Talk:Neolibertarianism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For a May 2005 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Neolibertarianism
This article could use some work in properly cataloguing the debate, and in fact a seperate article for "neolibertarianism vs. paleolibetarianism" or "neolibertarianism vs. libertarianism" is probably in order. I've also left some blank sections to be filled in.
The styled neolibertarians, at least in the US, are the vast preponderance of the Libertarian Party and the libertarian movement. Really? That might surprise the "vast preponderance of the Libertarian Party" and the libertarian movement. I'm not saying there aren't neolibertarians within the US LP or broader movement. But, at least for the LP, the party's platform and prominent personnel don't reflect the interventionist foreign policy which is a distinguishing characteristic of neolibertarianism. Thoughts?
I would agree that the Libertarian Party is made up mostly of paleolibertarians, with few neolibertarians if any. As for the libertarian movement today I would say it is quite possible that the next generation of libertarians might fall more into the neolibertarian category. This belief is only my own and isn't backed up by any polls or statistics. I'm just making an educated guess being a neolibertarian college student who knows other libertarians who are mostly if not all neolibertarian rather than paleolibertarian. Thorburn 07:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
"Neolibertarianism is a political philosophy combining elements of libertarian and conservative thought that embraces incrementalism and pragmatism domestically, and a generally interventionist foreign policy..."
"...Ed Crane represented the faction closest to neolibertarian (though at the time this term was not used in relation to the Clark/Koch/Crane group). Crane was the founder and President of the Cato Institute, with financial support from the billionaire Koch family, and this faction within the LP is generally known in relation to the Cato Institute."
"Among American conservatives, neolibertarians differ with paleoconservatives and neoconservatives primarily over the so-called "War on Terror" and the necessity of various federal social programs such as Medicare, respectively. Neolibertarians, though not as strict in their definition of "separation of church and state" as many American liberals and libertarians, do not advocate as strongly as other conservatives for the use of religion in public policy disputes."
This whole article is just a propaganda attack of a so-called "paleolibertarian" against Cato-Institute, and is completely unsubstantial. Anybody who has read Cato's website from the beginning of the Iraq war knows, that the institute consistently opposed the war.
I'm also amazed, that a "paleolibertarian" is criticising other of not having a strict in their definition of "separation of church and state", given their close relationship to the catholic church, or embrasing conservative elements, given their views of abortion and homosexuals. The whole term "neolibertarian" is a term coined by the self-declared "paleolibertarians" of the Mises Institute in order to defame other libertarians, and this whole article is unobjective trash.
Besides, there is also another definition of "neolibertarianism", see "What Is Neolibertarianism?"--213.243.158.126 12:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
The first use of “neolibertarian” that I encountered was for a notion that liberty was subject to aggregate maximization and ought to be thus maximized. —12.72.72.180 23:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] neolibertarianism vs. conservatism
Neolibertarianism is a political philosophy combining elements of libertarian and neoconservative thought. This is refuted later in the article: Among American conservatives, neolibertarians differ with paleoconservatives and neoconservatives primarily over the so-called "War on Terror" and the necessity of various federal social programs such as Medicare, respectively. Intangible 23:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- All that is asying (in an inarticulate way) is that the way in which neolibertarianism differs from neoconservatism is with regard to federal social programs. It also differs from "paleoconservatism," or conservatism, although in more fundamental ways.
- This is from neoconservatism:
-
- Critics define it as interventionist with hawkish views on foreign policy. Supporters define it as advocating the use of military force, unilaterally if necessary, to replace autocratic regimes with democratic ones.
- The interventionism is derived from neoconservatism, and that's the only conservatism with which neolibertarianism shares significant thought. Other than that, it derives mostly from vanilla libertarianism -- I'll clean up the messy sentence in the article, which should avoid any lack of clarity about neolibertarianism's relation to conervatism. (that's a lot of isms!) --Daniel11 03:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Yes, but American conservatism can be interventionist too, see Barry Goldwater, he was not a neo-con I might add. Intangible 03:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Fair enough, but that's not where neolibertarianism's interventionism is derived from, except to some slight extent indirectly. Are you ok with the changes I made to the article?
- Also, even some communist could fit just the description "interventionist," so I don't think that fact alone is hugely meaningful. --Daniel11 12:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
-
Historically, the neolibertarian/paleolibertarian debate was more a question of incrementalism vs. a no-compromise, strict adherence to a principled position in matters of government interference, and the paleolibertarians' rejection of the Vietnam era alliance with the New Left in favor of an alliance with paleoconservatives.
This section needs documentation as I'm quite sure it's wrong. The forerunner of what today is known as paleolibertarianism, Murray Rothbard, was a leading light behind a short-lived attempt to merge old right anti-war ideas with New Left '60s anti-war activist radicalism. Moreover, neoconservatives -- from whom neolibertarians are borrowing their ideas on foreign policy -- strongly favored the Vietnam War and even today believe that the left led America to quit on a war that could have been won.
Frankly, I don't think there is much "history" here as neolibertarianism as it's being used in this entry was invented post-9/11. The incrementalism/purism debate certainly goes back decades -- see Rothbard's stinging criticism of "establishment court libertarian" Milton Friedman, for example -- and is reflected today in the paleos' harsh words for other noninterventionist mainstream libertarian groups such as the Cato Institute. So, that debate is not unique to neolibertarianism.
Kevin B. O'Reilly 20:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Civil War section should be deleted or improved
It does not say anything of substance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cyberstoic (talk • contribs) 21:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC).
Kevin B. O'Reilly 21:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
