Talk:Libertarianism/Archive 9

Irgendwer=Alfrem?

After reviewing the archive of this talk page, I'm pretty sure Irgendwer is a sockpuppet of Alfrem (talk · contribs), who has already been banned from this article ArbCom for trying to remove the phrase "political philosophy" from the lead.. Both are obviously less than fluent in English, appear to enjoy addressing others as "troll," and have a tendency to say "kindergarten" when especially annoyed by opposition to their edits. I have filed a request for CheckUser here. --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 11:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

When people are losing arguments to maintain their majority POV, they may change to denunciation and enforced law. This is exactly the sense of libertarianism not to be political. --Irgendwer 13:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you deny that you are Alfrem? --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 14:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Alfrem is obvisously a dead account. So your question makes no sense. But it makes clearly sense that you are a troll. --Irgendwer 19:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm asking if you are the same person who edited under the account Alfrem. Yes or no? --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 20:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, well, well. You're quite the detecive, rehpotsirhc! This is from Alfrem's talk page:

====Alfrem banned from Libertarianism====

Enacted on 19:58, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Pending resolution of this matter Alfrem (talk · contribs) is banned from editing of Libertarianism. It shall be presumed that any user, such as 80.131.0.46 (talk · contribs) who makes Alfrem's trademark edit, removal of the phrase "Libertarianism is a political philosophy^[1]," from the article is a sockpuppet of Alfrem. Such sockpuppets may be banned indefinitely if practical.

According to this, it seems like Irgendwer should be banned indefinitely if practical... --Serge 21:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you the Great Dictator? --Irgendwer 22:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

No. Just extraplating from what was said about you earlier. And, by the way, there is nothing unlibertarian about banning someone from a libertarian community who cannot abide by the rules designed to protect everyone's rights within that community. For example, being refused entrance to a tie-required restaurant - for lack of wearing a tie - is consistent with libertarianism. --Serge 22:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

about me? Denunciation! Not even your term of sockpuppet is correct. And, by the way, you describe Wikipedia as your property but it is used as political public good. --Irgendwer 23:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

When you can spare 5 free min. within your dictatorship, you may deliver about the old question: What is your concrete evidence that libertarianism must be described in its characteristic feature as "political"? --Irgendwer 23:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

What would be an example if such evidence, if it were possible? You've already dismissed appeals to logic, highlighting of the prima facie indefinsibility of your position, and links from across pretty much the entirety of Western civilization. You don't even understand half of what is said here. Do you want a photograph? A mathematical proof? You made up your mind along time ago and won't listen to any other opinions. Now, are you Alfrem or not? --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 01:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am convinced that Irgendwer is Alfrem. They are both German, and they use similar mannerisms such as referring to libertarianism as "L.", "kindergarten", etc. They make similar grammatical errors. And of course both accounts have only existed for the purpose of revert warring in the intro of this article. Someone should post on WP:AN. Rhobite 02:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was too hasty--the ArbCom descision only bans him from editing 3 months past August 2005. Someone is going to have to file another arbitration case against him if the reverts are going to stop. --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 03:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

hahahaha

rehpotsirhc, you ask, "What would be an example if such evidence, if it were possible?" So, you agree, it is an opinion, isn't it? And, it is Wikipedia policy to mark opinions.

For your backing, to find an evidence, the article itself should contain a clear explantion, what is making libertarianism to a political philosophy, when it should be a correct abstract. But it is not allowed to discover own slating reviews.

Therefore, Walter Block (scholar, Austrian School) writes: "Libertarianism is a political philosophy. It concerned solely with the proper use of force. Its core premise is that it should be illegal to threaten or initiate violence against a person or his property without his permission; force is justified only in defense or retaliation. That is it, in a nutshell. The rest is mere explanation, elaboration, and qualification and answering misconceived objections." [2]

So its very clear, "political philosophy" is in this leading view no characteristic feature but rather a deceptive term. However, you are welcome to mark your opinion (probably for your own disgrace).

--Irgendwer 11:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

What part of "Libertarianism is a political philosophy" do you not understand? How is "political philosophy" not an accurate description of libertarianism, but, rather, a "deceptive term"? Do you agree that libertarianism is solely concerned with the proper use of force? Do you agree that proper use of force is inherently an issue within the domain of political philosophy? If not, why not? --Serge 17:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

See above, "misconceived objections". For example, you need more than an insignificantly "accurate description". You need a characteristic feature. "On its loose definition, ethics, social choice theory, welfare economics, jurisprudence, and bits of game theory will all, at one time or another, turn out to be vital parts of political philosophy. Many people adopt this definition advisedly, to produce this broad result." (A. de Jasay: FROGS’ LEGS, SHARED ENDS and THE RATIONALITY OF POLITICS, JLS) Why are Rothbard and Hoppe not described as political philosophers per se? Why is anarcho-capitalism not described as political philosophy? Is the NAP a political theory per se? Is it political to refuse politics by libertarian reasons? Is libertarian individualism political? Is self-defense a political concept? Why is libertarianism described as meta-ideology? And so on. There are enough indices for self-doubt. When you have more than an opinion, then show me knowledge. --Irgendwer 23:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Irgendwer, I'm not trying to be rude, but you don't understand the quote you pasted. When Block says "answering misconcieved objections," he is talking to the misconcieved objections of detractors of Libertarianism--e.g. Libertarianism is simple, being concerned soley with the proper use of force, and anything that is not related to that consists answering the misconcieved objections of its detractors. To answer your questions:

• Why are Rothbard and Hoppe not described as political philosophers per se? They certainly are. [3]
• Why is anarcho-capitalism not described as political philosophy? Who cares? Libertarianism is not Anarcho-capitalism.
• Is the NAP a political theory per se? It's a principle that can accurately be described as 'political.'
• Is it political to refuse politics by libertarian reasons? Yes, in the same way that refusing to eat any food is a dietary decision.
• Is libertarian individualism political? Maybe not, but this is irrelevant to the question of whether or not libertarianism is a political philospohy.
• Is self-defense a political concept? Unclear, but this is also irrelevant to the question of whether or not libertarianism is a political philosophy.
• Why is libertarianism described as meta-ideology? Perhaps there is a 'meta-ideology' called Libertarianism. But there is also a political philosophy called Libertarianism, and that's what this article is about.

Once again, no rudeness intended, but I think this discussion is far far beyond your fluency in the language. --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 03:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't answer to rhetorical questions. Your point is still: What is your concrete evidence that libertarianism must be described in its characteristic feature as "political"? But you have already agreed, it is an opinion. --Irgendwer 09:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Irgendwer, you did not answer my question. Answer it, then I will answer yours. Do you agree that proper use of force is inherently an issue within the domain of political philosophy? If not, why not? --Serge 04:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes for decisions within groups, but that is not our context. The context is that "It concerned solely with". The NAP is a moral doctrine, but no (a priori) determined political doctrine. You may fit this into political theory by practice of other issues like you may fit other things into political theory. "On its loose definition, ethics, social choice theory, welfare economics, jurisprudence, and bits of game theory will all, at one time or another, turn out to be vital parts of political philosophy. Many people adopt this definition advisedly, to produce this broad result." (A. de Jasay: FROGS’ LEGS, SHARED ENDS and THE RATIONALITY OF POLITICS, JLS). The empirical evidence thereto is, the NAP (or libertarianism in its core) is not even content of the curriculum in any predominating political science. It is as Leo Zaibert writes (in TOWARD META-POLITICS, JLS): "In the broad discipline that studies the relationship between the state and the individual—surely a plausible, almost innocuous suggestion—then Robert Nozick’s remark to the effect that “the fundamental question of political philosophy, one that precedes questions about how the state should be organized, is whether there should be any state at all” becomes immediately appealing. To be precise, however, we should note that this question does not really belong to political philosophy; rather, political philosophy presupposes an (affirmative) answer to this meta-political question." --Irgendwer 09:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Now, the real question: why should we remove "political" from the lead of the article because Leo Zaibert, an associate professor at the University of Wisconsin-Parkside, thinks The Non-agression Principle (not Libertarianism) isn't a a political philosophy? I've shown you eight links describing Libertarianism as a political philosophy, you were shown between ten and fifteen more as Alfrem, and the quote itself notes that none other than Robert Nozick thinks Libertarianism is a political philosophy. Even the majority of the links you have provided in support of your argument state that Libertarianism is a political philosophy. Obviously, the predominating view is that Libertarianism is a political philosophy. Now before you go all Libertarian on me and start wailing about tyrannay of the intellectual majority, let me remind you that Wikipedia is not your property, but an encyclopedia that doesn't appreciate being used as a soapbox. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. --WP:NPOV.

Right now, one opinion from a single prof who isn't even notable by Wikipedia's standards, and who actually shies away himself from stating that Libertarian is not a political philosophy isn't even enough to warrant the view's inclusion in the article at all, let alone putting it in the lead. --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 15:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Nay, you are agreeing yourself, that it is a majority opinion as others here, too. You should ask yourself why don't any in Libertarianism#Sites_about_libertarianism linked urls make use of such hard terms. But you are welcome to mark your predominating view in consideration of WP:NPOV. This is no problem. (You should better answer to: What is your concrete evidence that libertarianism must be described in its characteristic feature as "political"?) --Irgendwer 16:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Irgendwer, so you agree that the issue with which libertarianism is solely concerned, the proper use of force, at least within groups, falls into the domain of political philosophy. Now, since the proper use of force is only an issue within the context of groups (there have to be at least two parties involved for the issue to be relevant), it follows that libertarianism addresses questions of a political nature, and is therefore a political philosophy. And don't you agree that the question of whether there should be a state at all is a political question? Finally, on the issue of the NAP being the basis for a moral (not political) doctrine, I beg to differ. While there are libertarians who based their beliefs on moral grounds (e.g., those from the Objectivist wing), there are also the "practical" libertarians who promote the NAP not on moral grounds, but on utilitarian grounds. But regardless of whether one believes society should be based on the NAP for moral or utilitarian reasons (or both), the single characteristic feature of libertarianism is that individuals within society, whether it has a state or not, should behave in accordance with the NAP. The fact that libertarianism deals solely with the issue of how society should be organized makes it necessarily a political philosophy. And pointing out that libertarianism is a political philosophy in the introduction helps newcomers understand it. --Serge 18:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Critique

The critique section could use some serious reworking.

The introductory paragraph is tortured to try to handicap arguments against libertarianism before they are even presented. Save any refutation of an argument before it is put forth.

The "Rights" refutation of libertarianism is barely touched on.

There is also a tendency to avoid dwelling in a few arguments towards the end in terms of citation or discussion. The use of "some critics say..." tends to undervalue their argument and allow the author to present the argument in a highly edited and dismissive light. The environmentalist argument is probably the one that actually needs the most improvement and deserves more than a sentence.

The earlier arguments are far more realized in this manner.

--Ken 20:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Ken

The critique section is way too long for what's supposed to be a summary. I found the following particularly eggregious, but someone restored it:

For instance, Wired columnist Brooke Shelbey Biggs stated that "Libertarianism is uninformed capitalist greed in civil-rights clothing" and that there are "a few issues libertarians tend to ignore when talking about the promise of a future without government interference: inherent cultural disadvantage and affirmative action; public-works projects like freeways for all those new-money Jags around Silicon Valley; funding for the arts; child-abuse prevention and intervention; medical care for the elderly; and too many more to list. They are also not likely to complain loudly about capital-gains tax cuts or other tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy".

Are we to include every long-winded non sequitur rant against libertarians that has no basis in fact?

Salvor Hardin 21:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I was actually calling for better attribution with regard to this. If you don't want a proper critique, just delete the whole section and be done with it.

Oh, and since Libertarianism is something of a political philosphy I find it difficult to support the tossing around of terms like 'non-sequitor rant.' You really ought to justify that statement. --Ken 22:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Answer to Serge

Okay, Irgendwer, so you agree that the issue with which libertarianism is solely concerned, the proper use of force, at least within groups, falls into the domain of political philosophy.

Yes, but note, that the issues it solely concerned with the proper use of force are only a secundary view of real political affairs of people who are delivering how to reduce the violence of state in consequence of the NAP. This is only a practice of some groups which are considered as libertarians (minarchists, LP, classical liberals, maybe objectivists) but not of indivualists and ancaps.

Irgendwer, I'm having a hard time understanding you. But you seem to be limiting the libertarian concern with the proper use of force only to those who are concerned with the power of the state, while libertarianism is also concerned with the proper use of force between any individuals. But that's political too. Political philosophy is not limited to addressing issues that pertain to the state. If you put that artificial limit on the scope of political philosophy, then, yes, I can see why one might say that libertarianism is not a political philosophy. But such a limited interpretation of the meaning of political philosophy is unwarranted POV. --Serge 15:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a difficult issue, because I can see why people say that libertarianism is not a political philosophy. Since (strict) libertarianism requires that there be no coercive institutions, and that people should be able to voluntarily form whatever institutions they like, (strict) libertarianism apparently has nothing to say about how society should be organised (we could all get together and voluntarily agree to live in a Stalinist society, for example, without violating a single libertarian principle). All that strict libertarianism mandates is that we should follow a certain moral code, but it doesn't propose any institutions to ensure that this code is followed.

Now, mainstream libertarians do propose some institutions, such as courts, so they would seem to have a genuine political philosophy. And I think most libertarians accross the libertarian spectrum regard their philosophy as political. So I think we should call it a political philosophy in the intro, and perhaps have a section explaining why this is not the universal POV. Cadr 15:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

@Cadr, you prefer a description in any usual use, having regard to that it is not correct and it must be explained afterwards. POV is not negotiable in Wikipedia. I also don't agree, that libertarians which are not organized in any political group must regard their philosophy as political. And I think, these are most libertarians. Nethertheless, most ancaps and individualists must not think they would be part of any nameable political philosphy. --Irgendwer 16:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the majority of libertarians are ancaps. Most seem to be minarchists of one kind of another. And as far as I know, not even all ancaps would object to their philosophy being labelled poltical. I don't regard it as incorrect to describe libertarianism as a political philosophy, by the way. Cadr 17:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

If you accept that at least a very small minority of libertarian ancaps and individualist or others may justify here that "political philosophy" is no basically characteristic feature of libertarianism, then you agree again that your view is majority pov. Otherwise you must explain the contradiction that the NAP (or libertarianism in its core) is not even content of the curriculum in any predominating political science. --Irgendwer 18:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I assume the reason that it's not usually on the curriculum is that libertarianism (as opposed to moderate laissez-faire capitalism) isn't widely taken seriously as a political philosophy. Minority viewpoints are often excluded from introductions in order to avoid giving undue weight. To take an extreme example, we don't hesitate to describe the Earth as spherical in the intro to that article. Cadr 19:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

1) This is a fine theory but "libertarianism is no political philosophy" could be the better one (especially when you want to give a weight by applied political philosophy).

2) Obvisously it would be improvable to describe the earth as spherical. And, it isn't the case in the article Earth. --Irgendwer 23:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Come on, the entire Earth article is written on the assumption that the Earth is spherical, and if someone were to mention that the Earth was spherical in the intro I doubt it would start a POV war. I think it is unlikley that NAP is not taught because it is not political, since most people studying political philosophy will also study moral philosophy. Cadr 14:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Come on, the entire Earth article is written on the assumption that the Earth is spherical, and if someone were to mention that the Earth was spherical in the intro I doubt it would start a POV war. This is a straw man. When I improve an article, I doubt it would start a edit-war by sensible persons. But this is rather an exception in Wikipedia.

I think it is unlikley that NAP is not taught because it is not political, since most people studying political philosophy will also study moral philosophy. Then it is obvisiously part of moral philosophy but not of political philosophy. I don't know. I let you alone with these problems. When you have a NPOV-solution, you may come back. --Irgendwer 18:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

@Serge:"But you seem to be limiting the libertarian concern with the proper use of force only to those who are concerned with the power of the state "

No. Where should I have done it? Politics of state (with nation as group) are only the very best example.

"while libertarianism is also concerned with the proper use of force between any individuals."

but not within groups, and the unique source is the NAP. You should explain the why is the NAP (or libertarianism in its core) not even content of the curriculum in any predominating political science. --Irgendwer 15:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Now, since the proper use of force is only an issue within the context of groups (there have to be at least two parties involved for the issue to be relevant),

Look to Politics. "P. ... is often thought of as a process by which collective decisions are made within groups." You need at least two parties who try to make collective decisions about all involved parties.

it follows that libertarianism addresses questions of a political nature, and is therefore a political philosophy.

in the secondary view of some to political affairs determined libertarians, but not basically. It is a question what people make from it. Libertarianism is not unified.

And don't you agree that the question of whether there should be a state at all is a political question?

Oh yes, it should, but sadly it isn't.

Finally, on the issue of the NAP being the basis for a moral (not political) doctrine, I beg to differ. While there are libertarians who based their beliefs on moral grounds (e.g., those from the Objectivist wing), there are also the "practical" libertarians who promote the NAP not on moral grounds, but on utilitarian grounds.

yes

But regardless of whether one believes society should be based on the NAP for moral or utilitarian reasons (or both), the single characteristic feature of libertarianism is that individuals within society, whether it has a state or not, should behave in accordance with the NAP.

yes, but within acting parties, not within society.

Either way, it's a political issue. --Serge 15:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

is an opinion. --Irgendwer 16:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The fact that libertarianism deals solely with the issue of how society should be organized makes it necessarily a political philosophy.

Your mistake is the meaning of "society". To apolitical libertarians it is the same how noninvolved parties want to behave. It is only of interest to "libertarians" who want a minimal-state without right to secede, where society must be actually a political group with collective decisions.

The entire world is not governed by one state, but it can be viewed as a single society. Regardless of how it is organized, it is a society. Again, you are insisting on a very limited and POV interpretation of a term (this time society). --Serge 15:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot of views of society. Obvisously, you want to use this loose term to claim that the whole world must be a political group because they are anyhow involved together. So a fallen sack rise in China must be political issue. --Irgendwer 16:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

And pointing out that libertarianism is a political philosophy in the introduction helps newcomers understand it. --Serge 18:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

You see yourself, it is only partial correct, depending on which kind of libertarianism is aimed at. So it can't help. --Irgendwer 20:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with Cadr, except that it is the universal POV. Seriously. People who wouldn't describe Libertarianism as a 'political philosophy' wouldn't describe themselves as Libertarians. They would call themselves Anarcho-Capitalists or Individualist Anarchists. Irgendwer is confused because in most non-English languages, the translation of 'Libertarian' has connotations of anarchy. --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 15:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You are very self-absorbed. But if you are knowing "People who wouldn't describe Libertarianism as a 'political philosophy'" then you make a good point. --Irgendwer 16:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Anarchists aren't libertarians. Libertarians are minarchists. That makes it a political philosophy. Salvor Hardin 18:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Please look to Anarcho-capitalism before you get upset. You are right in the point that minarchists are political. But how can they be libertarian when they want a state? ;-) --Irgendwer 18:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you asserting that minarchists are not libertarians? What else can it mean to be a libertarian? Salvor Hardin 18:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Cadr: This disscussion (if you can even call it that) is straying from its point. Irgendwer introduced a red herring: "Why is Libertarianism not on the cirriculum..." and you took the bait by suggesting that Libertarianism is something different from "moderate lassiez-faire capitalism," a term which is itself somewhat oxymoronic. You are confusing the issue and not really contributing anything to the discussion.

Cadr and Irgendwer: Please follow talk page convention and insert your comments under the last comment posted. It is extremely hard to follow the discussion when you insert them at seemingly random places in the text. --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 19:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Woah! I just put my comment under Irengdwer's, which is of course the talk page convention. I can't help where he puts his comments. I don't think what he's saying is a red herring. He was arguing that libertarianism wasn't a political philosophy on the basis that the NAP isn't taught to people studying political philosophy (I don't myself know whether this is true). Moderate laissez-faire capitalism doesn't strike my as an oxymoron. It could, for example, be the belief that generally speaking markets should be left to their own devices, but sometimes governments should intervene when there's a market failure, which as far as I know is a mainstream position in economics.

You are not contributing much to the discussion either, btw. Cadr 20:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I might also not that on the Wikipedia page for "Liberty" it clearly states "liberty is a concept in political philosophy".

Salvor Hardin 20:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Irgendwer - you agree that libertarianism is concerned with the proper use of force between any individuals, but you clarify, "but not only within groups". I don't understand. How does one address the proper use of force between even just two individuals without those two individuals constituting a group that they are both within? Any time more than one individual is involved, you have a group, and you have a political situation, period. This is not POV. This is by definition. And the qeustion of what constitutes proper use of force within that group of two (or more) individuals is definitely a political question. And since we've agreed that this is ultimately the sole concern of libertarianism, it follows that libertarianism is necessarily and fundamentally a political philosophy, by definition, does it not? --Serge 21:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Serge, the definition of politics is very probably not objective. Regard to the origin of the term in "polis". The term is grown by use, not by clever definition of scientists. This is basically a problem in all communication.

Nevertheless, I don't think that you find a support in political science that two individuals constituting a "political" group by making only a peaceful treaty. You may assume that the enforcement of treaties is politics. But just this question (by security agencies, or private law enforcement) is nowhere an issue in any bibliography of political philosophy. --Irgendwer 23:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Irgendwer, your POV assumes a very specific meaning of the term political philosophy. There is no basis for limiting its meaning to this narrow interpretation. Any philosophy that addresses how two or more people should or should not relate is a political philosophy. A moral philosophy, on the other hand, may also address how an individual should or should not behave even when that behavior affects no one else. That area is specifically out of scope for libertarianism, and why libertarianism is not a moral philosophy. Libertarianism only cares about behavior between and among individuals, and, even then, only with respect to the use of force. It's totally and completely political. --Serge 22:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Irgendwer, your POV assumes a very specific meaning of the term political philosophy.

Of course, but you are enforcing the loose definiton to produce this popualar broad result. This is your majority opinion. I don't have POV, because I don't have an entry.

There is no basis for limiting its meaning to this narrow interpretation.

Of course there is. I have an empirical evidence in political philosophy itself. It is not even content of the curriculum in any predominating political science. It is not even content of any important reference book of political philosophy.

Any philosophy that addresses how two or more people should or should not relate is a political philosophy.

To use your words, your POV assumes a very specific meaning of the term political philosophy. Are you sure? Do you have an evidence in political philosphy?

A moral philosophy, on the other hand, may also address how an individual should or should not behave even when that behavior affects no one else. That area is specifically out of scope for libertarianism, and why libertarianism is not a moral philosophy.

It is not my claim to describe it as moral philosophy. You attack a straw man. Nethertheless contains libertarianism a moral doctrine.

Libertarianism only cares about behavior between and among individuals, and, even then, only with respect to the use of force.

yes, but not in political philosophy. Politics cares about behavior within groups. And, the use of force, you regarding to, so private law enforcement is even no issue of political philosphy. You jumple it with minarchism.

It's totally and completely political. --Serge 22:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion is total, nothing more.

You hold an Edit war by "rvt to consensus version - please do not change the main article unless consensus changes". This is no allowed practice in Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Verifiability (One of three policies which are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus.) calls for:

The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references.

When there are justified arguments against an entry (here: "political" philosopy), and there is no progress or prospect of substantiation for this claim, then the entry is decrepit in regard to NPOV.--Irgendwer 10:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The only "reference" to be presented in this case is the English language. Serge has already made that presentation. Clearly your use of the language is incorrect. Salvor Hardin 16:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

So what? Your English doesn't make a political philosophy in the intro. You you'll be hopping mad. --Irgendwer 19:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Irgendwer, in rereading your posts above, I realize you are interchanging the specific study of political philosophy with the broader category of political philosophy that is referenced in the intro. --Serge 20:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

hehe. How do you know of a broader category if not from study? --Irgendwer 20:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

In common English usage any philosophy may be classified as a "political philosophy" or not, depending on whether it deals with issues primarily of a political nature. It does not take any kind of study (beyond whatever is required to know English) to know this. Libertarianism, as a member of the Wikipedia political series, is obviously a philosophy of politics, hence, a political philosophy. That it is not the specific study referred to as political philosophy matters not. There are many "political philosophies" other than libertarianism that fall into this category. For example, socialism, conservatism, communism, anarchism and liberalism also are all "political philosophies", but are not the study referred to as political philosophy per se. --Serge 22:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

You tend to use the loose defintion as I have stated. - On its loose definition, ethics, social choice theory, welfare economics, jurisprudence, and bits of game theory will all, at one time or another, turn out to be vital parts of political philosophy. Many people adopt this definition advisedly, to produce this broad result. (A. de Jasay: FROGS’ LEGS, SHARED ENDS and THE RATIONALITY OF POLITICS, JLS)

However, it is unexact, it generalizes, it gives space for wrong speculation, it is unscientific, it is improvable, it is pov. --Irgendwer 07:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing scientific about word meanings. When you refer to "vital parts of political philosophy", your usage again implies the specific study of political philosophy as opposed to the classification of "political philosophy" necessarily implied by the usage in the intro. The usage in the intro is perfectly valid English, and there is nothing POV about it. --Serge 17:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I see only an opinion, an opinion that generalizes all directions of libertarianism as political, an opinion that try by a kind of slang to make an qualified message, an opinion that want to make a characteristic feature of a loose definition without clearly empirical manifestation, an opinion that want to rise above the Journal of Libertarian Studies. --Irgendwer 22:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Uh, no.

I'm mildly insulted that this definition is noted as the "classic definition." If by classic, one means defined in the last hundred years... "Libertarianism" is classically a synonym for "anarchism." Maybe I misread. Mellesime 13:10, 5 May 2006

"Classic definition" is incorrect. The current definition is merely the best-known in English today.

However, I'm not sure where you're seeing "classic definition" in the article. Are you confusing this with the term classical liberalism? --FOo 21:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit war by (rvt to consensus version - please do not change the main article unless consensus changes)

This is no allowed practice in Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Verifiability (One of three policies which are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus.) calls for:

The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references.

When there are justified arguments against an entry (here: "political" philosopy), and there is no progress or prospect of substantiation for this claim, then the entry is decrepit in regard to NPOV.

I am sure, admins will agree to. --Irgendwer 18:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you post on the adminstrator's noticeboard?--rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 19:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It is time for Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alfrem 2. I am too busy to start an arbitration request for another week or two, so if someone wants to get a jump on it, please do. Rhobite 01:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

In contrast to many other articles about contentious topics, I found this article to be both informative and well-balanced. I suggest that somewhere the article note that it is common in American politics for someone whose views are far from radical, such as William Safire, to use the word libertarian to describe someone with mainstream Democrat views on social issues and Republican views on economic issues. Any idea where this should be? Kitteneatkitten 01:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

RJII

I write it briefly because it is only recurrence.

Your references

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 references retrieved June 24, 2005). The Encyclopedia Britannica defines Libertarianism as "Political philosophy that stresses personal liberty." (link, accessed 29 June, 2005)

are not expedient since the goal of the first sentences in an article must be to characterize precise. Political philosophy fits to the minarchism branch of libertarianism but doesn't really fit to the individualistic branch and the libertarian core, the NAP. The NAP is strictly ignored in political philosophy, and Rothbard is not even germane characterized as political philosopher.

So "political" philosophy is no basically characteristic feature. One may mark this pov to neutralize it (as I have often recommended unsuccessfully), or one may remove it. --Irgendwer 19:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Any philosophy that criticizes anything that the state does, recommends what it should or shouldn't do, or even criticizes it to the extent that they recommend that it ceases to exist, is a "political philosophy." RJII 19:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

If you would be correct then political science would reference NAP, consensus, free markets, Rothbard, Hoppe, Friedman, private law enforcement and so on. Or, Rothbard, Friedman and Hoppe would speak at least seriously of their own "political philosophy". But this is obviously not the case. --Irgendwer 20:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Irgendwer, you are still interchanging the two meanings of "political philosophy" (not to mention confusing it with political science). There is the academic subject covered in the Wiki political philosophy article, and there is the more general meaning obviously intended in the intro. The "a political philosophy" usage makes it grammatically impossible for this reference to mean the academic subject. It is disingenuous and disruptive to insist on one interpretation of a term when clearly another is intended, as is the case here. --Serge 21:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW, this is totally irrelevant, but most contemporary PoliSci courses have a section on libertarianism. --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 23:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is totally irrelevant, because they normally relate only to Nozick's minarchism. --Irgendwer 23:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Political philosophy is content of political science. 2. "the more general meaning" is an aware inexact description. I have already stated about it. When you have objections you should make them at the right place. 3. "Libertarianism is a political philosophy" means that libertarianism is an accepted part of empiric political philosophy. That I prefer academic empiricism is obvious. 4. I don't think, I am unfair. --Irgendwer 23:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

No, "Libertarianism is a political philosophy" does not necessarily mean that libertarianism is "an accepted part of empiric political philosophy", just like "anarchism is a political philosophy" does not necessarily mean that anarchism is "an accepted part of empiric political philosophy", or just like "environmentalism is a political philosophy" does not necessarily mean that environmentalism is "an accepted part of empiric political philosophy". Capiche? --Serge 00:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

"Empiricism" should only mean that you must provide at last a reference from it. Anywhere it must come from. Or do you want to fudge a story? --Irgendwer 00:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

What you don't seem to understand, or pretend to not understand, Irgendwer, is that "X is a political philosophy" simply means that X is a philosophy that primarily addresses issues of a political nature. The primary issue of libertarianism, whether people should behave in accordance with the NAP, is inherently political, by definition. --Serge 00:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Then I could understand it literally: "Libertarianism is a philosophy that primarily addresses issues of a political nature." This is also pov, because you don't have an evidence for your explanation. "whether people should behave in accordance with the NAP, is inherently political," is an opinion as I have already stated above. See politics. Politics is a process by which decisions are made within groups. Libertarian decisions are not about groups. They call it treaty, consensus, deal, but not politics. --Irgendwer 00:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Evidence? ALL issues that libertarianism addresses are political in nature. Libertarian decisions ARE about groups. Treaties, consensus, deals, contracts, partnerships, etc., etc. only have meaning in the context of groups. An individual alone cannot have a treaty or contract with himself, or reach a consensus or make a deal with himself. Libertarianism deals exclusively with decisions made by individuals with other individuals (thus, within groups), and hence is political, because, like you wrote, politics is a process by which decisions are made within groups. Any time you have more than one individual you have a group. The NAP has no meaning outside of groups, for if you don't have groups of two or more individuals, you don't have the potential of one individual using force against another. --Serge 01:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've had enough of this. I'm filing a user conduct RfC on Irgendwer later tonight when I have time. --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 23:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. --Serge 00:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Irgendwer's recent edits

I've removed this parargaph Irgendwer has been inserting into the article:

The basical potential to politics of libertarianism starts with the question whether there should be a state at all. But just this is not an issue of political philosophy. Why? Since it makes no sense to make politics or constributing theories when there is no affirmative basis. Hans-Hermann Hoppe writes, "Just look at Ludwig von Mises and Murray N. Rothbard. The two greatest economists and social philosophers of the 20th century were both essentially unacceptable and unemployable by the academic establishment. ... Despite all obstacles, it was possible for Mises and Rothbard to make themselves heard. They were not condemned to silence. They still taught and published. They still addressed audiences and inspired people with their insights and ideas. ... Rothbard had The Ludwig von Mises Institute, which supported him, helped publish and promote his books, and provided the institutional framework that allowed him to say and write what needed to be said and written, and that can no longer be said and written inside academia and the official, statist establishment media." [4] So the most consequential libertarian scholars are condemned to work in privacy. But what have been happened instead in the official, political institutions by liberal and minarchist thinkers who (less consequential) are willing to use the state as a social regulator for which reason however? Just these people have established useful political concepts which are even required for an (e.g. of Franz Oppenheimer's social scientist view so called) exploitative statist system.There is a second reason why libertarianism must be rather an apolitical idea originated in the meaning of the former Greek term of politics, i.e. 'polis'. So the 'Demos', referring to the population of an ancient Greek state, was the decided group within the process, by which uniform rules are made, should work. But there is no claim in libertarianism to make collective decisions within groups in a political process except that activism of inconsequently political groups considered to be made by "Libertarians". So 'politics' is historically and usually a term for a statist society to form the state. That doesn't belong to an anarchistic original interpretation of libertarianism. Consequently, the NAP (or libertarianism in its core) is not even content of the curriculum in any predominating political science or any reference book of political philosophy. One may also understand libertarianism as a private intention to define the proper use of force. Such potential of behavior is described as "private law enforcement" or "security agencies". But just these issues are totally ignored in any bibliography of political philosphy. Also, libertarianism doesn't contain any intention to form a decided society. People could voluntarily agree to live in a Stalinist society, for example, without violating a single libertarian principle. But libertarain scholars rather eye the term 'society' suspiciously, because society don't act. Since only individuals act, the focus of study for the libertarian theorist is always on the individual.

I removed it because it's in indecipherably poor English, because it is totally unnecessary and adds nothing to the aritlce, because it fails to meet Wikipedia's standards of quality, and because it violates every single style guidline, as well as WP:NPOV and WP:OR. --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 21:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

When it is indecipherable who can you know that it is 1. totally unnecessary, 2. and adds nothing to the aritlce and 3. fails to meet Wikipedia's standards of quality and 4. violates every single style guidline, as well as WP:NPOV and WP:OR? It is very clear that you act in bad faith. --Irgendwer 23:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's actually easy: (2) indecipherable things don't add information, which also explains (1); (3) is met simply because being comprehensible is a necessary feature of meeting any standard of quality, let alone Wikipedia's; and (4) is easily seen by the parts that are understandable (use of rhetorical questions, voice, essay-style writing, lack of paragraph breaks to show subtopics, possible original research connecting primary sources to other assertions, apparent unattributed POV, etc, etc.).

In short, there's enough understandable to see that it's inappropriate, but there's not enough here that's understandable to improve on it or fix the problems it has. — Saxifrage ✎ 05:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You should read Wikipedia:Editing policy - Perfection Not Required, or, The Joy of Editing before typing own rules. --Irgendwer 07:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

"Perfection not required" does not mean that you can submit anything you want to an article and expect it to remain unchanged. Your addition constitutes your own opinion that libertarianism is apolitical. Your rhetorical style - asking and then answering questions - gives you away. It's POV, and it is being correctly removed. Rhobite 13:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I have reread the section with the "Why?" many times. Every word is imho NPOV, and into the bargain, it is supported by apt quotations.

When I am writing "Libertarianism is rather an apolitical idea" then "apolitical idea" means to do something without government. I think, this is NPOV beyond dispute. When you put this yourself in the logical context of "Libertarianism is a political philosophy" then "political" is misplaced, isn't it? --Irgendwer 15:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

One of your major blunders is equating the meaning of "apolitical" with "something without government". Politics has to do with social groups (2 or more individuals), of which government is but one manifestation. --Serge 16:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of the defintion of politics. Instead, you put it again in a too broad sense without having evidence. For example: A private enterprise is no political enterprise. The term "non-political society" is used to describe the state of anarchy. --Irgendwer 17:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You might be aware of a definition of politics, but you cannot be aware of the definition, because there is no one definition that could be the definition. So another blunder of yours is to assume there is but one definition of "politics" (and "political philosophy"). As an example, consider this m-w.com dictionary definition of politics: the total complex of relations between people living in society. Libertarianism, ultimately, describes the political philosophy of certain types of individualists. --Serge 17:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Before you detect my blunders, we speak about yours. I wonder, that you assume that your used one! defintion is ultimately correct over other defintions. Politics, i.e. the Wikipedia article, contains defintion/s to which one may agree if the article is in a good condition. Otherwise you may include your NPOV to the Politics article and when this is changing the relevance of my expression then I (or someone else) will rephrase it easily to NPOV again. I don't have a problem with accuracy while you are defending an inexact phrase ("l. is a political philosophy") on the facts of the politics article and now! also of the political philosophy article by own defintion like a bulldog. --Irgendwer 20:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

When a term has multiple definitions, the context determines the meaning, not you or me. --Serge 21:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course, who does claim something else? --Irgendwer 00:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, all private enterprises are very much indeed political enterprises, where, depending on the particular organization, the degree to which members engage in "office politics" and political maneuvering may vary, but certainly always exists at least to some extent, except perhaps in the case of the sole proprietorship with no employees. But even then, there are always politics involved in dealing with one's customers and suppliers. All human relations are inherently political, by definition. --Serge 17:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

In a political society, private institutions are also perforce involved in politics. But this is not the context. --Irgendwer 20:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

As I've tried to say below, you are confusing concerned with politics with being involved in politics. The word political means being concerned with politics, not being involved in politics. Thus, libertarianism, being concerned with matters of politics, is political. It is not necessarily involved in politics. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

My skills to verbalize are as weaker as to understand something. So I don't confuse my understanding. I can sign your phrase. "In a political society, private institutions are also concerned with (or affected by) politics." The meaning is for my dictionaries nearly the same. (concerned with=befasst mit, perforce involved in=zwangsläufig verwickelt in, or more active/passive) --Irgendwer 00:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Politics is a noun, political (and apolitical) is an adjective. You are probably quite aware of the difference between an adjective and a noun, but what you seem to be unaware of is that, in English and many other languages, when a word-stem (politic) forms words in different classes (nouns and adjectives are classes), they very commonly also change what the stem means within that word. Politics and political do not have the same referents: the politic in politics and political do not have the same meaning.

This, Irgendwer, is the sort of thing that English speakers learn in kindergarten, and if this page has become a kindergarten as you so often accuse, it's because of your lack of English-language skills that kindergarten-level children understand innately. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You may believe in your fine polemic. But I have always looked out for English terms although the difficulty in my native German is very similar. --Irgendwer 21:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I know the problem in German is the same, I've studied it. For instance, if I said that to be klassisch means being einen Klassiker, then I would be wrong. You are making the same type of mistake when you say that being political means being involved in politics.

To put it another way, I understand German well enough and I've spoken French since I was a child. However, the fine distinctions editors make when discussing an article means that I am unable to participate in discussions at de: or fr:. My German and French skills are insufficient to allow me to always grasp very fine distinctions or even to detect when they are being used in German and Friench. I know my limitations, but you seem to insist that you have none. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe that because erveryone comes with an own story. For example, a more active meaning of political would rather support me. For Serge it would be the same. He puts all situations into "politics" with two or more indivuduals in reach together. --Irgendwer 00:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Although, it's is true that "politics" and "political" in English can be used in the context of just about any interpresonal situation, I would suggest to Saxifrage that "political philosophy" cannot mean any philosophy relating to poltics in this broad sense. For example, a political philosophy can't be a set of ideas about how you should deal with your colleagues at work. Having said this, I think it is reasonable to describe libertarianism as a poltitical philosophy, because (1) most libertarians are minarchists who do support a minimal state, (b) those who aren't minarchists argue explicitly against having a state, hence are concerned with poltical questions (in the narrow sense). It's also, of course, overwhelmingly the common usage to lump libertarianism together with other poltical philosophies, and we shouldn't go against common usage without a very good reason. Cadr 01:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The good reason is that is POV from the non-political-society perspective, and that only some fringes of the philosophy are described by political scienctists. Even the NAP is ignored.

What to do is described in WP:POV:

Each POV should be clearly labeled and described, so readers know:

* Who advocates the point of view

* What their arguments are (supporting evidence, reasoning, etc.)

So you must easily change the phrase to "is a political philosophy in the broad sense of usage" or similar, or you do without this disgrace as it is tastefulness in other well links.

The status now is, that someone claims newly in the political philosophy article that one "may also refer therewith to a general political view". Or by anoter words: It is legitmate to describe something inaccurately by defintion, thus it is legitimate to be inexact. A folly! --Irgendwer 14:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I can only hope that rehpotsirhc stops reverting without any constructive comment in good faith. --Krtzskpsjf 10:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

As you can see, Alfrem/Irgendwer has created another sock, presumably in an attempt to start dispute resolution over again before he can be blocked. This definitely warrants a RfAr, but I don't have the time or energy right now to pursue it. --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 15:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent edit "skirmish"

I hope no one minds a new sub-heading, this discussion is becoming difficult to follow. I usually stay away from these kinds of things because:

• I do not consider myself a great orator, and fear appearing dumber than I think myself to be.
• I do not have the intestinal fortitude required for long term edit wars.

That said, I have been following the action here recently; I feel compelled to comment and act.

The text in question is, at best, an editorial essay. It needs to be removed from the article. I have done so. Above and beyond its not being NPOV, the essay itself is a bad essay. Is difficult to read. There are few, if any, transitions from one paragraph to the next; the overuse of rhetorical questions slows the flow of the essay as the reader tries to answer the questions himself, and frankly, is annoying. D-Rock (Yell at D-Rock) 09:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

"editorial essay" - This is rather an argument for, not against. But if you don't like the style then you may "improve" it easly. A bad style only (as you assume) is no reason to remove something in Wikipedia completely.

If you can not see the "transitions from one paragraph to the next" then I assume that you are more angry, but this is also no reason to remove it completely.

"A rhetorical question" is also only a question of style. It isn't inherent in POV.

It would be better when you would describe what IS POV. But there is not one argument referring to this. It seems to me, you don't have any interest in a discussion in regard to POV. So it is again an attempt to enforce majority POV. Am I right? --Irgendwer 10:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

"Editorial essay" is the most scathing argument I can make against inclusion in Wikipedia. We should be writing factual articles, not opinion pieces. That said, Irgendwer is correct in saying I made no specific claims about POV statements. Upon further reflection, I have found that my objections are mostly about unsourced statements.

So, sentence by sentence, here goes (I have left out the block quotes to keep this as short as possible):

The minarchist philosopher Robert Nozick posed in his book Anarchy, State and Utopia (1974) the basic issue of all legal theorie, "The fundamental question of political philosophy, one that precedes questions about how the state should be organized, is whether there should be any state at all. Why not have anarchy?" I have no issues with this sentence.

But just this is not an answered issue by the major contemporary political philosophers and theorists. This potentially controversial factual statement is unsourced. Who says the issue is not answered?

Why? As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should be answering questions, not asking them.

Since it doesn't make sense to carry constributing theories when there is no affirmative basis to politcs. This is an opinion statement.

Nozick himself raised a lot of critics on his interpretation from the anarcho-capitalist camp while attracting rather positive attention of statists. This factual statement is not cited, and is ambiguous. Who exactly criticized him? Which statists gave Nozick positive attention?

Hans-Hermann Hoppe writes about this difficulty, ~Block quote~ Was cited.

So the most consequential libertarian scholars are condemned to work in privacy. This factual statement is unsourced. Also, the connotation of "condemned" may put this statement under the POV umbrella.

But what have happened instead in the official, political institutions by liberal and minarchist thinkers who (less consequential) are willing to use the state as a social regulator for which reason however? See response to "Why?"

In the anarcho-capitalist voice, just these people (like Milton Friedman) have established useful political concepts which are finally even required for an (e.g. of Franz Oppenheimer's social scientist view so called) exploitative statist system. Why is Wikipedia speaking in the anarcho-capitalist voice? What happened to NPOV?

Rothbard explained his view on the actual task of political philosopy in his book "The Ethics of Liberty" (1982) as follows: ~Block quote~ Cited.

Furthermore, if any of this information belongs in Wikipedia, I doubt it belongs in an introductory article on Libertarianism. D-Rock (Yell at D-Rock) 04:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

---

@D-Rock, I put some numbers within your text so that I don't must quote all in detail.

---

"Editorial essay" is the most scathing argument I can make against inclusion in Wikipedia. We should be writing factual articles, not opinion pieces. That said, Irgendwer is correct in saying I made no specific claims about POV statements. Upon further reflection, I have found that my objections are mostly about unsourced statements.

So, sentence by sentence, here goes (I have left out the block quotes to keep this as short as possible):

The minarchist philosopher Robert Nozick posed in his book Anarchy, State and Utopia (1974) the basic issue of all legal theorie, "The fundamental question of political philosophy, one that precedes questions about how the state should be organized, is whether there should be any state at all. Why not have anarchy?" I have no issues with this sentence.

But just this is not an answered issue by the major contemporary political philosophers and theorists. This potentially controversial factual statement is unsourced. Who says the issue is not answered? (1)

Why? As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should be answering questions, not asking them. (2)

Since it doesn't make sense to carry constributing theories when there is no affirmative basis to politcs. This is an opinion statement. (3)

Nozick himself raised a lot of critics on his interpretation from the anarcho-capitalist camp while attracting rather positive attention of statists. This factual statement is not cited, and is ambiguous. Who exactly criticized him? Which statists gave Nozick positive attention? (4)

Hans-Hermann Hoppe writes about this difficulty, ~Block quote~ Was cited.

So the most consequential libertarian scholars are condemned to work in privacy. This factual statement is unsourced. Also, the connotation of "condemned" may put this statement under the POV umbrella. (5)

But what have happened instead in the official, political institutions by liberal and minarchist thinkers who (less consequential) are willing to use the state as a social regulator for which reason however? See response to "Why?" (2)

In the anarcho-capitalist voice, just these people (like Milton Friedman) have established useful political concepts which are finally even required for an (e.g. of Franz Oppenheimer's social scientist view so called) exploitative statist system. Why is Wikipedia speaking in the anarcho-capitalist voice? What happened to NPOV? (6)

Rothbard explained his view on the actual task of political philosopy in his book "The Ethics of Liberty" (1982) as follows: ~Block quote~ Cited.

Furthermore, if any of this information belongs in Wikipedia, I doubt it belongs in an introductory article on Libertarianism. D-Rock (Yell at D-Rock) 04:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC) (7)

---

(1) I agree that I have been somewhat imprecise in formulating. It is an "answered question" but it is only answered (when it is at all) in a way to support the own positive view of the role of state. A typical manner of this is to relate to Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan. So it is easy to improve. See also (3).

(2) You relate to Wikipedia:No original research or something like that. I cant find it yet. But that doesn't hit the point imho. It is only an editing style in the context.

(3) I think, this is an extreme view but I rephrase to,

" ...Why not have anarchy?" But just this is not a really answered issue by the major contemporary political philosophers and theorists. As an empirical fact, it is only answered (when one tries to answer it at all) in a way to support the own positive view of the role of state. A typical manner of this is to relate to Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan. Nozick himself raised a lot of critics on his interpretation from the anarcho-capitalist camp while attracting rather positive attention of statists. In this logic, that it doesn't make sense to carry constributing theories when there is no affirmative basis to politcs, Hoppe writes:"

(4) I will deliver references in addition.

(5) Is actually an empirical fact. But I can rephrase it: "So some of the most consequential libertarian scholars must work aside of public utilities."

(6) No problem to NPOV. You can see the Who and What.

• Who advocates the point of view
• What their arguments are (supporting evidence, reasoning, etc.)

(7) No reason to remove it simply.

--Irgendwer 15:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Irgendwer: I think calling this edit vandalism is counter-productive to whatever solution may be acheived. D-Rock (Yell at D-Rock) 06:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

What do you think it is when we may say the truth? --Irgendwer 07:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Only the worst editors who work opposite of the Wikipedia Way claim to know the truth. — Saxifrage ✎ 07:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The truth is that reverters like User Nat Krause and Rehpotsirhc are working witout any constructive cooperation. This is not hard to see. --Irgendwer 13:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Irg, I think it's pretty clear to anyone who cares to look that you're simply trying to insert a big OR editorial essay into the article. As if that weren't enough, the essay is terribly written and borders on incoherency. Posting lengthy replies to people to make it seem like you are taking part in some kind of content debate isn't fooling anyone--there is not one other person who supports your changes, in any form. You've already been banned from this article by Arbcom once for edit warring. I'll just leave it at that. --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 13:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

"Essay", "terrible", "incoherency" are your sham terms of an used editing style. It is not forbidden to use any editing style because at least every editor must have one. Your lump charges doesn't make any sensible argument. --Irgendwer 14:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I forgot to add: your English is so poor that 90% of what's said on talk pages flies over your head anyway. For an example, see above. --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 14:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I see an example of your all-in charges. When you think I could not understand you, then you would have for certain a concrete example. But this is only your well tried diversionary troll tactic. --Irgendwer 14:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Get someone, anyone, to support your changes first before making them. Why do you keep accusing us of not respecting collaboration and consensus when you entirely ignore them both? — Saxifrage ✎ 04:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I have taken all objections into account except to such killer arguments like "essay", of course. So, what do you have to say? --Irgendwer 07:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone agree with you that you've successfully taken all objections into account? No, no-one does. That you think you have "taken all objections into account" doesn't give you the authority to ignore everyone else, because you can't decide alone what should be in the article. — Saxifrage ✎ 17:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Libertarianism != Liberalism

On the right of the page there is a nav bar that states "Part of the Politics series on Liberalism"

I understand the relationship between Libertarianism and Classical liberalism, but I believe making Libertarianism "Part of the Politics series on Liberalism" is misleading.

Most libertarians tend to despise the socialist views associated with today’s liberalism.

The US Democratic party was created as the "Democratic-Republican Party", but you don't see "Part of a Politics series on the Republican Party" navigation on that page do you?

I say given the confusion in the similar names it is even more important to be clear in differentiating Libertarianism from Liberalism.

The word "liberalism" in the series box is being used to describe the global sense of the word, not the American-specific sense. What Americans call "liberalism" -- e.g. the views of the left wing of the Democratic Party -- most of the world calls "social-democracy", "social liberalism" or "socialism" in the non-revolutionary sense. Contrast the articles liberalism and American liberalism. Libertarianism can be considered a branch of (global) liberalism, even though it is opposed to (American) liberalism (which is to say, social-democracy). --FOo 05:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Liberalism includes both social liberalism and classical liberalism --libertarianism being similar to, or a form of, the latter. RJII 05:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Rather than "includes both", I would say the term liberalism may refer to, or may mean, social liberalism, American liberalism, or classical liberalism. --Serge 06:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Mostly agree, but it's a myth that "liberalism" refers to classical liberalism outside of America. In the UK, it's a vague term that would generally refer to social liberalism unless further qualified. Cadr 16:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

"Liberalism in the American usage has little in common with the word as used in the politics of any European country, save possibly Britain." [5] RJII 16:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Linkspam

The site liberteaser.org has been added to the External links here; the same user 68.83.208.126 has added a link at The Kills. The user then employed a sock puppet (one edit) to endorse the inclusion. The user has been warned. I will allow editors of this article to determine whether the site per se meets the guidelines for notability (Technorati rank: 80,000+) and appropriateness (the site claims to be "a satire of libertarianism by libertarians", I don't have the time or inclination). But the guidelines strongly recommend against someone connected with a site adding links to it. --Dhartung | Talk 01:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't feed the disruptive troll

When someone acts obstinately and irrationally about his changes, keeps on insisting on making changes in accordance with his POV, can find no one to agree with him, and engages in endless nonsensical debates on the associated talk page, it's time to simply ignore him, and just rvt his changes. Please don't feed the disruptive troll. --Serge 17:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Saxifrage, consensus

See WP:CON#Consensus_vs._other_policies:

"It is assumed that editors working toward consensus are pursuing a consensus that is consistent with Wikipedia's basic policies and principles - especially NPOV. At times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors and generate widespread support among the editors of a given article for a version of the article that is POV, inaccurate, or libelous. This is not a consensus."

So, when there should be a basis "that is consistent with Wikipedia's basic policies and principles - especially NPOV" then there must be at least a qualified argument towards basic policies. But threre is no one. "Essay" makes no qualified argument because a style is always improvable (although I see no reason to change it). When you remove it easily then it is bad faith. --Irgendwer 08:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Libertarians require or prefer aid to be voluntary?

There have been a couple of reverts regarding whether requiring or preferring is the more appropriate term in this statement:

Libertarians favor an ethic of self-responsibility and strongly oppose the welfare state, preferring aid to be voluntary.

I think preferring is more appropriate given the context - which appears to about libertarians living in a non-libertarian society. While it may be accurate to say that libertarians would require aid to be voluntary in a libertarian society, that's not what this is about. --Serge 16:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Preference implies that they want it one way but would accept another. For example, I prefer chocolate ice cream but I'll eat vanilla, too. Requirement implies that they demand to have it one way and are strongly opposed to any alternatives. If I'd rather go without ice cream than have vanilla, then I require chocolate ice cream. Of course, we live in a society where the laws force vanilla on us, regardless of our requirements, so libertarians do not get what they want. Al 16:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

A possible compromise; what if we said they demand? This implies that they want it but they're not getting it, so they're just coping. Al 16:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

With demand I get a mental image of a screaming two-year-old who is not getting (to extend the metaphor) his chocolate ice cream. That may not be the paticular connotation everyone associates with demand, but it has connotations that we should be prepared to address if it is used to as an alternative. Unfortunately, I cannot think of any alternatives. --D-Rock (Yell at D-Rock) 17:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, if we think of a better word, let's switch. For now, I'll change it to the best option available. Al 17:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Libertarians do not require nor demand aid at all, therefore they don't require nor demand aid to be voluntary. It should say that libertarians oppose aid that is not voluntary because no innocent individual should be forced to do anything against his will. Or words to that effect. --Serge 20:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Libertarianism and politics

The rhetoric of libertarianism is often qualified by a political discourse because it is what people may observe in a life determined by politics. People see at first of all what's going on in the media about libertarian parties to reduce the state and to pave the way to a laissez-faire culture. But it is not the basic message of libertarianism to enforce its content by a parliament. The consequence of the libertarian core would be to refuse all government intervention but it wouldn't only be to reduce government to a neoliberal level or to a minimal state without the right to secede. One may ask ultimately if that can be libertarian at all, because it will tend in best case to an utilitarian kind of "freedom" but not to libertarian laws.

The minarchist philosopher Robert Nozick posed in his book Anarchy, State and Utopia (1974) the basic issue of all legal theorie, "The fundamental question of political philosophy, one that precedes questions about how the state should be organized, is whether there should be any state at all. Why not have anarchy?" But just this is not a really answered issue by the major contemporary political philosophers and theorists. As an empirical fact, it is only answered (when a statist tries to answer it at all) in a way to support the own positive view of the role of state. A typical manner of this is to relate to Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan. Nozick himself did it in an other way but he raised a lot of critics on his interpretation from the anarcho-capitalist camp while attracting rather positive attention of statists. In this logic, that it doesn't make sense to carry constributing theories when there is no affirmative basis to politcs, it must came as Hans-Hermann Hoppe writes,

"Just look at Ludwig von Mises and Murray N. Rothbard. The two greatest economists and social philosophers of the 20th century were both essentially unacceptable and unemployable by the academic establishment. ... Despite all obstacles, it was possible for Mises and Rothbard to make themselves heard. They were not condemned to silence. They still taught and published. They still addressed audiences and inspired people with their insights and ideas. ... Rothbard had The Ludwig von Mises Institute, which supported him, helped publish and promote his books, and provided the institutional framework that allowed him to say and write what needed to be said and written, and that can no longer be said and written inside academia and the official, statist establishment media." [6]

So some of the most consequential libertarian scholars must work aside of public utilities. But what have happened instead in the official, political institutions by liberal and minarchist thinkers who (less consequential) are willing to use the state as a social regulator for which reason however? In the anarcho-capitalist voice, just these people (like Milton Friedman) have established useful political concepts which are finally even required for an (e.g. of Franz Oppenheimer's social scientist view so called) exploitative statist system.

Rothbard explained his view on the actual task of political philosopy in his book "The Ethics of Liberty" (1982) as follows:

"In our view the major task of “political science” or better, “political philosophy” is to construct the edifice of natural law pertinent to the political scene. That this task has been almost completely neglected in this century by political scientists is all too clear. Political science has either pursued a positivistic and scientistic “model building,” in vain imitation of the methodology and content of the physical sciences, or it has engaged in purely empirical fact-grubbing. The contemporary political scientist believes that he can avoid the necessity of moral judgments, and that he can help frame public policy without committing himself to any ethical position. And yet as soon as anyone makes any policy suggestion, however narrow or limited, an ethical judgment—sound or unsound—has willy-nilly been made. The difference between the political scientist and the political philosopher is that the “scientist’s” moral judgments are covert and implicit, and therefore not subject to detailed scrutiny, and hence more likely to be unsound. Moreover, the avoidance of explicit ethical judgments leads political scientists to one overriding implicit value judgment-that in favor of the political status quo as it happens to prevail in any given society. At the very least, his lack of a systematic political ethics precludes the political scientist from persuading anyone of the value of any change from the status quo.

In the meanwhile, furthermore, present-day political philosophers generally confine themselves, also in a Wertfrei manner, to antiquarian descriptions and exegeses of the views of other, long gone political philosophers. In so doing, they are evading the major task of political philosophy, in the words of Thomas Thorson, “the philosophic justification of value positions relevant to politic.”

In order to advocate public policy, therefore, a system of social or political ethics must be constructed. In former centuries this was the crucial task of political philosophy. But in the contemporary world, political theory, in the name of a spurious “science,” has cast out ethical philosophy, and has itself become barren as a guide to the inquiring citizen. The same course has been taken in each of the disciplines of the social sciences and of philosophy by abandoning the procedures of natural law." [7]

---

Which sentence is written as POV?

What is "disruptive troll's vandalism" to restore this section?

It seems to me that the vandal must just this person who is removing correct contents in Wikipedia in bad faith. Good luck! --Irgendwer 08:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Obviously your proposed edit is never going to be left standing. Maybe, maybe, the content of your edit is useful, but you have to start talking about what you want the article to say. So if you really, really think anything in those paragraphs are an improvement to the article, why don't you say why here? You haven't yet made a single argument for its value, you've only argued that we're biased and wrong for taking it out. Most of us can't even understand it, because your English is so terrible, so why don't you try to explain it first and maybe, maybe you'll have a chance at seeing any of it in the article some day. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Obviously your proposed edit is never going to be left standing.

Your claim.

Maybe, maybe, the "content" of your edit is useful, but you have to start talking about what you want the article to say.

The text speaks for itself.

So if you really, really think anything in those paragraphs are an improvement to the article, why don't you say why here? You haven't yet made a single argument for its value,

The same value as any other content of Wikipedia. I don't know what you mean.

you've only argued that we're biased and wrong for taking it out.

This is a fact because your only argument is "terribly written as 'essay'".

Most of us can't even understand it, because your English is so terrible, so why don't you try to explain it first and maybe, maybe you'll have a chance at seeing any of it in the article some day. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Why do you not read the "improvements" of Tamfang to understand the text without mistakes in English? All what you need is here. --Irgendwer 16:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You need to explain why it should be in the article. You haven't done that. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It should be in the article because it is NPOV-material that does fit into an encyclopedia, you troll.

--Irgendwer 07:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

So you assert, but that's not an explanation. Look up the difference between explain and assert and try answering again. — Saxifrage ✎ 09:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Then I am so bold. So what? It is normal. --Irgendwer 12:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't try to use that argument, it will go against you. It is a long, long established practice that being bold is never an acceptable reason after being reverted. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a long, long established rule to improve the Wiki by working towards NPOV without bad faith. But this is what your fellows are doing. They remove only without any good reason. This is called "vandalism". --Irgendwer 05:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Physician, heal thyself. You accuse us of bad faith. Do you do this of bad faith, or because you don't understand English enough to tell the difference between good arguments and petty excuses? — Saxifrage ✎ 06:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Which good argument? "Terribly written POV-essay"? Ridiculous! --Irgendwer 06:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not talking about this particular bone of contention, I'm talking about the arguments against removing "political" from the definition of libertarianism. Arguments which you failed to understand and which you chose to interpret as bad faith instead of as supported by policy, common sense, and basic English semantics. In the end you stopped edit warring against everyone else, so I can only assume that you realised you were wrong in your position. If you were wrong then, both about the article and about bad faith, how can you be so sure that bad faith is what we're acting in now? Your record so far shows that you are not a good judge of bad faith at all, at least not in English conversation. — Saxifrage ✎ 17:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I am asking you for the good arguments and you open a new cask of all inclusive charges with muddleheaded conclusions which have nothing to do with the topic here. Is this one of your troll tactics? --Irgendwer 17:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That is because I asked you why you are assuming bad faith, and you changed the subject to ask what the good arguments are. You haven't answered the original subject, so I have no obligation to answer if you change it. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The original subject is in the title, you troll. --Irgendwer 21:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Then I will start a subsection on your user page that has the appropriate title, since that is so very important to you, and I will move this conversation there. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Nozick, Hoppe, Rothbard and all that

Irgendwer, I'm trying to put your passage into better English so that we're better able to debate its merits. Lacking knowledge of your home language (German?) I cannot guess what idioms you are mistranslating. Here is my attempt.

The minarchist philosopher Robert Nozick posed the basic issue of all legal theory: "The fundamental question of political philosophy, one that precedes questions about how the state should be organized, is whether there should be any state at all. Why not have anarchy?" (Anarchy, State and Utopia, 1974) This issue is not really answered by the major contemporary political philosophers and theorists, unless in a circular way to support a preconceived positive view of the role of the state, e.g. by citing Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan. Nozick himself did it in an other way (did what, answered his own objection?), attracting criticism from the anarcho-capitalist camp and rather positive attention from statists. Given Nozick's premise that it doesn't make sense to debate subtypes of state when the state itself has no affirmative basis, the result must be as Hans-Hermann Hoppe describes: (omitted)

So some of the most consequential libertarian scholars must work outside the academic establishment. But what has been done instead in the official, political institutions by liberal and minarchist thinkers who (less consequential) are willing to use the state as a social regulator for whatever reason? Milton Friedman and others have successfully promoted useful political concepts which may be necessary to the effective functioning of even an exploitative statist system (in the view of social scientists such as Franz Oppenheimer).

Milton Friedman is no anarchist!

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

Perhaps this passage ought to be a new section "Libertarians in academia" rather than part of "Libertarianism and politics". —Tamfang 16:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

---

1)Tamfang, For a start I can adopt your changes, so that nobody may say that he wouldn't understand the "terrible English". 2)I don't claim that Milton is anarchist. Please read the text again. I think it is correctly written. 3)To your question "(did what, answered his own objection?)": Nozick answered in his own way. I don't want to open this cask. But I can add a footnote later. 4)I act on the assumption that there is no POV in this section. One should have good reasons to recvert it. --Irgendwer 18:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Tamfang, please don't feed this guy [8]. --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 23:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Now that I can better understand the arguments, I can see that it fails Wikipedia:No original research by providing a synthesis and numerous conclusions that are not found explicitly in its sources. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You will surely explain how it fails because I don't know it. --Irgendwer 05:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

"Wolf!" cried the boy. —Tamfang 18:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

rv persistent counter-consensus edit

I will revert all activity/vandalsim by this remark because I have inserted corrrect material which fits into Wikipedia. You have no reason to remove it. Users should work together in good faith to improve the encyclopadia. You are only corrupting in bad faith or in enforcing your vandalism. This couldn't be called "consensus" in the sense of Wikipedia Guidelines. If you want to enforce your will then you may go to arbitration. Good Luck! --Irgendwer 06:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The trouble is that you're the only one able to see how it's coherent let alone relevant, and you won't let the rest of us in on the secret. —Tamfang 06:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I am the only one. But I can't forfeel your objection when you have one at all. Why should it be irrelevant? And why should the first section (which is the intro of the corrupted part) more relevant that nobody is removing it. This is as more than suspect to me. --Irgendwer 08:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the preceding paragraph is also incoherent. Perhaps the conservative instinct, not to mess with what has long remained, protects it. Meanwhile, we're discussing your addition.

Oops. That preceding paragraph was the beginning of Irgendwer's first version [9] of the addition in question, on May 14. A better answer to Irgendwer's question is: although that first paragraph is even more poorly written, it is easier to discern the germ of a relevant idea. —Tamfang 01:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Given Nozick's premise ... the result must be as Hoppe describes: i.e. that marginalized theorists nevertheless get published. The implied syllogism makes huge leaps, the whole quoted passage has no direct relevance to "Libertarianism and politics", and the conclusion is undermined by your very next sentence.

Nor is Libertarianism the most appropriate place for a long contemplation of the role of political science. Excerpts from the Rothbard passage might be appropriate if framed in some discussion of the role of libertarians in political science. —Tamfang 16:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome to get blocked for 3RR violations as long as you like. — Saxifrage ✎ 07:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Troll! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Irgendwer (talk • contribs) .

WIKIPEDIA IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA

An encyclopedia is a written compendium aiming to convey information on all branches of knowledge. WP:ENC

You can also remove knowledge but this is no improvement of Wikipedia. --Irgendwer 07:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

It is an improvement if the matter removed is more distracting than informative. (I've been chopping away at Charge (heraldry): everything under the sun could legitimately be listed, but it's more useful to list only the frequent charges.) —Tamfang 15:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The removed part is not distracting because it is purely discussing Libertarianism. I don't know what you want. --Irgendwer 17:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The first few sentences, yes. The quotation from Hoppe is about the marginalization of minority opinions in academia; the last half of your passage is about the role of political science in general. How is this "purely discussing libertarianism"?? —Tamfang 17:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The quotation from Hoppe is about the role of libertarian opinions in academia; the last half of my passage is about the role of political science in the sense of libertarian philosphers. So purely discussing libertarianism. --Irgendwer 18:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The Hoppe paragraph (and your next original paragraph) applies to any minority opinion. The Rothbard passage is about methodology; it contains no mention of libertarian matters. How is this "purely discussing libertarianism"?? —Tamfang 21:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hoppe ... applies to any minority opinion - This is not true. Monarchism, Public Choice Theory, Classic Liberalism, Adam Smith, Communism, Karl Marx, National Socialism for example are respected topics in the academia. The rejection of libertarianism is not because of minority position. It is because of contradictoriness within the political process. Rothbard passage ... no mention of libertarian matters - This is nonsense. Rothbard writes: "In our view ..." R. points out the view of a certain ideology. What do you think what he means in "The Ethics of Liberty"? Maybe your next argument would be that Rotbard was no Libertarian or much better, you claim that libertarianism is no political philosophy. That would sound funny now. --Irgendwer 23:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Even if libertarians are unique (ha!) in being marginalized by academia, Hoppe here says nothing interesting about libertarianism. (We might say that it happens because of inherent contradictions in the orthodox political process; and other radicals might say the same.) As for the Rothbard passage, you're repeating that whatever a libertarian says is relevant. Make it more concise and make the relevance more clear. —Tamfang 00:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not your matter to decide which facts are "not interesting". You must not enjoy all content. So your argument is that Hoppe says nothing about libertarianism because he doesn't use the word "libertarian". So we shouldn't speak about stuff of "Libertarians" or people who act in their function as "libertarian" as a general rule because it is nothing interesting about libertarianism but only about their private sentiments. So far so good. Nethertheless we may dicuss how people (or the public) are acting with typical or leading libertarian thinkers. Here is the marginalization of libertarians in the academia an (important or not important) characteristic of the libertarian movement and I may explain this fact. The quotes of Hoppe and Rothbard are only helping to point out this in the context. When you think you can rephrase this to a better approach then you are welcomed. But the context is about the identification of libertarianism, and it must be possible to explain this in English language by a complementary sentence which is not soley libertarian (in your mind). --Irgendwer 09:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

We've each stated our case, and I'm not going to play "is not, is too" anymore. Others will judge where the merit lies between us. (You may note that I am not among those who have deleted Irgendwer's insertions.) —Tamfang 02:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I hope anyway your are satisfied by my argument. I know you are not one of the unfair reverters. Others may claim their own objections if they able at all. --Irgendwer 05:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I gave no grounds for such a hope. —Tamfang 06:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You are only bothered by the citations. I can hide them also in footnotes as evidence for the correctness of the written text. Then these shouldn't catch your eye any longer. But the statement will stay as it is. This should point out that your objection is only of kind of editing style. --Irgendwer 10:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

When you say, "You must not enjoy all content", you are assuming bad faith. Stop doing that. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Eh, what do you think it means? I take it to mean "it is not necessary that you enjoy all content" (and thus "your non-enjoyment is not sufficient grounds to exclude"), with the impersonal "you". Is that assuming bad faith? —Tamfang 23:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I took Irgendwar to mean by it that they think you are objecting because you don't like the content, i.e., they think your motive is censorship. Thus, it is an example (assuming I am reading them right) of Irgendwar assuming bad faith. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Reverting without any reason is bad faith or vandalism. Stop doing that. Schoolmaster. --Irgendwer 09:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Assuming bad faith is always wrong by policy. Reverting is not always wrong by policy. Do the math. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You are assuming bad faith. --Irgendwer 06:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not assuming bad faith, I'm judging that you don't know Wikipedia policy as well as you think you do. — Saxifrage ✎ 08:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

When you claim "you are assuming bad faith" on anyone's guess you must assume bad faith yourself and your judging is purely trollic. --Irgendwer 10:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This seems to have degenerated into a "did not!", "did too!" discussion. I suggest everyone take a day or two off from this discussion, and think about what he really wants to accomplish here. —D-Rock 14:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

consequentialists??

Not all who advocate abolishing taxes are consequentialists as I understand the term, and not all consequentialist libertarians support abolishing taxes. So why does Irgendwer prefer to call the abolitionists "consequentialist"? —Tamfang 21:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Because then he can attempt to defend his nonsense with endless rounds of nonsense debate? Just a guess... --Serge 22:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

No idea. Irgendwar, got a citation? — Saxifrage ✎ 23:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

In changing "radical" back to "consequential", Irgendwer asks:

Why are libertarians radical? Or, why are people less radical when they are in political parties? Do you know that?)

These questions are as baffling as the choice of "consequential". Every group – the LP, other political parties, non-Party libertarians, nonpartisan nonlibertarians – has has its moderates and radicals. Is it controversial to describe zero-taxers as more radical than low-tax libertarians?

But now it penetrates my addled awareness that Irgendwer wrote consequent and then consequential but not consequentialist. Irg might mean that abolitionist libertarians are destined to make a difference or, more likely, logically consistent (folgerecht, folgerichtig, both of which appear in my bilingual dictionary for consequent and/or consequential; this sense may be archaic in English); though I agree with the second and won't argue with the first, either is of course impermissibly non-neutral. —Tamfang 04:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Irgendwar is failing to understand English again, it seems. "Radical" is not being used in any special or technical sense in that passage, it means merely "at the extreme end of a spectrum" and can't possibly be interpreted (by someone with English competence) as meaning "politically radical". Change it back, if that's their only justification. — Saxifrage ✎ 06:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

One could use instead of radical also words like rigorous, basic, drastic, incisive(xxxx). The question will remain unaffected. Why are libertarians xxxx? Or, why are people less xxxx when they are in political parties? Do you know that? Maybe it is your POV because you are involved in politics and you must believe that libertariansim is something extreme from your political view. --Irgendwer 08:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

No no no, you're not understanding. The passage is not saying that libertarians are radical, it's talking about radical libertarians. You know, one kind of libertarian among many kinds of libertarians. You're question is like asking "why are apples red?" when a piece of text talks about "red apples" to distinguish them from the yellow and green apples that exist. — Saxifrage ✎ 09:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

You are not understanding. People who abolish taxes are not extreme only because you think they must be. This is only your POV. Finito. --Irgendwer 14:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The point of calling them "radical" is not to say they are "extreme" in the sense that is commonly given to "extremists" today , but simply that they advocate a principle to its "logical extreme" — that is, they are unwilling to compromise this principle (i.e. forced income redistribution is never the right thing for any reason, whereas other "libertarians" may allow for some (minimal) form of taxation). In short, there is nothing pejorative in this use of the word "radical". The problem with the word "consequential" is that it implies something about the influence of these particular thinkers, rather than anything about their views. Finally, the status of libertarianism in general is not at stake here: there are radical conservatives, radical liberals, radical authoritarians, etc. without implying that any of these views are inherently "radical" (not in the sense developed earlier, but in the sense of "extremist"). ^iggy_talk 15:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

By "consequential" I think Irg meant "logically consistent" rather than "influential", but Irg has not yet enlightened us on that point. Either way, that's Irg's POV, finito. —Tamfang 17:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

You may get "logically consistent". No problem. --Irgendwer 07:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine. I've duly removed it as unnecessarily opinionated. —Tamfang 19:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

With the same ambiguity, Irgendwer also uses the adjective consequential twice in the passage on academia (mislabeled "Libertarianism and politics"). —Tamfang 17:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

On the spectrum of tax policy, what could be more extreme than abolishing taxes entirely? Making them negative? —Tamfang 17:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Why do you need the point of view "On the spectrum of tax policy"? I thought this section is only about "Controversies among libertarians". --Irgendwer 08:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The sentence we're discussing is about DIFFERENCES IN TAX POLICY, is it not? I'm losing my ability to give you the benefit of the doubt. —Tamfang 19:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

"Libertarian perspectives on taxes". But you should read yourself. --Irgendwer 06:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Irgendwar, I know you have adjectives in German. You know that they can be used in two ways: to describe all of a group, and to select from that group some that match the adjective. Radical is being used as adjective for some libertarians (those at the extreme of libertarianism, not all libertarians) and is used to select them, not as a pejorative term. Did you know that part of the tongue is called "radical"? It means the far back part of the tongue in the throat. "Radical" is being used the same way in this case, to mean "libertarian principles taken to their extreme limit".

Your inability to grasp fine distinctions and the resulting disruption are really tiring. If you only edited less aggressively, this wouldn't be a problem. — Saxifrage ✎ 17:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The word radical comes from roots. The difference between low-taxers and zero-taxers is: should the "tree" of taxation be pruned at some of its branches, or pulled out by the roots? If Irgendwer would tell us what Irg thinks radical means, we might better understand Irgs concern. —Tamfang 17:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

When you have a dictionary then look what you can find as synonyms of "radical". I have found (as written above) "rigorous", "basic", "drastic", "incisive" (only examples) and Troll Saxifrage have used himself "extreme". --Irgendwer 07:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

That is because a dictionary contains the denotation of a word and rarely contains the connotation. The connotation is an important part of the meaning of a word that is harder to grasp, and takes longer for a non-native speaker to understand. The connotation of "radical" is dependent on the context (note that "connotation" and "context" are related words), and in the context "radical" was being used it does not mean what you seem to think it means. In fact, the connotation of "logically consistent", in that context, has very strong negative connotations that you probably don't intend and can't see. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You can also look into Meriam Webster Dictionary with connotations. --Irgendwer 07:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Be it noted that the word radical makes Irgendwer unhappy. Fine. As can be seen, I introduced it but do not insist on it. —Tamfang 20:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Why do you change "logical consistent libertarians" to "some libertarians" with a remark "POV again and again". I see no POV in "Most members of libertarian parties support low taxes and a balanced budget because they believe citizens should keep most of the money they earn, while logically consistent libertarians, including anarcho-capitalists, refuse all methods to subject people to tax." Explain! --Irgendwer 20:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

(I wrote this earlier, but Irgendwer missed it, so I moved it down here.)

While I'm an anarchist myself, I do not deny the label "libertarian" to those who, for example, have the goal of maximizing liberty to the extent possible and believe that the maximum is obtained in minarchy to which some small taxation is necessary, because the crime rate in anarchy would inevitably exceed the combined crime+tax rate in a well-designed minarchy. I see no logical fallacy in that opinion (only a mistaken optimism that the state can restrain itself), and its adherents would have just as much right to say "Libertarian anarchists advocate abolishing taxes entirely, while logically consistent libertarians ...." —Tamfang 20:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You have described a pragmatic view of (classic) liberal people but no alternatively _libertarian_ logic. --Irgendwer 08:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I can respect that opinion, too. —Tamfang 16:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not speaking about subjective opinions when I write: "logically consistent libertarians". --Irgendwer 17:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You imply that the position I describe is either not logical or not libertarian. That is your opinion. I disagree with it, but prefer to avoid language taking sides on this point. —Tamfang 20:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

zzzzzzz

I might add that one can advocate abolition of taxes without being logically consistent. —Tamfang 23:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Tamfang, it is becoming witless here. When one is able to describe that there are two equivalent consequences derived from a libertarian tenet then he may do it. I can't understand you. Maybe it helps you that every reduce of taxes until zero must be pareto optimal (see Austrian School). --Irgendwer 05:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't understand you either, so we're even. —Tamfang 06:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I am on a scientific level. --Irgendwer 07:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, in that case I must have been mistaken in thinking that your proposed language was fallacious. Ha ha. Seriously, show me a logical flaw in the minarchist position I described above, or a good reason to say it is not "libertarian"; or go play in your own sandbox. —Tamfang 21:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Taxes are not in consistence with the NAP. A reduce of taxes is liberal or neoliberal. Classic Liberalism is no libertarianism. Minarchism with enforced citizen membership to subject to tax is not libertarian. --Irgendwer 07:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's useful to confine "libertarian" to those who agree strictly with the NAP, excluding those who base their position on the first of the two tenets I mention below. —Tamfang

Ah maybe, there is no controversy among libertarians at all. :-) --Irgendwer 06:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, not if you get to define "libertarian" to exclude everyone who disagrees with you on any issue. —Tamfang 03:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I had claimed only: "Libertarian perspectives on taxes: Most members of libertarian parties support low taxes and a balanced budget because they believe citizens should keep most of the money they earn, while logically consistent libertarians, including anarcho-capitalists, refuse all methods to subject people to tax." Now it is on you to prove me wrong. --Irgendwer 07:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it is up to the troll who insists on less-neutral language to defend it by showing – by logic, not by appeal to the authority of Walter Block – that the word libertarian cannot apply to those who advocate reducing coercion unless they subscribe absolutely to the NAP. —Tamfang 19:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

When you vandalize me by your "more-neutral language" and irrational claims then I have no other chance as to solve this conflict by the original words of references. Eat that! --Irgendwer 08:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand the motivation, but you have shifted ground from logic to accidents of history, discrediting your own claim that your position is purely and uniquely logical. "Big Name agrees with me" is not logic, it is one of the named fallacies (argumentum ad verecundiam).

Do you even understand the neutrality policy, and why I say your language is unnecessarily non-neutral? Do you have enough empathy for another human being to imagine how one could think differently from you? —Tamfang 18:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not obviously true "that every reduc[tion] of taxes until zero must be pareto optimal" — at least, the greatest tax-consumers would not agree. —Tamfang 21:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I am speaking of libertarians, who always agree with the reduction of taxes to zero. You are speaking of people who want to become rich of tax transfers. --Irgendwer 07:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

So? Pareto optimality means "a condition from which any change would make someone worse off," not "a condition from which any change would make some anarchist worse off." —Tamfang 19:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The change from Anarchy to State with taxes makes people worse off. Please read mises.org. --Irgendwer 06:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not about to read all of mises.org to find out whether it contains somewhere a proof that the introduction of State makes all people worse off — an assertion which, by the way, is irrelevant to your claim that abolition is necessarily a Pareto improvement; a Pareto optimum need not be unique. ("I own everything" and "you own everything" are both P-optima.) —Tamfang 03:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It was only a hint. There is no reason to complain that it doesn't fail under other libertarian circumstances. --Irgendwer 07:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that what doesn't fail? —Tamfang 18:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

yyyyyy

I am not saying that "there are two equivalent consequences derived from a libertarian tenet". (And what does "equivalent" mean here?) I say that there are two tenets that can equally be described as libertarian:

• that the proper aim of public policy is to minimize coercion overall;
• that it's always wrong to use coercion, even to prevent a greater coercion.

The first allows some taxation (if minarchy is indeed the way to minimize coercion), the second does not. —Tamfang 01:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

"The proper aim of public policy is to minimize coercion overall" until zero in the libertarian tenet, isn't it? But you use a second ideology of pragmatism to fit coercion of a minarchist state into a equivalently "libertarian" view. This is fraud and cheating. --Irgendwer 07:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Utopia is not an option: coercion can never be reduced to zero, because there will always be crime, unless we can (noncoercively?!) reprogram everyone's brain to the NAP. Therefore if a libertarian must insist on zero coercion, then a libertarian must be a fool. Now, I am an anarchist rather than a minarchist, first because I find coercion distasteful (just as I find many of other people's hobbies not to my taste) and second because I do not trust the state to restrain itself. But I have the honesty to acknowledge that this is my judgement, rather than a necessary consequence of a logical axiom. —Tamfang 21:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Because anarchists know that they get no entry into any political door to reduce taxes for more than a half political peroid they are conseqentially not organized in any political organization to reduce taxes. But it is their attitude. The question is for you. Why believe "libertarian" non-anarchists that they can reach any effective low tax? This is the proper Utopia. --Irgendwer 06:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. But that is our OPINION. Our belief that minarchism is a trap for suckers does not make minarchists non-libertarian, and it does not make their position logically inconsistent. —Tamfang 03:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

When minarchists would have empirical or theoretical evidences that libertarianism can be realised by Minarchism but this is not the case.

They have as much empirical evidence for that as we have for anarchism. —Tamfang 12:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't need empirical evidences to refuse taxes. I do it by principle to be logical consistent. --Irgendwer 07:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

And the minarchists advocate minarchy because they believe that anarchy would result in more coercion not less; to advocate anarchy, given that belief, would be logically inconsistent with promotion of peace.

If you demand empirical success from the minarchists, you should be prepared to meet your own standard. I hope I need not tell you the word for one who refuses to do that. —Tamfang 19:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

"...advocate minarchy because they believe that ..." - They believe, yes. This is no logic. You say it. They are doing it in "promotion of peace". "given that belief" - They can take what they want. They can believe that a Maoist or Stalinist or Nazi State is given to promote peace. Why not? But this is their pure ideology, not their formal logic or libertarian logic.

"If you demand empirical success from the minarchists," - I demand only a libertarian reason to hold a logic but not a non-libertarian ideology to hold a believe. --Irgendwer 08:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Logic can do nothing without premises. If you believe that the NAP is a moral imperative without regard to consequences, then anarchism logically follows. If you believe that minarchy can never be stable and that a bigger state is undesirable, again anarchism logically follows. But if one has the beliefs I enumerated:

• that corruption of a minimal state can be prevented;
• that anarchy cannot reduce the burden of crime below the burden of crime+state in such a minarchy;
• that the reduction of total coercion is more important than keeping one's own hands perfectly clean —

then minarchism LOGICALLY follows. I assumed that the participants in this conversation are clever enough and honest enough to work that out for themself. —Tamfang 18:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

"Logic can do nothing without premises." - the premises are given by libertarianism. To premise a State is inconsistent with NAP. You:"

• that corruption of a minimal state can be prevented;
• that anarchy cannot reduce the burden of crime below the burden of crime+state in such a minarchy;
• that the reduction of total coercion is more important than keeping one's own hands perfectly clean "

You may believe that. It can't make it more consistent with NAP and individual rights. --Irgendwer 20:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The only premise "given by libertarianism" is that coercion is generally undesirable. Some libertarians make this an axiom in the form of the NAP; some balance it against other desiderata. Many people have said they would join the LPUS, because they agree generally with its stated goals, but cannot do so in good conscience because of the absolute language that members are required to sign ("I certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals"). Some others understand it less absolutely and cheerfully sign it. Ironically, David Nolan says the "pledge" was instituted merely to demonstrate to Richard Nixon and J. Edgar Hoover that the LP was not a violent conspiracy.

As I've already said, I don't believe all those minarchist premises, but I don't think any of them is absurd, or disqualifies its holder from being legitimately described as libertarian. If it does, we need another word for the broader sense of "libertarian". —Tamfang 06:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

1. "some balance it against other desiderata" - i.e. balance to a "smallest" evil. Democrats are doing the same shit.

Guilt by association: fallacious and therefore irrelevant. —Tamfang 21:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that Democrats and others do not balance coercion against other concerns, that what makes libertarians (in the broad sense) distinctive is giving any weight to coercion-in-general. The ruling parties may make a fuss about ensuring that military conscription is "fair" between groups, for example, but tell them it's inherently coercive and they'll go "huh, so what?" —Tamfang 22:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Democrats have reservations against freedom. Minarchists, too. In consequence they would argue either as you describe it. "huh, so what?" --Irgendwer 05:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Then why do minarchists join "libertarian" groups? —Tamfang 19:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The fundamantal maxim remains a fundamental maxim. Quote from article Libertarianism: "Libertarians hold as a fundamental maxim that all human interaction should be voluntary and consensual. They maintain that the initiation (or threat) of physical force against another person or his property, or the commission of fraud, is a violation of that principle."

That word "should" expresses an ideal: it does not follow that every failure to meet the ideal is intolerable. If it did, the existence of crime would make libertarianism absurd. —Tamfang 21:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

You are driving carousel with your terms. Further read: "Some libertarians regard all initiation of force as immoral ...". Of course, the hard core libertarian must be an idealist in theory. --Irgendwer 05:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

2. I have only written that there are logical consistent libertarians in decline of minimal government. This is neither absurd nor it is a disqualification against a broader legitimately description.

Did I say that we zero-tax libertarians are inconsistent or absurd?? —Tamfang

So what? What's your argument? --Irgendwer 05:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

So I don't understand why you wrote No.2. It does not appear to conflict with anything I've ever said, and that makes me suspicious ;) —Tamfang 19:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

3. broader sense of "libertarian" - of course, these are different connotations. You smear the whole term to its softened version. I support this use only as it is: vernacular. --Irgendwer 09:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I "smear" the term to the more inclusive sense because to restrict it to us extremists is to make the movement irrelevant. —Tamfang 21:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

see carousel above. --Irgendwer 05:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

y.1

Why are you attorney of this crude people? They can answer back themself and don't need you to make their ideological donkeywork. --Irgendwer 07:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Crude? As it seems to me, the weakness of their position is in its subtlety, i.e. that it requires a delicate balancing of forces.

As a contrarian (and libertarian) by temperament, I prefer that all sides of an argument get their due. I oppose you here because poorly-supported claims weaken the rhetorical position of the side for which they are made. We show our strength by defeating their best arguments, and thus we have an interest (in the long run) in ensuring that their best arguments are presented. Maybe the moderates have gone away because they're tired of justifying themselves to the fundamentalists; maybe they're simply more busy than I am and I make the arguments first; anyway it gives some weight, I think, that someone not on their side advocates fairness to them, just as arguments against Prohibition have more rhetorical weight coming from those who neither sell nor consume the prohibited product.

In a statist world, the minarchists are our natural allies (and potential converts), and nothing is gained by going out of our way to insult them here. —Tamfang 12:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

So you think it would be POV. But I am waiting for an consistent reason. When you continue, remember to the Joy of Editing. We want to improve an article step by step. When you delete a phrase only with the claim: you are wrong, and filling this side with long egoist debates on single words without respect to the authors position then the failure is preordained. --Irgendwer 07:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Igendwar, you are the one who is filling this page with debate over a single word ("radical"), not Tamfang. — Saxifrage ✎ 08:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure, Troll? I had only 2 of 11 posts with this word. --Irgendwer 08:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It was I who suggested "radical" to replace "logically consistent"; seeing how strongly Irgendwer hates that word (perhaps by a mistaken belief that "radical" means "violent"), I dropped it – either adjective is unnecessary, "other" is sufficient. —Tamfang 19:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Irgendwer, when have you ever shown anything but contempt for the position of another? When someone gives a reason for disagreeing with you, when have you ever acknowledged it? When have you ever conceded that reasonable people may disagree? When you do, then you may complain of disrespect. —Tamfang 19:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't support your all-in imputations. --Irgendwer 08:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you disprove one of them? —Tamfang 18:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Troll! --Irgendwer 20:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

mediation rejected

I removed the {{RFMF}} (Request for Mediation filed) because the request was rejected in April. —Tamfang 21:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfounded claims and biased phrasing

I changed the phrase "logically consistent libertarians" to "other libertarians." The idea that the opposing idea is not logically consistent is completely unfounded, and calling it so seems rather biased.

Sorry to whoever asked for a reason the first time I edited it, I wasn't sure whether or not I should explain it here. Obviously, that is the case. Timmie.merc 08:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

When the opposing idea is logically consistent then you must be able to explain how taxes are becoming logical consistent to libertarian thinking. Neither there is an empirical evidence of any reachable "minarchist" state nor there is any theoretical reason to fix taxes on a low level and to claim it would be libertarian on this level. --Irgendwer 08:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there any more empirical evidence of any reachable zero-tax state? I've already given a "theoretical reason to fix taxes on a low level and to claim it would be libertarian on this level," and you've passed up abundant opportunity to give some reason for calling it "logically inconsistent" (other than to object that classical liberalism somehow isn't libertarian). —Tamfang 12:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

"so long as you refuse to support it with argument, i'll continue to remove this unnecessary sectarianism"

• Is there any more empirical evidence of any reachable zero-tax state?

I have already stated: "Because anarchists know that they get no entry into any political door to reduce taxes for more than a half political peroid they are conseqentially not organized in any political organization to reduce taxes. But it is their attitude."

And it's no easier to read a second time. Could you get a friend to translate it into English, Esperanto or French? (Unfortunately my German is limited to the extremely simple.) You seem to be saying that, because the political system is rigged against anarchism, the lack of anarchist successes proves nothing. But it is equally rigged against minarchism. —Tamfang 13:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I say: because the political system is rigged against anarchism, ancaps are conseqentially not organized in any political organization to reduce taxes. Nevertheless they are of course against taxes. This is noticed as their political position. --Irgendwer 14:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you were demanding empirical support for the idea that minarchy can be achieved, that a low-coercion state can exist with nonzero taxation; but now it appears that you're only demanding evidence that minarchists advocate minarchy!? —Tamfang 15:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The question is not if there is any reachable zero-tax state. Anarchists don't want tax states and refuse taxes by this reason per se.

I meant "state" here in the sense of "condition", not the political sense. Sorry. —Tamfang 13:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I need no pragmatic argument to refuse taxes to remain consequential libertarian. --Irgendwer 14:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

If I understand this, you're a true Platonic idealist: you don't care if the ideal can never be achieved. Do you insist that all genuine libertarians share that indifference? If that were the case, few would take the time to read this article, let alone writing it. —Tamfang 15:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• I've already given a "theoretical reason to fix taxes on a low level and to claim it would be libertarian on this level,"

but not logical consistent. That's all. You can't deny that taxes are not libertarian.

Indeed I do not, but while we agree that the "necessary evil" position is not consistent with NAP-fundamentalism, you have not argued that it is not logically consistent with itself. —Tamfang 13:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

What do you have thought?

Is that a rhetorical question? —Tamfang 15:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• and you've passed up abundant opportunity to give some reason for calling it "logically inconsistent"

Why I must repeat again what's already written?

A minarchist state with enforced taxes as libertarain mean to realize libertarian needs in inconsistence to the NAP is a contradiction in terms. You may want it and call it "libertarian". But then you are a fool in the view of a libertarian anarcho-capitalist. --Irgendwer 12:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

A minarchist state is logically inconsistent with the NAP, yes, but – if I must repeat what I have already written – the NAP is not the only possible foundation for libertarianism, particularly in the broad sense of the term which is appropriate to an overview such as this. (The proper function of an encyclopedia article entitled Libertarianism is to introduce the reader to all of the range of opinion which may reasonably be called libertarian, not only to its fundamentalist minority.) Your only response to this point has been to sneer "that's only classical liberalism" as if it means something. The term "libertarian" was adopted not to cut off the classical liberal heritage, but because the meaning of "liberal" had drifted.

Anyway, again, insulting the minarchists here adds nothing to the article or to the cause. —Tamfang 13:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You can't deny that the NAP is the most important feature of libertarianism.

Of some branches of libertarianism. I deny that it is absolutely necessary. Two proofs of the same theorem need not resemble each other. —Tamfang 15:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Which branches? Is it described anywhere? Otherwise I take what is written in Wikipedia. "The non-aggression principle (also called the non-aggression axiom, anticoercion principle, or zero aggression principle) is a deontological ethical stance associated with the libertarian movement." Still questions? --Irgendwer 15:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

"associated with" is a remarkably weak phrase. It means only that if you hear someone advocate the NAP you can bet that the speaker is libertarian. In the same way, baptism is associated with Christianity: if you hear someone speak of baptism, you can assume that the speaker is Christian – but do all Christian sects practise baptism? (Certainly not infant baptism at least.)

You quote from an article that goes on to say, The United States Libertarian Party and others view it (NAP) as an essential tenet of all libertarian thought, though not all libertarians agree. I've added it to my watchlist.... —Tamfang 17:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The United States Libertarian Party and others view it (NAP) as an essential tenet of all libertarian thought could mean, that they are coming from the fundamentalist view point and so that not all libertarians can agree. I not, too. For example, David Friedman doesn't need the NAP in his books. But he is not at war with it. I have asked you for the branches to understand you better. But if you can't describe them, it is obviously irrelevant . --Irgendwer 19:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Also minarchists, who support a limited government that engages in the minimum amount of initiatory force that they believe necessary to ensure maximum individual freedom try to take it into account. But they are not consistent in doing so.

At least here you make the charge a little bit more specific, but it still has no substance. I suspect it might be possible to demonstrate that such a position cannot be consistent, but this is not the place for such an argument. —Tamfang 15:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you are speaking of, when you have no evidence of your "branches". --Irgendwer 15:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

What, you don't believe me (or Wikipedia) that there are some people who derive libertarian policy from a foundation other than the NAP? I can tell you that I accepted nonaggression as a desideratum long before I was persuaded that libertarianism is not foolish, so the NAP is not sufficient. —Tamfang 17:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

... is not sufficient to persuade you. So what? What does it mean in our context? Which branches? --Irgendwer 19:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know which "libertarians" you are speaking of.

And yet you "know" that they are logically inconsistent. —Tamfang 15:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I am using the definition of libertarianism in the article libertarianism. I don't know what you are doing. But you are obviously confused. --Irgendwer 15:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

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 (negative liberty). Guess where I found that passage. Oops, I guess you'll have to "correct" that now. —Tamfang 17:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I have already quoted from this passage one post before you. What do you want to prove thereby? --Irgendwer 19:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

When I write the truth and someone is insulted thereby then it is not my guilt. --Irgendwer 14:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, a lost cause cannot be weakened; if you have no hope of making the world more free, then of course you have no guilt in driving away allies. But I do think a libertarian world is possible.

On your own website you may speak what you know to be truth without fear of contradiction. Wikipedia must speak with the voice of consensus, of those who do not know your truth as well as of those who do. —Tamfang 15:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong because it is just not only MY knowledge that taxes must be inconsistent with libertarianism. --Irgendwer 15:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I did not say that you are alone in that belief (my meaning would be clearer if I wrote "On our own websites...."). Nor are you alone in the knowledge that some religions are wrong; so why not go to all the articles on religions and change "God" to "false god", "prophet" to "false prophet" and so on as appropriate? —Tamfang 17:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Because this articles are only described as believe of a group to anything. They have no claim to be true to others. But they have also controversies inside their believe. --Irgendwer 19:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

to cut a long story short

"strictly speaking, there is and there can be no “libertarian argument for a limited government.” - (I do not deny that there is such a thing as a limited-government libertarian, or libertarian minarchism. It is in the same vein that I do not deny that if a person takes libertarian positions on all but one issue (say, drugs alone, or abortion alone, or rent control alone), that he can properly be characterized as a libertarian. I would say of all these people that they take libertarian positions on all issues except for the one where they deviate from the nonaggression axiom.) - Limited government is simply incompatible with the libertarian nonaggression axiom. In order to more clearly see this, substitute “crime” for “government.” This should raise no objection from Holcombe, who concedes that even the best of limited governments are criminal organizations, e.g., “predators.” Is this something the true libertarian can accommodate, while still fully adhering to his principles? No, no, no. The libertarian, if he is to be logically consistent, must urge zero crime, not a small amount of it. Any crime is anathema for the libertarian. Any government, no matter how “nice,” must therefore also be rejected by the libertarian." Walter Block, GOVERNMENTAL INEVITABILITY: REPLY TO HOLCOMBE, JOURNAL OF LIBERTARIAN STUDIES VOLUME 19, NO. 3 (SUMMER 2005): 71–93

You may use also an utilitarist view of libertarianism if it is possible at all. But this wouldn't mean that you are a consistent utilitarist when you want small government. --Irgendwer 19:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

No need to go hunting for authorities to support what I have already agreed, that minarchy is incompatible with NAP-fundamentalism. —Tamfang 01:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

No, you have only agreed to an opinion.

?? Please rephrase that. —Tamfang 19:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

see above, you: I agree. But that is our OPINION. Our belief that minarchism is a trap for suckers does not make minarchists non-libertarian, and it does not make their position logically inconsistent. —Tamfang 03:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC) --Irgendwer 08:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

So you're asking me to agree that our shared opinion about minarchism is infallible truth? Grow up. —Tamfang 18:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

You wrote: "it does not make their (Minarchists) position logically inconsistent". I am still waiting to hear how libertarian minarchists are logical consistent to support a state.

I already answered that, troll. —Tamfang 19:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You answered wrong. Go back. --Irgendwer 08:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Why should I play by your rules, troll? —Tamfang 18:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

And "NAP-fundamentalism" is a new term. It is not elaborated. --Irgendwer 07:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Have I not used it before? I thought it reasonably transparent: the doctrine that right and wrong must be derived solely and literally from the NAP. —Tamfang 19:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It is often used in a negative connotation. "Doctrine" is suspect, too. I doubt if you are using the term in a unbiased and value-free manner. --Irgendwer 08:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

On the Talk page, we have no duty to be neutral, fortunately for you. —Tamfang 18:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

You seem to think the words doctrine, extreme, radical (and perhaps others?) are always pejorative. They are not. The anarchist wing of the LPUS once called itself "the Radical Caucus". I've used the word doctrine myself to describe a policy that I was committed to following. There's nothing pejorative about the Monroe Doctrine (though the form may be sarcastic if applied to a new policy). As to extreme, consider extreme sport and Extreme Programming. —Tamfang 05:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I wrote: "It is often used in a negative connotation" and I did't wrote: "always". I call myself also "radical" to establish a border to statists. But there is no need to call me "radical" when it is already a standard. --Irgendwer 06:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

"Controversies among libertarians - revert in part: sectarian and ungrammatical"

Tamfang, you revert this version:

• Libertarian perspectives on taxes: The libertarian tenent hold that logical consistency allows no taxation at all, while proponents of limited government support low taxes in the controversial belief that a society with no taxation at all could not provide certain public goods such as crime prevention. See also: Minarchism.

Tell me the POV. --Irgendwer 05:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

While there are some so-called hardcore libertarians, like Walter Block, who have the POV that libertarianism means absolutely no taxation, there are more moderate libertarians, who accept that some taxation may be required in a civilized society, perhaps including only voluntary local taxation, in order to minimize overall initiation of force. Therefore, it is a "hard-core libertarian" POV to declare in this article that the "libertarian tenent hold (sic) that logical consistency allows no taxation at all". That is all I will say on this. --Serge 16:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

You continue to claim that there is only one possible form of "the libertarian tenet". The existence of disagremeent on this point proves that it's not sufficiently neutral. —Tamfang 19:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course, I continue. The libertarian tenet is:

* "Libertarians hold as a fundamental maxim that all human interaction should be voluntary and consensual. They maintain that the initiation (or threat) of physical force against another person or his property, or the commission of fraud, is a violation of that principle."

And you go beyond that to read "should" as a synonym of "absolutely must", and "violation" as "intolerable violation". Have you ever heard the phrase "necessary evil"? —Tamfang 06:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Beware! This is your own story. You counter against the article. Do you have any counter-example of an Minarchist source claiming that there is no fundamental maxim in libertarianism "that all human interaction should be voluntary and consensual"? --Irgendwer 08:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The question is dishonest. You know very well that I have never asserted any such thing. It takes more than one premise to make a syllogism, and our disagreement is over other premises. —Tamfang 05:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

??? I have an open chain of evidences. It would be easy for you to break this chain when there is a mistake. --Irgendwer 06:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

"The existence of disagremeent on this point" - Which disagreement? --Irgendwer 22:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Disagreement (apparently) on whether or not there are any significant number of people, reasonably described as libertarian, who consider some other desiderata ("should" is not a commandment) to have some weight. —Tamfang 06:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Either it is a fundamental maxim in libertarianism or it is not. I can agree with it as it is written. Your problem. --Irgendwer 08:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

arbitrary breakpoint

You [Serge] should better read the article libertarianism.

• "Libertarians hold as a fundamental maxim that all human interaction should be voluntary and consensual. They maintain that the initiation (or threat) of physical force against another person or his property, or the commission of fraud, is a violation of that principle."

-> The "so-called hardcore libertarians, like Walter Block" accept this. The proponents of limited gov. don't accept this by advertising for "limited" taxation and a at least a portion of collective rights.

"that some taxation may be required in a civilized society," is no libertarian maxime. It is only a tergiversation in need of an explanation.

"libertarian tenent hold" - yes, it holds. Or do you have a counter-example of an Minarchist source claiming that there is no fundamental maxim in libertarianism "that all human interaction should be voluntary and consensual"? Uuuh! haha. Good joke.

"That is all I will say on this." - fine. --Irgendwer 17:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Since you seem to be paying attention, I'll say one more thing. Taxation at limited levels is not necessarily non-voluntary or non-consensual. For example, two neighbors may agree to share in the use and cost of a lawn mower, so long as the other neighbor agrees to pay half of the initial and ongoing maintenance costs. On a larger scale, members of a given community can voluntarily and consensually agree to share in the costs of a shared resource (fire and police service, roads, etc.), as long as everyone else agrees to pay their fair share (collected through some kind of local tax). Whether you or I agree with this is irrelevant. The point is, this is a view held by many libertarians, and it is violating NPOV to state otherwise. Now I'm done. --Serge 18:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, taxation at limited levels is not necessarily non-voluntary or non-consensual. But either you have a state which enforce any collective rights - then this state must break invidual rights per defintion - or the the membership of the "state" is completely voluntary - then it is in consequense only a "private state" or a "association with a voluntary government" within anarchy per defintion. Sadly it is not true that many minarchists stand for a right to secede in the public. It is hard to find anyone at all emphatically acceppting this.

"Now I'm done." - You think that you would be so clever. But you get only my commiseration. --Irgendwer 18:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, since we seem to be having a productive discussion, I will continue. The right to secede is implicit in any free society where leaving is not prohibited. This is why many minarchists who support limited taxation only support it in local communities where seceding through leaving is practical (it's much more practical to leave one's oppressively taxed neighborhood than to leave one's oppressively taxed nation). Also, a system where taxation is limited to relatively easy-to-leave communities creates a competitive environment that puts a practical limit on the level of taxes any given local government can impose before it starts losing too many residents. The threshold for how much taxation citizens are willing to pay before they will make the effort to secede through leaving is higher the larger the cost of leaving becomes, which is usually directly affected by how far one has to move from job, family, friends, etc. in order to leave.

All this simply illustrates that asserting in the article that "libertarianism means absolutely no taxation", or making any statements that assume this, violates NPOV. --Serge 19:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you stupid or do you opponent against the article?

• "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 (negative liberty)."

"The right to secede is implicit in any free society where leaving is not prohibited" - of course it is, but was is defined as "free"?

"This is why many minarchists who support limited taxation only support it in local communities where seceding through leaving is practical (it's much more practical to leave one's oppressively taxed neighborhood than to leave one's oppressively taxed nation)." - So you want to say that in a "true" minarchy secession would be practically superfluous in the taste of minarchists? You are really stupid.

"Also, a system where taxation is limited to relatively easy-to-leave communities creates a competitive environment that puts a practical limit on the level of taxes any given local government can impose before it starts losing too many residents. The threshold for how much taxation citizens are willing to pay before they will make the effort to secede through leaving is higher the larger the cost of leaving becomes, which is usually directly affected by how far one has to move from job, family, friends, etc. in order to leave." - For what such pragmatism?

"All this simply illustrates that asserting in the article that "libertarianism means absolutely no taxation", or making any statements that assume this, violates NPOV." - Nay, all this simply illustrates that you are not able to write a qualified answer.

"Well, since we seem to be having a productive discussion" - I don't think so. --Irgendwer 20:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree it's no longer a productive discussion. The only parts of your response that I can comprehend at all are irrational insults. Good day. --Serge 21:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

"The libertarian tenent hold that logical consistency allows no taxation at all"

User:Irgendwer continues to try to insert his personal opinion into the article, this time based on the assertion that the libertarian tenent [sic] hold [sic] that logical consistency allows [sic] no taxation at all, which violates WP:NPOV and basic English grammar rules. Further, Irgendwer has conceded that "taxation at limited levels is not necessarily non-voluntary or non-consensual". Since voluntary taxation does not violate the libertarian tenet by definition, it is therefore not true that no taxation at all is required to be logically consistent with libertarian ideals. --Serge 18:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

1) "personal opinion" - No, only logic, see above 2) English grammar - no reason to revert. You can improve it. Joy of Editing. 3) I have alrady answered your confused objections. 4) You seem to be a psychopath. --Irgendwer 20:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

"You seem to be a psychopath."

Don't attack other editors with personal insults, or you will be blocked. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Irgendwer, your repeated vandalism of this article is unwanted. I have read all of the talk pages, reviewed many of the prior edits, and I concur with Saxifrage that your comments are WP:NPOV. Additionally, calling other editors psychopath is both immature and and unprofessional. --SkydiveMike 01:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you a sock puppet of Saxifrage? --Irgendwer 05:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I am a libertarian who was trying to use Wikipedia for some reference material and, as I usually do, I made sure to look at the page history to ensure that I am not reading a vandalized entry. In reading the history, I noticed your edits which seemed farfetched and out of place in an otherwise reasonable and accurate entry. My curiosity peaked, I read through the Talk page and realized that you have been repeatedly vandalizing the article and I was offended badly enough to actually create an account and do something about it. In addition to your vandalism, I noticed that you often resort to the immature response of "attack the person" which you have continued by questioning if I am a sock puppet or not. -- SkydiveMike 02:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

And you attack me by the word "vandalized/vandalizing/vandalism" without reason. You are doing that in bad faith. I have reasoned my changes here. Why do you believe that there is something beyond the pale? Do you have a problem with my person?

Because I can't know what you want I must continue with my "vandalsim". --Irgendwer 06:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Please excuse his use of the term "vandalism" because he's misusing it. Your edits are not vandalism, but your behaviour is inexcusable and your edits suffer from MPOV. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

woof! --Irgendwer 19:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

time out

I am weary. I will retire from this for a bit. Maybe when I come back a certain party will have learned English verb agreement, the spelling of tenet, courtesy for differing opinions, and how to teach a pig to sing. —Tamfang 19:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know, your weariness is not for naught. I am a libertarian and I noticed the repeated insertion of personal opinions by User:Irgendwer and fully agree with User:Saxifrage (and I think, you also). Hopefully User:Irgendwer will soon understand that personal attacks on other editors is unwanted and will cease and desist. SkydiveMike 01:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

"personal opinions" - LOL, I give you really good references, and you blame me for personal opinions. --Irgendwer 06:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

no one ever denied that your opinion is shared by some published writers. —Tamfang 19:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope so. This shared opinion is the libertarain tenet. --Irgendwer 19:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. "The libertarian tenet" is a subset of the opinion you share with Block (or Rothbard or Konkin or whomever you'd like to cite as the infallible oracle), and that subset is not in question here. The rest of your syllogism, which you also share with some but not all libertarians, is the subject of the controversy here. To gloss over the distinction would be dishonest, so I presume that you're not intentionally doing that. —Tamfang 22:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

No. "The libertarian tenet" is not made by any people calling themself "libertarian" to make any undefined "controversy". The libertarian tenet consists in principles as described in the article itself. So: "The libertarian tenet indicates that logical consistency to fundamental libertarian maxims (non aggression, individual rights)[5] allows no taxation at all,[6] ..." (No libertarian scholar deny this)

(Because any scholar who questions this would not meet your narrow definition of libertarian.) —Tamfang 16:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You may present "libertarian" tenets of minarchists. --Irgendwer 20:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

How many times must I do so, troll? —Tamfang 23:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not responsible for the relevance of your fishy stuff. You may edit the message of the article if you think that you can enforce your changes. In the meantime I work in consistency to the current consensual version of the article. --Irgendwer 05:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

You have always insisted that the consensus is irrelevant because you are right. And now you invoke the consensus – against the ONLY person in this conversation who has EVER expressed agreement with you, even in part, namely me? Have you no shame at all? I'm trying to preserve a consensus, and you insist on inserting unnecessary division. —Tamfang 07:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

A consensus is a position where we agree to the same thing. I agree to a state of an article. I must assume that you do also or that you have other irrelevant arguments. But you may evaluate your arguments to an relevant state which would bind me. This is fair enough. Maybe you don't agree with the intro in saome parts. I, too. For example I don't agree that l. should be a noteworthy political philosophy. So I may not write the counterpart at a other place in the article without stronger references. And you may not write the counterpart of libertarian maxims at a other place in the article without stronger references, too. --Irgendwer 07:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I see that you now distinguish between "fundamental libertarian maxims", apparently meaning those values that all libertarians (anarchists and minarchists) share, and "the libertarian tenet", whose meaning is not clear but I guess it means the NPA-abolutist position. —Tamfang 16:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

No. I take this as it is described in this article. Why are you not able to accept this? --Irgendwer 20:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Accept what? The article contains one use of the word "maxim" ("that all human interaction should be voluntary and consensual"). I have previously shown how that can be taken to support a nightwatchman state (under assumptions that I consider mistaken but reasonable and not readily disproven). The article also uses "tenet(s)" twice but without defining it. If the "tenet" and the "maxim(s)" are the same thing, then your sentence "The tenet indicates that consistency to maxims ..." is circular/meaningless, so I charitably assumed otherwise. —Tamfang 23:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

And I have previously shown that the support of a nightwatchman state is necessarily coercion or it is no state. We have tons of references for this on mises.org but obviously no one of your fishy interpretation. So again, I take this as it is described in this article. Why are you not able to accept this?

And I have previouly shown that is is LOGICALLY CONSISTENT to believe that a nightwatchman state, although it is ("minimally") coercive, may be the least coercive condition obtainable. I do not ask you to believe this; I do not even ask you to acknowledge positively that it is coherent. I only ask you to refrain from violating that consensus for which you now suddenly show a convenient respect, and desist from insisting that such a position is NOT logically consistent.

(The word tenet is clear enough. See http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=tenet. "a principle, belief, or doctrine generally held to be true". It is principle to hold to "a fundamental maxim that all human interaction should be voluntary and consensual.") --Irgendwer 05:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not asking for a definition of tenet, troll. I asked whether, when you use "libertarian tenet" and "libertarian maxims" in the same sentence, you mean one thing or two. Is that too much of a strain on your English? —Tamfang 07:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Read again in the article. Tenet is principle, ... generally held to be true. "Fundamental maxim" is the kind of doing it. These are not the same things. Maybe one can improve it. But it is not wrong. --Irgendwer 08:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Then the introduction ought to say "tenet" rather than "maxim"? —Tamfang 20:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

and the rest: "while proponents of limited government support low taxes in the controversial belief that a society with no taxation at all could not provide certain public goods such as crime prevention. See also: Minarchism." is also a correct description of facts. --Irgendwer 06:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

And if your language would acknowledge that the minarchist position is ALSO logically coherent (starting from a slightly different interpretation of libertarian maxims), I'd have no problem with it. —Tamfang 16:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I have already answered this. Before you make "different interpretations of libertarian maxims" you have to oppose against the consensual version. Or do you think I play your quest? --Irgendwer 17:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The consensual version, in order to be consensual, is worded vaguely enough to satisfy both deontologists and consequentialists. You choose to interpret it narrowly (and deontologically); that is your unquestionable right when you speak for yourself, but not as an editor of a consensual document. —Tamfang 18:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This is your slothful interpretation. In Wikipedia you should avoid weasel terms. If you support weasel terms ("vague enough") then it is your own mistake. For me it is clear enough: "Libertarians hold as a fundamental maxim that all human interaction should be voluntary and consensual." --Irgendwer 19:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Since not all libertarians agree on everything, the word "libertarian" must be a weasel-word unless it is defined as "consistent with the opinion of Walter Block" (or anywhom that you might prefer). —Tamfang 07:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

What do you say to those who believe that such a condition is laudable but impossible in practice? —Tamfang 00:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

So what? It is the definition of the ideal. Either you aim to this ideal, then it is the maxim, or you aim to a "nice" portion of the ideal, then it is not logical consistent to the fundamental maxim. --Irgendwer 05:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

If anarchy results in more crime, enough to exceed the amount of coercion inevitable in a nightwatchman state, then one must choose between anarchy and the "maxim" – unless one only cares about the "nice portion" of keeping one's own hands clean. As I've said before, I am happy to assume that "liberty is the mother not the daughter of order," and the dilemma does not arise; but I cannot prove it, and I don't believe you or Walter Block can either; and so I cannot accept your insistence, against every attempt at compromise, that the article take sides by saying that those who disagree are illogical.

(More precisely, I'm not convinced either way about crime and minarchy; what decides me is that I do not believe a monopoly enforcer can be kept small.)

But I repeat myself; and so I'll go away again. —Tamfang 07:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

You may assume that anarchy results in more crime. Why not? But this is whether a libertarian assumption nor it is a fundamental libertarian maxim, nor it is a logical strigently assumption. It is an historical assumption of Classical Liberals, Randoits and so on. In the meantime these people call themself, or people call them "libertarians". But this doesn't change anything at fundamental maxims. --Irgendwer 08:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that, even if anarchy results in more coercion overall, a libertarian still must advocate greater violations of the maxim in order to be "consistent" with the maxim? —Tamfang 20:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Tamfang, when there is a portion crime in anarchy (and we have a phobia of course), then no libertarian can stringently reason that this crime must come from the absence of government and that this crime would be less than with government and that government would make no other greather crime. This is reading tea leaves. Is it a libertarian principle to read tea leaves? --Irgendwer 05:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Saxifrage

• Libertarian perspectives on taxes: The libertarian tenent indicates that logical consistency to fundamental libertarian maxims (Non aggression, individual rights) allows no taxation at all,[5] while proponents of limited government support low taxes in the controversial belief that a society with no taxation at all could not provide certain public goods such as crime prevention. See also: Minarchism.

Every content is NPOV.

• The libertarian tenent - as discribed in the article itself - NPOV
• indicates that logical consistency - as dicsribed by reference - NPOV
• to fundamental libertarian maxims (Non aggression, individual rights) as discribed in the article itself - NPOV
• in the controversial belief - empirical fact and as described in Miarchism - NPOV

Don't tell me any more crap about! --Irgendwer 05:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

You say it is NPOV, and everyone disagrees with you. That means it is not NPOV. Just because you ignore everyone's disagreement doesn't make it non-existent or irrelevant. Also, it is a violation of Wikipedia:No original research to create connections between references that someone else (in a reference) hasn't already made, and your "logic" is exactly what WP:NOR bans. — Saxifrage ✎ 06:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

POV, Wikipedia:No original research?! Troll! I ignore you. You have no arguments and you are completely irrational and destructive. Nice day! --Irgendwer 06:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Go read WP:NOR, understand it, and cease your troublemaking. Also, go read Wikipedia:No personal attacks and stop calling people trolls. It will get you banned. — Saxifrage ✎ 07:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand very good, your are a pure pure pure troll. So you constantly call me "Irgendwar". --Irgendwer 09:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

If misspelling is a symptom of a troll . . . . —Tamfang 06:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be Irgendwarum? —Tamfang 07:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

(Apology on your Talk page, as well as a warning about personal attacks.)

Bringing this back to the topic: The reasons you give above for the edit being acceptable are clearly a violation of WP:NOR. How do you justify it? — Saxifrage ✎ 16:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

My talk page is no rubbish dump for you. If you don't want to be a troll you should yourself give a objective reason when it is actually "clear". But you are not able because it would be a contradiction to itself. --Irgendwer 17:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

How is "basing an statement on logic instead of a reference is a violation of WP:NOR" not clear? Do you not understand the language? — Saxifrage ✎ 22:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Where is this quote coming from? Why do you not write what you mean? I have checked the casees of Wikipedia:No_original_research#What_is_excluded.3F. All is ok. --Irgendwer 06:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Where that quote was coming from was me, because you asked me to be clear. Here is a quote from the NOR policy on what counts as original research:

"It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source".

You say that your edit is based on logic. That is explicitly forbidden by the above portion of WP:NOR because it is a logical conclusion is a "synthesis of established facts". — Saxifrage ✎ 18:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

forbidden without reputable sources but I have them.--Irgendwer 04:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right that it's forbidden without a source. However, the logic is your own so far—do you have a source for the logic, or just the premises of your logic?

Furthermore, if you have a source that says that the logical consequence of Libertarian tenets are what you have written, then the article must say it is the opinion of that source, not that it is true as your version currently says. — Saxifrage ✎ 07:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not my own logic. It is the logic of the libertarian tenet supported by Walter Block and many other scholars. Because of the lack of a contesting libertarian tenet it is THE libertarian tenet. And this is already correctly addressed. --Irgendwer 08:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The libertarian tenet is not what I'm objecting to, and yes, that is well supported. What I'm objecting to is that you are using logic to say something that Walter Block et al don't say, and you don't have a reference that does say it. You are saying that only libertarians who oppose all taxation are logically consistent, but if we don't have a source that says that exact thing, WP:NOR does not allow editors to write that because it is a "systhesis of established facts" that is not "attribut[ed]... to a reputable source". Put it this way: if you can't answer the question "Who says that it is only logically consistent to oppose all taxation?" with a reference, then it can't be in the article. — Saxifrage ✎ 15:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

If you want to prove an exact thing in words, then you should prove the exact phrase. But you are using only an analogous phrase which I have never used. So I can assume that you are still satisfied with an analogous phrase. You are a nuisance to me. --Irgendwer 17:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what I wrote, you still need to provide a reference for the exact thing you wrote, or it is a violation of WP:NOR. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

You are very confused. I ignore it. Or should I take money? --Irgendwer 12:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Would you take money to go away? Cadr 15:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

100 $ to an U.S. account? --Irgendwer 17:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Your edit has a problem in that it violates the No original research policy. Why are you ignoring this? Do you not understand the policy? Note that this policy is mandatory for all editors, including you, even if you don't understand it. Where in your edit do you attribute the logic to an outside source that is not you? — Saxifrage ✎ 16:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You are confused. An analogous phrase doesn't violate the No original research policy. What do you think thousands of users are doing every day? But I can understand that minarchists can't tolerate too much truth. Shit happens, isn't it? --Irgendwer 17:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You are talking to a logician. A logical conclusion is most definitely not the same as an analogy. If you don't have a reference for you logical conclusion (which is by definition "original research") then you are edit warring in violation of Wikipedia policy. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

logician?! haha. Yes, I mean a logical conclusion and I have a reference. haha. --Irgendwer 19:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You mean the Walter Block reference? Excellent, that's exactly the kind of reference you need. I wonder why you didn't say so much earlier. However, you are misquoting it: Wikipedia is not allowed to say that something is true when it is controversial. Instead, we must say that only some people believe it, or alternatively we must say who believes it. Hiding the information that only some believe this logic inside a reference where the reader must dig for it is not Neutral. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight for why. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

As I say, you are very confused. The message I have written is not controversial. --Irgendwer 21:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Other people who call themselves "libertarian" disagree with Walter Block. Therefore, it is controversial by definition. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Other people are not the libertarain tenet as described in the article itself. You should be consistent to the consensual version here. --Irgendwer 06:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You don't get to decide who is libertarian or not based on your own POV. I've edited the article to more accurately describe the conflicting views according to WP:NPOV#Undue weight. — Saxifrage ✎ 16:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You are not able to improve a correct phrase. Your POV blame is unreasoned nonsense. --Irgendwer 17:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

POV isn't blame, dear Irgendwer, it's something every editor has. If you don't admit this, then you are more likely to edit in a biased way than if you keep your POV in mind and compensate for it.

As for "correct" phrase, I think you don't understand the nuances of English well enough to understand the implications of your phrasing. To say that one view of libertarianism is "logically correct" is to imply that all others are wrong, and you are not allowed to write this in a Wikipedia article. You may say that someone else things the others are wrong, but the article must not say they are. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

1. In Wikipedia POV is a blame. You know what I mean.

2. Of course minarchists are not logical correct in the sense as described. Are you stupid? Of course I am allowed to write this in constistency to the Wikipedia article. --Irgendwer 19:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Irgendwer, please refrain from personal attacks against other editors. Could you explain why you feel it's appropriate to single out one branch of libertarianism as the "correct" branch? Luna Santin 09:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The truth is no personal attack. I don't feel. You feel. And it is already explained. --Irgendwer 10:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You called another editor "stupid." That's a personal attack. Personal attacks are against policy. Please keep a cool head. Luna Santin 10:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I asked him well. That's all. --Irgendwer 11:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

No, you are not allowed to write that people who hold views of libertarianism that are different from yours are wrong, no matter what is consistent with the article. If consistency to the article allows or dictates that we write POV, then the article must change so that it is consistent to write NPOV. So that gives you no excuse for writing POV. — Saxifrage ✎ 16:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Luna Santin

Found my way here via WP:3O. It's my opinion that the section in question wasn't quite written in an encyclopedic, neutral point of view, and I've edited the article to reflect that: [10]. Irgendwer, some of your concerns are valid, but you should be aware that policies such as No Original Research, Verifiability, and Reliable Sources are some of the core philosophies governing the encyclopedia. As far as NPOV goes, the rule of thumb I like to use is this: if I can tell what the author thinks about what they're writing, the tone isn't neutral. Our duty is to present objective facts without making subjective judgements. This whole argument might have been avoided if the both of you had remembered to assume good faith and work together; I hope we can put this behind ourselves and remain committed to making Wikipedia into the best encyclopedia it can be. Regards, Luna Santin 10:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

"if I can tell what the author thinks about what they're writing, the tone isn't neutral." - You should simply use basic Wikipedia policies. It is hard enough.

"Our duty is to present objective facts without making subjective judgements." - So what? How are there subjective judgements? You have made an edit with the assertion "NPOV editing" but here is not one objective argument. Only instructions. I am disappointed. --Irgendwer 11:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Neutral point of view, being one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, is a fundamental policy of the encyclopedia -- that's about as basic as they come. "Some libertarians believe..." is a more neutral statement than "The libertarian tenet indicates..." while getting across the same information to the outside reader. Aside from that, do you have any concrete problems with the edits I made? Luna Santin 12:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Eh! Why do you not tell me any concrete problems with the edits I made? What is POV in "The libertarian tenet indicates". I think you can not say why. And you are very wrong "in the same information". --Irgendwer 13:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

That assumes I have concrete problems with edits you've made -- at this point, to be honest, I don't know what you added or didn't add to the article, and I doubt it'd make much difference if I did. To answer your question, I feel the statement was POV because it implied that any libertarian not agreeing with the idea would be a "bad" libertarian; given that many libertarians disagree, I'd say we don't have a case to make such a statement. If you feel that there's a significant factual departure between the two statements, feel free to explain how, because I'm not seeing it. Luna Santin 13:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, you feel "the statement was POV because it implied that any libertarian not agreeing with the idea would be a "bad" libertarian;...". I am sorry. Wikipedia is an enzyclopaedia. We don't have to show consideration for offended sensiblities. We have to deliver facts. I have already explained it. You seem to have no objective idea what should be wrong or to improve. I will revert your edit. --Irgendwer 16:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand. It's not offended sensibilities that are the problem, it is that if the encyclopedia is saying that some libertarians are "bad" libertarians, then it is not neutral. Not being neutral is the problem.

It sounds like you are agreeing that your edit says some libertarians fail to be "good" libertarians. Are you agreeing? — Saxifrage ✎ 18:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The valuations are only your's. --Irgendwer 05:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you agree or disagree that the article says minarchists are not proper libertarians? — Saxifrage ✎ 07:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article would say that "proponents of limited government support low taxes in the controversial belief that a society with no taxation at all could not provide certain public goods such as crime prevention." when no offended minarchist psychopath would revert this correct state. --Irgendwer 07:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

That is not answering the question I asked. Are you avoiding the question? You said before that you don't avoid questions. Do you agree or disagree that the article says minarchists are not proper libertarians? — Saxifrage ✎ 16:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The question is irrelevant. This is my answer to the question. --Irgendwer 16:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd say the question is entirely relevant. If minarchists are considered libertarians, your entire argument has a gaping hole punched right through the middle of it. If you don't cover this base, your flank is wide open. You may wish to reconsider your current counterpoint. :) Luna Santin 16:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

So, you want to say that minarchists are libertarians by defintion. So they must be consistent to the NAP. So my argument must be wrong. I don't understand you. --Irgendwer 12:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't help but point out that you still haven't answered the question. Luna Santin 12:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I have answered the question. Your implicit assumtion is wrong. If I would answer with yes or no, then you would think that I would agree to your implicit assumption. A fine troll tactic. --Irgendwer 12:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we've been over this -- calling other users trolls isn't going to get you anywhere. Anyway, I'll answer the question for you -- minarchists are widely considered and self-identified as libertarians. Case in point, editorial consensus has them listed as a faction, in the {{Libertarianism sidebar}} series heading template. The minarchism article further elaborates on this point. Minarchists are libertarians who advocate small government, but government nonetheless. With such notable figures as Rand, Hayek, Buchanan, and even Friedman standing for minarchism, there's a very large faction dedicated to the ideas you've apparently discarded as illogical and "psychotic." Luna Santin 13:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not calling you troll that you may banter me. -- Your answer is nothing new. So what? I may add empirical facts to the encyclopaedia. "Lets speak the facts for themselfs." You want a mellow made version. This is not the task. --Irgendwer 14:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

First, you said I was using "a fine troll tactic." Second, I would argue that your edits are not empirical and do not adhere to neutral point of view policy. Third, I'm not sure if you've actually rebutted my point, here: if minarchists are to be considered libertarians, which I've just pretty firmly established they are, then the "libertarian tenet" can't be as you describe it. Luna Santin 14:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

First, I am not calling you troll. Second, try it. Third, why not? The libertarain tenet is also described in the article itself. I am repeating me. The reference is consistent to the article. Fourth, you can check the complete chain of evidences here: --Irgendwer 15:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

First, you said "a fine troll tactic" in reference to my post. Second, I'll say it again: it is not appropriate to describe a party to a controversy as "logically consistent" or otherwise imply that all other parties to a dispute are incorrect, in the mainspace, per WP:NPOV -- I've said that so many times, by now. Third, your chain of evidences is not allowed, under WP:NOR, because it's a new synthesis of data; and as minarchists are considered libertarians (note you haven't denied this), your sequence seems to be flawed in any case. Luna Santin 15:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

First, so what? Second and third, same point, same answer again, see above. Please, stop with repeating your bad arguments every day. --Irgendwer 16:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll stop repeating myself when you've actually addressed my points. Thanks. Luna Santin 21:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

1. "Tenet" is a principle, belief, or doctrine generally held to be true. (Meraim Webster)
2. The libertarian maxims are described in the introduction of this article. "Libertarians hold as a fundamental maxim that all human interaction should be voluntary and consensual."
3. I.e. it is generally held to be true that as a fundamental maxim all human interaction should be voluntary and consensual.
4. Or shorter: It is libertarian tenet that (as a fundamental maxim) all human interaction should be voluntary and consensual.
5. "The libertarian, if he is to be logically consistent, must urge zero crime, not a small amount of it. Any crime is anathema for the libertarian. Any government, no matter how “nice,” must therefore also be rejected by the libertarian." Walter Block, GOVERNMENTAL INEVITABILITY: REPLY TO HOLCOMBE, JOURNAL OF LIBERTARIAN STUDIES VOLUME 19, NO. 3 (SUMMER 2005): 71–93
6. Taxes are crime. The libertarian, if he is to be logically consistent, must urge zero tax, not a small amount of it. Any tax is anathema for the libertarian.
7. The libertarian tenet indicates that logical consistency to fundamental libertarian maxims (non aggression, individual rights) allows no taxation at all,
8. while proponents of limited government support low taxes in the controversial belief that a society with no taxation at all could not provide certain public goods such as crime prevention. See also: Minarchism.
9. Zero POV

--Irgendwer 16:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

All of which may or may not be true. It is, however, "new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data" which violates WP:NOR. Your preferred version of the article is a wording of that synthesis, and does not belong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SkydiveMike (talk • contribs) .

My apologies, I thought I had signed it and certainly meant to --SkydiveMike 03:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I see only unreasoned claims. --Irgendwer 17:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Irgendwer, you do appear to be running afoul of WP:NOR -- Wikipedia does not make new arguments, but only publishes those arguments which have already been made by reliable sources. Further, you've yet to respond to my points with anything but ad hominem attacks -- arguing against me as a person does you no good, if you can't say anything to the points I make. You've yet to explain how any portion of my edit produced a factual discrepancy, you haven't provided any source for your desired version, and you have made no counterpoint to my argument that "Some libertarians believe..." is a more neutral statement. I look forward to seeing you address those concerns in full, so that we can continue to improve the article. Luna Santin 17:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't play unfair games with onesided burden of proofs. Nice day! --Irgendwer 17:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

If I may be frank, I suspect that's your way of admitting you have no counterpoint. There's nothing unfair about burden of proof -- if you cannot cite reliable sources, your content has by definition failed to pass any verifiability test, and can reasonably be construed as original research, which as we've already established is expressly forbidden by core Wikipedia policy. Again: you've yet to respond to anything I've said with a serious counterpoint. You've cited no reliable sources making your argument. You've offered no attempt at an explanation of why your desired version is NPOV, despite three or more editors having disagreed with you on that count. You pointed out no factual discrepancy between my proposed NPOV version and your decidedly POV one. As quoted from WP:V: "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain... Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but some editors may object if you remove material without giving people a chance to provide references." You've had your chance, and you've provided no appropriate references. Your new synthesis of data is expressly forbidden by WP:NOR. As you said yourself, we should be sticking to basic policy, and at this point I'm not at all convinced that you are; if you disagree with anything I've said, I suggest you explain why, so that I and other editors may be duly convinced of your correctness. Luna Santin 08:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

haha. I would have no references. Are too lazy to read? You are a troll. --Irgendwer 08:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

As I and another editor have already explained, your sources don't support your edits because you're performing original research. Please refrain from personal attacks and ad hominem arguments. Now, do you have any counterpoints or not? Luna Santin 08:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

So what? Wild assertions? Pretences? Sentimentalities? What should impress me? --Irgendwer 10:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll happily go over it again: original research is barred by policy, as being unverifiable. Articles in Wikipedia are to maintain an neutral point of view, and it is inappropriate, especially in a "controversy" section, to describe any one philosophy or group as being "correct," or as being any more "correct" than other groups in the controversy. Your continued personal attacks against other users [11] [12] [13] [14] are in direct violation of Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy, and it's my opinion that you've evaded or deflected serious debate on several occassions: [15] [16] [17] [18]. Unless you can provide a reliable source to back up your claims, it's well within policy for any editor to remove or revert those edits, per WP:V. Please be reasonable and return to the negotiating table. Luna Santin 10:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

And why do you ignore [19]? There is all you need. --Irgendwer 11:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I'd say it hasn't been ignored; see [20] from SkydiveMike and [21] from myself. What you're describing there is a new synthesis of previous published data, which is discussed in this section of the no original research policy. Quoting from that section: "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article. Unless you have a source that's made your exact argument, it's not admissible as content under WP:NOR. The other main problem I have is: a strong implication that one side of a dispute is more rhetorically "correct" than any other, in the encyclopedia article, would be an apparent violation of WP:NPOV. I honestly don't have any issue with your opinions, and I wish you nothing but the best; it's just that in my eyes, our goal is to present the most accurate facts possible so that readers themselves can decide which sides of disputes are correct or not. Hope that clears things up a bit. Luna Santin 11:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

No. This is no NEW synthesis C. There is only one synthesis referenced by Block. "The libertarian, if he is to be logically consistent, must urge zero crime, not a small amount of it. Any crime is anathema for the libertarian. Any government, no matter how “nice,” must therefore also be rejected by the libertarian." So, something (the asherence to principles) indicates that logical consistency to fundamental libertarian maxims allows no taxation at all. "The libertarain tenet" makes it only easier and it is what could be proved by more references of this kind. It is no new synthesis. The new synthesis is yours: "Some libertarians believe that ..." because "some" don't "believe". Libertarians hold to their principles while proponents of limited government (I don't know if they are "libertarian" or if they want to hold.) support low taxes. --Irgendwer 12:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You did quote Block, but: (a) is he truly capable of speaking for every libertarian, ever? I doubt there's any single person who truly qualifies as a singular authority on the matter; and (b) you follow up the quote with "so, something..." which isn't what he said -- it's an inference, and a new synthesis. That said, Block is an authority, and the belief is notable; it is by all means worth a mention, but I'd still oppose classifying it as "correct." Someone need not approach the asymptomatic limit to be identified as a libertarian, that much less so when this is a matter of active debate among many libertarians. Even Adam Smith and Ayn Rand declared a need for some taxation. The beauty of this is that neither of us need prove any side of any controversy "correct," we need only provide descriptions of various debates, and let readers decide for themselves. Luna Santin 12:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

a) Block is truly capable for libertarian maxims. Nobody denies this. There are more libertaran scholars of this kind like Hoppe, Rothbard and so on. b) the something is "the libertarian". This is exact the same meaning as "the libertarain tenet" or "libertarian principles". You may oppose classifying it as "correct." So what? Do you have a reference? No. Adam Smith and Ayn Rand are rather no libertarians. So, what do you want to prove? --Irgendwer 13:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not quite what I asked, though -- is Block capable of speaking for every libertarian, ever? I won't deny that he's a very important authority, but I do question the idea that he's the only one. And yes, "so, something indicates..." is an inference on your part, it's original research. Smith and Rand have had strong influences on libertarian thought -- the entire philosophy arises in large part from Locke's work, and he supported government with the power to tax. Likewise, F.A. Hayek's The Road to Serfdom advocates a government with the power to tax [22], and Hayek and Block have had disagreements on the matter [23]. So, again, it's not our place to decide who's "right" or not, only to describe the notable differences between sides in a highly controversial dispute. I don't have to "prove" anything, other than that there is a controversy and that it's not concluded. Describing either side as "correct" in such a controversial matter is a direct violation of WP:NPOV -- that remains a core policy. How about... if we offer Block's quote, and explain his notability as an authority, and explain that he's against taxation altogether, but likewise mention that there's still a lot of controversy surrounding the idea? Luna Santin 21:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

We don't have to prove if there are persons with any different views on freedom. This is an other topic. I act in consistence to the article itself. "Libertarians hold as a fundamental maxim that all human interaction should be voluntary and consensual." If you think there is something wrong or forgotten in the article you may improve it. In the meantime I may assume that the written stuff is consent so long as you don't raise an important objection. So, it is irrelevant what is to say additionally about Smith, Rand, Hayek or anyone else. "Libertarians hold as a fundamental maxim that all human interaction should be voluntary and consensual." Closing time. No. You have not made your homework. You haven't proved if there is a controversy on "Libertarians hold as a fundamental maxim that all human interaction should be voluntary and consensual." Instead of it you are searching a straw man and you repeat unreasoned blames: And yes, "so, something indicates..." is an inference on your part, it's original research. -- laughable. --Irgendwer 23:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

In your world, perhaps, the sentence about the "fundamental maxim" would be followed by "and that this goal takes precedence over all other considerations." That unspoken assumption is behind all your arguments. —Tamfang 00:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Is it a fundamental maxim or is it not? --Irgendwer 08:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It is fundamental to the definition of "libertarian". —Tamfang 08:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

"Libertarians hold as a fundamental maxim ..." is clear enough. --Irgendwer 09:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It may be clear to you that it means what you want it to mean, but you have shown so often that your command of English is wobbly, especially in the connotations of words, that your judgement has very little weight. TO ANYONE WHOSE FIRST LANGUAGE IS NOT GERMAN: Does "fundamental" mean it trumps everything else? If that's the case I'll have to change it, because I do not accept that any one principle trumps all others (life is not mathematics), and I defy anyone to say I'm no libertarian. —Tamfang 16:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, a "fundamental" point would be one that is essential. For example, if it is fundamental for a Christian to believe in Jesus' divinity, a person who forsakes this belief in favor of another could no longer be considered a Christian, no matter how many other beliefs of his are in line with Christianity. And for the record, my first language is English. Timmie.merc 00:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

But, judging from this edit: [24], you don't feel the "logically consistent" line (added by Irgendwer after yet another revert here: [25]) is appropriate. This discussion has been going on for a month or more. There are two questions: first, which of these two versions [26] [27] has more reliable sourcing? Bear in mind that extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources -- "some" is easier to prove than "all." Second, which of those two versions maintains a neutral tone? Is it ever acceptable, in an ongoing controversy, to describe one side as "right"? Luna Santin 16:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I let the facts speak for themselves. What do you want? --Irgendwer 16:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hate to break it to you, but that section doesn't support your version. To quote: "You won't even need to say he was evil. That's why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man" — we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over." Similarly, we don't need to say who's right or wrong in this controversy, only that many libertarians feel one way, and that many other libertarians feel a different way. As I've already pointed out, Block and Hayek are both historically notable, and disagree on the matter. Locke, Rand, and Smith all felt there was a need for taxation. The reader should be free to reach their own conclusions without interference from editors; our duty is to relay facts, not to say who's "right" and "wrong". So, yes, I do let the facts speak for themselves -- what do you want? Luna Santin 16:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't have written who is "right" or "wrong". Please don't repeat always the same arguments when I had already answered them at a place before. This is destructive. --Irgendwer 17:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you have: "The libertarian tenet indicates that logical consistency..." is about as close as you can get to saying "HEY! This side is right! I like this side!" without explicitly saying as much. By calling one side "logical," you're implying that the other side is not logical -- surely someone of your intelligence can see that. The edits you've proposed display an editorial bias, and a number of editors find this unacceptable. If you want me to stop repeating similar arguments, I suggest you address them. :) Thanks, Luna Santin 18:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Everyone can understand how it must be logical consistent to abolish taxes in respect to the NAP. The counterpart is that it is logical inconsistent to support taxes in respect to the NAP. I have no problem with this message. It's true by defintion. I think, only some offended minarchist psychopaths find this inacceptable. --Irgendwer 18:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I got your blame for personal attacks on my fly-tipping talk page. I am sorry. It is my hoenst opinion about some minarchists. I don't say it to insult you. I is the same to say that fat persons are fat when they ask if their are fat. You are too tetchy or too much minarchist. And you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia polices. "There is a difference between "You are a troll" and "You are acting like a troll"". --Irgendwer 20:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I've replied to some of this on your talk page. Now, I'm concerned -- you've just openly called a party to the controversy in question "psychopaths," which seems to me to bring up issues on your neutrality. Do any other editors have a comment, here? Luna Santin 09:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

This isn't the first time "psychopath" was used; I had a comment on it over a week ago: [28]. In fact, the first comment from Irgendwer to my was a personal insult [29]. Frankly, I would appreciate it if the insults would stop. SkydiveMike 14:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Irgendwer has been the center (and lone member of one side of the argument) in every discussion about libertarianism on this talk page since May (except for two short talks about the use of the term classical and about the criticism section, which went nowhere). His tendentious editing and arguments has dominated the article, stagnating it for months. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Irgendwer, please stop reverting the page without discussing your changes. You've been inserting nearly identical language into the article for months, now, and it has, as far as I can tell, always been controversial for you to do so. I really think it's past time for you to admit that you're not acting on consensus, here. Luna Santin 20:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Just taking a moment to point out the straw poll below. All interested editors, please respond. Luna Santin 09:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

No. Why? It is discussed. I edit only to the more encyclopaedic version. If you have objections then you must find POV. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is no democrazy. --Irgendwer 10:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Correct Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, however, topics like NPOV or not and NOR or not are subject to the subjective interpretations of individual editors. Given that, the goal of a straw poll to help determine consensus is valid, and at this point probably necessary. The goal is not to violate Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy, instead to indicate which version most editors belive is 'best' under the three content values of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V.

I feel that your desired version is POV, you feel that it isn't. The several hundred or thousand words we've all given in this debate seem to have made little headway; I'm just looking to try a new spin on things, in the hopes that we'll accomplish a resolution. What's so wrong with that? Luna Santin 11:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You feel, yes. So what? I am sure that my version is no POV. You can not simply ignore my arguments because you feel something. Please, go to the dicussion above and make your point. Either it is relevant or it is not. --Irgendwer 11:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Um. You seem to misunderstand the rhetorical purpose of "I feel." It's not a display of weakness or an invitation for ad hominem attacks. It's an attempt to invite discussion without just out-and-out saying, "I'm right, so deal with it." Mocking my polite choice of words accomplishes nothing. Now, I've already made quite a few points. You've yet to respond to some of my most recent posts: [30] [31] [32]. I don't see how I've ignored any of your arguments -- please be more specific. Luna Santin 11:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I have answered the second cite. I don't go for a further discussion on "offended minarchist psychopaths". When you think there stays something open, then you may mark the cite in red. --Irgendwer 12:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll ask again, point-blank: you've just recently described a party to the controversy in question as "psychopaths." Doesn't that call your neutrality into question? Luna Santin 13:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Opposite of Libertarianism?

Going by the classic economics/social liberties paradigm, in which libertarians are leftist on social liberties and rightists in economics, what would be the opposite of libertarianism? That is, leftist in economics and rightigst in social liberties.

The opposite of libertarianism is Communism, or even Socialism, which are leftist in economics (no freedom to own private property, state owns means of production, etc.) and rightist in social liberties. While rightist restrictions on social liberties are not necessarily part of Socialist or even Communist doctrine, they are required in practice to maintain order when the state owns the mean of production). This is shown by Friedrich Hayek in his book, The Road to Serfdom

--Serge 06:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

What about Christian Democracy? In doctrine they are theoretically leftist in economics and rightist in social liberties.

The opposite would be just as you said: right on socials, left on economics. That covers a wide range of possible political views though because a two-axis spectrum is inadequate to capture all political philosophies. Not that there are other left-social right-economic political philosophies that are not libertarianism. So, there's really no "opposite" of libertarianism. — Saxifrage ✎ 16:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Featured article review?

Not that this article is in jeopardy, do the editors think it would be wise for this article to go through a Featured Article review? Libertarianism's last peer review was in March 2005, and input from outside editors could be useful to the general welfare of the article. -- Wikipedical 04:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I also think it would be wise for someone to archive this 363 KB talk page. -- Wikipedical 04:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect definition of small "l" libertarian

In the section, "Libertarian perspectives on political alliances", an incorrect definition is given for what a small "l" libertarian is. ALL libertarians are small "l" libertarian. The only distinction with the capitalization is whether or not a person is a member of the Libertarian Party. Big "L" is a member and thus gets the proper noun capitalization, but all libertarians, including big "L" Libertarians are also small "l" libertarians, although some like to separate the two entirely. The way that it's used here is incorrect in either fashion though. It claims that small "l's" are more willing to compromise, but even under the "only non-big L's are small l's" approach, it's the big "L's" that are more willing to compromise, not the small "l's". I'm not sure of the best way to edit this section to fix this, but I thought this incorrect fact should be brought to light. There's even an entry here on Wikipedia that disagrees with the way small "l" is used in this section.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small-l_libertarianism AlexMc 16:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Irgendwer's logically inconsistent defense of edit

On 11 July under the heading of arbitrary breakpoint above, Irgendwer conceded the following point:

"Yes, taxation at limited levels is not necessarily non-voluntary or non-consensual."

Yet before and since then Irgendwer has defended his edits repeatedly based on assertions that are logically inconsistent with this. For example, recently, on 26 July, under the heading of Luna Satin, Irgendwer defended his edits based on the following premise:

"Everyone can understand how it must be logical (sic) consistent to abolish taxes in (sic) respect to the NAP."

But that assertion contradicts his earlier assertion. If it is possible to have taxation which is voluntary or consensual, which he conceded, then it is not necessary to abolish taxes to be logically consistent with respect to the NAP. --Serge 20:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sic! Serge cuts my post and then he misinterpretes intensionally the extant quote. (Yes, Saxifrage, I assume bad faith!) No more comment. --Irgendwer 10:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

What I quoted was the first sentence of your comment. The context came from my example. The remainder of your paragraph says nothing about this. Either consensual or voluntary taxation is possible, or it is not. You said it is. Therefore, your position that it is necessary to abolish taxes in order to be logically consistent with the NAP is itself illogical. But objectivity and logical consistency appear to be of little interest to you. --Serge 16:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you are actually not able to understand it. Who does know? I will explain it again only for you. A state with voluntary taxes is a theoretical construct. In the same moment when a state would make its taxes voluntary it ends to be a state because the "state" losts its criteria of a "state". It would be an association, not more. This was my context. --Irgendwer 17:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

That's original research unless you have a reference that contains the string of logic you're using. — Saxifrage ✎ 17:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe. Then it is also original research to say "Taxation at limited levels is not necessarily non-voluntary or non-consensual." --Irgendwer 18:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right, and so it is appropriate that the article does not say, "Taxation at limited levels is not necessarily non-voluntary or non-consensual." Just as it is appropriate for the article to not say that taxation is necessarily coercive or illogical. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Who said anything about a "state", much less a state with voluntary taxes? There is no qualification in your assertion that you're referring strictly to states with forced taxation. So, let's talk about "associations". You confirm that you agree that in an "association" it is possible to have taxation which is voluntary. Therefore, it is not necessary to abolish taxes in order to be logically consistent with the NAP. Yet you also claim that abolishing taxes is necessary to be consistent with the NAP. Your position is logically inconsistent. If you mean something different, then say that, including all the qualifications you have in mind. --Serge 17:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not clear what you speaking about. "your assertion that you're referring strictly to states". Which assertion yet? Please rephrase your posting again. --Irgendwer 18:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Your recent assertion (and countless others like it)...

"Everyone can understand how it must be logical (sic) consistent to abolish taxes in (sic) respect to the NAP."

... is not stated in a context or manner to refer strictly to states with forced taxation. If your intent is this limited scope, then please include that limitation in your assertion. Otherwise, it also applies to "associations" and the like. Because your edits and your defense of them lacks clarification that you only mean them to apply in the context of states with forced taxation, they are logically inconsistent. --Serge 18:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

For example, consider saying:

"Everyone can understand how it must be logically consistent to abolish forced taxes with respect to the NAP in a state with forced taxation."

The point is here that if you're diligent about clarifying context, then you cannot defend the edits you have been trying to put in this article. Now, let's look again at what you're trying to add:

"The libertarian tenet indicates that logical consistency to fundamental libertarian maxims (non aggression, individual rights)[2] allows no taxation at all, while proponents of limited government support low taxes in the controversial belief ..."

Note that you don't clarify you're only writing about states with forced taxation here. How about this?

"Logical consistency with the libertarian tenet and fundamental maxims (non aggression, individual rights)[2] allows for no mandatory forced taxation, while proponents of limited government support low taxes in the controversial belief ..."

Do you see how correcting your statements to be logically consistent with context leads to your assertions being nonsense? Supporting low taxes is not necessarily mandatory forced taxation. Now do you see the problem? --Serge 19:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

At first, I wonder that you change in a complete other thread and context. -- "is not stated in a context or manner to refer strictly to states with forced taxation." -- What do you think I am speaking about in the article? --Irgendwer 21:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, much of the time your writing makes it impossible to know what you're trying to say. There is certainly nothing that you've ever written that even hints, much less makes it clear, that your comments are all restricted to the context of states with forced taxation. In any case, your position is logically inconsistent regardless of which context is assumed. If you assume the context of states with forced taxation, then your claims about minarchists or "proponents of limited government supporting low but forced taxes" are false (minarchists support small voluntary consensus-based taxes, not a state with forced taxation). If you assume a wider context not limited to states with forced taxation, and including minarchist "associations" with voluntary taxes, then your claims about abolishing taxes being required to be consistent with the NAP are false, since voluntary taxes don't have to be abolished. No matter how you slice it, your position is logically inconsistent. --Serge 22:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Show me your proponents of limited government supporting volunatary taxes. The LP supports only lower taxes in the short run. And you get no clear statement about the long run. "Minarchists" who "support small voluntary consensus-based taxes, not a state with forced taxation" are anarchists per definition. You are confused. --Irgendwer 23:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

No, you are confused. Anarchist libertarians believe there should be no government, even if it is funded voluntarily or through consensus. Minarchist libertarians believe that whatever minimal government may be required to defend and/or maximize individual liberty, it must be funded without forced taxation that violates liberty. --Serge 23:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

1. There is no funded voluntarily government but it would be itself anarchy by definition. When anarchists would oppose even this, then it is a contradiction in itself. So, who is confused? 2. Minarchists may act in good faith. "However, many minarchists support some level of taxation and thus some redistribution of wealth and subsidies to the state." (Minarchism) 3. Obviously you can't show me your heros. LOL. --Irgendwer 07:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

First, that's poorly worded. Second, what does "redistribution of wealth and subsidies to the state" mean? That does not necessarily require force. How is that different from supporting home owner's associations where home owner's "wealth and subsidies" are redistributed to the association? None of this necessarily violates NAP. In fact, libertarians, including minarchist libertarians, do not support forms of taxation that violate the NAP. Your position is logically inconsistent. --Serge 14:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

First, is irrelevant. Second, taxes mean force. See taxes. I had already said, the LP supports lower taxes. Block would not write about taxes which would be consistent to the NAP. That's poor nonsense.

The State is, therefore, a centralized, regularized organization of theft. Its payments extracted by coercion are called "taxation" instead of tribute, but their nature is the same.)The Myth of Neutral Taxation By Murray N. Rothbard --Irgendwer 16:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Taxes do not mean force. In today's non-libertarian states, yes, taxes are typically raised only through means that violate the NAP. But in a libertarian society, any taxes would be voluntary, consensus-based, user fees, etc., and would not violate the NAP. Your position is logically inconsistent. It is logically inconsistent to assume a statist forced-based definition of tax in the context of discussing government funding in libertarian society. --Serge 16:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

You have a foreign terminology. A NAP consistent libertarian society has no reason to call its membership fees "taxes" or to call its acting to NAP "state". You are confused. --Irgendwer 16:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

If it's "foreign terminology", it's certainly not foreign to your argument. Which brings us back to the statement of yours that I quoted at the top of this section: "Yes, taxation at limited levels is not necessarily non-voluntary or non-consensual." Your position is logically inconsistent. --Serge 17:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

in your foreign terminology, ok. So what? --Irgendwer 17:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not foreign terminology, nor is it mine. Assertions like "The NAP dictates that all taxes must be abolished", is only true when qualified that one is referring exclusively to NAP-violating state-forced taxes, which your statements never do. How is a reader to know that those words are not also referring to, "taxation at limited levels [that] is not necessarily non-voluntary or non-consensual"? Your position is logically inconsistent. --Serge 23:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

You should look into a common dictionary. In the whole world, the word "tax" is linked to an enforced duty of a government. There is no need to recognize a foreign and missused interpretation of a mystic term like "voluntary tax" for an extrem minority. I may serve with a peppered answer about "voluntary government" in the article when you insist on your mystic, contradictory and extreme minority view. --Username entered already in use. 07:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Discounting the concept of the minarchist libertarian "voluntary tax" violates WP:NPOV

1. Here is a definition of tax from m-w.com: "a sum levied on members of an organization to defray expenses". When membership in the organization is voluntary, then so is the tax.
2. More importantly, the context in this article is libertarianism, not a common dictionary. Since, among minarchist libertarians, the concept of a voluntary tax is key to what they believe and promote, it is misleading, incorrect and illogical in this context to assert that all "taxes" must be abolished in order to be logically consistent with libertarianism's main tenet. The implication of such a statement is that there would be no way to fund a minarchist libertarian government that was consistent with the NAP, which is false.
3. Whether you, I or anyone else believes that a voluntary minarchist libertarian government could ever actually be sustained, or whether it's a "mystic, contradictory and extreme minority view", is irrelevant to a treatment of the libertarianism topic that is consistent with WP:NPOV. The view that a "voluntary tax" is a practical solution is held by most if not all minarchist libertarians, and that's a fact that this article must reflect and not contradict. --Serge 17:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

0. Before you produce new terms, you must blab your reputed source of "voluntary tax".

1. When "tax" is voluntary then it is no tax. See membership fee.
2. see 0. More importantly, the reader can understand only known connotations. Nothing gathers here a mystic contradictory "term" of an extrem minorty.
3. see 0.-2.. As I explained above, we can open a new section about your mystics in the article when people think it would be relevant at all. --Username entered already in use. 10:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Just check out google:

Results 1 - 10 of about 35,000,000 for voluntary tax. (0.05 seconds)

--Serge 15:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice trollic post. --Username entered already in use. 16:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I have simply shown that "voluntary tax" is not a "new term", as you requested. Your inability to respond intelligently suggests concession on the point of this discussion. So taken. Thank you. --Serge 17:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL --Username entered already in use. 18:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll

In an effort to break the current stalemate, I'm posting a straw poll. If nothing else, it should make it clear where we all stand. Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) under the position you support, preferably adding a brief comment. If you are happy with more than one possibility, you may wish to sign your names to more than one place. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion", though brief commentary can be interspersed. Thank you. Luna Santin 08:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Version A

*Libertarian perspectives on taxes: The libertarian tenet indicates that logical consistency to fundamental libertarian maxims (non aggression, individual rights) allows no government at all, while proponents of limited government support low taxes in the controversial belief that a society with no taxation at all could not provide certain public goods such as crime prevention. See also: Minarchism.

To the question "some libertarians"/"The libertarian tenet": Version B means that Block is one of "some libertarians" who "believe" something. This is not true. It is a logical knowlegde in its common terms. Block represents this only.

To "in the controversial belief" or not: It is a controversial believe, isn't it? --Vahonia 19:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm impressed. Most brand new users wouldn't have taken the time to read all of the above debate. Thanks for your time. Luna Santin 21:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Version B

*Libertarian perspectives on taxes: Some libertarians believe that logical consistency to fundamental libertarian maxims (non aggression, individual rights) allows no taxation at all, while proponents of limited government might support low taxes, arguing that a society with no taxation would have difficulty providing public goods such as crime prevention. See also: Minarchism.

1. — Verision A is rather hard to read, and I do not think it is appropriate to characterize anything as being "The libertarian tenet". CaptainManacles 12:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
2. I prefer this of the two but it still has significant problems, especially Irgendwer's Original Research in the footnote. — Saxifrage ✎ 17:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Version B does not suffer from the unacceptably high POV of the phrase "The libertarian tenet indicates" of Version A. Such a lead is clearly one-sided given the range of libertarian opinion. -R. S. Shaw 20:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
4. — NPOV is key. Luna Santin 21:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
5. — Version B does not include original research and it is NPOV. I also agree with CaptainManacles that it is not appropriate to characterize anything as being "The libertarian tenet"
6. Version B shows both opinions, while Version A shows only one of the two opinions. Neither opinion is "fringe" within the libertarian community. Therefore, Version B is the correct unbiased paragraph. AnAccount2 08:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
7. Version A is nonsense even to many extreme Zero Aggression Principle supporting libertarians. AlexMc 22:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
8. The other one is terrible and just plain wrong NPOV means including both points of view when there is a legitimate dispute. Publicola 05:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
9. I feel the first is less weasally and still gets the point across.Pinkstarmaci 04:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Great. We start again at zero. Not with me. See above. --Irgendwer 12:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

No. This is destructive. I don't accept votes. Wikipedia is no democracy. A voting would make sense in subjective issues. But this is no subjective issue. --Irgendwer 10:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't intend for the vote to be binding -- it's more that several months of discussion seem to have made about zero headway, and I'd like to try something new. Why not just give it a chance? As explained at WP:STRAW, straw polls are not binding, but can be a useful way to gauge consensus in difficult cases. I don't think of this as an end to the issue, but more of an attempt to start new and hopefully productive discussion. Please, just give it a shot. Thanks. Luna Santin 11:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

No chance because you "feel". You want a subjective judgement in order that you may ignore objective arguments. That's really new but I don't play with you. Please, go to the dicussion above and make your point. I am not unfair. Either it is relevant or it is not. --Irgendwer 11:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Irgendwer, but "subjective" judgements are how Wikipedia works. You can't ignore consensus of editors. Wikipedia:Consensus is a guideline that says "Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through polite discussion and negotiation, in an attempt to develop a consensus regarding proper application of policies and guidelines such as Neutral point of view."

Further, Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines (which is an official policy) explains how policies and guidelines are enforced: "Individual users thus enforce most policies and guidelines by editing pages, and discussing matters with each other. Some policies, such as Vandalism, are enforced by Administrators". Wikipedia:Consensus is a guideline that I'm trying to enforce because you are ignoring it. Ignoring consensus goes against both the consensus guideline and the policy about how guidelines work. If you keep insist that Serge, Luna, Tamfang, rehpotsirhc, me, and other non-admins have no authority, then you will eventually force Administrators to do the job instead and that will be wasting Wikipedia's time. Why not just work together instead? (Note that working together means that you won't always get your way. That is the way of Wikipedia.) — Saxifrage ✎ 17:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You have forgotten the word "Reasonable". In the Consensus policy is no speaking of "subjective" judgements and no speaking of a consensus without me.

It is assumed that editors working toward consensus are pursuing a consensus that is consistent with Wikipedia's basic policies and principles - especially the neutral point of view (NPOV). At times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors and generate widespread support among the editors of a given article for a version of the article that is inaccurate, libelous, or not neutral, e.g. giving undue weight to a specific point of view. This is not a consensus.

--Irgendwer 18:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Well, if you think we are forming a cabal to enforce non-consensus edits, then you are violating Wikipedia:Dispute resolution policy by edit warring instead of using dispute resolution. Start an RfC or ask for mediation. If you do not, you can't claim that we do not represent consensus and that you do, as you are implying with the above policy quoatation. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You have already enforced an "consensus" without me. You called it "rv to version of paragraph that "everyone - 1" agrees on". I am in the same way right or wrong to enforce a "consent" without you. Why do you not go to dispute resolution instead of edit warring? --Irgendwer 08:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Uh. Couldn't anybody just as easily ask you the exact same question? Feel free to take this to dispute resolution. I openly invite and implore you to. Luna Santin 10:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I see no liability. When you see one then go. BTW: Saxifrages interpretations of policies are sometimes outrageous. --Irgendwer 11:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Irgendwer, the version you are demanding is confusing and unclear, and is not proper English. The other version proposed still has some NOR problems, as others have pointed out, but they have left in some of your bad content for the sake or reaching concensus. I know you think your way is better, but others disagree with you, and I've yet to see you present a reasonable arguement as to why your version must, at all costs, stay. I can certainly see why you would feel that your version is factually accurate, but I don't understand why you object so harshley to making it clearer, easier to understand, and in a form everyone but yourself agrees is more NPOV.

Everyone but yourself is in agreement here, and have taken every step they can to reach consensus. Even the person you are so harshly attacking lately was a 3rd party brought from the outside, with no previous place in this debate. I, as well, am an outsider to this debate, simply read the page and the relevent two passages, and picked out the passage I liked better, without knowing who supported what. You say that your objective arguements trump all of our opinions, not only is that false, but frankly, I see no objective arguements from you. I see your debate with Luna being cut off by personal attacks on your part. CaptainManacles 18:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I myself am an outsider. I've no particular interest in libertarianism or the article, but came here when I saw one editor fighting with everyone else. Because Wikipedia operates on consensus, I feel it is my responsibility to add my voice to the consensus when one editor is being unreasonable and refuses to recognise that consensus exists. For all I know, others who have argued with Irgendwer in the past on this page were outsiders as well. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You operate on majority POV and against minority-NPOV. --Irgendwer 07:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

You claim to have NPOV, but you might be wrong. If you were wrong you would not be able to know. This majority of editors thinks your edits are not NPOV. You must respect that or you are not participating in what you call the "Joy of Editing". If you disrespect majority opinion, you are a renegade loose in the project. — Saxifrage ✎ 17:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is no democrazy. You must respect my authority. ;-) --Username entered already in use. 07:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You have no authority except what is given by editors who respect your integrity and opinion. — Saxifrage ✎ 17:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You forget vice versa --Username entered already in use. 10:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

But Saxifrage didn't lay claim to the same authority you just did. That aside, he is kind've backed up by a strong consensus of experienced editors. Luna Santin 11:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I may improve the Wikipedia against the will of others when I think that my reason is good enough. What you describe as "strong consensus of experienced editors" can be a group who enforces majotity POV. And, Saxifrage's claim of authorithy is very clear of kind of democrats who want to enforce the prevailing opinion. --Username entered already in use. 11:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

But Saxifrage didn't make any claim of authority, that I can see. I see you've acknowledged that you're going against consensus. Luna Santin 12:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Reverting is a claim, isn't it?. Which consensus? --Username entered already in use. 15:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

What consensus, you ask? Maybe the supermajority of editors that continually supports Version B? Have you read this whole discussion page? This discussion has been ongoing for a long time, now. Reverting is the same claim to authority which every other editor has -- as Saxifrage said, we all have only as much authority as is granted to us by the respect of other editors. Luna Santin 20:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Supermajority? No. Wikipedia is no democracy, also no supermajority democrazy. Authority is not that what is given you by democrazy. You are an ideological democrat. --Forget it. 21:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC) And stop vandalizing the Minarchism article! --Forget it. 21:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

To your first post, I'm terribly sorry, but I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say. To your second post, please remain civil and refer to WP:VAND for details on what qualifies as vandalism, and what to do when you see it. When have I ever vandalized, that article or any other? Luna Santin 21:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

@CaptainManacles, before you can make a qualified argument, you should stop with weak opinons like "is confusing and unclear", "Everyone but yourself is in agreement here", "You say that your objective arguements trump all of our opinions," and so on. When you think that my version wouldn't be encyclopaedic then you should say which phrase would be wrong or better and the why. I see only an bad essay on me. --Irgendwer 08:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The encyclopedicness of your version doesn't matter if "everyone but yourself is in agreement" that it should not be in the article. You don't participate in your so-called "Joy of Editing" when you ignore others, and more importantly consensus trumps an editor's arguments every time. This is how Wikipedia works healthily with so many people who have different beliefs. — Saxifrage ✎ 17:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

How often I must pinpoint that you are not qualified for correct interpretations of Wikipedia policies? --Username entered already in use. 10:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm fluent in English. Lacking that all other qualifications mean nothing. — Saxifrage ✎ 16:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Original research

Here is the Walter Block quotation in the passage under debate:

The libertarian, if he is to be logically consistent, must urge zero crime, not a small amount of it. Any crime is anathema for the libertarian. Any government, no matter how “nice,” must therefore also be rejected by the libertarian.

Irgendwer's favoured version of the passage talks about taxation, which the quotation does not. The passage also talks about "the libertarian tenet", which the quotation does not. What the quotation does talk about is crime and the existence of a state, which the passage does not.

From this, I conclude that the quote does not support the passage and the passage misquotes the source. This is unacceptable according to Wikipedia:No original research.

(Note that I understand that the quotation could be interpreted as being about taxation. However, to do so one must introduce two assumptions along with the existing assumption that libertarians hold coercion to be criminal:

1. that "a state" necessarily involves "taxation"
2. that "taxation" is necessarily coercive

These additional premises are not in the original quotation, and assuming them requires a "novel systhesis of ideas" which is prohibited by the NOR policy.)

I think a much better reference can be found for the libertarian perspective on taxes than this (around which a neutral passage may be written), and that this would better belong under the controversy of whether any state at all is acceptable to libertarians. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a strong point, to me. Luna Santin 22:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

---

I could change my version to:

• Libertarian perspectives on taxes: The libertarian tenet indicates that logical consistency to fundamental libertarian maxims (non aggression, individual rights)[5] allows no enforced taxation at all,[6] while nearly all proponents of limited government support low enforced taxes in the controversial belief that a society with no enforced taxation at all could not provide certain public goods such as crime prevention. See also: Minarchism.

- that "a state" necessarily involves "taxation" should be clear. A state need resources to pay its services. These services are enforced. See state.

- that "taxation" is necessarily coercive, see tax, "A tax ... is a financial charge ... imposed on an individual ... by a state". Proponets of limited government have not declared that they want to change low taxes to a voluntary duty. --Irgendwer 22:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

1) Do you have a reference for the above suggestion? Block's quotation won't do anymore.

2) States have existed that did not have taxation, so your point is invalid.

3) You can't use tax as a reference because it is not from a reliable source (Wikipedia can't cite itself).

4) You must provide a single reference that contains all of the above assumptions, because NOR forbids connecting separate references to create a "novel synthesis".

5) If you find such a single reference, you still cannot say that it is true, only that the source believes it to be true. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

1) "(enforced) taxes" are crime in the view of Block or in the view of the libertarian tenet in respect to the NAP. If you need more quotations, on mises.org are tons of it.

2) When a state don't use taxes then it is doing other crime. Which state do you mean?

3) I think you are very wrong. Wikipedia is also used as a source outside of Wikipedia. Or, Wikipedia are using other encyclopaedias as references. This is all the same. When you don't trust to the tax article you can ask there for "cite needed". And then you would get your cites when users find it nessecary at all.

4) I have already answered this. There is only one synthesis.

5) I have already listed a chain of evidences. Every link is verifiable for itself. And note: I didn't say something of "true". I have addressed a fact (with reference) to the libertarian tenet about the NAP. --Irgendwer 07:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

1) Do you own homework. You are the one who wants the edit to stand unchallenge, you go find the right quotation to support the edit. This is simple sense.

2) It doesn't matter if it does other crime, because you are talking about taxes. You must have references that talk about taxes to support statements about taxes. Simple.

3) No, you're very wrong about how citations work. If the tax article has a useful citation then we must use that citation, not tax. Using other encyclopedias as references in Wikipedia articles is fine, as are other people using Wikipedia outside of Wikipedia as references. These are not problematic. It is when something uses itself as a reference that there is a problem. Wikipedia cannot use itself as a source.

4) One synthesis is one too many. Wikipedia articles are not allowed to have any synthesis.

5) Chains of evidence are inadmissible according to WP:NOR. — Saxifrage ✎ 15:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

1) I shall do all the work alone. That's a clear breach against AGF and the "Joy of Editing".

2) Taxation is crime in the sense of libertarin tenet. Simple.

3) I have not used tax to cite something. So I cant be very wrong in citing it. -- Your logic false. It is not forbidden by polices to cite any well source. Circular references are also possible from one cite to an other, Wikipedia or not.

4) You mean new synthesis.

5) No. One must be able to write something in own words. This is again an example of your unconscionable interpretations of policies. --Irgendwer 16:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

1) If everyone else disagrees with your edit, then you must provide the reference that convinces us. It's your responsibility because we have better things to do.

2) This is your belief. Other libertarians disagree.

3) You said you could, and I told you that you were wrong. You don't need to try to do something to be wrong about it.

4) Yes, a new synthesis. A synthesis is new if it does not appear explicitly in the reference used. Block does not provide the synthesis, therefore your synthesis is new.

5) You may write something in your own words so long as it is not a novel synthesis. This means that you cannot create a chain of evidence because that is the definition of "novel synthesis". If you can find someone who says the whole chain already, you may write what they have said in your own words. — Saxifrage ✎ 16:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

1) No. Joy of Editing.

2) "Other Libertarians" doesn't make a tenet.

3) Pure assumptions will not help you.

4) Pure assumptions will not help you.

5) You don't understand. My "chain" is no combination of references. I have only one reference. It is only to prove that the wording is in the same sense. --Irgendwer 18:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

5) Your "chain" is not contained in your reference. Therefore you violate NOR. — Saxifrage ✎ 08:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Same wording must not be in a reference and new wording is no new synthesis. --Username entered already in use. 07:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Irgendwer. The wording is not the issue. The problem is that the information is not contained in the reference. It is dishonest to cite a reference for a statement when the statement is not said (in any wording) by the source. It is also a violation of NOR to combine a source with other sources to support a statement that none on their own make (in any wording).

(Incidentally, you will want to add a list of your new account(s) to your old user page at User:Irgendwer, otherwise you run the risk of being permanently blocked as a sockpuppeteer.) — Saxifrage ✎ 16:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Before you can make any objection about "different" information you must locate which "different" information. --Username entered already in use. 10:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I already did. Block does not talk about taxes, only states. You talk about taxes, not states. Therefore the quote contains different information than the passage. Ergo, violation of NOR and WP:V. — Saxifrage ✎ 16:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Nay, Block talks about crime. Taxation is a form of crime in his understanding. --Username entered already in use. 17:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

And the article can only say that if it has a reference to Block saying that taxes are crime in his understanding. Your word that this is true is not enough for Verifiability policy. — Saxifrage ✎ 06:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

"Taxes are crime" is an implicit knowledge in all libertarian writings of the libertarian tenet. It is not neccessary that every libertarian scholar must state it explicitly for Saxifrage. --Forget it. 07:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Notice that Wikipedia is not a "libertarian writing", so it is not implicit here. The readers of this encyclopedia must be provided with all the information. If it truly is implicit in all libertarian writings, then it should not be difficult for you to find a reference that says that "taxes are a crime" is implicit in all libertarian writing. — Saxifrage ✎ 16:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

So by your own admission it is your chain that you use to [prove that the wording is in the same sense]. This by definition is original research and is prohibited. SkydiveMike 14:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

In WP:NOR is no speaking of prohibited wording. --Username entered already in use. 07:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll admit I'm a little curious -- how did you develop your chain of evidence? Luna Santin 21:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

No answer, I see. :) Where'd your chain come from? Luna Santin 20:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I must not answer every baublery. --Forget it. 21:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

But you put so much stock in that chain of evidence you made; is it really all that much trouble to explain to us how you derived it? Luna Santin 21:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

See above. --Forget it. 21:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You would agree, though, that you made this chain of evidence? That it's your work? Luna Santin 21:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

See above. This is all already discussed. Please stop your trolling. --Forget it. 21:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. :) Luna Santin 21:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Gun Contorl (frivolous discussion)

I'm sorry if I'm posting improperly here, but I would argue that gun control is a violation of the aforementioned negative liberty principle. There are exceptions to every rule, with politics a perfect example, but I think the traditional libertarian stance would be against almost all forms of gun control. For the article's purpose, I don't think a pro-gun control stance should be included, but that's just my input. - Coons7

I don't see how any libertarian can justify government disarmament of its citizens. While I found the page that's linked to rather difficult to follow, it seems the be saying that that property owners have the right to prohibit guns on their property, which is perfectly sensible. That's a very different thing to compulsory disarmament by government, since anyone can choose not to travel to areas which prohibit guns, or, alternatvely, to live in areas which do: we don't have the same choice with governments. Mark Grant 15:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

If you agree that a property owner can prohibit guns on their property (and that the government should enforce such rules) then you must agree that a community may make the same prohibition. Libertarianism is not Anarchy. To outlaw laws against gun control, you are creating a government endorsed position. Though this may be a key fund-raising point for the Libertarian party, it has nothing to do with Libertarianism. --Jon Ivy 08:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Unless you're claiming that the local government of the village I live in owns my house, that's nonsense. On the other hand, it would certainly be possible for a proprietary community to rent out houses in their community and ban gun ownership. Mark Grant 13:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I think Jon Ivy 08:53, 31 August 2006 gets it about right. In the absence of private streets, it looks as though the local government ought to be sensitive to what most people would have opted into if only they could. To take an extreme case, what if every single property owner living in some area said they wanted the carrying of guns to be banned there? How could it be libertarian to deny them this preference? Caveat 12:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

And that attitude could be used to justify absolutely anything: after all, if the government own the country, then what right does anyone have to prevent them from doing anything on their property? The reality, though, is that the government does not: government was set up by the people who do own the country to work for them, and not the other way around. Mark Grant 13:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The supposition is that the local populace would have bought the streets and freely chosen gun control if only they could. Therefore the local government ought to allow them such controls. This is an argument for approximating to the market (if we cannot have the real thing), not an argument for totalitarianism. It seems to be a fantasy that any government was ever set up by the people. Caveat 20:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem with that is the community doesn't own the streets. If someone owned the land the streets were built on in some private neighborhood it would be alright for said community to ban guns on the streets they own. But so long as we're talking about public property built for use by everyone, it's hardly fitting for a community to prohibit certain uses of that peoperty just because they live nearby. Timmie.merc 04:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

"Public" (state) property is best avoided altogether. Where it exists, it can at least attempt to approximate to any likely market outcome. If state property must 'allow everything' then we have a tragedy of the commons. Caveat 12:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Nay, imagine if all roads were privately owned and one had to pay to do something so basic now as to drive to the store. Public property shouldn't be the norm (read: communism), but it's hardly always detrimental. Timmie.merc 16:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Now imagine if all roads were privately owned and supported by advertising. The obvious solution is not always the only one. —Tamfang 18:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You can imagine anything you want. For example, I can imagine a society with no laws that just functions because of human goodness, but that hardly means that a society without laws is the better decision. When was the last time you drove down a turnpike whose construction was financed through advertising? How about tolls? I just think that yes, there are some (albeit few) things in a society that should be shared by everyone. Timmie.merc 07:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)