Talk:Libertarianism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Libertarianism is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article Milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 25, 2005.

Article Milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 19, 2004	Refreshing of brilliant prose	Not kept
March 20, 2005	Peer review	Reviewed
May 11, 2005	Featured article candidate	Promoted
August 16, 2005	Featured article review	Kept
January 15, 2007	Featured article review	Demoted
Current Status: Former featured article

This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Socsci article has been rated A-Class on the assessment scale.

	This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to Sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Libertarianism, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

	This article is related to the WikiProject Politics, an attempt to improve, organise and standardise Wikipedia's articles in the area of Politics. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article..

Archives
Archive 1	Archive 2
Archive 3	Archive 4
Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8
Archive 9

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).

[edit] Terrible Sentence

This is a terribly worded sentence: "They maintain that the initiation of force by any person or government, against another person or their property — with "force" meaning the use of physical force, the threat of it, or the commission of fraud against someone — who has not initiated physical force, threat, or fraud, is a violation of that principle."

[edit] Populist

The image near the bottom puts Populist on the bottom left corner of the box at the bottom of economic and political freedom, directly opposed to libertarianism. While a libertarian would be opposed to a populist on the fact that there is no principle guiding their belief except for popular opinion, because a populist's belief can be whatever the popular opinion is, it is not accurate to describe them as polar opposite as the scale in that image does. The usual word for a polar opposite of a libertarian is a statist, one who supports control in economic and personal matters, the extensive planned society of the state. Perhaps someone could edit the image? Though as it seemed to have a particular name, this graph, then I expect it can't be edited and kept with the name of that scale, but could be posed as a more accurate factual version of that scale.

[edit] "Criticism of libertarianism" section has misleading title

This section should either be renamed "Libertarian response to criticism" or the portions of the section's text which respond to or attempt to undermine said criticisms should be removed. The section also carries the tone of the apologist. If the section were written with a non-Libertarian voice it would carry more weight.

Much better (as of 20 Dec 2006). That's very close to NPOV now but could definitely be expanded. I'd be willing to write up a few paragraphs and submit for NPOV review (I'm not libertarian) if others agree that this section should be expanded. Also, a mention of communitarianism--in this section, in its own section, or at the very least in "See Also"--seems appropriate. 206.211.132.251 00:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The formatting is messed up

On my Internet Explorer Version 6.0 there is a big gap between the heading "Principles" and the text. I'm not a geek so I am reluctant to muck around here, but I hope someone who is can fix it. In the edit page there's a "Political ideology entry points" with double one of this thing around it: { . This item does not appear on my screen, so that appears to be the problem.

[edit] more criticism on anti-animal rights issues needed

american libertarians are known to be more anti-animal rights and anti-environmental issues than most republicans. the article needs to reflect it.

Fair enough -- if we can find sourcing, it may be worth a mention. The first question I see is: are you referring to the American Libertarian Party in particular, or libertarian philosophy as a whole? There's an important distinction, there -- as an example, while many people would generally consider the US Republican Party conservative, they don't necessarily define the historic concept of conservatism. Make sense? Luna Santin 04:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Luna here. Also, I believe that it would be a similar error to conclude too much about libertarianism by looking at liberarians opposed to animal rights. Nozick had some remarks in Anarchy, State and Utopia that could be read as supportive of animal rights. Most libertarians are probably opposed to governments using violence to defend animal rights, but this seems to be an issue where people could hold any number of views and still all be libertarians. JLW777 00:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with JLW777. Yes, most libertarians are probably opposed to government violating the rights of human individuals in order to protect the rights of animals. However, there is nothing inherent in libertarianism that says animals can't have equal rights to humans. Also, this is related to children rights. Does someone have the right, to, for example, trespass onto someone's property in order to stop that someone from beating his child? How about torturing his pet? Indeed, any number of views can all be libertarian on these issues. Libertarianism is only cut and dried once rights are well-defined. But when it comes to relative rights, and conflicting rights, things get murky. --Serge 01:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Environmentalism and the EPA (or any other State exercise of force) are not synonymous. It's possible to hold a view that both respects a sustainable environment and self-determination. However, self-ownership of the child trumps the trespassing infringement in that case, if the child requests aid and you choose to provide it. (The language of "his child" is inherently confusing. A parent cannot own their child as property; that would be slavery.) As for animal rights, all non-persons can be property. 71.162.255.58 20:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I think defining all non-persons as property is clearly speciesism, and in the long run our species could pay the ultimate cost there from a scientific standpoint … which is why I believe this comment, was originally started to point out that this article might need to show that. Nonprof. Frinkus 22:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

I protected this page and also Minarchism because of Irgendwer who is using sockpuppets like crazy at the moment. I have a checkuser request up. If these are all proven to be him, he will be blocked. So this is a band aid to stop him from doing this. He's up to 3 socks and will continue to create them. This should just be for a day or two. --Woohookitty^(meow) 09:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

A new user account is not automatically a sockpuppet. Nobody is taken in here by "sockpuppets". You are abusing your authority. --Ööööö 14:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

A new user account used to evade a block is automatically a sockpuppet. Wikipedia has zero tolerance for block-evading uses of sockpuppets. — Saxifrage ✎ 17:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

So what? --Ööööö 18:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you indicating lack of comprehension of Wikipedia's rules, or lack of caring about them? — Saxifrage ✎ 18:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

nor. I am not banned from Wikipedia. --Ööööö 18:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Irgendwer is blocked from editing (which is certainly not the same thing as being banned by the ArbCom), and the use of "new accounts" (aka sockpuppets) to evade a block is explicitly forbidden by the blocking policy. See User talk:Ööööö, because further discussion of this here would be disruptive. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

"When it becomes clear that a user account is a "reincarnation" of an existing banned user, the new account should likewise be blocked." --Ööööö 20:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I am a complete tyro as regards putting anything on Wikipedia. Just as I was about to try I find this page is locked. I would be happy to send the administrator who is protecting this page my brief list of suggested additional text and corrections, or paste them in here if that is more appropriate. Please let me know. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Caveat (talk • contribs) .

Currently, the page is what we call semi-protected (sprotected, for short), which means that anonymous and very new users can't edit, so you've got a few options. If it's something urgent, you can use {{editprotected}} to request a change or two, or you can list your changes and see if people will make them, or you can wait a day or two, come back, and edit yourself. Hope that helps, and I look forward to seeing your contributions. :) Luna Santin 22:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I think I shall wait a little longer to try to do it myself. Caveat 15:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Negative liberty

Sry about writing in here i'm not familiar with wikipedia. I think theres a mistake in the first paragraph it should say (positive liberty) not (negative liberty).

"Negative liberty" is correct: the passage is talking about freedom from coercion, which is what negative liberty is about. — Saxifrage ✎ 09:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Libertarianism and politics' section

I'm removing this section because it is terribly written, indecipherable, and because the parts of it that are coherent violate WP:NPOV. It was successfully put into the article by the now-banned Irgendwer. He inserted it exactly three times a day for a month until everyone either got tired of reverting or got distracted by one of the many other disputes over his tenditious editing. --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 20:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --Serge 17:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation supporting "political"??

I have removed this citation:

<ref>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 accessed 24 June 2005). The Encyclopedia Britannica defines Libertarianism as "Political philosophy that stresses personal liberty." (link, accessed 29 June 2005) Anarcho-capitalist Murray Rothbard says, "Libertarianism is a political philosophy which says: Given any existent human nature, liberty is the only moral and the most effective political system" in "Myth and Truth About Libertarianism", Modern Age, 24.1 (Winter 1980): 9-15.</ref>

from the intro. C'mon, do we really need to spell it out? If there is anything in the intro that needs a citation, this would be last on the list, wouldn't you think? —Two-Bit Sprite 18:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

A now-banned user edit warred for months to take "political" out of the lead. Yeah, I don't really think it's necessary, especially now that the Unique Point Of View of that one user is no longer influencing the article. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, this same user was raising a ruckus over at Anarcho-capitalism over the same (non-)issue as well who was unable to formulate coherent sentances half of the time, let alone consistant arguments or even a convincing description of the users problem with calling it political... —Two-Bit Sprite 19:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gun Control

Not to be a bother and such. As a new member of the Wiki-world, I've never left a comment like this before.

Why does this article make it appear that a pro-gun stance is a requirement of Libertarianism?

I must assert that a Libertarian can be in favor of gun control. This is not in itself a contradiction.

At the very least, this should be mentioned in the category of conflict.

-Jon Ivy

Final bracketed material now added:

... Libertarian perspectives on political alliances: Most libertarians ally politically with modern conservatives over economic issues, free speech, and gun laws (but for a libertarian defense of gun control, etc., see here [1] )....

Caveat 18:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Frivolous discussion moved to archives —Memotype 13:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This might be a fascinating conversation, but would it not be more fruitful to dig up sources that say/deny that gun control is incompatible with libertarianism? — Saxifrage ✎ 18:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

From an american libertarian perspective, gun control is pretty inconsistent with libertarian philosophy. This may be different in other countries where they don't have a constitutional right to bear arms. The liberatrian party's website has some specific info on this if someone wants to use it as a reference to update this section. see http://www.lp.org/issues/gun-rights.shtml Arthurrh 21:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Basically

Libertarianism is to Anarchism as Socialism is to Communism, right?

-G —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.68.61.67 (talk • contribs) August 28, 2006.

Well, communism is a form of socialism, so your analogy would state that anarchism is a form of libertarianism. If that is your question, then the answer is "no". Anarchism is distinct from libertarianism, however there is a form of anarchism which draws heavily upon libertarianism called Anarcho-capitalism. Does this answer your question? —Memotype 16:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Further, most forms of anarchism are socialist, so you analogy shows a misunderstanding of either anarchism, socialism, communism, or any combination thereof. I'd recommend reading the articles on all of them to expand your understanding of them. —Memotype 17:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

While everything said previously is accurate, in the way most people understand the words, G, yes, you are correct. Timmie.merc 04:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Care to explain? Perhaps start by explaining what the original analogy is supposed to mean, because I personally don't get it, in the same way that I don't get an analogy like: "apples are to pears as fruit are to oranges"... I don't see how this can be described as correct... This is ultimately, however, irrelevant, unless we can redirect this discussion in a way that would improve the article such that it clarifies confusion. —Memotype 04:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure. In my experience, most people think of socialism as a less extreme form of communism, the way one might consider libertarianism a less extreme form of anarchy. Maybe not the greatest analogy, but using a common understanding of the words it's "accurate." Timmie.merc 17:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

comment re "Socialism is to Communism..." Communism is a political system. Socialism is an economic system.~~grey farmer~~ –==Redirection info on the top== OK, two things:

The redirection to libertarian political parties is totally unnecessary. What makes Canada and the US so awesome that their parties be listed? And we're not listing each and every party of the world. If you look at other articles about political philosophies, you won't find this.
The line at the top should be kept to a minimum in length, probably just saying that if this isn't the article you're looking for, you should head to the disambig page.

-Chef Ketone 19:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Nothing makes the US and Canada particularly "awesome", it's just that many times people will end up on this page when seeking information about a libertarian political party in one of those countries. I personally ended up on this page when I entered Libertarian when I was looking for Libertarian Party (United States) and there wasn't an obvious link. The whole purpose of disambiguation is to help people who will likely arrive at one page while looking for another. Betcha dollars to donuts that a lot more people end up at this article when looking for Libertarian Party (United States) than libertarian socialism or Libertarianism (metaphysics). VoiceOfReason 19:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

True... but doesn't "For other uses, see Libertarianism (disambiguation)." do the job well and succinctly? I think that's the point being made. It's also a valid point that we shouldn't be NA-centric: various policy pages even exhort us to avoid it when possible. — Saxifrage ✎ 01:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Libertarianism (disambiguation) doesn't even include a link to the political parties. I understand the desire not to be NA-centric, but the fact is that the US and Canadian parties are (probably) the largest of their type and the ones that a Wikipedia reader is most likely to be searching for. Especially considering that this is after all the English Wikipedia and we can safely assume that the readers are most likely to come from English-speaking countries. VoiceOfReason 01:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, do you agree in principle that the disambig toplinks are excessively long? How that might be remedied can be set aside at least until (and if) there's agreement on that point. — Saxifrage ✎ 01:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More external links needed!

This article is badly in need of more external links. There are only about 100 of them now. There must be thousands of other webpages in existence which relate to this topic which we could link to. We must not rest until the external links section utterly dwarfs the main body of the article. --Xyzzyplugh 18:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

As amusing as that ironic statement is, it might be more productive if you said what you meant directly. People might misunderstand you. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the external links to Libertarian parties, as Wikipedia already has a list of libertarian political parties linked to from this article. The number of links in this article is still completely absurd. If nobody takes action to remove these links, the problem will only get worse. People see lists like these and say, "Well, there's already a gazillion links here, and most of them are of fairly low quality, so what does it hurt if I add a link to my own favorite Libertarian essay/thinktank/blog/author/party," and thus the task of pruning the list becomes even more difficult and less likely to get done. End the vicious cycle, editors. Delete links. -- Schaefer (Talk) 21:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:SPAMHOLE suggests in cases of extreme bloat that the most effective course of action is to nuke the whole external links section and start over. This might be called for here. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I support removing all the external links. I'll do it myself if no objections are raised here in the next few days. -- Schaefer (Talk) 23:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess I object. I know wikipedia is not supposed to be a link farm, but libertarianism does seem to be a broad subject with many different aspects. I skimmed over the list and nothing blatantly irrelevant jumped out. If someone is doing research on the subject, at a glance, they all seem potentially pertinent. Unless some significant number can be shown to be problematic, I don't see what the problem is. Removing all the external links would be throwing out the baby with the bath water. --Serge 23:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

A significant number are problematic. Almost all of the links already have Wikipedia stubs, and external links should not be used when internal ones are available. Those that don't have Wikipedia articles probably aren't notable enough to warrant inclusion anyway. The "Libertarian think tanks" section has websites of obscure political parties that aren't even in English. Same applies to "Other libertarian political projects". Under "Publications and Websites about Libertarianism" (sic, with improper caps) there's an internal link (under the superheading External links) to the article on John Hospers. Also in this section, we have such gems as a link to a dmoz category, dozens of self-published pro-Libertarian sites, a site hosted for free on the ad-supported cjb.net domain, and as a crowning achievement: a web site simply linked with the word "site" whose text is entirely in Danish. -- Schaefer (Talk) 00:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The "Publications and Websites about Libertarianism" section is, by definition, trying to be a directory listing. If somebody is doing research about libertarianism, Wikipedia's job is to provide information with references, not be a Google or DMOZ substitute for finding resources. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I've removed all the external links that were redundant with existing wikilinks. I removed ext. links to subjects with red wikilinks. It's not as good as a nuke-from-space, but at least it stops rewarding pagerank spammers for now. If I get around to it, I'll take a stab at sorting the remaining links (both ext. and int.). -- Schaefer (Talk) 19:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Objectivism" title

Someone changed the title of Ayn Rand's section to "Objectivist philosophy" as opposed to "Objectivism." Not a major deal or anything, but wouldn't it make more sense to have the section titled "Objectivism" since that's what it's most often called? Timmie.merc 20:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism Question

"Libertarians make a similiar point that criticisms of libertarianism fall into the same category as Libertarianism is untried."

What does that mean? How would the criticisms be "tried"?

[edit] Politics of libertarian parties

I'm very new to this, but strongly believe that this:

"By endorsing such things as the freedom to discriminate, libertarianism supports freedom of association which is the foundation of human rights."

would require a reference. I had thought that the ICCPR put the right to life (not in the abortion clinic bombing sense) at the top. It's also not a very good sentence.

Also, the left libertarian section seems very vague, but perhaps I am just tired. 210.49.83.243 12:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Initiation of physical force

There is a problem with the introduction. Libertarians do not oppose initiation of physical force. For example, if someone commits fraud, physical force may be initiatied to reclaim the stolen property. Fraud is not theft by physical force but by dishonesty, so taking the property back is truly an initiation of physical force. Also, knocking someone down that's threatening you with physical force is initiating physical force as well. A threat of physical force is not physical force, but the threat of it. So reacting physically against the one making the threat is an initiation of physical force. Libertarians don't oppose initiation of physical force. They oppose aggression. What matter is what the purpose of that force is. For example, if the purpose is to steal, it's aggression. If the purpose is to reclaim what was stolen, or to knock down someone who is threatening to use physical force against you, it is not aggression.Anarcho-capitalism 17:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Libertarians do oppose initiation of physical force. That is the essence of libertarianism. By your usage, all use of force is initiated, and therefore all use of force is initiation of force. But that usage makes "initiation of force" meaningless. So what libertarians define as "initiatiation of force" is that it is use of force which is not justified. Therefore, physical force used in retaliation for fraud is not initiation of physical force, by definition. The one who commits the fraud in the first place is the initiator of using force. Therefore using force in response to that is not initiation of force, even if that response is physical, and the initial use was not. Any other interpretation renders "initiation of force" to be meaningless. --Serge 17:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

That's really twisting the english language. Stealing by fraud is not physical force. That's why it's called fraud. It's stealing through dishonesty. Libertarians do not oppose initiation of physical force. We oppose aggression. And, keep in mind "initiation of force" and "initiation of PHYSICAL force" are not necessarily the same thing.Anarcho-capitalism 17:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, yes, I agree, libertarians do not oppose initiation of physical force. --Serge 15:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's how I reworded the relevant sentence:

They maintain that the initiation (or threat) of force against another person or his property, meaning the use of physical force or the commission of fraud against someone who is innocent of initiating physical force or committing fraud, is a violation of that principle.

--Serge 19:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that looks pretty good.Anarcho-capitalism 21:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The libertarian party in the US specifically states "... accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others;..." (see http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml) Also see article 7 section 1 of the bylaws. Note that individuals wishing to join the libertarian party are required to sign a document endorsing this view. Arthurrh 21:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problem in introduction

I have an issue with this statement in the introduction:

Some libertarians regard all initiation of force as immoral, whereas others support a limited government that engages in the minimum amount of initiatory force (such as minimal taxation and regulation) that they believe necessary to ensure maximum individual freedom.

What is described here as the minimum amount of initiatory force is not viewed as "initiatory force" by those libertarian minarchists who support such use of force. I suggest the following revision:

Anarchist libertarians regard all use of force by government as initiatory and therefore immoral, whereas minarchist libertarians support a limited government that engages in the minimum amount of force (such as consensus-based taxation and regulation) that they believe necessary to ensure maximum individual freedom and is not initiatory (since it is based on consent).

Comments? Suggestions? --Serge 17:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not true that it's "based on consent." Minarchist libertarians support taxation even if everyone does not consent. It is an initiation of force. If it was truly consensual then it would not be a tax, and would be anarcho-capitalism.Anarcho-capitalism 17:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

In home owner's associations fees are often raised by the board without unanimous consent of all the home owners. Never-the-less, this is not initiation of force, because all the home owners have agreed a priori to abide by the decisions of the board (they agree to this when they voluntarily decide to purchase a home within the association). The minarchist "tax" is similar: it is based on a priori consent to abide by the decisions of the governing body of the minarchist society. It is similar to an employer imposing a dress code on his employees - the employees have agreed to abide to such impositions as a condition of their choice to be employed there. Any society which imposes taxes or makes other impositions without such a priori agreements in place cannot be libertarian, by definition. --Serge 17:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

By your reasoning anything the state does can be justified. You assume just because I live on this land mass that I give "a priori" consent to the state to take anything it wants from me, but that's not the case. I don't consent to anything just by living where I do. At least be an honest libertarian and admit that you will take my money against my consent because you believe it will maximize utilitarian consequences. The homowners association that you're talking about is different because that's private property. The state cannot legitimately claim it owns the land I reside on and charge me rent for it.Anarcho-capitalism 17:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know whether or not you in particular have givena priori consent to something because of where you live. But I do know that it's possible. There are entire private communities that are governed by such "states". See Pebble Beach, California for an example... everyone who lives there consents to abide by the CC&Rs. Conceptually, those CC&Rs can say anything. In practice, if they got out of hand people would leave. The point is that a minarchist community or area can be governed on a system based on consent. Taxes do not have to be initiatory force in a minarchist state just like the residents of Pebble Beach having to pay their fees does not comprise initiatory force. The powers of the governing minarchist state simply have to be limited to that which the governed have consented (including by any a priori consents). --Serge 16:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

But don't you see that if it's voluntary then it's not a tax? It's merely a purchase of offered goods and services. What you're describing is not minarchism, but anarchism, or what is called anarcho-capitalism. If it's voluntary arrangment then it's not a "state." If I go purchase an expanse of land and then charge people to live on it and require them to sign a contract to pay fees for maintainence, security, and so on, I am not a state. I'm just exercising my private property rights. A state would be situation where someone that does not own the property requires me to pay them money for services and security. That's obviously an act of aggression or an "initiation of force." I'm not familiar with Pebble Beach, but I'm sure it's not a voluntary situation. To be voluntary, then legitimate owners of the land would have to be charging the "tax." I don't think the Pebble Beach government owns the land it presumes to have authority over. "Private" and "state" are two different things.Anarcho-capitalism 18:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I think a tax is a particular type of fee which may or may not be based on consent. But if you want to define tax as a nonvoluntary fee not based on consent, then I would argue that the fees paid to the state in a minarchy cannot be "taxes", by definition, if it is a libertarian minarchy. Pebble Beach is, by the way, entirely private property, with the general areas owned by the corporation, and individual home lots owned by individuals. Whether or not the fee paid by Pebble Beach home owners to the Pebble Beach Corporation is a "tax" is a matter of semantics - the concept is what matters here. They contract with the county to provide police (sheriff) and fire services, etc., and it's all paid through the home owner fees to which each owner consents and is obligated to pay by contract. The end result is really not that different from neighboring Carmel-by-the-sea, where the similar services are paid for through actual "taxes", except in Pebble Beach the arrangements are all explicitly consensual. Anyway, Pebble Beach is what I think of when I write "consensus-based taxation", and the main point is that no libertarian can advocate for traditional taxes based on initiatory force and still be a libertarian.

To be a libertarian minarchist, you have to promote raising revenue for the minimal state exclusively through voluntary and consensus-based systems. Otherwise, it's not libertarian. And whether the mechanism is called taxes or not is a separate and irrelevant semantic matter. --19:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Well that may be your POV that one can't be a libertarian if he supports involuntary taxation, but that's not how all libertarians define themselves. That's one form of libertarianism. The other is the libertarianism of someone like Milton Friedman (he does call himself a "libertarian"). This latter type are utilitarians, who support taxation and other forms of minimal initiation of force by the state. Not all libertarians are anarcho-capitalists, which appears to be what you actually are. There is actually a video attached to this article that explain the difference. It's at the bottom of the page called "Uncommon Knowledge interview "Milton Friedman on Libertarianism" Friedman says "But as a matter of fact there are two really different versions of libertarianism. The more extreme version of libertarianism has one central principle- it is immoral to initiate force on anyone else. That's the prime view, that's the Ayn Rand type of libertarianism. Immoral in and of itself..and all you need to know to know that something of the state is immoral is whether it involves the initiation of force. That's one brand, now there's another brand which is one I would be favorable to which you could call consequentialist libertarianism." Anarcho-capitalism 20:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two types of libertarians?

I have a problem with the current wording in the intro:

There are two types of libertarians. One type hold as a fundamental maxim that all human interaction should be voluntary and consensual. They maintain that the initiation of force against another person or his property, with "force" meaning the use of physical force, the threat of it, or the commission of fraud against someone who has not initiated physical force, threat, or fraud, is a violation of that principle (many of these are individualist anarchists or anarcho-capitalists). The other type comes from a consequentialist or utilitarian standpoint. Instead of having moral prohibitions against initiation of force, these support a limited government that engages in the minimum amount of initiatory force (such as levying taxes to provide some public goods such as defense and roads, as well as some minimal regulation), because they believe it to be necessary to ensure maximum individual freedom (these are minarchists).

I think saying there are just two types is misleading. In fact, with respect to adherence to the fundamental maxim, I suspect all libertarians fall somewhere along a continuum, not into one of two boxes. For example, if you see someone beating a child on private property, all but the most extreme libertarians would probably agree that it's okay to initiate force (trespass) to save the child in this case. On a broader spectrum, does the U.S. invasion of Iraq constitute initiation of force, or is it retaliatory (and therefore justified) because of Sadam's violation of agreements he made at the end of the gulf war? Are all taxes initiation of force? Or can some be viewed as consensual, like home owner's fees? In short, I think we should say that all libertarians support the maxim, but some believe there are certain situations where exceptions are warranted. I agree you can reach libertarianism from either a moral or utilitarian route, but that's a separate issue from how fundamentalist one may be with respect to the maxim. --Serge 22:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. And "classical liberals" are NOT "consequentialists". The founders of the United States republic were mostly "classical liberals" but mostly believed in "natural rights" which government was supposed to protect-- their view of government was NOT the "maximum (material) good for the maximum number of people." 74.129.231.106 (talk) 23:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

John Stuart Mill was a consequentialist. Adam Smith was a consequentialist. The point of saying that Friedman, Hayek, and Mises are called classical liberals as well as libertarians is that it's true. That is, it's true that they are also called classical liberals. That's not the same thing as saying that all, or most, classical liberals are consequentialists.Anarcho-capitalism 00:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Animal Rights

The treatment of animals is a important topic for many individuals, so what do libertarians advocate in this issue? Can Animals have rights, can they be object of ethical consideration? --80.136.57.231 18:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC) (Sorry for my Englisch ;-) )

The Green Party would be the one for you then.--64.75.187.201 05:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, many libertarian socialists are vegetarian or vegan and supportive of animal rights and/or liberation. I don't know about American big-L-Libertarians though. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 05:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the American big-L-Libertarian party has no official stance. I have met Libertarians who support animal rights based on their view of libertarian philosophy, as stated above. I have similarly met Libertarians who believe animals are property. So there you are. I don't think there is a consensus. Arthurrh 21:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC) I believe this has been discussed before, look in the archives Nil Einne 17:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure one could advocate, in an intellectually consistent way, the owning of non-human animals as "property" without also advocating treating children or retarded people as property as well. To simply say that an individual is a member of the species Homo sapien tells us very little about that individual. It does not tell us whether they can think, feel pain, feel emotions or if they are self-aware. Clearly, most adult humans can do all of the above, but so can most members of certain other species (cetaceans and primates, for the best examples), and not all humans can. To assign a retarded baby to a higher moral status than a bright dolphin can only be accomplished through speciesist arguments that stink strongly of other -ist philosophies that no longer hold water.

[edit] Some parts US centric

Some parts of this article are US centric. For example, it mentions the Libertratian Party at the bottom "Controversies among libertarians". What Libertratian Party? You mean the US? Also I believe the Free State Project is only intending to get Americans to migrate to one US state. They're not trying to get people from other countries join them Nil Einne 17:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is international in scope, so I agree some sections could be broadened. Specific U.S. libertarian issues could become a part of an article on the U.S. libertarian movement; though libertarian issues dealt with in the U.S. that are relative to the philosophy world-wide would be fine here. Nonprof. Frinkus 04:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Simple solution to one issue raised here- change Libertarian Party to United States Libertarian Party. Lurker ^oi! 13:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The introduction of this article seems to imply that libertarians are, without exception, right-wing: "Libertarians favour an ethic of self-responsibility and strongly oppose the welfare state…". Shouldn't there be some mention of left-libertarians in the introduction? After all, "libertarianism" was a term originally coined by the left; this article centers around only the US definition of libertarian. Prometheus 2 02:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

thats coz usa is extreme capitalist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.139.204.43 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] ==================

I have added the following sentence to the introductory paragraph as what is described is NOT Libertarianism rather an American viewpoint of Libertarianism.

It should be noted that this article deals with libertarianism from this (i.e a U.S.) viewpoint and is a disputed subject, please see discussion page for more details.

Again the sentence pointing out that this is a disputed article has been removed, I will keep on placing that innocuous sentence in there until you either leave it or mark the topic as disputed. I can get others to help and indeed can script my editing process, so *please* accept this comment. I believe in the concept of wikipedia especially because I am a non-authoritarian libertarian so I am prepared to put the effort in to make it more accurate; as such I find the article as it stands highly offensive due to it's biased viewpoint.

Steve Mayes

[edit] Children

This article doesn't discuss children at all. I'm a libertarian but I support libertarian principles only for adults. There's probably some radical libertarians who don't make a distinction. There should be a section discussing this.Anarcho-capitalism 02:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Much of libertarianism is related to the concept of consent, which someone who "is not of the age of consent" is not able to give, by definition. --Serge 05:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The reason I brought this up is I heard a self-described libertarian host of a call-in show on Freetalk Live internet radio [2] saying that parents should be allowed to have sex with their own underage children as long as it's consensual, including taking pictures of the sex act and publishing them as child pornography. I don't agree with that at all. Children needs special protections. Just because they consent to something, it doesn't mean it should be allowed. But, also they should also have less protections in other areas. For example, if a sick child refuses medicine it should be ok to initiate force - to make them take their medicine. I think it's absurd to try to apply libertarian standards to people that haven't reached the age of reason, whatever that age may be. But apparently they are some libertarians who apply libertarianism to all people, regardless of age.Anarcho-capitalism 05:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, fundamentally disagree. A person owns themself at any age, and if they then give their consent to to any act they should be able to whatever they want, even if it means they'll be hurting themselves. Furthermore, how is parental authoritarianism any different than government authoritarianism? - ZakuSage 04:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Right Libertarian confusion

"This article is primarily about what is sometimes referred to as right libertarianism." It is probably very confusing to readers that the intro uses the term right libertarianism since it could mean libertarianism associated heavily with the political right; or it could mean libertarianism in the sense of political rights. Deepstratagem 11:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is clear. The latter would be rights libertarianism.

(JoeCarson 13:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC))

I don't see it as confusing either, but that's just me. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 19:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

On a related note. Anarcho-capitalism just added to the intro that libertarians do not consider themselves to be on the right. Though this is probably true of most libertarians, I do not believe it is generally true. Some libertarians consider themselves left and some right. Those who consider themselves neither are in the majority however. (JoeCarson 12:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC))

I don't like the term "right Libertarianism". It's simply inaccurate. A better term is needed for the type of libertarianism represented by the likes of the Libertarian party in the USA. But i can't think of one. Lurker ^oi! 15:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe classical liberalism is most accurate. (JoeCarson 17:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC))

But anarchist libertarianism is not classical liberalism. Classical liberalism would only apply to the minarchists.Anarcho-capitalism 17:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, the idea that minarchism is classical liberalism is a disputed point of view (I once removed the term "classical liberalism" from this article's intro because I felt it was POV). See the article on Classical Liberalism for details. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lurker (talk • contribs) 12:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Conscription

"Libertarians also strongly oppose conscription because they believe no one should be forced to fight a war they oppose." I'm interested by this. Does anybody have any theory/reference to suggest this to be the case? I can see libertarians being against conscription on the basis of it being 'forced', but it is the 'war they oppose' business that gets me. It suggest a libertarian in favour of a war would not disagree with conscription. Sorry if this seems picky just wondered if anyone had any input on whether this should be clarified/is correct as it is. ny156uk 20:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point. It's bad writing. I'll see if I can fix it.Anarcho-capitalism 00:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it should be left as is. The reason Libertarians oppose conscription is not due to their support for/against a war. It is because another person may be against it. You see, conscription means everyone fights, therefore, it leaves no room for someone to disagree with and not fight that particular war.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Camick83 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] War

I think something should be added about the libertarian views on war. I found this article, http://www.zetetics.com/mac/articles/justwar.html but I don't fully agree with the conclusion. It seems like any group of libertarians have the duty to defend themselves from an unjust use of force, and that would include a libertarian group attacking a State that oppresses even 1 individual. There are no "borders" in a libertarian society, so if a group of people in USA feels that someone in DPRK is part of their libertarian community, they have the duty to protect that individual from oppression by the DPRK government. So a libertarian community attacking DPRK, Iraq or even Cuba with the pretext of freeing their citizens from oppression seems fully justified. But this is just my opinion, what are the prevailing views on this subject? User317 19:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia is not the Open Directory Project- a proposal

Here's a suggestion to deal with the external links problem. Rather than pick through them one by one, why not make a list here of ten or so links that are indispensable and wipe the rest. This way we can avoid an edit war and the hassle of everyone constantly removing and adding links, which is what would happen if we got rid of them one by one. Of course, wikipedia is a work in progress and any list would be up for being edited. But I think a consensus list of a few links, and wiping the rest would give us a good place to start. Lurker ^oi! 11:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Since there was no response to this, I've cut down the links section to one FAQ, Open Directory and an encyclopaedia entry. Feel free to add more links, or restore some of those I have removed- as long as you can justify its inclusion using WP:LINKS. Lurker ^oi! 17:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-Gender Neutral Language

I would suggest that the opening paragraph be modified such that a 'person' becomes a gender-neutral. E.g. right to protect "their" property as distinct form "his" property.

I'm not sure how that lines up with Wikipedia's formatting rules.

203.206.28.80 03:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)DS

Wikipedia rules don't have a problem with it as far as I know. There are some cases in which "singular they" can be confusing, but in general it isn't. (It's also not a new thing at all; Shakespeare uses it!) But, that said, it's usually frowned-on here to use Wikipedia articles to advocate a particular dialect or form of English (e.g. the British vs. American spellings thing). Since both "singular they" and "generic he" are common English usage, I don't think it's worth making a big deal. --FOo 07:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] politics of libertairians...

i belive the historical example of workplace descrimination is poorly written. i'm new to the editing of all this so i'm not going to touch it. i think it is extremely mis-leading to state that liberals would vote to punish the employer for such descrimination and conservatives would take the side of the employer. i don't want to rehash any liberal/conservative or dem./rep. debate, but the numbers show republicans for civil rights and democrates against it. they actually had the longest filibuster in history trying to block the civilrights act. also, even though the employee could leave, isn't descrimination itself and infringement on another's liberties? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Camick83 (talk • contribs) 06:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Need to break up this article

This article is absurdly long, and, in many cases, aimed so much at some insular community of libertarians that it is often harder to read/more incoherent than even the myriad Fourth International articles. Just thought I'd put that thought out there.

The stuff that's been covered in other articles can surely be summarized far more. Also, several of the sections, while still requiring major attention/rewrites, are long enough to be broken out into already well-developed separate articles. MrZaius^talk 05:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Cut it from 62k to 47k by moving Controversies within libertarianism out of this article. I could use a hand moving the appropriate citations, however. Also, note that there's still quite a few sections that use template:main but are essentially alternative versions of the main articles rather than summaries thereof. They could be greatly trimmed. MrZaius^talk 18:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/b/Talk%7ELibertarianism_e415.html"