| Revision as of 20:43, 27 January 2006 editBorn2cycle (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers31,496 edits →Introduction← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:16, 27 January 2006 edit undoMhodak (talk | contribs)55 edits →Introduction: we need a little more in the introNext edit → | ||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
| ] 14:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC) | ] 14:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :I have deleted the second sentence. I don't think anyone would disagree with defnition of libetarianism as the champion of liberty. If the role of state is main point of contention, it should be dealt in separate section. Still, this has nothing to do with the article but I'm quite suprised with strong anarchist flavour of American libetarianism. Me and quite few friends (u.k.) are sort of libetarian by default, liberal on economic and social issue. Call us "the Economist" libetarian. But none of us is hostile to the state. Most classical liberals like Adam Smith or David Hume weren't either. Is this something to do with the fact that Ayn Rand is so popular in US? She is pretty much a no one here in Europe. ] | :I have deleted the second sentence. I don't think anyone would disagree with defnition of libetarianism as the champion of liberty. If the role of state is main point of contention, it should be dealt in separate section. Still, this has nothing to do with the article but I'm quite suprised with strong anarchist flavour of American libetarianism. Me and quite few friends (u.k.) are sort of libetarian by default, liberal on economic and social issue. Call us "the Economist" libetarian. But none of us is hostile to the state. Most classical liberals like Adam Smith or David Hume weren't either. Is this something to do with the fact that Ayn Rand is so popular in US? She is pretty much a no one here in Europe. ] | ||
| :Actually, most American libertarians are hostile to the state with the improbable exception of Randian libertarians, who view the state's defense of individual rights to be a positive good (as opposed to the minarchist attitude of necessary evil). I still think the "non-initiation of force..." terminology is a clearer distinction that unites all libertarians and should be included in the intro. Lot's of people believe in "liberty"--this is not a sufficient distinction. We've been through this debate on this side before. ] 22:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| For what it's worth, I'm a ] but I agree with the new limited intro. While ''my'' libertarianism is not anarchistic, I recognize that there are libertarians who are true anarchists, and do believe that government intervention is never justified, ''even in the defense of individual liberty''. In fact, that's the difference between anarchist libertarians and minarchist libertarians, but we're all libertarians, and the intro should not be defined in terms of one or the other. --] 20:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC) | For what it's worth, I'm a ] but I agree with the new limited intro. While ''my'' libertarianism is not anarchistic, I recognize that there are libertarians who are true anarchists, and do believe that government intervention is never justified, ''even in the defense of individual liberty''. In fact, that's the difference between anarchist libertarians and minarchist libertarians, but we're all libertarians, and the intro should not be defined in terms of one or the other. --] 20:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 22:16, 27 January 2006
Template:Featured article is only for Misplaced Pages:Featured articles. Template:Mainpage date
 | Libertarianism received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Archives:
- 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).
- Talk:Libertarianism/Archive
- Talk:Libertarianism/Archive2
- Talk:Libertarianism/Archive3
- Talk:Libertarianism/Archive4
- Talk:Libertarianism/Archive5
- Talk:Libertarianism/Archive6
- Talk:Libertarianism/Archive7
This page is 72 kilobytes long
The article is in clear violation of section 5 of featured artice criteria, which state that the article "should be of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail; it should use summary style to cover sub-topics that are treated in greater detail in any "daughter" articles." The ideal recommended length is around 32 kb which mean the article should be halved and the rest should be transfered to "daughter" article. FWBOarticle
Introduction
I have shorten the introduction of Libetarianism to the bearest minimum while transfering everything else to "overview" section. I'm not suggesting that this should be final. However, I believe we can try to slim down "overview" first so we can figure out the way to make this article more readable (shorter). FWBOarticle
I agree that the introduction (much of which I had written or re-written) was too long and appropriately segregated into an "Overview," but I'm concerned that we are on the verge of another edit war regarding the basic definition when I see the "except in defense of liberty" phrase being dropped, which I see as a dispute between the majority of those who self-identify as libertarians and the anarchist version who don't agree with any exceptions to governmental non-intervention. I think the original formulation about opposing the initiation of force or fraud against persons or their property provided the most comprehensive distinction between libertarianism and all other political philosophies. It was very good and should not have been removed. Mhodak 14:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- I have deleted the second sentence. I don't think anyone would disagree with defnition of libetarianism as the champion of liberty. If the role of state is main point of contention, it should be dealt in separate section. Still, this has nothing to do with the article but I'm quite suprised with strong anarchist flavour of American libetarianism. Me and quite few friends (u.k.) are sort of libetarian by default, liberal on economic and social issue. Call us "the Economist" libetarian. But none of us is hostile to the state. Most classical liberals like Adam Smith or David Hume weren't either. Is this something to do with the fact that Ayn Rand is so popular in US? She is pretty much a no one here in Europe. FWBOarticle
- Actually, most American libertarians are hostile to the state with the improbable exception of Randian libertarians, who view the state's defense of individual rights to be a positive good (as opposed to the minarchist attitude of necessary evil). I still think the "non-initiation of force..." terminology is a clearer distinction that unites all libertarians and should be included in the intro. Lot's of people believe in "liberty"--this is not a sufficient distinction. We've been through this debate on this side before. Mhodak 22:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I'm a minarchist but I agree with the new limited intro. While my libertarianism is not anarchistic, I recognize that there are libertarians who are true anarchists, and do believe that government intervention is never justified, even in the defense of individual liberty. In fact, that's the difference between anarchist libertarians and minarchist libertarians, but we're all libertarians, and the intro should not be defined in terms of one or the other. --Serge 20:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Terminology/History
Terminology section has been changed to History section with majority of terminology content being transfered to "History of Libetarianism". Though the placement of this section is appropriate from chronogical perspective, details about anarchism/libetarianism disambiguation is a minor detail. I also believe that we need more coherent narrative of how the original 18th century idea evolved through 19th and early 20th century. This can be achieved by poaching lots of content from liberalism. :)The current article make it looks like 18th century ideas suddenly jumped to 20 century. The current section doesn't provide "overview" of the history of (classical) liberalism and libetarianism. At least, Popper, Hayek and Keynes should be mentioned. Despite Kynesianism, I actually believe Keynes himself was an exemplary example of libetarians. His lifestyle at least was. :D FWBOarticle
Proposal for Merger
I believe that "Libertarianism in the political spectrum" can be absorbed into "Libertarian politics and philosophy". My rule of thumb is that anything which does't really deserve seprate sister page such as "political spectrum" should be merged into something which does. On the other hand, I think we need a separate section dealing with more through comparative study of classical liberalism and libetarianism. Because this will involve major overhaul of this article, I will wait and see if people are happy with my "History" section edit.FWBOarticle
Categories: