictionary. If the user wants to read more about how libertarians understand these concepts, they can read further in the article. I don't see anything wrong with the current lead section, although it would be better if we mentioned the initiation of force. Rhobite 14:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of Rhobite's proposed definition

Rhobite's definition is as follows: "Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating the right of individuals to be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long as they do not infringe on the same liberty of others.". This definition is circular, in that it uses "liberty" to define "right". See the section titled "what does "circular definition" mean?" above. Broken down into its component parts, Rhobite is saying: "Libertarianism is a political philosophy. Under the political philosophy there is a right. This right is the right to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long as they do not infringe on the right of others to do whatever they wish with their person or property." As right is used to define right, it is circular. There is a dependency here, using "right", that cannot be resolved. So I have reverted to my non-circular definition, with the minor grammatical corrections which Rhobite requested. I have not removed the quotes as quotes can be used for "setting off" a word, sentence, or phrase, and do not affect its accuracy, but I would not revert if someone uses a different way to state the same thing, without using the quotes. I only know we can't replace it with a circular definition, which is no definition at all. As this is my third revert for today, and as User talk:William M. Connolley and his friends will not permit me to revert vandalism occuring in the form of "nonsense" (which is what a "circular definition" is) until the debate at Misplaced Pages talk:Vandalism is settled, I presume we will have to suffer with "no real definition" for the next 24 hours, if rhobite again replaces the undisputedly accurate definition with his circular one.pat8722 02:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Pat writes, "Rhobite is saying: ... 'This right is the right to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long as they do not infringe on the right of others to do whatever they wish with their person or property.'" Not quite. What Rhobite (and all of us) are saying is more accurately paraphrased as, "this libertarian right is the right to do ..., as long as they do not infringe on the right of others ...". In other words, the specific term libertarian right is being defined in terms of the general term right, and there is nothing circular about that. This method to define specific meanings for terms in particular contexts in terms of the more general meanings is used all the time in all kinds of fields, even in dictionaries. Your reverting on this feeble basis needs to stop. --Serge 18:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

You are using "right" to define "right", and there is no excuse for your failing to acknowledge that. I have placed in a call for help on the talk:grammar page. The definition is CIRCULAR. pat8722 18:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't say what you are saying it says. It doesn't say "as long as they do not infringe on the RIGHT of others..." It says "as long as they do not infringe on the same LIBERTY" as others. "Liberty" and "right" are not synonymous. It is saying an individual should have the right to do what he wants with his person or property as long as he allows everyone else the same liberty.." What liberty? The liberty to do what they want with their person or property --not the RIGHT to do what they want. See? RJII 02:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Where you err is in saying he is not using "liberty" as a synonym for "right". Sorry, RJII, but in the "definition", "liberty" is used as a synonym for "right". So, the definition is CIRCULAR. pat8722 17:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Because the lead section doesn't define "right" or "liberty", there is no problem with circular definitions. Since RJII removed the word "right", do you have any more objections, Pat? Rhobite 04:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The definition of libertarian defines what is the libertarian right. Please read pararaph 89 preceding, and the paragraph entitled "what does 'circular definition' mean?". If, as has been suggested there, you try to break your compound sentence down into it's component parts, you will see you are using "right" to define "right", so the "definition" can't be used, as it really isn't a definition at all.pat8722 17:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Your analysis is flawed. There is nothing circular about using the meaning of the term right to define the meaning of the libertarian right concept. --Serge 18:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

You are using "right" to define "right". Predicating the first occurance of the word "right" with libertarian, doesn't change that. Try writing your sentence in a way that substitutes for the word "right" with the actual "right" you are trying to talk about.pat8722 18:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Let's look at the definition in question in this section: "Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating the right of individuals to be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long as they do not infringe on the same liberty of others." Now, in this case the term right, alone, means "prerogative". So we can substitute... "Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating the prerogative of individuals to be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long as they do not infringe on the same prerogative of others." Note that while we are using prerogative twice, we are not defining the term itself. When you substitute these words with their close synonyms, right and/or liberty, the meaning is not affected, nor does it become circular. --Serge 20:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Now you are just using prerogative to define prerogative. Compare your definition to mine in the "Discussion of Pat8722's definition" above; in mine, there is no confusion about what "right" or "liberty" or "prerogative" means, as the thing is being defined.pat8722 21:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not defining prerogative (or liberty or right). These terms are already defined - in any dictionary. What we are defining is libertarianism, and, perhaps, the related concept of a libertarian right. Using the dictionary definitions of right, liberty, prerogative and the for that matter, does not make it a circular definition. Either you're playing dumb, or you are dumb. In either case, the fact that you can find no one who agrees with you should tell you something. Stop vandalizing the libertarianism page by replacing the introduction accepted by consensus (except for you) with one that has been rejected by consensus (except for you), or you will be reported, again. --Serge 22:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

And why don't you look up fire truck in the dictionary. Gee, it's a truck that is used to carry firefighters. Is that a circular defintion? Using fire and truck to define fire truck??? What nonsense! --Serge 22:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The definition of libertarianism defines what is the libertarian right. So you can't use "right" or its synonyms, to define right. My definition defines the libertarian right, yous is CIRCULAR, therefore it doesn't. Yours is nonsense, as all circular definitions are. Do you have highschool english teacher you can contact? We do not have a consensus, we a have a revert war in which the "circular" people hold the majority. In such a circumstance, nonsense is being permitted on the Libertarian page, only because there are some administrators who refuse to apply the policy to those who are putting "nonsense" into an article in the form of a "circular definition", even though the vandalism policy is clear, that "nonsense" is vandalism.pat8722 23:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The word "right" does not appear in the consensus introduction. The closest thing to a synonim for "right" which appears is "liberty", but at no point does the consensus intro define "liberty" in terms of "liberty". Please clarify what you mean because you're not making sense to anyone here (it would seem). Cadr 23:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

(I'm talking about the most recent consensus intro; previously the word "right" did appear, though the definition was still not circular.) Cadr 23:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

This is explained at paragraph 89.pat8722 23:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It isn't, because is talking about an earlier revision of the consensus intro with a different wording (as you would have noticed if you'd read my previous comment!). In any case, the older revision did not "define 'right' using 'liberty'", it just used the words "right" and "liberty" in the definition. Get a grip. Cadr 23:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what Pat's talking about any more. Despite the fact that he's wrong about circular definitions, the intro has been changed to address his complaints. Yet he's still complaining about the old version of the intro, while reverting the new one. I don't think Pat will be happy with any intro unless he is the one clicking the save page button. Rhobite 00:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The present definition in the article is: Libertarianism is a philosophy advocating that individuals should be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long as they do not infringe on the same liberty of others. In order to understand what this sentence is saying, we need to know what "same liberty" means. At paragraph 89, I break the sentence down into its component parts, substituting for "the same libery", what is meant by "the same liberty". If you believe my substitution was wrong, then please do your own substitution for the words "the same liberty". The sentence as it stands does not define the libertarian right (i.e. libertarianism), because it permits anything to be the "right", because it is using "right" to define "right". In other words under the present "definition", A can batter B if B is gay, provided A is willing to let B batter A,if A is gay. This is not permitted under libertarianism, so the present definition doesn't work.pat8722 21:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Once again, it does not use the word "right"! Could you please read the current lead section before reverting it? Rhobite 21:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

As I explained at paragraph 105, your proposed definition implies the word "right". If you do not believe so, substitute for what you mean by "the same liberty" in your sentence, i.e. WHAT "SAME LIBERTY"? Every "definition" you propose allows A to batter B if B is gay, provided A is willing to let B batter A,if A is gay. Do you agree that that is not permitted under libertarianism? For if you do agree, the you agree that your "definition" does not accurately define libertarianism, so why do you keep trying to install it? pat8722 21:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course these definitions allow A to batter B if B is gay, assuming B also initiated force on A or someone else, and battering is appropriate retaliation (say B is battering C, and battering B is the only way to get him to stop). Whether B is gay is irrelevant, of course. If you mean to imply that these definitions allow A to batter B simply because B is gay, that's utter nonsense (though not vandalism necessarily). --Serge 22:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

But the definition, as it's stated, doesn't assume or require that the beating be in retaliation only. So that means it does NOT DEFINE LIBERTARIANISM. pat8722 00:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

To answer your "What same liberty?" question... the same liberty is the freedom to do whatever one wishes with his person or property that does not interfere with the "same liberty" of others. It's not a circular definition, it's a recursive definition, which is perfectly valid linguistically (look it up). --Serge 23:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Same problem as described in paragraph 107, and you are again using a circular definition to define "same liberty", so IT DOESN'T WORK.pat8722 00:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Pat, for some reason I keep giving you the benefit of the doubt, that you're not being disingenuous or playing dumb; that you really believe the statements you're posting. But I'm going to try to explain this one more time. If you don't get it this time, I'm going to have to assume you're either not being honest, or you are really stupid. Here it goes.

]A circular definition is one that uses the term it is defining in the definition itself. The current definition of libertarianism does not do this, since it does not use the term libertarianism in defining libertarianism. In particular, it does not define "same liberty". The definition of "same" is assumed to be known, as is the definition of "liberty". In this case, "same liberty" is simply a reference to the liberty noted earlier: the freedom to do whatever one wishes with his person or property. No matter how many times you say it is circular does not make it so. --Serge 06:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I showed how the present definition is circular commencing with paragraph 89 above. Actually, it may have been better to say it is "missing an antecedent" to "the same liberty". I never said it was using "libertarianism" to define "libertarianism", I said it was using "right" to define "right", which circular definition you created by using a compound sentence in the definition of "Libertarianism". Let's see if I understand your above substitution. In paragarph 111a above, are you saying "Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating the right of individuals to be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long as they do not infringe on the same liberty of others" should be interpreted as saying ""Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating the right of individuals to be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long as they do not infringe on the ability of others to do whatever they wish with their person or property"? This latter definition/substitution does not use "right" to define "right", or any of its synonyms, so it is not circular. If I have not understood you correctly, then produce a sentence that you believe defines "libertarianims" in a way that substitutes for the phrase "the same liberty" with whatever you mean by "the same liberty". If you do not answer this within 24 hours(which you won't be able to do, as you depend on circularity), then I will, of course, revert, as your sentence is grammatically incorrect (nonsense), as missing the antecedent to "the same liberty", resulting in "circularity". See ] for a very good explanation of "circular definition". You must also answer the averment of paragraph 107 - do you believe the present "definition" permits "A to batter B if B is gay, provided A is willing to let B batter A,if A is gay?" Do you agree that that is not permitted under libertarianism?pat8722 14:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, 24 hours is too much time to permit a CIRCULAR definition, with a MISSING ANTECENT, and which is FALSE, to remain, i.e. NONSENSE. So until you respond to paragraph 113, I will continue to revert. I remind you that the definition I revert to has not been shown to false.pat8722 16:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Please read other people's comments. You said: " for the phrase 'the same liberty' with whatever you mean by "the same liberty". In his previous comment, Serge suggested the phrase "the freedom to do whatever one wishes with his person or property" as a substitute. It's impossible to have a discussion with you when you just don't seem to be listening. Cadr 18:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

see paragraph below. pat8722 17:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Pat8722: violating 3rr with less than 3 reverts

This is a warning to pat8722. The Three revert rule states: "This does not imply that reverting three times or fewer is acceptable. In excessive cases, people can be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day." If you revert again, I, for one, will report your for edit warring AND disruption. Before you make a controversial change on any Misplaced Pages page, no matter how right you may be, you need to provide a compelling argument on the Talk page. And the argument has to be compelling to others, not just to you. --Serge 06:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

See paragraph 113, above, all my reverts have been reverts of vandalism, i.e. removing grammatical "nonsense", and I justify my reverts before I make them. We will see how Serge responds to paragraph 113, as he threatened me with blocking for so reason. See also ongoing discussion at wikipedia: vandalism talk page. pat8722 14:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

pat, from what I've seen, virtually everyone on Misplaced Pages except you seems to be of the opinion that a) You're mistaken about definition of Libertarianism on this page being circular and b) Your accusations of vandalism and edits to policy pages are out of line. Doesn't this tell you something? --rehpotsirhc 14:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Whether something is "circular" or not, or "missing an antecedent", or not, is not a matter of voting on it. It is an objective criteria. There have been only a handful of (non-grammarians) asserting that nonsense in the form of a "circular definition", is not "nonsense", and they have no support in a literal interpretation of the text on the current wiki vandalism page. What is going on here is a knowing attempt to keep the definition of libertarianism off the libertarianism page. Please read paragraph 113 above and CONTRIBUTE CONSTRUCTIVELY, by meeting the MERITS of the argument which alleged merits of your own.pat8722 14:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to "meet the merts" of your argument, as it consists of little but the assertion (usually in all caps) that everyone except you is vandalizing the article. I can see this is probably going to have to go to an user conduct RfC. --rehpotsirhc 15:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph 113 is SPECIFIC as to the substantive issue, and you speak in GENERALITIES and make mere allegations. You would be contributing CONSTRUCTIVELY if you responded with "what you believe to be the antecedent to 'the same liberty', and whether or not you believe I have selected the correct antecedent when I susbstituted for "the same liberty" in paragraph 113, with what looks like may have been intended by "the same liberty". (It's not possible to know for sure under the present "definition", as that is what "missing antecedent" means) You also should read ] to see whether you understand what "circular definition" means. You are the one merely making "allegations", I have come up with concrete arguments for you to refute. I await your response following paragraph 113 above.pat8722 15:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

rehpotsirhc's proposed definition

pat8722's reference point is here.pat8722 17:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

This has been explained to you ad nauseam, but I guess it won't hurt to paste it again--maybe the 6th time's the charm. The antecedent to "the same liberty" in the intro is: "the freedom to do whatever wish with their person or property." e.g. Libertarianism advocates that people be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property as long as they do not intefere with others being free to do whatever they wish with their person or property. The word Libertarianism is the subject of the sentence. Here's where it was explained to you in the section above:

   A circular definition is one that uses the term it is defining in the definition itself. The   
   current definition of libertarianism does not do this, since it does not use the term 
   libertarianism in defining libertarianism. In particular, it does not define "same liberty".          
   The definition of "same" is assumed to be known, as is the definition of "liberty". In 
   this case, "same liberty" is simply a reference to the liberty noted earlier: the freedom to do 
   whatever one wishes with his person or property. No matter how many times you say it is circular 
   does not make it so. --Serge 06:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

You responded by referring Serge to one of your previous paragraphs, where you asserted that the definition is circular because "right," (or liberty/freedom) is used to define "right." But this is addressed in Serge's statement-- see the bolded text. You are simply restating your assertions in the face of compelling explanation. I am not trying to demean or insult you, but you should know that the capslock emphasis you are using is giving you a certain a cracked, uninghed air that is not helping your already flimsy case. --rehpotsirhc 20:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

You supplied, at reference point above, for the missing antecedent, apparently without even knowing what a missing antecedent is (having cited Serge's nonsense in boxed and bolded text.) If you can get the others to agree with you that what you have stated at Reference Point above, is what the others intended to state at paragraph 89 (i.e. in their heads, the equivalent), then one MAJOR problem is resolved. But as I think they deliberately intend to keep the definition of libertarianism off this page (by using circular definitions and missing antecedents and overt falsehoods), I think it is very unlikely that they will agree to use your definition, where you correct the missing antedent/circular problem. "But if they do agree (which would GREATLY surprise me), then we could move on to the next problem. You will then need to define what is meant by "interferring with". In otherwords, as it presently stands, it is a false definition, as if A tells B that "if B is going to rent his property to Catholics", A will not let B advertise in A's newspaper, and B has no other newspaper he can advertise in, so B decides not to rent to Catholics, A has "interferred with" B's "being free" to what he wanted to do with his property, but this type of "interference" is permitted under libertarianism. My definition of libertarianism in paragraph 89 covers this situation, by use of the word "allow". So my definition is accurate and yours, as its stands, is not. You can try to make up for the deficit of your definition by defining what you mean by "interferring with", but why not just use the very simple, elegant definition of paragarph 72, which says everything in only a single sentence, and which requires no predefinitions?

(As one of MANY examples of serge's malice, I point you to paragraph 109, where he again OBVIOUSLY uses a circular definition to define "same liberty", instead of coming up with a definition which substitutes for "the same liberty". It is clear that he knows what he is doing in using circular definitions, i.e. nonsense words, as his acts have been deliberate, so his acts of substituting a circular definition for a real definition is this article has been vandalism under every sense of the term, so he will not agree to any effort you make to correct the circularity.)pat8722 17:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't need to get anyone else endorse my explanation. I have simply explained the consensus definition to you. The "missing antecedent" seems to be obvious to everyone except you.

The use of the word "interfere" was an example of imprecise language on my part, as you've aptly pointed out. But I was paraphrasing the consensus definition--it doesn't actually contain the word "interfere." Also, please assume good faith on the part of Serge and other editors. --rehpotsirhc 18:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

"Infringe" has the same problem as "interfere", it needs to be definied, so the point of paragraph 210 still stands. If you believe you merely "paraphrased" rhobite's definition, then both serge and rhobite should agree to your version. I predict they won't agree however, because rhobite's definition is not saying the same thing as yours, rhobites it circular and yours is not, and rhobite and serge want a non-definition (which all circular definitions are) in this article, not a definition.pat8722 01:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Pat, on top of everything else, you are now confusing rehpotsirhc with Rhobite. More importantly, you are engaged in an Edit war with several of us. I suggest you refer to Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes before you make any more changes to this article. You have convinced yourself, but no one else, that the current so-called consensus version is "circular". It is your opinion that it is circular, and it is not the opinion of anyone else. Further, despite your apparent opinion to the contrary, you have not presented a persuasive logical argument demonstrating that it is circular. That should be your focus, not an edit war. --Serge 18:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

My point about circularity has been made, and you have not answered it. You have been asked to subsitute for "the same liberty" in your sentence what you mean by "the same liberty". Rehpotsirhc tried to do it for you at reference point 207. But you use only beligerence and evasiveness, rather than reasoned argument in your responses. Do you agree with rehposirchc substitution at reference point 207? If you do, then we have achieved partial consensus on one point of rhobite's proposed definition, if you do not, then you must explain why not.pat8722 01:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Your point about circularity has been made in your mind only. To everyone else, it is unintelligible. You're either a fool, or you're playing a fool. Either way, you're a huge a disruption and waste of time, and you have no business continuing here. Produce an intelligible logical argument clearly specifying your position and defending it, or go away. But either way, stop messing with the main article until you achieve consensus. --Serge 03:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Like I said at paragarph 216, "you use only beligerence and evasiveness, rather than reasoned argument in your responses". You will need to answer the questions at paragraph 216. The only possible consensus would require use of what rehpotsirhc believes is merely a "restatement" (paragraph 207) of the definition at paragraph 89, which latter you are favoring. 207 is not actually a restatement of 89, as 89 is circular (i.e. nonsense, therefore it can't be fixed), and 207 is not circular (i.e. it's rational). If you agree with repotsirhc that 207 is merely a restatement of 89, then we have a consensus that would allow us to proceed to the additional problem stated in paragraph 210.pat8722 15:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

pat--I did not propose a new definition here. I simply explained the existing consensus definition to you. I consider what I pasted to be self-evident upon a casual reading of the text. --rehpotsirhc 03:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually rehpotsirhc, you DID propose a new definition, as yours is not circular (i.e. not grammatically nonsense), and the one you replaced was. A circular definition is not a definition. See ] for a good explanation of "circular definition". You got rid of the circularity problem without understanding the concept. The two sentences definitely are not the same (and that is why Serge objects to yours).pat8722 15:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Where did Serge object to my characterization of the consensus definition? You seem to be confused. Please stop reverting the article. --rehpotsirhc 22:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

A vote does not achieve a consensus. Paragraph 210 is awaiting a response which meets the substance of the averments. Your proposed definition at paragraph reference point 207 above is the first step towards achieving consensus, but that would require the others to answer as to whether they consider your proposed definition the equivalent of the circular definition they favor (which it isn't). They don't answer the questions because they are seeking to vandalize this article with a non-definition.pat8722 17:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Fact 1: I did not propose a new definition.

Fact 2: The definition is not circular by any stretch of the imagination, as I explained to you at the beginning of this section.

Fact 3: The only person who has a problem with the current definition is you. --rehpotsirhc 17:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

If the others agree that you did not propose a new definition, then we will have finally arrived at a consensus version, providing the remaining problems are fixed, commencing with the problem identified at paragraph 210 (with the problem being with the word "infringe" not "interfere", as "infringe" seems to be the word preferred by the others. See paragraph 214pat8722

Luckily for us, infringe and interfere are not synonyms. infringe is much more precise. I think the various dictionary definitions perform excellently.

From WordNet:

    v 1: go against, as of rules and laws; "He ran afould of the
      law"; "This behavior conflicts with our rules" [syn: conflict,
      run afoul, contravene]

From Webster:

      1. To break, violate, or transgress some contract, rule, or
       law; to injure; to offend.

BTW, if we've "finally arrived" at a consensus definition (which, oddly enough, would be exactly the same as the stable definition on the article before you showed up and started unilaterally changing it) then why do you persist in reverting? --rehpotsirhc 18:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

But the "infringement" described at paragraph 210 is permitted under libertarianism, and the present "definition" excludes it, so that is the identified problem you must address. "Infringement" means "encroach" (New Websters Dictionary, 2005 Edition, Weston Florida), which the present "definition" excludes, but which is permitted under "libertarianism", for which you were given an example in paragraph 210. As I already explained, I revert because the existing "definition" does NOT say the same thing as your proposed definition, which everyone but you seems to know, as no one else has agreed to use your definition, or that your definition is the equivalent.pat8722 18:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

pat, let's get one thing straight first: Your assertion that "everyone but you seems to know as no one else has agreed to use your definition" is disingenuous and silly. Your are the one who labeled this section "rehpotsirhc's proposed definition" -- indeed, you're the only one who seems to think I have proposed a new definition. About 5 people are having to constantly undo your reverting. Few are arguing with you any more because they have simply burned a long time ago out after typing thousands of words of text to counter your baffling arguments on this page. The idea that anyone is endorsing your bizzare view of things with their silence is totally preposterous. I'm not saying this as rhetoric or as an insult, but I beginning to have doubts about either your sanity or your sincerity.

Well, if they thought your definition was the same, we could use it to approach a consensus. Their silence would indicate they do not believe it is the same, and it isn't.pat8722 00:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The difference between interefere and infringe is that interfere means "to come between as a hinderance or obstancle." So I granted that, at least in the stark and hyper-literal world you seem to inhabit, my use of the word interfere fails your test. Infringe is not a synonym of interfere, however--they're two different words. It is implicit in the use of infringe (or encroach) that the thing you are acting in opposition to is something you are committed to in some manner--an agreement, contract, or indeed, someone else's rights. If someone mugs you in the street, you can interfere with his efforts, but you can't infringe on them. I really hope you reply to this with "Ok, I got it, thanks for the explanation, I'll stop the reverting" but somehow I doubt it. --rehpotsirhc 02:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You are arguing about something totally irrelevant. Never did I state that "interfere" and "infringe" are synonyms, I just said they present the same relative problem as used in your proposed definition. Both terms permit the scenerio described in paragraph 210 (i.e. if you substitute one word for the other, as you want to do), so your proposed definition is still false.pat8722 00:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Pat, since your name has 3 letters, starts with a P, ends with a T, and has an A in the middle your definition is false. Stop reverting to it until you show your reasoning based on irrelevant points like references to non-existent proposed definitions is more sound than the one I just presented. --Serge 00:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

You'll have to respond to paragraph 222. Your unilateral reversions are prohibited under wiki policy.pat8722 00:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Libertarianism != liberty

"Such critics may argue that the libertarian definition of 'freedom' (as visualized in the Nolan Chart) is flawed because it ignores the effects that powerlessness and poverty have on liberty."

^^ The principal problem of libertarianism. Under libertarianism, there is right to life or liberty because there is no welfare state. That idea should be eloborated in the article.

Masterhomer 01:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on a wikibook which is very libertarian in spirit and I am trying to recruit some talented writers to bring this very exciting project to fruition. To learn more about the project, check out . It proposes a system of government entirely devoid of government institutions! --Wikitopian 00:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Spurious footnotes

Pat, why do you keep putting these meaningless {ref} tags in? They go nowhere. If they are meant to refer to an actual footnote, please insert such. -- Calion | Talk 17:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Calion, I've just been using "cut and paste", not meaning to re-introduce the spurious footnote. Thanks for taking the time to delete what we have all been unintentionally re-introducing. pat8722 18:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph numbers

I have a feeling I'm wandering into a hornet's nest here, but can I ask why Pat8722 is numbering every paragraph? This is not the convention on any other Misplaced Pages talk page.. It doesn't seem to serve any purpose, and I'm not sure what happens if you post a reply in an earlier section.. do you use decimals? Letters? Could you refrain from inserting these numbers and reordering sections, please? Rhobite 03:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The numbers serve the useful purpose of letting us refer back to prior comments, so we don't have to be copying the paragraphs each time we refer to them. If you want to insert another paragraph, it would be helpful if you would use decimals in sequential order if you are entering into the ongoing debate about the definition. pat8722 03:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

This is supposed to be an informal discussion, not a courtroom. Please try to follow talk page conventions in the future. Rhobite 04:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

How many reverts does he have now? 6? Unfortunately when I report people for 3RR I get banned. Maybe someone else can do the honors. RJII 04:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

To paraphrase something once said about Goethe: When reading Pat8722's posts I sometimes have the paralyzing suspicion that he is trying to be funny. Levi P. 07:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Slur on conservatives

(I am inexperienced, please forgive/correct any violation of protocol.) To say that conservatives "typically allow or even encourage" ... "discrimination on a basis unrelated to the ability to do the job" is a ridiculous statement and should be removed. It certainly undermines the objectivity of the article. Neil 7 April 2006

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Misplaced Pages is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Misplaced Pages community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. --FOo 06:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I also agree and was stunned to see this printed in the article! Perhaps a "neutrality dispute" tag showed be displayed on the top of the page.

It should say "conservatives typically allow or even encourage discrimination without requiring that the employer prove to a third party that the discrimination is related to the ability to do the job", which is not the same thing at all (although critics will argue that it amounts to the same thing in practice). - Nat Krause 06:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Remove context tag?

Here is the current version of the intro:

Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating that individuals should be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long as they do not infringe on the same liberty of others. Libertarians hold as a fundamental maxim that all human interaction should be voluntary and consensual. They maintain that the initiation of physical force against another person or his property, the threat of initiating it, or the commission of fraud against any person, is a violation of that principle. Force used against others is considered by libertarians to be illegitimate except in retaliation for initiatory aggressions.

The purpose of the context tag is to bring attention to the introduction, "The introduction to this article provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter." Can we remove the context tag on this article now? --Serge 04:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

We don't have a settled intro yet. You keep putting CIRCULAR definitions there, which can't abide. See "the most accurate definition should be used" section above.pat8722 21:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Which definition? - PLEASE VOTE

A

Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating that individuals should be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long as they do not infringe on the same liberty of others. Libertarians hold as a fundamental maxim that all human interaction should be voluntary and consensual. They maintain that the initiation of physical force against another person or his property, the threat of initiating it, or the commission of fraud against any person, is a violation of that principle. Force used against others is considered by libertarians to be illegitimate except in retaliation for initiatory aggressions.

B

Libertarianism is a moral and political philosophy under which the individual is free to do whatever he wishes with his person or property, as long as it allows others the same liberty. Another way to state this is, "Libertarianism is a moral and political philosophy under which the individual is free to do whatever he wishes with his person or property, as long as whatever he wishes to do with his person or property allows all others to do whatever they wish with their person or property, respectively." This includes not initiating, or threatening to initiate, physical force against those who have not violated this doctrine, nor fraud against anyone. Libertarianism has as its predicate that no one want to be physically forced, or threatened with physical force, or defrauded.

Please indicate in the Voting section below whether you prefer A or B above, and sign with ~~~~. --Serge 23:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Discussion/Comments

• I prefer A because some of the language in B is conversational. For example, "Another way to state this is ..." and "Libertarianism has as its predicate ...". The entire final sentence, "Libertarianism has as its predicate that no one want to be physically forced, or threatened with physical force, or defrauded." is bordering on violating WP:NOR (since it's an unpublished concept). In short, B is not as polished as is A. --Serge 00:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• B is just plain ridiculous. RJII 00:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• The intros proposed are too short. According to WP:LEAD, an article that size should at least have a 3 paragraphs intro. CG 11:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Okay. I have some ideas on how to build on the first paragraph in the intro, but for now we're trying to achieve consensus on the definition of libertarianism introduced in the first paragraph of the intro, primarily to put an end to a revert war. A couple more paragraphs expanding on the definition of the first paragraph would be appropriate. --Serge 14:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Pat started reverting again.. maybe a user conduct RFC would be appropriate soon? Rhobite 21:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

See paragraph 107 preceding. You've got to address the substantive content of the allegations which prove that your proposed definition DOES NOT AT ALL DEFINE LIBERTARIANISM.pat8722 22:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Voting in favor of A

1. A rehpotsirhc 02:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
2. A Serge 23:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
3. A Cadr 23:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
4. A RJII 00:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
5. A Rhobite 00:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Voting in favor of B

voting is not acheiving a consensus

The MERITS of the issues must be discussed. Rhobites definition is FALSE for the reasons stated at "Discussion of Rhobite's proposed definition" preceding, see particularly paragraph 107. See also wikipedia: voting is evil.pat8722 22:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

This was a poll, not a vote. You might want to familiarize yourself with Supermajority. rehpotsirhc 22:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

But this brings us back to what "nonsense" means. Supermajority states the equivalent of "A Supermajority poll is a process for attempting to ascertain if a consensus exists when it is clear that a consensus does not exist." Under the rules of basic logic, that is "nonsense". And nonsense is still vandalism, according to the wikipedia: vandalism page. So the Supermajority page is forbidden by the wikipedia: vandalism page (as is should be). But I am finding quite a few such contradictions in wikipedia, which goes to show "rules of process" are badly needed. There's no substitute for using basic logic. and the Supermajority page specifically says you are NOT to cite it as policy, as it is only someone's PROPOSAL for policy (an absurd one). pat8722 22:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Logic is only as good as the premises are upon which it is based. --Serge 22:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

pat, allow me address the issues you've raised. First of all, the supermajority page says "A Misplaced Pages Supermajority poll is a process for attempting to ascertain if a consensus exists when it is clear that a true consensus can not be achieved within a reasonable length of time." I don't blame you for getting confused--that's a bad piece of prose. What it means is that when the normal process of consensus has broken down, as it has in this case, a supermajority poll can be used to determine whether a rough consensus has been reached.

As for the Supermajority page not being policy, you are quite right. It is not policy and I did not cite it as such. I cited it as a concept in consensus-building (along with straw polls) that, in my opinion, you should familiarize yourself with. --rehpotsirhc 00:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Expanding the intro

I'm considering moving the two paragraphs from the Anarcho-capitalism and Minarchism subsection up into the intro, to follow the definition paragraph. They can be refined after the move of course, but unless there is objection posted here, I'm going to go ahead and move them. I think this will help round out the intro. Here are the two paragraphs as they currently stand:

Most who self-identify as libertarians are minarchists, i.e., supportive of minimal taxation as a "necessary evil" for the limited purpose of funding public institutions that would protect civil liberties and property rights, including police, armed forces, with no conscription, and judicial courts. Anarcho-capitalists, by contrast, oppose all taxation, rejecting any government claim for a monopoly of protection as unnecessary. They wish to keep the government out of matters of justice and protection, preferring to delegate these issues to private groups. Anarcho-capitalists argue that the minarchist belief that any monopoly on coercion can be contained within any reasonable limits is unrealistic, and that institutionalized coercion on any scale is counterproductive.

With the exception of some true anarchists and orthodox Objectivists, the policy positions of minarchists and anarcho-capitalists on mainstream issues tend to be indistinguishable as both sets of libertarians believe that existing governments are too intrusive. Some libertarian philosophers such as Tibor R. Machan argue that, properly understood, minarchism and anarcho-capitalism are not in contradiction.

--Serge 23:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The navigational templates

The two navigational templates at the top of the article are not 100% different and they share some links. Could someone merge them, or modify them in order to justify the huge space they're taking? CG 16:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Political philosophy?

The following note was posted as an "invisible" <ref> by Irgendwer in the text of the article. I'm moving it here because it's kind of long and makes the text difficult to read. --Serge 18:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Libertarianism as a political philosophy is a misleading or wrong term. The domain of political philosphy is the study of the state the "monopoly of legitimate coercion" (William. P. Baumgarth: HAYEK AND POLITICAL ORDER: THE RULE OF LAW, in Journal of Libertarian Studies). The "moral doctrin" of libertarainism is just the reverse.

It is as Leo Zaibert writes (in TOWARD META-POLITICS, JLS): "In the broad discipline that studies the relationship between the state and the individual—surely a plausible, almost innocuous suggestion—then Robert Nozick’s remark to the effect that “the fundamental question of political philosophy, one that precedes questions about how the state should be organized, is whether there should be any state at all” becomes immediately appealing. To be precise, however, we should note that this question does not really belong to political philosophy; rather, political philosophy presupposes an (affirmative) answer to this meta-political question."

On its loose definition, ethics, social choice theory, welfare economics, jurisprudence, and bits of game theory will all, at one time or another, turn out to be vital parts of political philosophy. Many people adopt this definition advisedly, to produce this broad result. (A. de Jasay: FROGS’ LEGS, SHARED ENDS and THE RATIONALITY OF POLITICS, JLS)

So it seems by common use of terms that libertarianism must be political in any direction. This is completely wrong, even though some libertarians in their application try to make political results in respect of minimal state, libertarain parties, or property or natural rights theory.

Discussion

We had a large discussion about this a while ago, and the talk page consensus was that libertarianism should be described as a political philosophy. You may want to search through the archives to read up on this discussion. Rhobite 21:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Quoting User:Harry491:

Libertarianism is the first of several examples of a political philosophyon this professor's course page. About.com defines libertarianism as a political philosophy here. A libertarian web publication calls libertarianism a "political philosophy. The Los Angeles Times calls libertarianism a political philosophy. Encarta defines libertarianism as "political philosophy emphasizing the rights of the individual." Dave (talk) 12:30, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC) (Talk:Libertarianism/Alfrem)

My view: Libertarianism is a moral system which attempts to define the role of government. So it is a political philosophy. Please read that old discussion before rehashing this argument. Rhobite 03:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not think it is useful to describe a view as "a philosophy". This is a loose use of the word philosophy, and is more in accord with casual conversation ("Well, my philosophy on life is ...") than with the academic discipline of philosophy (including political philosophy).

Consider the opening lines of several of our articles on philosophical viewpoints:

"Existentialism is a philosophical movement that views human existence as having a set of underlying themes and characteristics ...."

"In philosophy, moral relativism takes the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect absolute and universal moral truths ..."

"In the philosophy of mathematics, intuitionism ... is an approach to mathematics as the constructive mental activity of humans."

These positions or viewpoints are not described as "philosophies" -- but as movements, positions, approaches, and so on; within the subject matter or discipline known as "philosophy". Likewise, most articles on political ideas, ideologies, and forms of rule describe them as such, not as "philosophies":

"Social democracy is a political ideology that emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries from supporters of Marxism."

"Democracy ... is a form of government where the population of a society controls the government."

"Republicanism is the idea of a nation being governed as a republic."

There is a certain casual, unacademic use of the word "philosophy" which takes it to mean "a belief" or "a doctrine": "My philosophy is, live and let live." "Well, my philosophy is, life is like a box of chocolates." "And my philosophy is, don't drive faster than your guardian angel can fly. This casual usage has little or nothing to do with philosophy, the discipline from which we get ideas such as ethics and epistemology. It is also quite inappropriate for an encyclopedia article that really does need to make reference to ideas from the discipline of philosophy.

I suggest that we should describe political positions or views as just that. Libertarianism is a political position, or a range of related political positions. This position is often defended or associated with certain ideas taken from political and legal philosophy, such as self-ownership, natural rights, constitutional government, and contract. However, libertarianism is not itself "a philosophy" any more than physics is "a mathematics". Physics makes use of mathematics, and libertarians make use of political philosophy (as do socialists, authoritarians, and people of much ilk).

We should describe libertarianism as a political position, and discuss its connections with political philosophy. However, we should not call it "a political philosophy" or "a philosophy" any more than we would call physics "a mathematics". --FOo 04:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Although the unqualified term "philosophy" is ambiguous, the term "political philosophy" is well-defined and acceptable. It is used all the time in academic settings. This is one of the reasons I reverted from "philosophy" to "political philosophy". Also please don't equate nonacademic usage with bad usage. Many people use "philosophy" to mean a personal code of ethics or an outlook on life. This use of the term is different from the study of philosophy, but that doesn't make it wrong. Rhobite 05:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Two points of response: First, an encyclopedia is in many senses an academic work. Not in the same sense as a journal, but certainly more so than a casual conversation or even a newspaper article. Encyclopedias are supposed to be rather precise ... people don't get called "a walking encyclopedia" for having vague knowledge, you know. :)

Second, because this article needs to refer to the discipline and subject matter of political philosophy (the "academic" version, the one that talks about ideas such as natural rights and contracts), we would do well not to use the term ambiguously. If we call libertarianism "a political philosophy" (or "a philosophy") and then go on to talk about "political philosophy" (the discipline), we're being confusing ... and, I suggest, sloppy.

(Note, I'm not saying "sloppy" is the opposite of "academic". The sloppiness is the second-order effect of sometimes using the word "philosophy" in the academic sense, and sometimes in the casual sense.) --FOo 05:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

1. Is libertarianism a philosophy?

I am checking Philosophy: Philosophy is a field of study that includes diverse subfields such as ..., in which people ask questions such as ... and what makes actions right or wrong. The fundamental method of philosophy is the use of reasoning to evaluate arguments concerning these questions. However, the exact scope and methodology of philosophy is not rigid. What counts as philosophy is itself debated, and it varies across philosophical traditions.

Fact 1: The use of the term Philosophy is not wrong.

2. Is libertarian philosophy political?

I am checking politics: Politics, sometimes defined as "the art and science of government", is a process by which collective decisions are made within groups. Although the term is generally applied to behavior within governments, politics is observed in all human (and many non-human) group interactions, including corporate, academic, and religious institutions.

Fact 2: There is for libertarians no matter in politics. They don't aspire to collective decisions within groups or libertarian institutions with that.

3. Anyhow, is libertarianism a political philosophy in any the sense of political science?

I am checking political philosophy: Political philosophy is the study of the fundamental questions about the state, government, politics, property, law and the enforcement of a legal code by authority: what they are, why they are needed, what makes a government legitimate, what rights and freedoms it should protect and why, what form it should take and why, what the law is, and what duties citizens owe to a legitimate government, if any, and when it may be legitimately overthrown - if ever.

You see, there is next to nothing what one may use for libertarianism. Only the term property could be have political impacts. But what is the body of "political" scientists when there is no meaning to enforce libertarian rules?

Fact 3: Politics can not deliver libertarian norms. Politics can only break the NAP.

So, what is the body of political scientists in libertarianism? Maybe libertarianism turn out useful references to political philosophy. Rothbard and Hoppe made such references, too. But neither they regard themselves as political philosopher nor any other people handle them seriously as political philosophers.

4. Anyhow, is Libertarianism is a political philosophy NPOV?

Fact 4: It is no knowledge to say: Libertarianism must be (is) a political philosophy. It is in best case a theory within other theories, so an opion. And opions have to be marked as opinions, otherwise it is POV.

Where is the designation? --Irgendwer 09:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Irgendwer, I'm not really sure how to respond to your argument as it seems to be invalid on its face. "the study of the fundamental questions about the state, government, politics, property, law and the enforcement of a legal code by authority" adequately describes the concept of Libertarianism. The question of whether or not "politics can deliver libertarian norms" is irrelevant to whether or not Libertarianism should be labeled as a 'philosophy' or 'political philosophy' on Misplaced Pages. Please stop inserting your opinion about this into the article as a footnote--it's inappropriate. rehpotsirhc

I disagree thoroughly with Irgendwer on many points. Libertarianism is clearly a political view; libertarians have opinions about governance, law, rights, &c.; many people run for office on libertarian positions, and so on. The fact that libertarianism is skeptical of political force does not make it an unpolitical view, any more than Gödel's incompleteness theorem is an un-logical view. :)

The problem is the use of the term "philosophy". By itself, libertarianism is not a philosophical subject; it is simply a set of political views. It can be discussed and defended with arguments taken from political philosophy, but it is not itself of that discipline.

By analogy, consider belief or disbelief in a god; theism and atheism. There are many philosophical arguments -- in metaphysics, philosophy of religion, and theology -- for or against the existence of a god. However, most people who believe in a god aren't theologians. They do not discuss or describe their belief in the terms of philosophy, but in the terms of tradition or personal experience. For most theists (and for most atheists) belief or disbelief is not philosophy; it is simply belief or disbelief. --FOo 22:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Let's say, you have your subjective opinion on political philosphy. This makes it not as better than my opinion.

So again,

4. Anyhow, is Libertarianism is a political philosophy NPOV?

Fact 4: It is no knowledge to say: Libertarianism must be (is) a political philosophy. It is in best case a theory within other theories, so an opinion. And opinions have to be marked as opinions, otherwise it is POV.

Where is the designation? --Irgendwer 23:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I understand you. Maybe you would be more comfortable editing the Misplaced Pages in your native language? Rhobite 23:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed only POV. You can edit what you want, but if it is an opinion then mark it as opinion. --Irgendwer 23:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I think I understand the objection to "political philosophy", but "philosophy" is far more problematic, as FOo pointed out. Calling a system of belief "a philosophy" can be ambiguous. It could mean a personal moral code, or a religious belief, or a philosophical movement in the academic sense. It's clear that you're not fluent in English, so maybe you don't understand this distinction. I'm OK with "political philosophy" but "philosophy" by itself won't do. I changed the term to "political ideology". Is that acceptable? Rhobite 01:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

"Ideology" is sometimes used in a derogatory fashion, although it's reasonably descriptive to refer to well-developed complex political positions that way. ("I have values, you have opinions, he has ideology" sometimes seems to be the way people think.)

I'd suggest "political view" or "political position". To me, the spatial metaphor of "position" emphasizes that it's one of many viewpoints; and that it exists on a continuum with other viewpoints. --FOo 03:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Fubar Obfusco (Talk | contribs) (No, "political" fits. See discussion on talk page.)

This is your subjective opinion. Where is your knowledge? --Irgendwer 08:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Votes for libertarianism is a political philosophy

• rehpotsirhc 21:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• "political philosophy", "political ideology", etc. are all fine. Although anarchists may disagree, libertarianism is a political movement. Rhobite 01:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• If anarchists think anarchy is apolitical, they don't understand human nature (ever hear of "family politics"?). The second you have more than one person's rights potentially in conflict with those of others, you have politics. Government is but one means to resolve political conflicts, not the only. Libertarianism is definitely a political philosophy, because it addresses political rights. --Serge 17:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Human nature is costumary law, a spontaneous order. Chimpanzees have politics, too. What is making this to a libertarian philosophy? The concept of rights is also controversial. Many libertarians reject the concept of rights. You attack a straw man. Anyhow, you may claim that l. is a political philosophy in the kind of scholars. For example here: . But there is not much to address for political philosphers or theorists. Not enough to claim in the abstract as response of the content that it is the characteristic feature. The characteristic feature is the NAP, the way of thinking, and a movement which is in some parts political or anti-political. --Irgendwer 18:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Many libertarians reject the concept of rights? Can you provide any examples? (preferably web links) --Serge 21:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

exactly explained by Paul Wakfer here see: why not rights? David Friedman and Bruce Benson argue in this line. --Irgendwer 15:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Votes for libertarianism is a philosophy

Libertarianism is a political ideology

Now it becomes a madhouse. I don't have objections on "ideology", "theory", "way of thinking", "philosophy", "moral view" etc. I have used the term philosophy in wikipedia (which else?) for prove and it seems not to be wrong for me. But I have an objection on "political" because it is clearly a statist term. Libertarianism is a way of thinking based (less or more) on the NAP. There is no decided way to do it. It is a personal way of thinking. If you are statist, then it is clear that you can only think in political ways and every fart is anyway political. But as non-statist there is no need to think in political ways, to vote, to make laws, to blacken clandestine worker or drog dealer or what else because an anarchist/ancap has no (decided) demands to the state unless his voluntariness. The democrat Rhobite has been already agreed that "anarchists may disagree" on "libertarianism is a political movement". So you must mark your opinion, e.g. "Libertarianism is in statist terms a political whateveryouwant". --Irgendwer 08:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

P.S.: If libertarianism have to be described as "political" then look to "Anarcho-capitalism is a philosophy based on ...". It is nearly the same item. --Irgendwer 08:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you are confusing anarchism and libertarianism. Libertarianism has always been a political movement. Almost all libertarians aim to reduce and/or eliminate the role of government through political means. I also think that most libertarians today believe in an LP-style small government, with public law enforcement to prevent coercion, as opposed to the total elimination of government. Rhobite 17:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

1. The direct libertarian way of "elimination of government" is only individual secession. This doesn't make political meanings by "secessionists". 2. Libertarianism is as more than a (Classic Liberal) movement. 3. It is for the principle secondary what you may find in mayorities. 4. You forgot Anarcho-capitalists (apparently by intension). --Irgendwer 18:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm really having trouble understanding your English. Could you please move to a Misplaced Pages which uses a language you are more familiar with? See http://www.wikipedia.org/ Rhobite 18:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I think, there is much more you can not or do not want to understand. --Irgendwer 19:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I assure you that "It is for the principle secondary what you may find in mayorities" is nonsense. Rhobite 19:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I think your main problem is here: "But I have an objection on 'political' because it is clearly a statist term." Perhaps in your native language, not in English. For example, there is nothing unlibertarian or statist about a home owner's association, since it is fully consensual, yet all HOAs are political. I also mentioned "family politics" earlier. What about work and corporate politics? Other types of organizations not associated with the state, like sports organizations and churches, are very political too. Politics are inherent in any type of human organization. Statists do not have a monopoly on politics! I also agree with Rhobite that much of your English is difficult to understand. --Serge 19:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I have been refered to en:politics and to the English written Jounal of Libertarian Studies. You miss the point because it is normal that all force within groups may be called "political" and the NAP is just the opposite. Its true that "Statists do not have a monopoly on politics!" But what do you want to prove? There is no claim in libertarianism for politics to make rules within groups. --Irgendwer 19:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Just because all force in groups may be called "political" does not mean that everything political involves violation of the NAP. A libertarian may choose to buy a home in an HOA, which includes voluntarily signing a contract to abide by the decisions of HOA, and he may get involved in the politics of that HOA. Is getting involved in corporate politics nonlibertarian? Even libertarians have to get involved in politics... is abortion a violation of the NAP? Or is prohibiting abortion a violation of the NAP? Whether an unborn child has a right to life is a political question that has to be addressed in any libertarian society (that punishes murderers) as well as in any nonlibertarian society. Is selling heroin to a 10 year old a violation of the NAP or not? Is invading Iraq an initiation of force, or retalation of Saddam's initiation of force (not complying with his post Gulf War agreements)? If an unarmed burglar enters you home, is shooting him appropriate retaliation? These are all examples of questions addressed within the realm of the libertarian political philosophy. --Serge 21:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a libertarian society. Libertarianism may be viewed as meta-ideology for correct behavior analog NAP, not for decided rules within groups, because within groups is every rule ok so long as the members of the group agree to the rules. You need only one rule in l.:voluntariness. A real libertarian group may have rules to kill own members if they have agreed. Maybe there are different opinions what is the correct interpretation of the NAP to questions like abortion, or pedophile, or self-defense. But a libertarian judge have to look for the NAP and not to some crude claims subsumed to libertarian movement like objectivism. There is no need to proclaim any rule in a libertarian society. "Political philosophy is the study of the fundamental questions" and in l. is only one fundamental question: the NAP. And l. is no theory on the "process by which collective decisions are made within groups".

And now I close the madhouse because you want only your politics by stupid unfairness. --Irgendwer 19:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean, but I will say that if you want to make a change in Misplaced Pages that the others involved with that page oppose, then you have to convince the others of the merits of your change with a compelling argument on the Talk page (not an embedded comment in the text of the article). I assure you, you have not presented such an argument in this case, and you are not helped by unintelligible statements such as, "you want only your politics by stupid unfairness". --Serge 21:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Your position is weak. You may forget the most what I had written. Note only: I quoted the JLS. So, there are other opinions. When you describe your opinion you must mark it. Or you must prove it as knowledge. Nobody have been presented such knowledge. So I may remove the POV. --Irgendwer 23:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Irgendwer, please try and follow talk page convention and do not obfuscate other's comments. --rehpotsirhc 23:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

You are seriously offended, aren't you? --Irgendwer 23:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Er, sorry, I didn't have your lack of fluency in English in mind when I wrote that. Please do not edit the talk page and break up others comments so that the source of the text is not clear. --rehpotsirhc 23:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I have not broken any other comments. You mean Serge. Ninny. --Irgendwer 23:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The edit I am referring to is here. Also, there is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. --rehpotsirhc 00:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I did it only since the user before did so, too. Also, I don't need your excuse. You are merely searching for shit by which you may kick off disagreeable editors. You are a troll. --Irgendwer 00:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

This is also nonsense:

The link Political ideology has a redirect to Ideologies of parties. Of course the LP, for example, has a political ideology, but this doesn't making libertarianism per se political. --Irgendwer 07:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

--Irgendwer 07:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Irgendwer, please stop reverting the page to your personal version and assuming bad faith on the part of other editors. You don't have consensus to make your change. Everyone who has commented to far disagrees with you. --rehpotsirhc 23:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

So what? You must give reasons, otherwise you are a troll. --Irgendwer 23:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The reasons are all over this section. Your response to each comment is either incoherent or a personal attack. Stop the reverts, please. --rehpotsirhc 00:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

My reasons are all over this section. Your response is of kind of troll. Read the law Misplaced Pages:Be bold in updating pages and Misplaced Pages:Don't disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point. If you have something to argue in the point then do it, else be silent. --Irgendwer 00:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Really? All I see:

    But I have an objection on "political" because it is clearly a statist term. Libertarianism is  
    a way of thinking based (less or more) on the NAP. There is no decided way to do it. It is a 
    personal way of thinking. If you are statist, then it is clear that you can only think in 
    political ways and every fart is anyway political. But as non-statist there is no need to think 
    in political ways, to vote, to make laws, to blacken clandestine worker or drog dealer or what 
    else because an anarchist/ancap has no (decided) demands to the state unless his voluntariness.

And this nothing but a big non sequitur. Being a "statist," (i.e. supporting the existnce of a state ) and a Libertarian are not mutually exclusive. Libertarianism is not Individualist Anarchism. You should take a look at Libertarianism displayed among Misplaced Pages's list of political ideologies, or any of these links, which all describe it as a political ideology: . You have not made yourself clear, convinced anyone, or achieved anything resembling consensus. Stop reverting the article. --rehpotsirhc 22:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

What is your concrete evidence that libertarianism must be described in its characteristic feature as "political"? You need more then any shady source which use the word as loose definition to describe anything else. --Irgendwer 23:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Any shady source? Let's see, We've got another Wiki article, course material from NYU, Auburn, University of Alberta, University of Texas, Bilkent University in Turkey, and finally the Libertarian Party. But then again, it doesn't seem as if any source or argument will convince you. --rehpotsirhc 17:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

"On its loose definition, ethics, social choice theory, welfare economics, jurisprudence, and bits of game theory will all, at one time or another, turn out to be vital parts of political philosophy. Many people adopt this definition advisedly, to produce this broad result." (A. de Jasay: FROGS’ LEGS, SHARED ENDS and THE RATIONALITY OF POLITICS, Journal of Lib. Studies)

You should answer the question above. What is your concrete evidence that libertarianism must be described in its characteristic feature as "political"? This doesn't mean that is always wrong to say "political" but it is wrong to say "it is a characteristic feature." --Irgendwer 19:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all--that isn't a question. It's a statement, so I can't "answer" it. If you are asking me to reply to it, I'm going to decline, on account of I have no idea what the author is talking about. The quote is almost incoherent, and I think I'd have to see the context in order to understand it.

As for "concrete evidence," I think the facts that we've established--namely that the libertarian ideology fits into any common definition of "political" that we've seen, and that pretty much everyone with the possible exception of the author you keep quoiting describes it as such, is enough to warrant you to stop reverting it.

Also, after a little investigative googling, I've think I've discovered the motivation for your edits: a thread you started at this anarchist message board on April 7. I might point out that even there, few agree with your assertion that libertarianism is not a political philosophy. Please stop your reverts -- Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox.. --rehpotsirhc 19:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

1) What is the statement you can't follow? 2) Why don't look you to the whole context of my quote? 3) "You think the facts that you've established", you see, this is using a statement to claim that "political" must be correct. 4) To use "any common definition" is a wrong method. 5) Your little investigative googling makes no point. --Irgendwer 20:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Um...1) The quote you pasted, obviously. 2) Because I don't know where it came from and that's really your responsibility anyway. 3) Um, yes, I am, in fact, using others' statements to claim that political ideology is correct. What's your point? 4) What's the right method, then? This is an encyclopedia, not your soapbox. 5) I think it made quite a few salient points. Then again, I could be wrong. --rehpotsirhc 22:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

1) obviously troll. 2) troll, see above ... (not worth to continue) --Irgendwer 23:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, Irgendwer, I will be as clear about this as you have been with us: Prove to us beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is evil like child molestation to call libertarianism a political philosphy. --Serge 22:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

it is not evil, it is pov, because it is not the characteristic feature what is to use in an factual abstract of wikipedia entries. And if you need common use: You find more usings of "libertarianism is an ideology" --Irgendwer 23:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Um, Irgendwer--can't you see how fallicious your last statement is? "Libertarianism is an ideology" doesn't contradict "Libertarianism is a political ideology," it's just more general. You'll get more hits for "Christianity is a religion" than "Chrisitanity is a monotheistic religion" even though both are clearly true. --rehpotsirhc 02:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I can see, and you can see how fallicious it is to search for any sources with "libertarian is political" because it produces no evidience that it is the characteristic feature of libertarianism. This is an encyclopedia, not your soapbox. --Irgendwer 08:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

If "libertarian is political philosophy" is a common phrase, that is evidence that the political nature of libertarian philosophy is a majority POV, and ought to be given due weight in the article. (And yes, Misplaced Pages is a democracy when it comes to POVs. Majority POVs get more attention than extreme minority POVs.) Cadr 11:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

You may mark that POV as "in the view of most people ..." No problem. --Irgendwer 12:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, so what we do is call libertarianism a political philosophy in the introduction, and then in the main body of the article mention that a small number of people (mostly individualist anarchists) dispute this. This is perfectly normal practice. For example, the Earth article doesn't mention the flat Earth POV in the introduction. Cadr 13:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

hehe, nay, it is falsifiable that the earth is not so flat. --Irgendwer 13:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

This is vandalism and misuse of adminstriation rights. --Irgendwer 19:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Rehpotsirhc is not an administrator, and content disputes are never considered vandalism. Please reread Misplaced Pages:Vandalism. Please do not falsely accuse other users of vandalism. Rhobite 19:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Irgendwer, you need to read up on the Three Revert Rule. You've violated it twice. I left a warning on your talk page to try and help you. I am not an admin. --rehpotsirhc 21:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Reverting to known POV is vandalism. And to do it in protection of your subjective incrimination and corrupt admins is misuse. --Irgendwer 23:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Look before edit-warring.

Do a diff and proof-read the changes I reverted. There's a general downgrading of language quality, including the insertion of repetition and gender-specific terminology. The change is not acceptable. Alienus 01:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's the text that you're trying to insert:

Libertarianism is a moral and political philosophy which says that the individual is free to do whatever he wishes with his person or property, as long as it allows others the same liberty. Another way to state this is, "Libertarianism is a moral and political philosophy under which the individual is free to do whatever he wishes with his person or property, as long as whatever he wishes to do with his person or property allows all others to do whatever they wish with their person or property, respectively." This includes not initiating, or threatening to initiate, physical force against those who have not violated this doctrine, nor fraud against anyone. Libertarianism has as its predicate that no one want to be physically forced, or threatened with physical force, or defrauded

1. It repeats "Libertarianism is a moral and policial philosophy".
2. It uses "he" instead of "they".
3. It rambles.
4. It is a bad edit that is unacceptable.

Now, if you want to edit war for it, best of luck. I don't care enough about you or this topic to get blocked. Let the article suffer due to your incompetence and the apathy of others. Alienus 01:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

1) There is no repeat at all within the definition of "libertarianism". The first sentence is complete and uses no repetition. A restatement of a definition is entirely permissible and useful in aiding the reader in understanding. 2) Use of "he" to refer to both genders is standard english. Use of "they" to refer to the singular is not standard english. 3) As there are no "group rights" under libertarianism, the definition must be stated in the singular. 4) The definition does not ramble. If you want to allege it does, you will have to site the specific clause you believe meets the definition of "rambling", you might also want to state your definition of "rambling", as it does not ramble. 4) There has been no "bad edit", if you want to allege there is, you will have to explain what you mean, not make unfounded insults, which do nothing to help acheive consensus.pat8722 15:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The apathy of others? You kidding? This entire talk page is one giant 10,000-word attempt to convince pat his definition is inferior. --rehpotsirhc 03:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Rehpotsirhc, please read paragraph 220 above, and please review the section entitled "Discussion of Pat8722's definition" above. No grammatical or substantive errors in my proposed definition has been shown. At most, someone made some grammatically incorrect allegations about my use of quotes, that is hardly sufficient to prefer it over a "definition" which is circular and false. We are waiting for Serge (who appears absolutely committed to maintaining circularity), to respond to the substance of paragraph 216, rather than making mere insults, which does nothing to achieve consensus.pat8722 15:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Serge already gave an expansion for "the same liberty" in paragraph 111a. Cadr 23:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Serge's explanation at paragraph 11a was inadequate. See paragraph 113.pat8722

Paragraph 113 doesn't make any sense. It can't possibly "be using 'right' to define 'right'", because "right" isn't being defined at all! Cadr 01:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

If you believed I substituted incorrectly at paragraph 113, you were asked to do you own substitution (at paragraph 113) for the missing antecedent. Respond also to 210 and 231. pat8722 03:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Pat8722 RFC

A request for comment has been filed in response to User:Pat8722's behavior on libertarianism. You are encouraged to certify or respond at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Pat8722. Rhobite 14:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Irgendwer=Alfrem?

After reviewing the archive of this talk page, I'm pretty sure Irgendwer is a sockpuppet of Alfrem (talk · contribs), who has already been banned from this article ArbCom for trying to remove the phrase "political philosophy" from the lead.. Both are obviously less than fluent in English, appear to enjoy addressing others as "troll," and have a tendency to say "kindergarten" when especially annoyed by opposition to their edits. I have filed a request for CheckUser here. --rehpotsirhc 11:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

When people are losing arguments to maintain their majority POV, they may change to denunciation and enforced law. This is exactly the sense of libertarianism not to be political. --Irgendwer 13:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you deny that you are Alfrem? --rehpotsirhc 14:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Alfrem is obvisously a dead account. So your question makes no sense. But it makes clearly sense that you are a troll. --Irgendwer 19:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm asking if you are the same person who edited under the account Alfrem. Yes or no? --rehpotsirhc 20:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, well, well. You're quite the detecive, rehpotsirhc! This is from Alfrem's talk page:

====Alfrem banned from Libertarianism====

Enacted on 19:58, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Pending resolution of this matter Alfrem (talk · contribs) is banned from editing of Libertarianism. It shall be presumed that any user, such as 80.131.0.46 (talk · contribs) who makes Alfrem's trademark edit, removal of the phrase "Libertarianism is a political philosophy," from the article is a sockpuppet of Alfrem. Such sockpuppets may be banned indefinitely if practical.

According to this, it seems like Irgendwer should be banned indefinitely if practical... --Serge 21:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you the Great Dictator? --Irgendwer 22:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

No. Just extraplating from what was said about you earlier. And, by the way, there is nothing unlibertarian about banning someone from a libertarian community who cannot abide by the rules designed to protect everyone's rights within that community. For example, being refused entrance to a tie-required restaurant - for lack of wearing a tie - is consistent with libertarianism. --Serge 22:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

about me? Denunciation! Not even your term of sockpuppet is correct. And, by the way, you describe Misplaced Pages as your property but it is used as political public good. --Irgendwer 23:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

When you can spare 5 free min. within your dictatorship, you may deliver about the old question: What is your concrete evidence that libertarianism must be described in its characteristic feature as "political"? --Irgendwer 23:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

What would be an example if such evidence, if it were possible? You've already dismissed appeals to logic, highlighting of the prima facie indefinsibility of your position, and links from across pretty much the entirety of Western civilization. You don't even understand half of what is said here. Do you want a photograph? A mathematical proof? You made up your mind along time ago and won't listen to any other opinions. Now, are you Alfrem or not? --rehpotsirhc 01:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am convinced that Irgendwer is Alfrem. They are both German, and they use similar mannerisms such as referring to libertarianism as "L.", "kindergarten", etc. They make similar grammatical errors. And of course both accounts have only existed for the purpose of revert warring in the intro of this article. Someone should post on WP:AN. Rhobite 02:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was too hasty--the ArbCom descision only bans him from editing 3 months past August 2005. Someone is going to have to file another arbitration case against him if the reverts are going to stop. --rehpotsirhc 03:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

hahahaha

rehpotsirhc, you ask, "What would be an example if such evidence, if it were possible?" So, you agree, it is an opinion, isn't it? And, it is Misplaced Pages policy to mark opinions.

For your backing, to find an evidence, the article itself should contain a clear explantion, what is making libertarianism to a political philosophy, when it should be a correct abstract. But it is not allowed to discover own slating reviews.

Therefore, Walter Block (scholar, Austrian School) writes: "Libertarianism is a political philosophy. It concerned solely with the proper use of force. Its core premise is that it should be illegal to threaten or initiate violence against a person or his property without his permission; force is justified only in defense or retaliation. That is it, in a nutshell. The rest is mere explanation, elaboration, and qualification and answering misconceived objections."

So its very clear, "political philosophy" is in this leading view no characteristic feature but rather a deceptive term. However, you are welcome to mark your opinion (probably for your own disgrace).

--Irgendwer 11:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

What part of "Libertarianism is a political philosophy" do you not understand? How is "political philosophy" not an accurate description of libertarianism, but, rather, a "deceptive term"? Do you agree that libertarianism is solely concerned with the proper use of force? Do you agree that proper use of force is inherently an issue within the domain of political philosophy? If not, why not? --Serge 17:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

See above, "misconceived objections". For example, you need more than an insignificantly "accurate description". You need a characteristic feature. "On its loose definition, ethics, social choice theory, welfare economics, jurisprudence, and bits of game theory will all, at one time or another, turn out to be vital parts of political philosophy. Many people adopt this definition advisedly, to produce this broad result." (A. de Jasay: FROGS’ LEGS, SHARED ENDS and THE RATIONALITY OF POLITICS, JLS) Why are Rothbard and Hoppe not described as political philosophers per se? Why is anarcho-capitalism not described as political philosophy? Is the NAP a political theory per se? Is it political to refuse politics by libertarian reasons? Is libertarian individualism political? Is self-defense a political concept? Why is libertarianism described as meta-ideology? And so on. There are enough indices for self-doubt. When you have more than an opinion, then show me knowledge. --Irgendwer 23:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Irgendwer, I'm not trying to be rude, but you don't understand the quote you pasted. When Block says "answering misconcieved objections," he is talking to the misconcieved objections of detractors of Libertarianism--e.g. Libertarianism is simple, being concerned soley with the proper use of force, and anything that is not related to that consists answering the misconcieved objections of its detractors. To answer your questions:

• Why are Rothbard and Hoppe not described as political philosophers per se? They certainly are.
• Why is anarcho-capitalism not described as political philosophy? Who cares? Libertarianism is not Anarcho-capitalism.
• Is the NAP a political theory per se? It's a principle that can accurately be described as 'political.'
• Is it political to refuse politics by libertarian reasons? Yes, in the same way that refusing to eat any food is a dietary decision.
• Is libertarian individualism political? Maybe not, but this is irrelevant to the question of whether or not libertarianism is a political philospohy.
• Is self-defense a political concept? Unclear, but this is also irrelevant to the question of whether or not libertarianism is a political philosophy.
• Why is libertarianism described as meta-ideology? Perhaps there is a 'meta-ideology' called Libertarianism. But there is also a political philosophy called Libertarianism, and that's what this article is about.

Once again, no rudeness intended, but I think this discussion is far far beyond your fluency in the language. --rehpotsirhc 03:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't answer to rhetorical questions. Your point is still: What is your concrete evidence that libertarianism must be described in its characteristic feature as "political"? But you have already agreed, it is an opinion. --Irgendwer 09:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Irgendwer, you did not answer my question. Answer it, then I will answer yours. Do you agree that proper use of force is inherently an issue within the domain of political philosophy? If not, why not? --Serge 04:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes for decisions within groups, but that is not our context. The context is that "It concerned solely with". The NAP is a moral doctrine, but no (a priori) determined political doctrine. You may fit this into political theory by practice of other issues like you may fit other things into political theory. "On its loose definition, ethics, social choice theory, welfare economics, jurisprudence, and bits of game theory will all, at one time or another, turn out to be vital parts of political philosophy. Many people adopt this definition advisedly, to produce this broad result." (A. de Jasay: FROGS’ LEGS, SHARED ENDS and THE RATIONALITY OF POLITICS, JLS). The empirical evidence thereto is, the NAP (or libertarianism in its core) is not even content of the curriculum in any predominating political science. It is as Leo Zaibert writes (in TOWARD META-POLITICS, JLS): "In the broad discipline that studies the relationship between the state and the individual—surely a plausible, almost innocuous suggestion—then Robert Nozick’s remark to the effect that “the fundamental question of political philosophy, one that precedes questions about how the state should be organized, is whether there should be any state at all” becomes immediately appealing. To be precise, however, we should note that this question does not really belong to political philosophy; rather, political philosophy presupposes an (affirmative) answer to this meta-political question." --Irgendwer 09:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Now, the real question: why should we remove "political" from the lead of the article because Leo Zaibert, an associate professor at the University of Wisconsin-Parkside, thinks The Non-agression Principle (not Libertarianism) isn't a a political philosophy? I've shown you eight links describing Libertarianism as a political philosophy, you were shown between ten and fifteen more as Alfrem, and the quote itself notes that none other than Robert Nozick thinks Libertarianism is a political philosophy. Even the majority of the links you have provided in support of your argument state that Libertarianism is a political philosophy. Obviously, the predominating view is that Libertarianism is a political philosophy. Now before you go all Libertarian on me and start wailing about tyrannay of the intellectual majority, let me remind you that Misplaced Pages is not your property, but an encyclopedia that doesn't appreciate being used as a soapbox. Misplaced Pages aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. --WP:NPOV.

Right now, one opinion from a single prof who isn't even notable by Misplaced Pages's standards, and who actually shies away himself from stating that Libertarian is not a political philosophy isn't even enough to warrant the view's inclusion in the article at all, let alone putting it in the lead. --rehpotsirhc 15:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Nay, you are agreeing yourself, that it is a majority opinion as others here, too. You should ask yourself why don't any in Libertarianism#Sites_about_libertarianism linked urls make use of such hard terms. But you are welcome to mark your predominating view in consideration of WP:NPOV. This is no problem. (You should better answer to: What is your concrete evidence that libertarianism must be described in its characteristic feature as "political"?) --Irgendwer 16:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Irgendwer, so you agree that the issue with which libertarianism is solely concerned, the proper use of force, at least within groups, falls into the domain of political philosophy. Now, since the proper use of force is only an issue within the context of groups (there have to be at least two parties involved for the issue to be relevant), it follows that libertarianism addresses questions of a political nature, and is therefore a political philosophy. And don't you agree that the question of whether there should be a state at all is a political question? Finally, on the issue of the NAP being the basis for a moral (not political) doctrine, I beg to differ. While there are libertarians who based their beliefs on moral grounds (e.g., those from the Objectivist wing), there are also the "practical" libertarians who promote the NAP not on moral grounds, but on utilitarian grounds. But regardless of whether one believes society should be based on the NAP for moral or utilitarian reasons (or both), the single characteristic feature of libertarianism is that individuals within society, whether it has a state or not, should behave in accordance with the NAP. The fact that libertarianism deals solely with the issue of how society should be organized makes it necessarily a political philosophy. And pointing out that libertarianism is a political philosophy in the introduction helps newcomers understand it. --Serge 18:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Critique

The critique section could use some serious reworking.

The introductory paragraph is tortured to try to handicap arguments against libertarianism before they are even presented. Save any refutation of an argument before it is put forth.

The "Rights" refutation of libertarianism is barely touched on.

There is also a tendency to avoid dwelling in a few arguments towards the end in terms of citation or discussion. The use of "some critics say..." tends to undervalue their argument and allow the author to present the argument in a highly edited and dismissive light. The environmentalist argument is probably the one that actually needs the most improvement and deserves more than a sentence.

The earlier arguments are far more realized in this manner.

--Ken 20:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Ken

The critique section is way too long for what's supposed to be a summary. I found the following particularly eggregious, but someone restored it:

For instance, Wired columnist Brooke Shelbey Biggs stated that "Libertarianism is uninformed capitalist greed in civil-rights clothing" and that there are "a few issues libertarians tend to ignore when talking about the promise of a future without government interference: inherent cultural disadvantage and affirmative action; public-works projects like freeways for all those new-money Jags around Silicon Valley; funding for the arts; child-abuse prevention and intervention; medical care for the elderly; and too many more to list. They are also not likely to complain loudly about capital-gains tax cuts or other tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy".

Are we to include every long-winded non sequitur rant against libertarians that has no basis in fact?

Salvor Hardin 21:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I was actually calling for better attribution with regard to this. If you don't want a proper critique, just delete the whole section and be done with it.

Oh, and since Libertarianism is something of a political philosphy I find it difficult to support the tossing around of terms like 'non-sequitor rant.' You really ought to justify that statement. --Ken 22:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Answer to Serge

Okay, Irgendwer, so you agree that the issue with which libertarianism is solely concerned, the proper use of force, at least within groups, falls into the domain of political philosophy.

Yes, but note, that the issues it solely concerned with the proper use of force are only a secundary view of real political affairs of people who are delivering how to reduce the violence of state in consequence of the NAP. This is only a practice of some groups which are considered as libertarians (minarchists, LP, classical liberals, maybe objectivists) but not of indivualists and ancaps.

Irgendwer, I'm having a hard time understanding you. But you seem to be limiting the libertarian concern with the proper use of force only to those who are concerned with the power of the state, while libertarianism is also concerned with the proper use of force between any individuals. But that's political too. Political philosophy is not limited to addressing issues that pertain to the state. If you put that artificial limit on the scope of political philosophy, then, yes, I can see why one might say that libertarianism is not a political philosophy. But such a limited interpretation of the meaning of political philosophy is unwarranted POV. --Serge 15:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a difficult issue, because I can see why people say that libertarianism is not a political philosophy. Since (strict) libertarianism requires that there be no coercive institutions, and that people should be able to voluntarily form whatever institutions they like, (strict) libertarianism apparently has nothing to say about how society should be organised (we could all get together and voluntarily agree to live in a Stalinist society, for example, without violating a single libertarian principle). All that strict libertarianism mandates is that we should follow a certain moral code, but it doesn't propose any institutions to ensure that this code is followed.

Now, mainstream libertarians do propose some institutions, such as courts, so they would seem to have a genuine political philosophy. And I think most libertarians accross the libertarian spectrum regard their philosophy as political. So I think we should call it a political philosophy in the intro, and perhaps have a section explaining why this is not the universal POV. Cadr 15:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

@Cadr, you prefer a description in any usual use, having regard to that it is not correct and it must be explained afterwards. POV is not negotiable in Misplaced Pages. I also don't agree, that libertarians which are not organized in any political group must regard their philosophy as political. And I think, these are most libertarians. Nethertheless, most ancaps and individualists must not think they would be part of any nameable political philosphy. --Irgendwer 16:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the majority of libertarians are ancaps. Most seem to be minarchists of one kind of another. And as far as I know, not even all ancaps would object to their philosophy being labelled poltical. I don't regard it as incorrect to describe libertarianism as a political philosophy, by the way. Cadr 17:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

If you accept that at least a very small minority of libertarian ancaps and individualist or others may justify here that "political philosophy" is no basically characteristic feature of libertarianism, then you agree again that your view is majority pov. Otherwise you must explain the contradiction that the NAP (or libertarianism in its core) is not even content of the curriculum in any predominating political science. --Irgendwer 18:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I assume the reason that it's not usually on the curriculum is that libertarianism (as opposed to moderate laissez-faire capitalism) isn't widely taken seriously as a political philosophy. Minority viewpoints are often excluded from introductions in order to avoid giving undue weight. To take an extreme example, we don't hesitate to describe the Earth as spherical in the intro to that article. Cadr 19:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

1) This is a fine theory but "libertarianism is no political philosophy" could be the better one (especially when you want to give a weight by applied political philosophy).

2) Obvisously it would be improvable to describe the earth as spherical. And, it isn't the case in the article Earth. --Irgendwer 23:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Come on, the entire Earth article is written on the assumption that the Earth is spherical, and if someone were to mention that the Earth was spherical in the intro I doubt it would start a POV war. I think it is unlikley that NAP is not taught because it is not political, since most people studying political philosophy will also study moral philosophy. Cadr 14:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Come on, the entire Earth article is written on the assumption that the Earth is spherical, and if someone were to mention that the Earth was spherical in the intro I doubt it would start a POV war. This is a straw man. When I improve an article, I doubt it would start a edit-war by sensible persons. But this is rather an exception in Misplaced Pages.

I think it is unlikley that NAP is not taught because it is not political, since most people studying political philosophy will also study moral philosophy. Then it is obvisiously part of moral philosophy but not of political philosophy. I don't know. I let you alone with these problems. When you have a NPOV-solution, you may come back. --Irgendwer 18:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

@Serge:"But you seem to be limiting the libertarian concern with the proper use of force only to those who are concerned with the power of the state "

No. Where should I have done it? Politics of state (with nation as group) are only the very best example.

"while libertarianism is also concerned with the proper use of force between any individuals."

but not within groups, and the unique source is the NAP. You should explain the why is the NAP (or libertarianism in its core) not even content of the curriculum in any predominating political science. --Irgendwer 15:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Now, since the proper use of force is only an issue within the context of groups (there have to be at least two parties involved for the issue to be relevant),

Look to Politics. "P. ... is often thought of as a process by which collective decisions are made within groups." You need at least two parties who try to make collective decisions about all involved parties.

it follows that libertarianism addresses questions of a political nature, and is therefore a political philosophy.

in the secondary view of some to political affairs determined libertarians, but not basically. It is a question what people make from it. Libertarianism is not unified.

And don't you agree that the question of whether there should be a state at all is a political question?

Oh yes, it should, but sadly it isn't.

Finally, on the issue of the NAP being the basis for a moral (not political) doctrine, I beg to differ. While there are libertarians who based their beliefs on moral grounds (e.g., those from the Objectivist wing), there are also the "practical" libertarians who promote the NAP not on moral grounds, but on utilitarian grounds.

yes

But regardless of whether one believes society should be based on the NAP for moral or utilitarian reasons (or both), the single characteristic feature of libertarianism is that individuals within society, whether it has a state or not, should behave in accordance with the NAP.

yes, but within acting parties, not within society.

Either way, it's a political issue. --Serge 15:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

is an opinion. --Irgendwer 16:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The fact that libertarianism deals solely with the issue of how society should be organized makes it necessarily a political philosophy.

Your mistake is the meaning of "society". To apolitical libertarians it is the same how noninvolved parties want to behave. It is only of interest to "libertarians" who want a minimal-state without right to secede, where society must be actually a political group with collective decisions.

The entire world is not governed by one state, but it can be viewed as a single society. Regardless of how it is organized, it is a society. Again, you are insisting on a very limited and POV interpretation of a term (this time society). --Serge 15:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot of views of society. Obvisously, you want to use this loose term to claim that the whole world must be a political group because they are anyhow involved together. So a fallen sack rise in China must be political issue. --Irgendwer 16:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

And pointing out that libertarianism is a political philosophy in the introduction helps newcomers understand it. --Serge 18:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

You see yourself, it is only partial correct, depending on which kind of libertarianism is aimed at. So it can't help. --Irgendwer 20:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with Cadr, except that it is the universal POV. Seriously. People who wouldn't describe Libertarianism as a 'political philosophy' wouldn't describe themselves as Libertarians. They would call themselves Anarcho-Capitalists or Individualist Anarchists. Irgendwer is confused because in most non-English languages, the translation of 'Libertarian' has connotations of anarchy. --rehpotsirhc 15:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You are very self-absorbed. But if you are knowing "People who wouldn't describe Libertarianism as a 'political philosophy'" then you make a good point. --Irgendwer 16:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Anarchists aren't libertarians. Libertarians are minarchists. That makes it a political philosophy. Salvor Hardin 18:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Please look to Anarcho-capitalism before you get upset. You are right in the point that minarchists are political. But how can they be libertarian when they want a state? ;-) --Irgendwer 18:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you asserting that minarchists are not libertarians? What else can it mean to be a libertarian? Salvor Hardin 18:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Cadr: This disscussion (if you can even call it that) is straying from its point. Irgendwer introduced a red herring: "Why is Libertarianism not on the cirriculum..." and you took the bait by suggesting that Libertarianism is something different from "moderate lassiez-faire capitalism," a term which is itself somewhat oxymoronic. You are confusing the issue and not really contributing anything to the discussion.

Cadr and Irgendwer: Please follow talk page convention and insert your comments under the last comment posted. It is extremely hard to follow the discussion when you insert them at seemingly random places in the text. --rehpotsirhc 19:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Woah! I just put my comment under Irengdwer's, which is of course the talk page convention. I can't help where he puts his comments. I don't think what he's saying is a red herring. He was arguing that libertarianism wasn't a political philosophy on the basis that the NAP isn't taught to people studying political philosophy (I don't myself know whether this is true). Moderate laissez-faire capitalism doesn't strike my as an oxymoron. It could, for example, be the belief that generally speaking markets should be left to their own devices, but sometimes governments should intervene when there's a market failure, which as far as I know is a mainstream position in economics.

You are not contributing much to the discussion either, btw. Cadr 20:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I might also not that on the Misplaced Pages page for "Liberty" it clearly states "liberty is a concept in political philosophy".

Salvor Hardin 20:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Irgendwer - you agree that libertarianism is concerned with the proper use of force between any individuals, but you clarify, "but not only within groups". I don't understand. How does one address the proper use of force between even just two individuals without those two individuals constituting a group that they are both within? Any time more than one individual is involved, you have a group, and you have a political situation, period. This is not POV. This is by definition. And the qeustion of what constitutes proper use of force within that group of two (or more) individuals is definitely a political question. And since we've agreed that this is ultimately the sole concern of libertarianism, it follows that libertarianism is necessarily and fundamentally a political philosophy, by definition, does it not? --Serge 21:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Serge, the definition of politics is very probably not objective. Regard to the origin of the term in "polis". The term is grown by use, not by clever definition of scientists. This is basically a problem in all communication.

Nevertheless, I don't think that you find a support in political science that two individuals constituting a "political" group by making only a peaceful treaty. You may assume that the enforcement of treaties is politics. But just this question (by security agencies, or private law enforcement) is nowhere an issue in any bibliography of political philosophy. --Irgendwer 23:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Irgendwer, your POV assumes a very specific meaning of the term political philosophy. There is no basis for limiting its meaning to this narrow interpretation. Any philosophy that addresses how two or more people should or should not relate is a political philosophy. A moral philosophy, on the other hand, may also address how an individual should or should not behave even when that behavior affects no one else. That area is specifically out of scope for libertarianism, and why libertarianism is not a moral philosophy. Libertarianism only cares about behavior between and among individuals, and, even then, only with respect to the use of force. It's totally and completely political. --Serge 22:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Irgendwer, your POV assumes a very specific meaning of the term political philosophy.

Of course, but you are enforcing the loose definiton to produce this popualar broad result. This is your majority opinion. I don't have POV, because I don't have an entry.

There is no basis for limiting its meaning to this narrow interpretation.

Of course there is. I have an empirical evidence in political philosophy itself. It is not even content of the curriculum in any predominating political science. It is not even content of any important reference book of political philosophy.

Any philosophy that addresses how two or more people should or should not relate is a political philosophy.

To use your words, your POV assumes a very specific meaning of the term political philosophy. Are you sure? Do you have an evidence in political philosphy?

A moral philosophy, on the other hand, may also address how an individual should or should not behave even when that behavior affects no one else. That area is specifically out of scope for libertarianism, and why libertarianism is not a moral philosophy.

It is not my claim to describe it as moral philosophy. You attack a straw man. Nethertheless contains libertarianism a moral doctrine.

Libertarianism only cares about behavior between and among individuals, and, even then, only with respect to the use of force.

yes, but not in political philosophy. Politics cares about behavior within groups. And, the use of force, you regarding to, so private law enforcement is even no issue of political philosphy. You jumple it with minarchism.

It's totally and completely political. --Serge 22:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion is total, nothing more.

You hold an Edit war by "rvt to consensus version - please do not change the main article unless consensus changes". This is no allowed practice in Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages:Verifiability (One of three policies which are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus.) calls for:

The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references.

When there are justified arguments against an entry (here: "political" philosopy), and there is no progress or prospect of substantiation for this claim, then the entry is decrepit in regard to NPOV.--Irgendwer 10:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The only "reference" to be presented in this case is the English language. Serge has already made that presentation. Clearly your use of the language is incorrect. Salvor Hardin 16:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

So what? Your English doesn't make a political philosophy in the intro. You you'll be hopping mad. --Irgendwer 19:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Irgendwer, in rereading your posts above, I realize you are interchanging the specific study of political philosophy with the broader category of political philosophy that is referenced in the intro. --Serge 20:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

hehe. How do you know of a broader category if not from study? --Irgendwer 20:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

In common English usage any philosophy may be classified as a "political philosophy" or not, depending on whether it deals with issues primarily of a political nature. It does not take any kind of study (beyond whatever is required to know English) to know this. Libertarianism, as a member of the Misplaced Pages political series, is obviously a philosophy of politics, hence, a political philosophy. That it is not the specific study referred to as political philosophy matters not. There are many "political philosophies" other than libertarianism that fall into this category. For example, socialism, conservatism, communism, anarchism and liberalism also are all "political philosophies", but are not the study referred to as political philosophy per se. --Serge 22:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

You tend to use the loose defintion as I have stated. - On its loose definition, ethics, social choice theory, welfare economics, jurisprudence, and bits of game theory will all, at one time or another, turn out to be vital parts of political philosophy. Many people adopt this definition advisedly, to produce this broad result. (A. de Jasay: FROGS’ LEGS, SHARED ENDS and THE RATIONALITY OF POLITICS, JLS)

However, it is unexact, it generalizes, it gives space for wrong speculation, it is unscientific, it is improvable, it is pov. --Irgendwer 07:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing scientific about word meanings. When you refer to "vital parts of political philosophy", your usage again implies the specific study of political philosophy as opposed to the classification of "political philosophy" necessarily implied by the usage in the intro. The usage in the intro is perfectly valid English, and there is nothing POV about it. --Serge 17:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I see only an opinion, an opinion that generalizes all directions of libertarianism as political, an opinion that try by a kind of slang to make an qualified message, an opinion that want to make a characteristic feature of a loose definition without clearly empirical manifestation, an opinion that want to rise above the Journal of Libertarian Studies. --Irgendwer 22:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Uh, no.

I'm mildly insulted that this definition is noted as the "classic definition." If by classic, one means defined in the last hundred years... "Libertarianism" is classically a synonym for "anarchism." Maybe I misread. Mellesime 13:10, 5 May 2006

"Classic definition" is incorrect. The current definition is merely the best-known in English today.

However, I'm not sure where you're seeing "classic definition" in the article. Are you confusing this with the term classical liberalism? --FOo 21:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit war by (rvt to consensus version - please do not change the main article unless consensus changes)

This is no allowed practice in Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages:Verifiability (One of three policies which are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus.) calls for:

The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references.

When there are justified arguments against an entry (here: "political" philosopy), and there is no progress or prospect of substantiation for this claim, then the entry is decrepit in regard to NPOV.

I am sure, admins will agree to. --Irgendwer 18:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you post on the adminstrator's noticeboard?--rehpotsirhc 19:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It is time for Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Alfrem 2. I am too busy to start an arbitration request for another week or two, so if someone wants to get a jump on it, please do. Rhobite 01:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

In contrast to many other articles about contentious topics, I found this article to be both informative and well-balanced. I suggest that somewhere the article note that it is common in American politics for someone whose views are far from radical, such as William Safire, to use the word libertarian to describe someone with mainstream Democrat views on social issues and Republican views on economic issues. Any idea where this should be? Kitteneatkitten 01:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

RJII

I write it briefly because it is only recurrence.

Your references

Don Franzen, Los Angeles Times Book Review Desk, review of "Neither Left Nor Right". January 19, 1997. Franzen states that "Murray and Boaz share the political philosophy of libertarianism, which upholds individual liberty--both economic and personal--and advocates a government limited, with few exceptions, to protecting individual rights and restraining the use of force and fraud." (Review on libertarianism.org). MSN Encarta's entry on Libertarianism defines it as a "political philosophy" (Both references retrieved June 24, 2005). The Encyclopedia Britannica defines Libertarianism as "Political philosophy that stresses personal liberty." (link, accessed 29 June, 2005)

are not expedient since the goal of the first sentences in an article must be to characterize precise. Political philosophy fits to the minarchism branch of libertarianism but doesn't really fit to the individualistic branch and the libertarian core, the NAP. The NAP is strictly ignored in political philosophy, and Rothbard is not even germane characterized as political philosopher.

So "political" philosophy is no basically characteristic feature. One may mark this pov to neutralize it (as I have often recommended unsuccessfully), or one may remove it. --Irgendwer 19:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Any philosophy that criticizes anything that the state does, recommends what it should or shouldn't do, or even criticizes it to the extent that they recommend that it ceases to exist, is a "political philosophy." RJII 19:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

If you would be correct then political science would reference NAP, consensus, free markets, Rothbard, Hoppe, Friedman, private law enforcement and so on. Or, Rothbard, Friedman and Hoppe would speak at least seriously of their own "political philosophy". But this is obviously not the case. --Irgendwer 20:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Irgendwer, you are still interchanging the two meanings of "political philosophy" (not to mention confusing it with political science). There is the academic subject covered in the Wiki political philosophy article, and there is the more general meaning obviously intended in the intro. The "a political philosophy" usage makes it grammatically impossible for this reference to mean the academic subject. It is disingenuous and disruptive to insist on one interpretation of a term when clearly another is intended, as is the case here. --Serge 21:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW, this is totally irrelevant, but most contemporary PoliSci courses have a section on libertarianism. --rehpotsirhc 23:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is totally irrelevant, because they normally relate only to Nozick's minarchism. --Irgendwer 23:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Political philosophy is content of political science. 2. "the more general meaning" is an aware inexact description. I have already stated about it. When you have objections you should make them at the right place. 3. "Libertarianism is a political philosophy" means that libertarianism is an accepted part of empiric political philosophy. That I prefer academic empiricism is obvious. 4. I don't think, I am unfair. --Irgendwer 23:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

No, "Libertarianism is a political philosophy" does not necessarily mean that libertarianism is "an accepted part of empiric political philosophy", just like "anarchism is a political philosophy" does not necessarily mean that anarchism is "an accepted part of empiric political philosophy", or just like "environmentalism is a political philosophy" does not necessarily mean that environmentalism is "an accepted part of empiric political philosophy". Capiche? --Serge 00:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

"Empiricism" should only mean that you must provide at last a reference from it. Anywhere it must come from. Or do you want to fudge a story? --Irgendwer 00:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

What you don't seem to understand, or pretend to not understand, Irgendwer, is that "X is a political philosophy" simply means that X is a philosophy that primarily addresses issues of a political nature. The primary issue of libertarianism, whether people should behave in accordance with the NAP, is inherently political, by definition. --Serge 00:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Then I could understand it literally: "Libertarianism is a philosophy that primarily addresses issues of a political nature." This is also pov, because you don't have an evidence for your explanation. "whether people should behave in accordance with the NAP, is inherently political," is an opinion as I have already stated above. See politics. Politics is a process by which decisions are made within groups. Libertarian decisions are not about groups. They call it treaty, consensus, deal, but not politics. --Irgendwer 00:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Evidence? ALL issues that libertarianism addresses are political in nature. Libertarian decisions ARE about groups. Treaties, consensus, deals, contracts, partnerships, etc., etc. only have meaning in the context of groups. An individual alone cannot have a treaty or contract with himself, or reach a consensus or make a deal with himself. Libertarianism deals exclusively with decisions made by individuals with other individuals (thus, within groups), and hence is political, because, like you wrote, politics is a process by which decisions are made within groups. Any time you have more than one individual you have a group. The NAP has no meaning outside of groups, for if you don't have groups of two or more individuals, you don't have the potential of one individual using force against another. --Serge 01:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've had enough of this. I'm filing a user conduct RfC on Irgendwer later tonight when I have time. --rehpotsirhc 23:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. --Serge 00:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Irgendwer's recent edits

I've removed this parargaph Irgendwer has been inserting into the article:

The basical potential to politics of libertarianism starts with the question whether there should be a state at all. But just this is not an issue of political philosophy. Why? Since it makes no sense to make politics or constributing theories when there is no affirmative basis. Hans-Hermann Hoppe writes, "Just look at Ludwig von Mises and Murray N. Rothbard. The two greatest economists and social philosophers of the 20th century were both essentially unacceptable and unemployable by the academic establishment. ... Despite all obstacles, it was possible for Mises and Rothbard to make themselves heard. They were not condemned to silence. They still taught and published. They still addressed audiences and inspired people with their insights and ideas. ... Rothbard had The Ludwig von Mises Institute, which supported him, helped publish and promote his books, and provided the institutional framework that allowed him to say and write what needed to be said and written, and that can no longer be said and written inside academia and the official, statist establishment media." So the most consequential libertarian scholars are condemned to work in privacy. But what have been happened instead in the official, political institutions by liberal and minarchist thinkers who (less consequential) are willing to use the state as a social regulator for which reason however? Just these people have established useful political concepts which are even required for an (e.g. of Franz Oppenheimer's social scientist view so called) exploitative statist system.There is a second reason why libertarianism must be rather an apolitical idea originated in the meaning of the former Greek term of politics, i.e. 'polis'. So the 'Demos', referring to the population of an ancient Greek state, was the decided group within the process, by which uniform rules are made, should work. But there is no claim in libertarianism to make collective decisions within groups in a political process except that activism of inconsequently political groups considered to be made by "Libertarians". So 'politics' is historically and usually a term for a statist society to form the state. That doesn't belong to an anarchistic original interpretation of libertarianism. Consequently, the NAP (or libertarianism in its core) is not even content of the curriculum in any predominating political science or any reference book of political philosophy. One may also understand libertarianism as a private intention to define the proper use of force. Such potential of behavior is described as "private law enforcement" or "security agencies". But just these issues are totally ignored in any bibliography of political philosphy. Also, libertarianism doesn't contain any intention to form a decided society. People could voluntarily agree to live in a Stalinist society, for example, without violating a single libertarian principle. But libertarain scholars rather eye the term 'society' suspiciously, because society don't act. Since only individuals act, the focus of study for the libertarian theorist is always on the individual.

I removed it because it's in indecipherably poor English, because it is totally unnecessary and adds nothing to the aritlce, because it fails to meet Misplaced Pages's standards of quality, and because it violates every single style guidline, as well as WP:NPOV and WP:OR. --rehpotsirhc 21:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

When it is indecipherable who can you know that it is 1. totally unnecessary, 2. and adds nothing to the aritlce and 3. fails to meet Misplaced Pages's standards of quality and 4. violates every single style guidline, as well as WP:NPOV and WP:OR? It is very clear that you act in bad faith. --Irgendwer 23:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's actually easy: (2) indecipherable things don't add information, which also explains (1); (3) is met simply because being comprehensible is a necessary feature of meeting any standard of quality, let alone Misplaced Pages's; and (4) is easily seen by the parts that are understandable (use of rhetorical questions, voice, essay-style writing, lack of paragraph breaks to show subtopics, possible original research connecting primary sources to other assertions, apparent unattributed POV, etc, etc.).

In short, there's enough understandable to see that it's inappropriate, but there's not enough here that's understandable to improve on it or fix the problems it has. — Saxifrage ✎ 05:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You should read Misplaced Pages:Editing policy - Perfection Not Required, or, The Joy of Editing before typing own rules. --Irgendwer 07:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

"Perfection not required" does not mean that you can submit anything you want to an article and expect it to remain unchanged. Your addition constitutes your own opinion that libertarianism is apolitical. Your rhetorical style - asking and then answering questions - gives you away. It's POV, and it is being correctly removed. Rhobite 13:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I have reread the section with the "Why?" many times. Every word is imho NPOV, and into the bargain, it is supported by apt quotations.

When I am writing "Libertarianism is rather an apolitical idea" then "apolitical idea" means to do something without government. I think, this is NPOV beyond dispute. When you put this yourself in the logical context of "Libertarianism is a political philosophy" then "political" is misplaced, isn't it? --Irgendwer 15:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

One of your major blunders is equating the meaning of "apolitical" with "something without government". Politics has to do with social groups (2 or more individuals), of which government is but one manifestation. --Serge 16:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of the defintion of politics. Instead, you put it again in a too broad sense without having evidence. For example: A private enterprise is no political enterprise. The term "non-political society" is used to describe the state of anarchy. --Irgendwer 17:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You might be aware of a definition of politics, but you cannot be aware of the definition, because there is no one definition that could be the definition. So another blunder of yours is to assume there is but one definition of "politics" (and "political philosophy"). As an example, consider this m-w.com dictionary definition of politics: the total complex of relations between people living in society. Libertarianism, ultimately, describes the political philosophy of certain types of individualists. --Serge 17:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Before you detect my blunders, we speak about yours. I wonder, that you assume that your used one! defintion is ultimately correct over other defintions. Politics, i.e. the Misplaced Pages article, contains defintion/s to which one may agree if the article is in a good condition. Otherwise you may include your NPOV to the Politics article and when this is changing the relevance of my expression then I (or someone else) will rephrase it easily to NPOV again. I don't have a problem with accuracy while you are defending an inexact phrase ("l. is a political philosophy") on the facts of the politics article and now! also of the political philosophy article by own defintion like a bulldog. --Irgendwer 20:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

When a term has multiple definitions, the context determines the meaning, not you or me. --Serge 21:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course, who does claim something else? --Irgendwer 00:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, all private enterprises are very much indeed political enterprises, where, depending on the particular organization, the degree to which members engage in "office politics" and political maneuvering may vary, but certainly always exists at least to some extent, except perhaps in the case of the sole proprietorship with no employees. But even then, there are always politics involved in dealing with one's customers and suppliers. All human relations are inherently political, by definition. --Serge 17:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

In a political society, private institutions are also perforce involved in politics. But this is not the context. --Irgendwer 20:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

As I've tried to say below, you are confusing concerned with politics with being involved in politics. The word political means being concerned with politics, not being involved in politics. Thus, libertarianism, being concerned with matters of politics, is political. It is not necessarily involved in politics. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

My skills to verbalize are as weaker as to understand something. So I don't confuse my understanding. I can sign your phrase. "In a political society, private institutions are also concerned with (or affected by) politics." The meaning is for my dictionaries nearly the same. (concerned with=befasst mit, perforce involved in=zwangsläufig verwickelt in, or more active/passive) --Irgendwer 00:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Politics is a noun, political (and apolitical) is an adjective. You are probably quite aware of the difference between an adjective and a noun, but what you seem to be unaware of is that, in English and many other languages, when a word-stem (politic) forms words in different classes (nouns and adjectives are classes), they very commonly also change what the stem means within that word. Politics and political do not have the same referents: the politic in politics and political do not have the same meaning.

This, Irgendwer, is the sort of thing that English speakers learn in kindergarten, and if this page has become a kindergarten as you so often accuse, it's because of your lack of English-language skills that kindergarten-level children understand innately. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You may believe in your fine polemic. But I have always looked out for English terms although the difficulty in my native German is very similar. --Irgendwer 21:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I know the problem in German is the same, I've studied it. For instance, if I said that to be klassisch means being einen Klassiker, then I would be wrong. You are making the same type of mistake when you say that being political means being involved in politics.

To put it another way, I understand German well enough and I've spoken French since I was a child. However, the fine distinctions editors make when discussing an article means that I am unable to participate in discussions at de: or fr:. My German and French skills are insufficient to allow me to always grasp very fine distinctions or even to detect when they are being used in German and Friench. I know my limitations, but you seem to insist that you have none. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe that because erveryone comes with an own story. For example, a more active meaning of political would rather support me. For Serge it would be the same. He puts all situations into "politics" with two or more indivuduals in reach together. --Irgendwer 00:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Although, it's is true that "politics" and "political" in English can be used in the context of just about any interpresonal situation, I would suggest to Saxifrage that "political philosophy" cannot mean any philosophy relating to poltics in this broad sense. For example, a political philosophy can't be a set of ideas about how you should deal with your colleagues at work. Having said this, I think it is reasonable to describe libertarianism as a poltitical philosophy, because (1) most libertarians are minarchists who do support a minimal state, (b) those who aren't minarchists argue explicitly against having a state, hence are concerned with poltical questions (in the narrow sense). It's also, of course, overwhelmingly the common usage to lump libertarianism together with other poltical philosophies, and we shouldn't go against common usage without a very good reason. Cadr 01:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The good reason is that is POV from the non-political-society perspective, and that only some fringes of the philosophy are described by political scienctists. Even the NAP is ignored.

What to do is described in WP:POV:

Each POV should be clearly labeled and described, so readers know:

* Who advocates the point of view

* What their arguments are (supporting evidence, reasoning, etc.)

So you must easily change the phrase to "is a political philosophy in the broad sense of usage" or similar, or you do without this disgrace as it is tastefulness in other well links.

The status now is, that someone claims newly in the political philosophy article that one "may also refer therewith to a general political view". Or by anoter words: It is legitmate to describe something inaccurately by defintion, thus it is legitimate to be inexact. A folly! --Irgendwer 14:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I can only hope that rehpotsirhc stops reverting without any constructive comment in good faith. --Krtzskpsjf 10:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

As you can see, Alfrem/Irgendwer has created another sock, presumably in an attempt to start dispute resolution over again before he can be blocked. This definitely warrants a RfAr, but I don't have the time or energy right now to pursue it. --rehpotsirhc 15:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent edit "skirmish"

I hope no one minds a new sub-heading, this discussion is becoming difficult to follow. I usually stay away from these kinds of things because:

• I do not consider myself a great orator, and fear appearing dumber than I think myself to be.
• I do not have the intestinal fortitude required for long term edit wars.

That said, I have been following the action here recently; I feel compelled to comment and act.

The text in question is, at best, an editorial essay. It needs to be removed from the article. I have done so. Above and beyond its not being NPOV, the essay itself is a bad essay. Is difficult to read. There are few, if any, transitions from one paragraph to the next; the overuse of rhetorical questions slows the flow of the essay as the reader tries to answer the questions himself, and frankly, is annoying. D-Rock (Yell at D-Rock) 09:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

"editorial essay" - This is rather an argument for, not against. But if you don't like the style then you may "improve" it easly. A bad style only (as you assume) is no reason to remove something in Misplaced Pages completely.

If you can not see the "transitions from one paragraph to the next" then I assume that you are more angry, but this is also no reason to remove it completely.

"A rhetorical question" is also only a question of style. It isn't inherent in POV.

It would be better when you would describe what IS POV. But there is not one argument referring to this. It seems to me, you don't have any interest in a discussion in regard to POV. So it is again an attempt to enforce majority POV. Am I right? --Irgendwer 10:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

"Editorial essay" is the most scathing argument I can make against inclusion in Misplaced Pages. We should be writing factual articles, not opinion pieces. That said, Irgendwer is correct in saying I made no specific claims about POV statements. Upon further reflection, I have found that my objections are mostly about unsourced statements.

So, sentence by sentence, here goes (I have left out the block quotes to keep this as short as possible):

The minarchist philosopher Robert Nozick posed in his book Anarchy, State and Utopia (1974) the basic issue of all legal theorie, "The fundamental question of political philosophy, one that precedes questions about how the state should be organized, is whether there should be any state at all. Why not have anarchy?" I have no issues with this sentence.

But just this is not an answered issue by the major contemporary political philosophers and theorists. This potentially controversial factual statement is unsourced. Who says the issue is not answered?

Why? As an encyclopedia, Misplaced Pages should be answering questions, not asking them.

Since it doesn't make sense to carry constributing theories when there is no affirmative basis to politcs. This is an opinion statement.

Nozick himself raised a lot of critics on his interpretation from the anarcho-capitalist camp while attracting rather positive attention of statists. This factual statement is not cited, and is ambiguous. Who exactly criticized him? Which statists gave Nozick positive attention?

Hans-Hermann Hoppe writes about this difficulty, ~Block quote~ Was cited.

So the most consequential libertarian scholars are condemned to work in privacy. This factual statement is unsourced. Also, the connotation of "condemned" may put this statement under the POV umbrella.

But what have happened instead in the official, political institutions by liberal and minarchist thinkers who (less consequential) are willing to use the state as a social regulator for which reason however? See response to "Why?"

In the anarcho-capitalist voice, just these people (like Milton Friedman) have established useful political concepts which are finally even required for an (e.g. of Franz Oppenheimer's social scientist view so called) exploitative statist system. Why is Misplaced Pages speaking in the anarcho-capitalist voice? What happened to NPOV?

Rothbard explained his view on the actual task of political philosopy in his book "The Ethics of Liberty" (1982) as follows: ~Block quote~ Cited.

Furthermore, if any of this information belongs in Misplaced Pages, I doubt it belongs in an introductory article on Libertarianism. D-Rock (Yell at D-Rock) 04:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

@D-Rock, I put some numbers within your text so that I don't must quote all in detail.

"Editorial essay" is the most scathing argument I can make against inclusion in Misplaced Pages. We should be writing factual articles, not opinion pieces. That said, Irgendwer is correct in saying I made no specific claims about POV statements. Upon further reflection, I have found that my objections are mostly about unsourced statements.

So, sentence by sentence, here goes (I have left out the block quotes to keep this as short as possible):

The minarchist philosopher Robert Nozick posed in his book Anarchy, State and Utopia (1974) the basic issue of all legal theorie, "The fundamental question of political philosophy, one that precedes questions about how the state should be organized, is whether there should be any state at all. Why not have anarchy?" I have no issues with this sentence.

But just this is not an answered issue by the major contemporary political philosophers and theorists. This potentially controversial factual statement is unsourced. Who says the issue is not answered? (1)

Why? As an encyclopedia, Misplaced Pages should be answering questions, not asking them. (2)

Since it doesn't make sense to carry constributing theories when there is no affirmative basis to politcs. This is an opinion statement. (3)

Nozick himself raised a lot of critics on his interpretation from the anarcho-capitalist camp while attracting rather positive attention of statists. This factual statement is not cited, and is ambiguous. Who exactly criticized him? Which statists gave Nozick positive attention? (4)

Hans-Hermann Hoppe writes about this difficulty, ~Block quote~ Was cited.

So the most consequential libertarian scholars are condemned to work in privacy. This factual statement is unsourced. Also, the connotation of "condemned" may put this statement under the POV umbrella. (5)

But what have happened instead in the official, political institutions by liberal and minarchist thinkers who (less consequential) are willing to use the state as a social regulator for which reason however? See response to "Why?" (2)

In the anarcho-capitalist voice, just these people (like Milton Friedman) have established useful political concepts which are finally even required for an (e.g. of Franz Oppenheimer's social scientist view so called) exploitative statist system. Why is Misplaced Pages speaking in the anarcho-capitalist voice? What happened to NPOV? (6)

Rothbard explained his view on the actual task of political philosopy in his book "The Ethics of Liberty" (1982) as follows: ~Block quote~ Cited.

Furthermore, if any of this information belongs in Misplaced Pages, I doubt it belongs in an introductory article on Libertarianism. D-Rock (Yell at D-Rock) 04:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC) (7)

(1) I agree that I have been somewhat imprecise in formulating. It is an "answered question" but it is only answered (when it is at all) in a way to support the own positive view of the role of state. A typical manner of this is to relate to Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan. So it is easy to improve. See also (3).

(2) You relate to Misplaced Pages:No original research or something like that. I cant find it yet. But that doesn't hit the point imho. It is only an editing style in the context.

(3) I think, this is an extreme view but I rephrase to,

" ...Why not have anarchy?" But just this is not a really answered issue by the major contemporary political philosophers and theorists. As an empirical fact, it is only answered (when one tries to answer it at all) in a way to support the own positive view of the role of state. A typical manner of this is to relate to Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan. Nozick himself raised a lot of critics on his interpretation from the anarcho-capitalist camp while attracting rather positive attention of statists. In this logic, that it doesn't make sense to carry constributing theories when there is no affirmative basis to politcs, Hoppe writes:"

(4) I will deliver references in addition.

(5) Is actually an empirical fact. But I can rephrase it: "So some of the most consequential libertarian scholars must work aside of public utilities."

(6) No problem to NPOV. You can see the Who and What.

• Who advocates the point of view
• What their arguments are (supporting evidence, reasoning, etc.)

(7) No reason to remove it simply.

--Irgendwer 15:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Irgendwer: I think calling this edit vandalism is counter-productive to whatever solution may be acheived. D-Rock (Yell at D-Rock) 06:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

What do you think it is when we may say the truth? --Irgendwer 07:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Only the worst editors who work opposite of the Misplaced Pages Way claim to know the truth. — Saxifrage ✎ 07:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The truth is that reverters like User Nat Krause and Rehpotsirhc are working witout any constructive cooperation. This is not hard to see. --Irgendwer 13:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Irg, I think it's pretty clear to anyone who cares to look that you're simply trying to insert a big OR editorial essay into the article. As if that weren't enough, the essay is terribly written and borders on incoherency. Posting lengthy replies to people to make it seem like you are taking part in some kind of content debate isn't fooling anyone--there is not one other person who supports your changes, in any form. You've already been banned from this article by Arbcom once for edit warring. I'll just leave it at that. --rehpotsirhc 13:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

"Essay", "terrible", "incoherency" are your sham terms of an used editing style. It is not forbidden to use any editing style because at least every editor must have one. Your lump charges doesn't make any sensible argument. --Irgendwer 14:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I forgot to add: your English is so poor that 90% of what's said on talk pages flies over your head anyway. For an example, see above. --rehpotsirhc 14:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I see an example of your all-in charges. When you think I could not understand you, then you would have for certain a concrete example. But this is only your well tried diversionary troll tactic. --Irgendwer 14:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Get someone, anyone, to support your changes first before making them. Why do you keep accusing us of not respecting collaboration and consensus when you entirely ignore them both? — Saxifrage ✎ 04:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I have taken all objections into account except to such killer arguments like "essay", of course. So, what do you have to say? --Irgendwer 07:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone agree with you that you've successfully taken all objections into account? No, no-one does. That you think you have "taken all objections into account" doesn't give you the authority to ignore everyone else, because you can't decide alone what should be in the article. — Saxifrage ✎ 17:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Libertarianism != Liberalism

On the right of the page there is a nav bar that states "Part of the Politics series on Liberalism"

I understand the relationship between Libertarianism and Classical liberalism, but I believe making Libertarianism "Part of the Politics series on Liberalism" is misleading.

Most libertarians tend to despise the socialist views associated with today’s liberalism.

The US Democratic party was created as the "Democratic-Republican Party", but you don't see "Part of a Politics series on the Republican Party" navigation on that page do you?

I say given the confusion in the similar names it is even more important to be clear in differentiating Libertarianism from Liberalism.

The word "liberalism" in the series box is being used to describe the global sense of the word, not the American-specific sense. What Americans call "liberalism" -- e.g. the views of the left wing of the Democratic Party -- most of the world calls "social-democracy", "social liberalism" or "socialism" in the non-revolutionary sense. Contrast the articles liberalism and American liberalism. Libertarianism can be considered a branch of (global) liberalism, even though it is opposed to (American) liberalism (which is to say, social-democracy). --FOo 05:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Liberalism includes both social liberalism and classical liberalism --libertarianism being similar to, or a form of, the latter. RJII 05:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Rather than "includes both", I would say the term liberalism may refer to, or may mean, social liberalism, American liberalism, or classical liberalism. --Serge 06:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Mostly agree, but it's a myth that "liberalism" refers to classical liberalism outside of America. In the UK, it's a vague term that would generally refer to social liberalism unless further qualified. Cadr 16:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

"Liberalism in the American usage has little in common with the word as used in the politics of any European country, save possibly Britain." RJII 16:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Linkspam

The site liberteaser.org has been added to the External links here; the same user 68.83.208.126 has added a link at The Kills. The user then employed a sock puppet (one edit) to endorse the inclusion. The user has been warned. I will allow editors of this article to determine whether the site per se meets the guidelines for notability (Technorati rank: 80,000+) and appropriateness (the site claims to be "a satire of libertarianism by libertarians", I don't have the time or inclination). But the guidelines strongly recommend against someone connected with a site adding links to it. --Dhartung | Talk 01:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't feed the disruptive troll

When someone acts obstinately and irrationally about his changes, keeps on insisting on making changes in accordance with his POV, can find no one to agree with him, and engages in endless nonsensical debates on the associated talk page, it's time to simply ignore him, and just rvt his changes. Please don't feed the disruptive troll. --Serge 17:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Saxifrage, consensus

See WP:CON#Consensus_vs._other_policies:

"It is assumed that editors working toward consensus are pursuing a consensus that is consistent with Misplaced Pages's basic policies and principles - especially NPOV. At times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors and generate widespread support among the editors of a given article for a version of the article that is POV, inaccurate, or libelous. This is not a consensus."

So, when there should be a basis "that is consistent with Misplaced Pages's basic policies and principles - especially NPOV" then there must be at least a qualified argument towards basic policies. But threre is no one. "Essay" makes no qualified argument because a style is always improvable (although I see no reason to change it). When you remove it easily then it is bad faith. --Irgendwer 08:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Libertarians require or prefer aid to be voluntary?

There have been a couple of reverts regarding whether requiring or preferring is the more appropriate term in this statement:

Libertarians favor an ethic of self-responsibility and strongly oppose the welfare state, preferring aid to be voluntary.

I think preferring is more appropriate given the context - which appears to about libertarians living in a non-libertarian society. While it may be accurate to say that libertarians would require aid to be voluntary in a libertarian society, that's not what this is about. --Serge 16:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Preference implies that they want it one way but would accept another. For example, I prefer chocolate ice cream but I'll eat vanilla, too. Requirement implies that they demand to have it one way and are strongly opposed to any alternatives. If I'd rather go without ice cream than have vanilla, then I require chocolate ice cream. Of course, we live in a society where the laws force vanilla on us, regardless of our requirements, so libertarians do not get what they want. Al 16:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

A possible compromise; what if we said they demand? This implies that they want it but they're not getting it, so they're just coping. Al 16:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

With demand I get a mental image of a screaming two-year-old who is not getting (to extend the metaphor) his chocolate ice cream. That may not be the paticular connotation everyone associates with demand, but it has connotations that we should be prepared to address if it is used to as an alternative. Unfortunately, I cannot think of any alternatives. --D-Rock (Yell at D-Rock) 17:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, if we think of a better word, let's switch. For now, I'll change it to the best option available. Al 17:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Libertarians do not require nor demand aid at all, therefore they don't require nor demand aid to be voluntary. It should say that libertarians oppose aid that is not voluntary because no innocent individual should be forced to do anything against his will. Or words to that effect. --Serge 20:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Libertarianism and politics

The rhetoric of libertarianism is often qualified by a political discourse because it is what people may observe in a life determined by politics. People see at first of all what's going on in the media about libertarian parties to reduce the state and to pave the way to a laissez-faire culture. But it is not the basic message of libertarianism to enforce its content by a parliament. The consequence of the libertarian core would be to refuse all government intervention but it wouldn't only be to reduce government to a neoliberal level or to a minimal state without the right to secede. One may ask ultimately if that can be libertarian at all, because it will tend in best case to an utilitarian kind of "freedom" but not to libertarian laws.

The minarchist philosopher Robert Nozick posed in his book Anarchy, State and Utopia (1974) the basic issue of all legal theorie, "The fundamental question of political philosophy, one that precedes questions about how the state should be organized, is whether there should be any state at all. Why not have anarchy?" But just this is not a really answered issue by the major contemporary political philosophers and theorists. As an empirical fact, it is only answered (when a statist tries to answer it at all) in a way to support the own positive view of the role of state. A typical manner of this is to relate to Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan. Nozick himself did it in an other way but he raised a lot of critics on his interpretation from the anarcho-capitalist camp while attracting rather positive attention of statists. In this logic, that it doesn't make sense to carry constributing theories when there is no affirmative basis to politcs, it must came as Hans-Hermann Hoppe writes,

"Just look at Ludwig von Mises and Murray N. Rothbard. The two greatest economists and social philosophers of the 20th century were both essentially unacceptable and unemployable by the academic establishment. ... Despite all obstacles, it was possible for Mises and Rothbard to make themselves heard. They were not condemned to silence. They still taught and published. They still addressed audiences and inspired people with their insights and ideas. ... Rothbard had The Ludwig von Mises Institute, which supported him, helped publish and promote his books, and provided the institutional framework that allowed him to say and write what needed to be said and written, and that can no longer be said and written inside academia and the official, statist establishment media."

So some of the most consequential libertarian scholars must work aside of public utilities. But what have happened instead in the official, political institutions by liberal and minarchist thinkers who (less consequential) are willing to use the state as a social regulator for which reason however? In the anarcho-capitalist voice, just these people (like Milton Friedman) have established useful political concepts which are finally even required for an (e.g. of Franz Oppenheimer's social scientist view so called) exploitative statist system.

Rothbard explained his view on the actual task of political philosopy in his book "The Ethics of Liberty" (1982) as follows:

"In our view the major task of “political science” or better, “political philosophy” is to construct the edifice of natural law pertinent to the political scene. That this task has been almost completely neglected in this century by political scientists is all too clear. Political science has either pursued a positivistic and scientistic “model building,” in vain imitation of the methodology and content of the physical sciences, or it has engaged in purely empirical fact-grubbing. The contemporary political scientist believes that he can avoid the necessity of moral judgments, and that he can help frame public policy without committing himself to any ethical position. And yet as soon as anyone makes any policy suggestion, however narrow or limited, an ethical judgment—sound or unsound—has willy-nilly been made. The difference between the political scientist and the political philosopher is that the “scientist’s” moral judgments are covert and implicit, and therefore not subject to detailed scrutiny, and hence more likely to be unsound. Moreover, the avoidance of explicit ethical judgments leads political scientists to one overriding implicit value judgment-that in favor of the political status quo as it happens to prevail in any given society. At the very least, his lack of a systematic political ethics precludes the political scientist from persuading anyone of the value of any change from the status quo.

In the meanwhile, furthermore, present-day political philosophers generally confine themselves, also in a Wertfrei manner, to antiquarian descriptions and exegeses of the views of other, long gone political philosophers. In so doing, they are evading the major task of political philosophy, in the words of Thomas Thorson, “the philosophic justification of value positions relevant to politic.”

In order to advocate public policy, therefore, a system of social or political ethics must be constructed. In former centuries this was the crucial task of political philosophy. But in the contemporary world, political theory, in the name of a spurious “science,” has cast out ethical philosophy, and has itself become barren as a guide to the inquiring citizen. The same course has been taken in each of the disciplines of the social sciences and of philosophy by abandoning the procedures of natural law."

Which sentence is written as POV?

What is "disruptive troll's vandalism" to restore this section?

It seems to me that the vandal must just this person who is removing correct contents in Misplaced Pages in bad faith. Good luck! --Irgendwer 08:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Obviously your proposed edit is never going to be left standing. Maybe, maybe, the content of your edit is useful, but you have to start talking about what you want the article to say. So if you really, really think anything in those paragraphs are an improvement to the article, why don't you say why here? You haven't yet made a single argument for its value, you've only argued that we're biased and wrong for taking it out. Most of us can't even understand it, because your English is so terrible, so why don't you try to explain it first and maybe, maybe you'll have a chance at seeing any of it in the article some day. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Obviously your proposed edit is never going to be left standing.

Your claim.

Maybe, maybe, the "content" of your edit is useful, but you have to start talking about what you want the article to say.

The text speaks for itself.

So if you really, really think anything in those paragraphs are an improvement to the article, why don't you say why here? You haven't yet made a single argument for its value,

The same value as any other content of Misplaced Pages. I don't know what you mean.

you've only argued that we're biased and wrong for taking it out.

This is a fact because your only argument is "terribly written as 'essay'".

Most of us can't even understand it, because your English is so terrible, so why don't you try to explain it first and maybe, maybe you'll have a chance at seeing any of it in the article some day. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Why do you not read the "improvements" of Tamfang to understand the text without mistakes in English? All what you need is here. --Irgendwer 16:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You need to explain why it should be in the article. You haven't done that. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It should be in the article because it is NPOV-material that does fit into an encyclopedia, you troll.

--Irgendwer 07:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

So you assert, but that's not an explanation. Look up the difference between explain and assert and try answering again. — Saxifrage ✎ 09:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Then I am so bold. So what? It is normal. --Irgendwer 12:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't try to use that argument, it will go against you. It is a long, long established practice that being bold is never an acceptable reason after being reverted. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a long, long established rule to improve the Wiki by working towards NPOV without bad faith. But this is what your fellows are doing. They remove only without any good reason. This is called "vandalism". --Irgendwer 05:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Physician, heal thyself. You accuse us of bad faith. Do you do this of bad faith, or because you don't understand English enough to tell the difference between good arguments and petty excuses? — Saxifrage ✎ 06:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Which good argument? "Terribly written POV-essay"? Ridiculous! --Irgendwer 06:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not talking about this particular bone of contention, I'm talking about the arguments against removing "political" from the definition of libertarianism. Arguments which you failed to understand and which you chose to interpret as bad faith instead of as supported by policy, common sense, and basic English semantics. In the end you stopped edit warring against everyone else, so I can only assume that you realised you were wrong in your position. If you were wrong then, both about the article and about bad faith, how can you be so sure that bad faith is what we're acting in now? Your record so far shows that you are not a good judge of bad faith at all, at least not in English conversation. — Saxifrage ✎ 17:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I am asking you for the good arguments and you open a new cask of all inclusive charges with muddleheaded conclusions which have nothing to do with the topic here. Is this one of your troll tactics? --Irgendwer 17:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That is because I asked you why you are assuming bad faith, and you changed the subject to ask what the good arguments are. You haven't answered the original subject, so I have no obligation to answer if you change it. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The original subject is in the title, you troll. --Irgendwer 21:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Then I will start a subsection on your user page that has the appropriate title, since that is so very important to you, and I will move this conversation there. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Nozick, Hoppe, Rothbard and all that

Irgendwer, I'm trying to put your passage into better English so that we're better able to debate its merits. Lacking knowledge of your home language (German?) I cannot guess what idioms you are mistranslating. Here is my attempt.

The minarchist philosopher Robert Nozick posed the basic issue of all legal theory: "The fundamental question of political philosophy, one that precedes questions about how the state should be organized, is whether there should be any state at all. Why not have anarchy?" (Anarchy, State and Utopia, 1974) This issue is not really answered by the major contemporary political philosophers and theorists, unless in a circular way to support a preconceived positive view of the role of the state, e.g. by citing Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan. Nozick himself did it in an other way (did what, answered his own objection?), attracting criticism from the anarcho-capitalist camp and rather positive attention from statists. Given Nozick's premise that it doesn't make sense to debate subtypes of state when the state itself has no affirmative basis, the result must be as Hans-Hermann Hoppe describes: (omitted)

So some of the most consequential libertarian scholars must work outside the academic establishment. But what has been done instead in the official, political institutions by liberal and minarchist thinkers who (less consequential) are willing to use the state as a social regulator for whatever reason? Milton Friedman and others have successfully promoted useful political concepts which may be necessary to the effective functioning of even an exploitative statist system (in the view of social scientists such as Franz Oppenheimer).

Milton Friedman is no anarchist!

Rothbard (The Ethics of Liberty, 1982) explained his view of the actual task of political philosophy: (omitted)

Perhaps this passage ought to be a new section "Libertarians in academia" rather than part of "Libertarianism and politics". —Tamfang 16:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

1)Tamfang, For a start I can adopt your changes, so that nobody may say that he wouldn't understand the "terrible English". 2)I don't claim that Milton is anarchist. Please read the text again. I think it is correctly written. 3)To your question "(did what, answered his own objection?)": Nozick answered in his own way. I don't want to open this cask. But I can add a footnote later. 4)I act on the assumption that there is no POV in this section. One should have good reasons to recvert it. --Irgendwer 18:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Tamfang, please don't feed this guy . --rehpotsirhc 23:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Now that I can better understand the arguments, I can see that it fails Misplaced Pages:No original research by providing a synthesis and numerous conclusions that are not found explicitly in its sources. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You will surely explain how it fails because I don't know it. --Irgendwer 05:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

"Wolf!" cried the boy. —Tamfang 18:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

rv persistent counter-consensus edit

I will revert all activity/vandalsim by this remark because I have inserted corrrect material which fits into Misplaced Pages. You have no reason to remove it. Users should work together in good faith to improve the encyclopadia. You are only corrupting in bad faith or in enforcing your vandalism. This couldn't be called "consensus" in the sense of Misplaced Pages Guidelines. If you want to enforce your will then you may go to arbitration. Good Luck! --Irgendwer 06:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The trouble is that you're the only one able to see how it's coherent let alone relevant, and you won't let the rest of us in on the secret. —Tamfang 06:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I am the only one. But I can't forfeel your objection when you have one at all. Why should it be irrelevant? And why should the first section (which is the intro of the corrupted part) more relevant that nobody is removing it. This is as more than suspect to me. --Irgendwer 08:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the preceding paragraph is also incoherent. Perhaps the conservative instinct, not to mess with what has long remained, protects it. Meanwhile, we're discussing your addition.

Oops. That preceding paragraph was the beginning of Irgendwer's first version of the addition in question, on May 14. A better answer to Irgendwer's question is: although that first paragraph is even more poorly written, it is easier to discern the germ of a relevant idea. —Tamfang 01:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Given Nozick's premise ... the result must be as Hoppe describes: i.e. that marginalized theorists nevertheless get published. The implied syllogism makes huge leaps, the whole quoted passage has no direct relevance to "Libertarianism and politics", and the conclusion is undermined by your very next sentence.

Nor is Libertarianism the most appropriate place for a long contemplation of the role of political science. Excerpts from the Rothbard passage might be appropriate if framed in some discussion of the role of libertarians in political science. —Tamfang 16:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome to get blocked for 3RR violations as long as you like. — Saxifrage ✎ 07:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Troll! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Irgendwer (talk • contribs) .

• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics