Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Saxifrage (talk | contribs) at 16:16, 15 July 2006 (Apology and warning). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

My Sandbox

@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 (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.

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 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, 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:

"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 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).

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

"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."

There is a second reason why libertarianism must be rather an apolitical idea (i.e. to do something without government) 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 libertarian 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.

Are you assuming bad faith?

You accuse everyone else at Talk:Libertarianism of bad faith. Do you do this of bad faith, or because your grasp of English is poor enough that all opposition seems to be bad-faith opposition to you? How could anyone convince you that they have the good of the article in mind? — Saxifrage ✎ 21:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Please desist from your all in charges and explain WHY this material is to ban from Misplaced Pages. In the meantime I will revert your vandalism. --Irgendwer 05:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't charge you with anything. You don't comprehend.

Furthermore, you have made no case for why it should be kept in the article. — Saxifrage ✎ 05:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I have made. It is material which fits into Misplaced Pages. When you think, it should be not, then you must enforce your view by a good reason. Otherwise it is part of the encyclopdia. --Irgendwer 06:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

That's where you're wrong. Not everything fits into Misplaced Pages, and not everything that does fit fits where you think it should fit. Why do you think we have so many policies and guidelines for what not to put in Misplaced Pages? — Saxifrage ✎ 07:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

That's where you're wrong. Not everything fits into Misplaced Pages, and not everything that does fit fits where you think it should fit. - Same to you! Not everything that you think it shouldn't fit does not fit actually. Why do you think we have so many policies and guidelines for what not to put in Misplaced Pages? - So you have enough policies to find a right one. Your advantage! --Irgendwer 08:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right, "not everything that doesn't fit where think it shouldn't fit". That's why we have consensus and multiple editors. You are one editor, and you are alone in believing this does fit. I am one editor, but I am not alone in believing it doesn't fit. Why can't you understand this very, very basic point? — Saxifrage ✎ 10:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not enough to destroy the work of other editors only in your faith, it wouldn't fit. The Editor should act in good faith to others to improve the Misplaced Pages.("Improve pages wherever you can, and don't worry about leaving them imperfect. Avoid deleting information wherever possible.") When you delete a complete section you should explain it. When you can't explain it (as it is), your removing is obviously without any reason. See Misplaced Pages Guidelines. ("During this process, the article might look like a first draft—or worse, a random collection of notes and factoids. Rather than being horrified by this ugliness, we should rejoice in its potential, and have faith that the editing process will turn it into brilliant prose.")

See, you are assuming we are acting in bad faith. That will get you nowhere, because you need people to agree with you to get anything done at Misplaced Pages. Calling us trolls and assuming bad faith earns you disrespect and will get you shunned as a "bad editor" yourself. I am assuming good faith of you: I honestly think that you want to help the article, but I also think you just don't understand that how you are trying to do it will never work.

You are the "champion" of that edit, and everyone disagrees that it fits. The burden is on you to show that it should be there. Who wants it in? That person, who wants it in the page, is the one who needs to convince others that it belongs. If you think that it really is best for Misplaced Pages, then other editors will agree with you. If you think that the current crop of editors at that page is biased, that is what Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment (for articles) exists for. If you don't use proper Misplaced Pages procedure you only hurt your own reputation as an editor.

Also, please don't edit my comments for any reason. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this is evidence that you are assuming bad faith. You are ready to take this to arbitration without even attempting meaningful discussion. I do think you are article editing in good faith, but are not engaging other users in the same manner. You evade direct questions and ingnore direct comments. —D-Rock 06:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You lie. Show me the relevant points where I evade direct questions and ingnore direct comments. --Irgendwer 08:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Searching your recent edit history, I've found only this. I may have jumped the gun. My memory is not as reliable as I think it is. My apologies. However, there is a very large difference between "you lie" and "your facts may be incorrect." Lie connotes maliciousness, and such inflammatory language may be counter-productive to discussion. —D-Rock 04:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not resentful. Can we close your matter? --Irgendwer 07:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Apology and warning

My apologies for mispelling your username. From now on I will be sure to get the "er" right. I don't see how it's relevant to improving Libertarianism though. Now, as for your inappropriate and unceasing accusations of "troll":

Hello, I'm ]. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Misplaced Pages is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on ]. Thank you. — Saxifrage ✎ 16:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)