| Revision as of 09:44, 4 August 2010 editTJ1976 (talk | contribs)12 edits →Censorship← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:03, 4 August 2010 edit undoTJ1976 (talk | contribs)12 edits →CensorshipNext edit → | ||
| Line 80: | Line 80: | ||
| There is active censorship going on this article...and not even the regular article, the discussion page. That is to say, there is active censorship of DISCUSSION going on right now. Namely via a lady by the name of Carol. She has a discrete, specific agenda, and unless you are in agreement with her or the status quo in general, you are to be censored. She needs to be controlled. This writing is destined for censorship also. Carol is a nuisance to the democratic encyclopedic process, and she needs to be censored. Mainly due to the fact that she is a censor.] (]) 09:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC) | There is active censorship going on this article...and not even the regular article, the discussion page. That is to say, there is active censorship of DISCUSSION going on right now. Namely via a lady by the name of Carol. She has a discrete, specific agenda, and unless you are in agreement with her or the status quo in general, you are to be censored. She needs to be controlled. This writing is destined for censorship also. Carol is a nuisance to the democratic encyclopedic process, and she needs to be censored. Mainly due to the fact that she is a censor.] (]) 09:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ::: IF there is ever to be progress in any form made on this page, it shall only be made through the BARRING of Carol. She is not a shepherd, she is an anti-intellectual nuisance. By that I simply mean she is an anarchist radical editor who stands in the way of simple democratic academic progresses. She has a specific, socialist/anarchist reactionary agenda standing in reaction to the true libertarian individualist non-statist agendas of actual REALISTIC libertarian agendas. She is a threat to the democratic process of knowledge, a censor, and a nuisance.] (]) 09:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC) | ::: IF there is ever to be progress in any form made on this page, it shall only be made through the BARRING of Carol. She is not a shepherd, she is an anti-intellectual nuisance. By that I simply mean she is an anarchist radical editor who stands in the way of simple democratic academic progresses. She has a specific, socialist/anarchist reactionary agenda standing in reaction to the true libertarian individualist non-statist agendas of actual REALISTIC libertarian agendas. She is a threat to the democratic process of knowledge, a censor, and a nuisance.] (]) 09:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :::: Censor this discussion again and it will re-appear. This problem will not go unaddressed. It is systemic, very much like a disease. A pre-existing disease. And it must be addressed. It will be addressed, so long as the TRUE, EXISTING principles of wikipedia currently exist. If we decide on electing Carol as a dictator, by force of course, perhaps the rules might change. Otherwise, no. The rules of Freedom will not change. Ever. So long as shepherds insure it.] (]) 10:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Ayn Rand vs Anarchism == | == Ayn Rand vs Anarchism == | ||
Revision as of 10:03, 4 August 2010
| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Libertarianism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42Auto-archiving period: 21 days  |
 | 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 Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 25, 2005. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | 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. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Software: Computing | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Template:FixBunching Template:V0.5 Template:FixBunching
 Archives |
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Libertarianism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42Auto-archiving period: 21 days |
Censorship
There is active censorship going on this article...and not even the regular article, the discussion page. That is to say, there is active censorship of DISCUSSION going on right now. Namely via a lady by the name of Carol. She has a discrete, specific agenda, and unless you are in agreement with her or the status quo in general, you are to be censored. She needs to be controlled. This writing is destined for censorship also. Carol is a nuisance to the democratic encyclopedic process, and she needs to be censored. Mainly due to the fact that she is a censor.TJ1976 (talk) 09:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- IF there is ever to be progress in any form made on this page, it shall only be made through the BARRING of Carol. She is not a shepherd, she is an anti-intellectual nuisance. By that I simply mean she is an anarchist radical editor who stands in the way of simple democratic academic progresses. She has a specific, socialist/anarchist reactionary agenda standing in reaction to the true libertarian individualist non-statist agendas of actual REALISTIC libertarian agendas. She is a threat to the democratic process of knowledge, a censor, and a nuisance.TJ1976 (talk) 09:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- Censor this discussion again and it will re-appear. This problem will not go unaddressed. It is systemic, very much like a disease. A pre-existing disease. And it must be addressed. It will be addressed, so long as the TRUE, EXISTING principles of wikipedia currently exist. If we decide on electing Carol as a dictator, by force of course, perhaps the rules might change. Otherwise, no. The rules of Freedom will not change. Ever. So long as shepherds insure it.TJ1976 (talk) 10:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- IF there is ever to be progress in any form made on this page, it shall only be made through the BARRING of Carol. She is not a shepherd, she is an anti-intellectual nuisance. By that I simply mean she is an anarchist radical editor who stands in the way of simple democratic academic progresses. She has a specific, socialist/anarchist reactionary agenda standing in reaction to the true libertarian individualist non-statist agendas of actual REALISTIC libertarian agendas. She is a threat to the democratic process of knowledge, a censor, and a nuisance.TJ1976 (talk) 09:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Ayn Rand vs Anarchism
Ayn Rand hated Libertarianism for being associated with Anarchism. However, the only tenuous connection that Libertarianism had with Anarchism was Rothbard. Rothbard sometimes considered himself a Libertarian but in actuality he was an Anarcho-Capitalist. In 1989 Rothbard ended his involvement with Libertarianism which completely severed the only existing and very slim connection between Libertarianism and Anarchism.
While reading Libertarianism and Objectivism I ran across this great short article by Nathaniel Branden...Objectivism and Libertarianism. One helpful quote in the article is... "today libertarianism is part of our language and is commonly understood to mean the advocacy of minimal government".
Another helpful quote in the article is from the Talmud..."A hero is one who knows how to make a friend out of an enemy". Obviously I'm not a hero. But in real life I get along with a wide variety of people with views very different than my own. I've lived and worked in China and Afghanistan and numerous other places and am respectful of different people's ideologies.
Honestly though I've never met any Anarchists and I apologize if I acted harshly when I first saw this page. Now I will ask nicely...if you want to abolish the state then please respect our views and leave this page alone. It's nothing personal...if it was then I would be working on the Criticisms of anarcho-capitalism page. Thanks. --97.93.109.174 (talk) 23:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- These views are not reliable sources and are therefore irrelevant to the article. TFD (talk) 07:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Whose views on Libertarianism are not reliable sources? --Xerographica (talk) 12:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- 174, Xerographica: An RS: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Libertarianism/Archive_16#The_Blackwell_Encyclopaedia_of_Political_Thought Produce WP:RS, and nothing else. N6n (talk) 09:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Libertarian socialism terminology explained
The "libertarian" in "libertarian socialism" is a synonym for "anarchism." So, "libertarian socialism" means "anarchist socialism." People who prefer to use the original meaning of "libertarianism" (which meant "anarchism" originally) use the term, and append "socialist" to it to make sure you know they're not anarchist individualists. Noam Chomsky for example. So "libertarian socialism" is only a type of "libertarianism" when "libertarianism" is taken to mean "anarchism." You may be able to find Chomsky explaining this in one of his books or interviews. Seven days seven nights (talk) 11:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Again, can you please provide sources. And Chomsky's writings about libertarian socialism are primary sources, so not helpful. TFD (talk) 15:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Chomsky's analyses would not be primary sources. BigK HeX (talk) 17:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- not primary source Darkstar1st (talk) 00:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Even if they are primary sources, they probably aren't only ones in here. And they can be used in some circumstances where no secondary source available and definitely in conjunction supporting secondary sources. And Chomsky is hardly the only source defining this term, which itself has several meanings, which anarchism alone does not explain. For example libertarian socialist Murray Bookchin envisioned Libertarian municipalism which I think many anarchists would think was a tad too statist (even if Bookchin thought it was anarchist), involving as it does community direct democracy for essentially governmental type structures. In fact given all the mentions I found in books google and scholar google, it is yet another variety deserving its section here. Unless some WP:RS labels it a subsection of Libertarian decentralism, an article and section which I haven't even gotten around to writing yet. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- That would mean "anarchist municipalism." Seven days seven nights (talk) 05:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Even if they are primary sources, they probably aren't only ones in here. And they can be used in some circumstances where no secondary source available and definitely in conjunction supporting secondary sources. And Chomsky is hardly the only source defining this term, which itself has several meanings, which anarchism alone does not explain. For example libertarian socialist Murray Bookchin envisioned Libertarian municipalism which I think many anarchists would think was a tad too statist (even if Bookchin thought it was anarchist), involving as it does community direct democracy for essentially governmental type structures. In fact given all the mentions I found in books google and scholar google, it is yet another variety deserving its section here. Unless some WP:RS labels it a subsection of Libertarian decentralism, an article and section which I haven't even gotten around to writing yet. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- not primary source Darkstar1st (talk) 00:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Don't have time right now. I'm just putting this out there so people can get an idea of what direction to start looking. Seven days seven nights (talk) 03:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- There's plenty of sources for "libertarianism" and "libertarian" being a synonym for "anarchism" and "anarchist." See the Anarchism article. Seven days seven nights (talk) 06:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- "Anarchism" and "Libertarianism" are not synonyms.
- Anarchism is not the absence of government. Anarchism is the absence of non-consensual government. In theory, an Anarchist society would be made up of an array of geographically-determinate political entities, each with their own distinct political systems and laws, among which each person could find one to join by their explicit consent. Some of those political entities may represent Socialist ideologies and some may represent Libertarian ideologies. All manner of ideology could be represented by the various political entities. The only common denominator shared by the political entities is the Anarchist axiom that their authority over a citizen is legitimate only if it has that citizen's explicit consent.
- In stark contrast to Anarchism, Libertarianism advocates a minimalist State that enforces private property rights (including contract law, land law, etc.) and the enforcement of criminal laws that embody the Harm Principle. The core Libertarian principles are inalienable in a Libertarian society.
- Any sources that suggest that Anarchism and Libertarianism are synonymous are simply WRONG. BlueRobe (talk) 04:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Not for you to say the sources are wrong. They say what they say and that's what we have to go on. Seven days seven nights (talk) 06:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Chomsky's analyses would not be primary sources. BigK HeX (talk) 17:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Disambiguation vs Forms vs See Also
- Disambiguation = Are you looking for this or that?
- See Also = Might be of some interest
I move that we delete all the Forms of Libertarianism from the Libertarianism page. Each form should either be...
- listed on the Libertarianism_(disambiguation) page or
- mentioned organically within the article or
- listed in the See Also section.
For example...
- Libertarian socialism has nothing in common with mainstream Libertarianism other than the name...which would make it impossible to discuss organically within this article. A Venn diagram would show no overlap between the two ideologies. Therefore, it should only be listed on the disambiguation page.
- Minarchism only has one or two minor differences from mainstream Libertarianism. A Venn diagram would show significant overlap between the two ideologies. Therefore, it should be mentioned organically within the mainstream Libertarianism article.
- Anarcho-capitalism embraces capitalism like mainstream Libertarianism but wants to get rid of the state like Anarchism. A Venn diagram would show some overlap between the two forms. Therefore, it should be listed in the See Also section.
Once all the "forms" have been removed then...
- we won't have to say "mainstream Libertarianism" or "modern Libertarianism" because we'll all be on the same page
- we can compare this article to the article on Anarcho-capitalism. That should give us a good idea of how much work needs to be done on this page. --Xerographica (talk) 14:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
agree only one of the forms actually has a party, candidates, and millions of people who classified themselves as libertarian. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
lol ... "mainstream" libertarianism. Unless you're enamored with provincial POV .... no such thing. BigK HeX (talk) 19:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- People are perfectly capable of looking on the disambiguation page and deciding for themselves whether they want to read about "mainstream" Libertarianism or "anti-capitalism" Libertarianism. You're trying to make the decision for them...which is decidedly "anti-Libertarianism". --Xerographica (talk) 01:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- People are also capable of looking at this article and learning about what reliable sources say about libertarianism, instead of relying on your personal opinion on what constitutes "mainstream libertarianism". Reliable sources say things like:
The guys who keep trying to push this POV about some sort of One True Libertarianism or, alternatively, the outraged My brand of minimal government theory is not the same as Libertarianism, no matter what the WP:RS's say can give that a rest. BigK HeX (talk) 02:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)What it means to be a “libertarian” in a political sense is a contentious issue, especially among libertarians themselves. There is no single theory that can be safely identified as the libertarian theory, and probably no single principle or set of principles on which all libertarians can agree.
- People are also capable of looking at this article and learning about what reliable sources say about libertarianism, instead of relying on your personal opinion on what constitutes "mainstream libertarianism". Reliable sources say things like:
- If you continue reading your reliable source it says..."Libertarians are committed to the belief that robust property rights and the economic liberty that follows from their consistent recognition are of central importance in respecting individual liberty; that the only proper use of coercion is defensive or to rectify an error; that governments are bound by essentially the same moral principles as individuals;". Yet this Misplaced Pages article says some Libertarians are fundamentally against property rights, capitalism and the existence of the state. So basically you're saying only a portion of your reliable source is reliable? --Xerographica (talk) 03:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- I guess you didn't bother to read the part of that same source detailing left-libertarian criticisms of some property theories. Bottom line is that, if you have some narrow POV (based on the idea that your preferred ideology is more "special"), it's very likely not going to be allowed to fly as if the host of RS's covering the variations of libertarianism don't exist. Cheers! BigK HeX (talk) 04:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Left-Libertarianism was mentioned...but it certainly wasn't mentioned in the lead like it is in this article. This article will always be in constant flux if we don't narrow the scope of the article. Why narrow the scope to "mainstream" Libertarianism? Two reasons...1. because each of the other "forms" have entire articles dedicated to their ideology and 2. because "mainstream" Libertarianism is the most relevant. For example, yesterday on TV there was a senate hearing on online privacy and a representative from the Cato Institute was included on the witness panel...along with reps from Google, Apple, Facebook, AT&T and the University of Pennsylvania. --Xerographica (talk) 06:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Check http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Libertarianism/Archive_16#The_Blackwell_Encyclopaedia_of_Political_Thought Please produce WP:RS, and nothing else. N6n (talk) 09:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- This is a factor of the US-centric approach which the tab at the top of the page has highlighted. It's only in the US that right-wing Libertarianism is considered mainstream. Elsewhere it is usually associated with the left (and in fact was first used in that context). Forgive the machine translation, but in the French language section of Misplaced Pages the article for Le Monde Libertaire points it out as the first known publication to coin the term. The paper was published by French social anarchists in 1850s USA, significantly predating pretty much the entire gamut of right libertarian thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.35.108.96 (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- @217.35.108.96: What you say is mentioned quite clearly in the Etymology section of the current article. However, suggestions for improvement of the article to embrace a worldwide-view are welcome. A better article should have more references to anarchism. N6n (talk) 04:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- This is a factor of the US-centric approach which the tab at the top of the page has highlighted. It's only in the US that right-wing Libertarianism is considered mainstream. Elsewhere it is usually associated with the left (and in fact was first used in that context). Forgive the machine translation, but in the French language section of Misplaced Pages the article for Le Monde Libertaire points it out as the first known publication to coin the term. The paper was published by French social anarchists in 1850s USA, significantly predating pretty much the entire gamut of right libertarian thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.35.108.96 (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Check http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Libertarianism/Archive_16#The_Blackwell_Encyclopaedia_of_Political_Thought Please produce WP:RS, and nothing else. N6n (talk) 09:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Left-Libertarianism was mentioned...but it certainly wasn't mentioned in the lead like it is in this article. This article will always be in constant flux if we don't narrow the scope of the article. Why narrow the scope to "mainstream" Libertarianism? Two reasons...1. because each of the other "forms" have entire articles dedicated to their ideology and 2. because "mainstream" Libertarianism is the most relevant. For example, yesterday on TV there was a senate hearing on online privacy and a representative from the Cato Institute was included on the witness panel...along with reps from Google, Apple, Facebook, AT&T and the University of Pennsylvania. --Xerographica (talk) 06:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- I guess you didn't bother to read the part of that same source detailing left-libertarian criticisms of some property theories. Bottom line is that, if you have some narrow POV (based on the idea that your preferred ideology is more "special"), it's very likely not going to be allowed to fly as if the host of RS's covering the variations of libertarianism don't exist. Cheers! BigK HeX (talk) 04:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- If you continue reading your reliable source it says..."Libertarians are committed to the belief that robust property rights and the economic liberty that follows from their consistent recognition are of central importance in respecting individual liberty; that the only proper use of coercion is defensive or to rectify an error; that governments are bound by essentially the same moral principles as individuals;". Yet this Misplaced Pages article says some Libertarians are fundamentally against property rights, capitalism and the existence of the state. So basically you're saying only a portion of your reliable source is reliable? --Xerographica (talk) 03:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
undo weight, most of the 10 top sources have the word anarchy and or left-libertarian.
I suggest we replace the lede source with more npov. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comments like that are unproductive. You must explain what is wrong with the lead and point to a source that could guide us. TFD (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think there are problems with the new lead but have been annoyed by dealing with all the aggressive soapboxing and personal attacks to detail issues or deal with them. I'd like to suggest that we archive most of the existing sections which are filled with soapbox, including by at least one SockPuppet and various anonIps who can no longer edit because the article is protected. Then we can focus on real issues which right now are very difficult to identify among all the blather. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- " liberty, understood as non-interference, is the only thing that can be legitimately demanded of others as a matter of legal or political right; that robust property rights and the economic liberty that follows from their consistent recognition are of central importance in respecting individual liberty; that social order is not at odds with but develops out of individual liberty; that the only proper use of coercion is defensive or to rectify an error; that governments are bound by essentially the same moral principles as individuals; and that most existing and historical governments have acted improperly insofar as they have utilized coercion for plunder, aggression, redistribution, and other purposes beyond the protection of individual liberty. States may legitimately provide police, courts, and a military, but nothing more. Any further activity on the part of the state—regulating or prohibiting the sale or use of drugs, conscripting individuals for military service, providing taxpayer-funded support to the poor, or even building public roads—is itself rights-violating and hence illegitimate. Libertarian advocates of a strictly minimal state are to be distinguished from two closely related groups, who favor a smaller or greater role for government, and who may or may not also label themselves “libertarian.” On one hand are so-called anarcho-capitalists who believe that even the minimal state is too large, and that a proper respect for individual rights requires the abolition of government altogether and the provision of protective services by private markets. On the other hand are those who generally identify themselves as classical liberals. Members of this group tend to share libertarians’ confidence in free markets and skepticism over government power, but are more willing to allow greater room for coercive activity on the part of the state so as to allow, say, state provision of public goods or even limited tax-funded welfare transfers." http://www.iep.utm.edu/libertar/
- @tfd, apologies for the ill-worded unproductive 1st attempt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkstar1st (talk • contribs) 02:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Welp ... should I bother pointing out that your second attempt isn't much better? Put together a coherent objection, based on reliable sources, and only then can you expect your comments on this page to receive much consideration. BigK HeX (talk) 03:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- http://www.iep.utm.edu/libertar/ is not a wprs? my objection is the undo weight given anarchy and left-libertarian in the lede sources. Darkstar1st (talk) 03:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Telling us your opinion on the "undo" weight and then highlighting parts of a source in a way that is certainly not clear is not the way to make a (policy-based) point. You can't just make a complaint, post an a wall of text from a source that hardly corroborates the complaint, and expect that people will view it as a respectable objection. BigK HeX (talk) 03:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- It seems to me to be good taxonomic practice to emphasize the similarities of right and left libertarianism (anti-statism/ self-government notions) and then discuss their differences. That said I guess I will offer an opinion-- these differences are primarily about conventions on property, which as far as I can tell does not involve a rejection of the morality of keeping what you mix your labor with (earn) but an argument of whether you believe the 'right of the first' supercedes 'squatters rights' ;) ). Historically, it seems more like the history of right-libertarianism is tied to classical liberal thinkers which opposed left-libertarianism. Perhaps modern politics makes both camps seem more similar than different? or more likely just historically coincidence. It would be useful if the OED could track down the first use of 'libertarian' as a pro-capitalist position. Mrdthree (talk) 04:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Actually classical liberals were critical of private property derived from feudalism and Locke's theory of real property delegitimizes most real property ownership. I own a condominium in Barbados, but the land is owned by the Crown and is leased for 1,000 years, and I am not allowed to buy it. Is that contrary to libertarian principles? TFD (talk) 05:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- I am not an expert but if I were to search for a principled answer to the question of the 1000 year lease by the crown, I think both classical liberals and left-libertarians would say the French Revolution is instructive? Mrdthree (talk) 12:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- so unless anyone objects, i will begin adding parts of the wp:rs iep article into the lede. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- I am not an expert but if I were to search for a principled answer to the question of the 1000 year lease by the crown, I think both classical liberals and left-libertarians would say the French Revolution is instructive? Mrdthree (talk) 12:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Actually classical liberals were critical of private property derived from feudalism and Locke's theory of real property delegitimizes most real property ownership. I own a condominium in Barbados, but the land is owned by the Crown and is leased for 1,000 years, and I am not allowed to buy it. Is that contrary to libertarian principles? TFD (talk) 05:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- It seems to me to be good taxonomic practice to emphasize the similarities of right and left libertarianism (anti-statism/ self-government notions) and then discuss their differences. That said I guess I will offer an opinion-- these differences are primarily about conventions on property, which as far as I can tell does not involve a rejection of the morality of keeping what you mix your labor with (earn) but an argument of whether you believe the 'right of the first' supercedes 'squatters rights' ;) ). Historically, it seems more like the history of right-libertarianism is tied to classical liberal thinkers which opposed left-libertarianism. Perhaps modern politics makes both camps seem more similar than different? or more likely just historically coincidence. It would be useful if the OED could track down the first use of 'libertarian' as a pro-capitalist position. Mrdthree (talk) 04:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Telling us your opinion on the "undo" weight and then highlighting parts of a source in a way that is certainly not clear is not the way to make a (policy-based) point. You can't just make a complaint, post an a wall of text from a source that hardly corroborates the complaint, and expect that people will view it as a respectable objection. BigK HeX (talk) 03:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- http://www.iep.utm.edu/libertar/ is not a wprs? my objection is the undo weight given anarchy and left-libertarian in the lede sources. Darkstar1st (talk) 03:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Welp ... should I bother pointing out that your second attempt isn't much better? Put together a coherent objection, based on reliable sources, and only then can you expect your comments on this page to receive much consideration. BigK HeX (talk) 03:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think there are problems with the new lead but have been annoyed by dealing with all the aggressive soapboxing and personal attacks to detail issues or deal with them. I'd like to suggest that we archive most of the existing sections which are filled with soapbox, including by at least one SockPuppet and various anonIps who can no longer edit because the article is protected. Then we can focus on real issues which right now are very difficult to identify among all the blather. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- The French Revolution is not helpful. Anyway in the event the country becomes a republic, then the title will be held by the people, rather than by the Crown in trust for the people, so it is the same thing. How would a society where only leadhold property was available differ from a society where freehold property was available? TFD (talk)
Darkstar, I re-added your IEP bit about the libertarian government functions, but I'm not seeing it stated the way you stated it in the source. Can you quote the part you're using for that citation? —Torchiest /contribs 18:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Your edit is far better, though, in its present form, it seems a bit redundant. Your wording attributes an elaboration on "minarchism," however the basic idea of minarchism is already mentioned in the lead. Also, minarchism has it's own portion of the article under Libertarianism#Minarchism.
- (Note: I do not believe Darkstar1st's edit to have been a faithful reflection of the source.) BigK HeX (talk) 19:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- I tweaked it a little to address that problem. —Torchiest /contribs 19:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Heh... I actually think your first version was more readable. Adding the IEP stuff into that already-complex sentence seems to have made it a bit too unwieldy, IMHO. Anyways, the IEP statement you have written seems to cover the information in Libertarianism#Minarchism, so I'm not really sure that we need any of the additional text. We could just hold onto just the ref and tack it onto the existing text in the Minarchism subsection of the article. Just a thought... BigK HeX (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- That's fine with me. It was mainly trying to get the information into more context-appropriate location, but yes, it is a complicated sentence. I'm fine with more modifications. —Torchiest /contribs 19:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Heh... I actually think your first version was more readable. Adding the IEP stuff into that already-complex sentence seems to have made it a bit too unwieldy, IMHO. Anyways, the IEP statement you have written seems to cover the information in Libertarianism#Minarchism, so I'm not really sure that we need any of the additional text. We could just hold onto just the ref and tack it onto the existing text in the Minarchism subsection of the article. Just a thought... BigK HeX (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- I tweaked it a little to address that problem. —Torchiest /contribs 19:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Another weight issue in the lead
I actually don't think it's appropriate to have the phrase "some writers believe most libertarians share an opposition to equality, solidarity, and social responsibility" in the second sentence of the article. It gives far too much weight to a negative and critical POV. It would be like the liberalism article saying "some writers believe most liberals are godless homosexuals" or the conservatism article saying "some writers believe most conservatives are ignorant hillbillies". The article should lead saying all the things that libertarianism IS, then later on mention some of the potentially negative opinions, along with possible libertarian thinkers' responses. —Torchiest /contribs 01:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Imagine if the liberalism article said some liberals are for same-sex marriage while others liberals are against it...or what if the conservatism article said that some conservatives are for abortion while others conservatives are against it. Now notice in the lead of this article where it says that some Libertarians are for capitalism while others are against it. You can't just say "libertarian" you need to specify which "libertarians" you are referring to. --Xerographica (talk) 02:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- How ironic. I think that phrase was originally inserted into the article as a point of "libertarian pride" to be viewed in a positive light. I'll move it, though it wasn't reading smoothly in it's original placement. BigK HeX (talk) 02:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- @BigK HeX I think the social responsibility part is probably correct. The solidarity part doesn't mean a whole lot. The really troubling part is equality. It's much too vague, and open to interpretation, since there are many forms of equality, and libertarians do support some forms of it, such as equality before the law. —Torchiest /contribs 12:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- @Xerographica You may be right, although I think the body of the article clears that all up. —Torchiest /contribs 12:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Why do we keep drifting to epistemology on this page? I can easily 'imagine' a person calling himself 'liberal' opposing same-sex marriage, for tens of reasons. But all this is besides the point. Do the Sources say so, or do they not, period. N6n (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- When somebody says that they are "liberal" or "conservative" I know exactly what they are talking about. On TV or on the radio when somebody uses the term "Libertarianism" I know exactly what they are talking about. On this page however, when somebody says just "Libertarianism" I have no idea if they are talking about "mainstream" Libertarianism, Left Libertarianism, Libertarian Socialism, Social Anarchism, Anarcho-Capitalism, or just plain Anarchism. Sources? Each "form" has its own supporting sources...we're all right and we're all wrong. Libertarianism is against capitalism...true AND false...depending on which sources you are citing. If we're all right and we're all wrong then we'll be stuck in endless conflict unless we give each version its own main page and let the disambiguation page help people decide which "version" that they want to read about. As it stands, each "version" already has its own main page except for "mainstream" Libertarianism. --Xerographica (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Why do we keep drifting to epistemology on this page? I can easily 'imagine' a person calling himself 'liberal' opposing same-sex marriage, for tens of reasons. But all this is besides the point. Do the Sources say so, or do they not, period. N6n (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Disambiguation, if all of the vatiants are covered here, why are they also covered in the "libertarianism" page?
- Civil libertarianism, stance on civil liberties and civil rights.
- Geolibertarianism, a libertarian political ideology that proposes exclusive taxation on "natural monopolies" like land and other natural resources.
- Right libertarianism, a term sometimes used to describe non-collectivist and pro-private property political ideologies.
- Left libertarianism, a term used by both libertarian socialists and a minority of free-market anarchists to describe their political philosophies.
- Libertarian socialism is a group of political philosophies which aspire to create a non-hierarchical society without private ownership of the means of production or an authoritarian state.
- Libertarianism (metaphysics), philosophical position supporting free will against determinism.
Related articles
- Agorism, a free market anarchist political philosophy.
- Anarchism, an anti-state philosophy for which some use the term "libertarianism" synonymously.
- Minarchism, also known as limited-government libertarianism or minimal statism. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- I guess it was added when some people were proposing deletion of the main article. However, let me propose that we tackle this page first. Also, it would have been helpful if you simply gave a summary of the disambiguation page, instead of reproducing it here. N6n (talk) 14:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- understood, please provide an example of an appropriate summary of the disambiguation page.(the whole page looked like a summary to me) Darkstar1st (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- "Libertarianism (disambiguation) mentions all that is mentioned on Libertarianism" N6n (talk) 03:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- understood, please provide an example of an appropriate summary of the disambiguation page.(the whole page looked like a summary to me) Darkstar1st (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
darkstar1st's latest edit
Edit . User:Darkstar1st changed Some writers believe most libertarians share an opposition to equality, solidarity, and social responsibility. to Most libertarians oppose equality, solidarity, and social responsibility. and wrote "removed wordy redundant text" as the edit summary.
I've reported the incident at WP:WQA, . N6n (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- the source used the word "most" Darkstar1st (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Just one writer is required to make the first statement valid.N6n (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- ok, so it should read, "libertarians oppose equality,..."? Darkstar1st (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Frankly anyway you put it the information is not notable enough in either content or sourcing to be ANYWHERE in the article, not to mention the lead. They don't have an sources for a throw away opinion. They are hardly experts on libertarianism. And they aren't even a very good source for the Factoid that many libertarians are anarchists. At some point I will overcome my disgust with the way things have gone here and clean it up. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm curious. Exactly which part of the text do you find to be objectionable? ...equality? ...solidarity? ...social responsibility? BigK HeX (talk)
- understood, i will remove all material from this source, apologies. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- The writers appear to be discussing neoliberalism, not libertarianism, which is descriptive of all Western governments since the mid-1970s. TFD (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Seems neoliberalism and (Chicago School) libertarianism are not exactly unrelated topics. BigK HeX (talk) 17:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- The writers appear to be discussing neoliberalism, not libertarianism, which is descriptive of all Western governments since the mid-1970s. TFD (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- understood, i will remove all material from this source, apologies. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm curious. Exactly which part of the text do you find to be objectionable? ...equality? ...solidarity? ...social responsibility? BigK HeX (talk)
- Frankly anyway you put it the information is not notable enough in either content or sourcing to be ANYWHERE in the article, not to mention the lead. They don't have an sources for a throw away opinion. They are hardly experts on libertarianism. And they aren't even a very good source for the Factoid that many libertarians are anarchists. At some point I will overcome my disgust with the way things have gone here and clean it up. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- ok, so it should read, "libertarians oppose equality,..."? Darkstar1st (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Just one writer is required to make the first statement valid.N6n (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Broke down and found couple better sources. Plus removing excess verbiage. More to come. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- According to Misplaced Pages:PROVEIT#cite_note-0 if you only have a page number but no direct link you must quote from the source if challenged, preferably in the footnote. Therefore I challenge everything in the lead that does not have such a link. Please provide text supporting references say what allegedly say or they will be removed. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- I cleaned up the first paragraphs into a leaner, better referenced one. Paragraphs two and three are needlessly wordy and redundant and some of that material belongs further down. But that's what I'm doing for today. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- "According to Misplaced Pages:PROVEIT#cite_note-0 if you only have a page number but no direct link you must quote from the source if challenged" ... (somewhat ironically) I'd like to see a copy-and-paste quote of this policy that you're invoking here, if you don't mind please. BigK HeX (talk) 20:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Didn't you click the link? It's all there. —Torchiest /contribs 21:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- There's nothing in that link mentioning anything an editor "must" do "or else". BigK HeX (talk) 05:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- Didn't you click the link? It's all there. —Torchiest /contribs 21:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Your leaner version looks pretty nice, Carol. Thanks. BigK HeX (talk) 20:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Strongly disagree. The current lead would have the reader believe that Libertarians are evenly divided among the various mutually exclusive ideologies. However, according to a reliable source..."Although there is much disagreement about the details, libertarians are generally united by a rough agreement on a cluster of normative principles, empirical generalizations, and policy recommendations." The reliable source offers...
- * robust property rights
- * limited government
- * economic liberty (aka capitalism)
- ...as examples of what unites us. --Xerographica (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- This is just the beginning. And I think the WP:RS info that has been deleted but hopefully exists further down in article about free market libertarianism being the better known world wide does have to be reinserted, but there's only so much one can do in one day if one is actually editing. Of course, this is like the fourth time I've had to do it, mostly because some people came in wanting to kick out all lefties and anarchists and they responded by kicking out free market stuff in the lead. POV editing leads to POV editing as I've been warning but I'm about to let you guys just have at it cause I'm fed up~ CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- @Carol: "Free-market libertarianism better known" and "libertarian socialism ('anarchism') better known" worldwide, are both mentioned in the Etymology section. The last edit there is mine, . N6n (talk) 04:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- This is just the beginning. And I think the WP:RS info that has been deleted but hopefully exists further down in article about free market libertarianism being the better known world wide does have to be reinserted, but there's only so much one can do in one day if one is actually editing. Of course, this is like the fourth time I've had to do it, mostly because some people came in wanting to kick out all lefties and anarchists and they responded by kicking out free market stuff in the lead. POV editing leads to POV editing as I've been warning but I'm about to let you guys just have at it cause I'm fed up~ CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Darkstar1st's 7 reverts today
Per WP:Edit warring. He should be reported because this is an extension of problems he had earlier. I'm reporting it here because I can't remember if it was a WP:ANI or what against him before and maybe someone else does and can take care of it. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- carol, my edits are from your source, same paragraph. if you report me, at least remove the source. line 10 page 401 of your source A companion to American thought By Richard Wightman Fox, James T. Kloppenberg reads: "definition of libertarian..., political meaning is not distinguished from liberalism generally" line 10, page 401, the very same material you added earlier today. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- The three latest edits (, , ) can be taken as 'good faith', imho. @Darkstar1st: the two statements: "some libertarians are Christian fundamentalists" and "all Libertarians are Liberal" belong to different classes. When you say some you only need to show one to prove your case (and go to sleep); when you say all even one can invalidate it. Saying "all Libertarians are Liberal" is simply outrageous. At most, you should have said: "Some writers claim that all Libertarians are Liberal."
- However, even though it be good-faith, your edits are wasting everyone's time. (or at least my time) N6n (talk) 06:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- i apologize for wasting your and everyone's time n6n. my intent is to add material from the same source. i have said what the source said, which was clear about all, not some, libertarians are liberal. if you feel the source is dubious, i am willing to remove the passage, as well as other passages from the same source, same paragraph. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- Apparently, you fail to understand that oftentimes when people are complaining that it is not necessarily the source that's the problem. Rather it has often been your use of the source that has been objectionable. BigK HeX (talk) 06:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- ok, is there a way a can "use" the material from the same paragraph/source used previously in the article? i copied the exact text above, which i changed to avoid past complaints. how would you word it, or is the material unfit for this article? Darkstar1st (talk) 06:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- I can assume what the source means by "liberal", but I'd have to read it to be sure. If it does mean what I think, I'd guess it can be used somewhere in the article. Though, whatever it means, I don't think I'd put it in the lede. BigK HeX (talk) 07:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- the source is linked, perhaps you would read it and undo the delete you made? if it does not belong in the lede, does other material from the same paragraph belong in the lede? Darkstar1st (talk) 07:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Liberalism as a Template
In order to help resolve some of the conflict I think it might be helpful to use Liberalism as a template. For example...
- Classical liberalism
- Liberalism = "This article discusses the ideology of liberalism. Local differences in its meaning are listed in Liberalism worldwide. For other uses, see Liberal."
- Liberalism worldwide
We should have...
- Classical libertarianism
- Libertarianism = "This article discusses the ideology of Libertarianism. Local differences in its meaning are listed in Libertarianism worldwide. For other uses, see Libertarianism."
- Libertarianism worldwide
The problem is not lack of reliable sources supporting our various viewpoints...the problem is structural. Much of the debate on this page centers on either worldwide interpretations or the classical interpretations of Libertarianism. Your interpretations, based on numerous sources, are completely valid and deserving of their own page. So if you...
- think Libertarianism is synonymous with Anarchism or
- support abolishing the state or
- are against capitalism or
- are against property rights
...then please either direct your energies to working on the page for Classical libertarianism or Libertarianism worldwide. Right now progress is stalled because our efforts are wasted in constant conflict. --Xerographica (talk) 20:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Counter-proposal. If you...
- think Libertarianism is synonymous with Anarchism or
- support abolishing the state or
- are against capitalism or
- are against property rights
...then feel free to direct your energies to working on the page for Libertarianism, using acceptable RS's. Do this under the premise that the stalling of efforts to achieve a POV that run counter to huge swaths of RS, is not the same as progress being stalled. BigK HeX (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- According to your reliable source..."Although there is much disagreement about the details, libertarians are generally united by a rough agreement on a cluster of normative principles, empirical generalizations, and policy recommendations." Is that true or false? Compare the lead of your reliable source and the current lead for this article. Both leads discuss Libertarianism but they say completely different things. Which lead is right? We can never achieve consensus because we all have reliable sources supporting mutually exclusive ideologies. The only solution is structural. --Xerographica (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- When someone Google's in from searching "libertarianism" we are obligated to inform them of the many varied understandings of the term prominent in WP:RS's. It is NOT our job to promote only a narrow POV of the term as if that were the exclusive use (in spite of hundreds of RS's that discuss the subject differently). BigK HeX (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's NOT your job to turn this page into one needlessly redundant giant disambiguation page. What I don't get is how you can say a source is so reliable but then ignore it when what it states is clearly contrary to this page. Yes, Libertarians do disagree on some things but there are many issues that we are generally united on...private property, limited government and capitalism. That's what YOUR reliable source says...but it's certainly not what this page says. Again, we can go back and forth but the solution is not more or better reliable sources. The solution is to split this page up into three logical pages...
- When someone Google's in from searching "libertarianism" we are obligated to inform them of the many varied understandings of the term prominent in WP:RS's. It is NOT our job to promote only a narrow POV of the term as if that were the exclusive use (in spite of hundreds of RS's that discuss the subject differently). BigK HeX (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- ...and then worry about which sources are relevant to which pages. --Xerographica (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- agree split into 3. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- No ... taking your proposal for a POV WP:COATRACK, and then taking it to the extreme of actually substituting your coatrack as the main page is absurd. BigK HeX (talk) 23:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- bigk, please explain why you think this is coatrack. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- "A coatrack article is a Misplaced Pages article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject". This article is supposed to talk about Libertarianism but in actuality it's a cover for Anarcho-Capitalism and Libertarian socialism...tangentially related biased subjects. Those ideologies have their own names and are easily distinguishable from Libertarianism. Discussing Anarcho-Capitalism should not be the same thing as discussing Libertarianism. Again, your own reliable source indicates that Libertarians are generally united in supporting capitalism, private property and limited government. People who want to get rid of government or are against private property or are anti-capitalists are on the fringe of Libertarianism yet they are given undue weight in this article. This article should discuss the nominal subject...Libertarianism...rather than cover marginal views that already have their own main pages. Xerographica (talk) 00:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- @Xerographica, Check http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Libertarianism/Archive_16#The_Blackwell_Encyclopaedia_of_Political_Thought.
@Darkstar1st, would you kindly read the page WP:IDONTLIKEIT? N6n (talk) 03:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)- ok, i read it, what is your point? Darkstar1st (talk) 06:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
| User:TJ1976's rant with no concrete suggestions for improvement |
|---|
What Happened?This talk page used to have alot more different discussions. Is it ethical to sweep editors' concerns under the rug and lock the page? And by the way, the terminology section was changed back to saying, "hence, 'libertarianism' has been deemed synonymous with 'anarchism' since the 1830s". Did one person really publish an opinion and permenantly end the discussion on Freedom itself? Because this sounds like some crypto-elitist black-bag job stuff. Seriously. Anarchism=dictatorship. Libertarianism=minimal government. By the way, there is some serious censorship going on right now. I know there's a chronic dispute on the table in this subject, and the best we can home for is compromise. You can't just sweep other people's opinions under the rug. Especially, when those "other people" are the vocal majority. Censorship. And now the page is locked. I'll be talking to higher authorities sooner or later about this censorship thing. Until then, could someone please explain to me what has just happened?TJ1976 (talk) 20:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
"The use of the word 'libertarian' to describe a set of political positions can be tracked to the French cognate, "Libertaire", which was coined in 1857 by French anarchist communist Joseph Déjacque who used the term to distinguish his libertarian communist approach from the mutualism advocated by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. Hence the term "libertaire" has been used as a synonym for left wing anarchism or libertarian socialism since the 1890s." ==> OK (crunches knuckles) The SOURCE, here, is an anarchist/communist. He is defining libertarianism as synonymous, at least loosely (borderline stuff again, manipulation, etcetera), with anarchism and communism. Let's ignore for a moment the potent fact that the political use of the word "libertarianism" is rooted from the simple English word "liberty" meaning personal freedom...viz. personal freedom to not have your property stolen by "the people", whatever. Forget that for a moment. This issue is too vast. But back to THE SOURCE of the comment. He is an anarchist, and he also likes to call himself a "libertarian", so of course he's going to say that they're synonymous. And now the EDITOR says that this "therefore" proves that the political usage of the word "libertarianism" has been "locked" in definition since the 1830s. If one were not reading actively, this wouldn't raise red flags. But considering actual reality, logic, common sense, etcetera, this is another glaring potshot by a radical anarchist editor. God help us all, we're going to need it. Somebody is probably going to try to censor this comment. Just like writing non-propagandistic wall posts on North Korea's Youtube page. Fun stuff.TJ1976 (talk) 20:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
|
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
neolibwas invoked but never defined (see the help page).
- Misplaced Pages former featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- Misplaced Pages former brilliant prose
- Old requests for peer review
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- All unassessed articles
- Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates
- B-Class sociology articles
- Mid-importance sociology articles
- B-Class politics articles
- High-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- B-Class Philosophy articles
- Mid-importance Philosophy articles
- B-Class social and political philosophy articles
- Mid-importance social and political philosophy articles
- Social and political philosophy task force articles
- Top-importance politics articles
- Unassessed software articles
- Unknown-importance software articles
- Unassessed software articles of Unknown-importance
- Unassessed Computing articles
- Unknown-importance Computing articles
- All Computing articles
- All Software articles