Talk:Libertarian League

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I found this quote associated to the Libertarian League

""Clearly enough, every product of a man's labor must be his own. As a corollary, any product of the labor of others, if it be given him or if he acquires it by exchanging the products of his own labor therefore is also a man's own. A man's claim to such a "right" cannot be disputed."

Could someone please explain to me how the Libertarian League was any different then modern day libertarians? it seems to me if you sign a contract saying I'm giving you my labor in return for your money which you got from your labor it's fine, they belived in property rights.

• They don't differ from modern libertarians. Libertarians were socialist then and they're socialist now. 'Every product of man's labour must be his own' is a quote from Marx!

Okay, so I'm confused here then... they belive in free trade. Current modern day Libertarians belive in free trades and that corporations aren't be treated like people. Where does the break-down come between calling themselves socalist and libertarian?

.You're dealing with labels. It's always going to be sticky trying to figure out different nuances between then, especially when two different people define the same label differently. I'll admit that I haven't heard of the "Libertarian League" before, but modern-day Libertarians, at least in America, are Capitalists. However, unlike the Objectivists, Libertarians tend to believe that people should be free to reject Capitalism if they want, so long as they don't use force against others.

[edit] Draft for a RfC on the issue

You all are invited to visit and comment on a draft for a RfC on this and related articles that will eventually likely become a poll. Please remember we are not discussing the topic itself, just the suitable neutral number of issues we want to cover. --Improv 17:13, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Reverts

Moved from: User talk:MacGyverMagic
It's been discussed a thousand times. I don't want to have to keep reverting, but what else do you suggest? User:Chuck F continues to vandalise Wikipedia to advance his political agenda. All the processes have been tried and failed.

Don't lie, There is absoulty no compromise or final choice on this, in fact we are currently in the midst of draft a request for comments, which you've compleatly ignored and haven't comment on once, you instead to advance your poltical agenda decied to just go and say I'm vandalizing. and keep reverting 208.62.52.1 13:26, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not advancing any political agenda, I just want Wikipedia articles to be accurate. You're distoring articles to try to spread your definition of a word to overide the actual meaning.

Proof - well considering that Libertarian article now is the philosphy that the united states libertarian party subscribes to, and that the first 1000 articles on googe are refearing to that verison of libertarian it seems valid.... I even made a concession to him and put modern in instead of just libertarian... but he'll have no part in it 208.62.52.1 13:36, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, reality is the proof. The definition given in dictionaries and encylopaedias is the proof. Look at the edit histories and talk pages of all these articles. Consider Chuck's blanket refusal to accept reality, or to comrpomise in any way, to allow anythng that does not fit with his partisan agenda.

Yes: Let's take a look at the most famous enclyopedia in the world: http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article?tocId=9370164&query=libertarian&ct=. Oh, they agree with me! In fact they don't even call it modern libertarianism, they just call it libertarianism. Now will you please stop reverting208.62.52.1 13:48, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The American-only definition. Wikipedia is not America-only. You stop reverting. Accept reality and stop reverting.

what does them being published in america have anything at all to do with anything? (I note that this article in itself is dealing with an american subject too... so.... 208.62.52.1 13:57, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Feel free to provide us with a definition that's not American-only in your view. But please both stop reverting, or I'll be forced to take action against you. This is not vandalism, but a disagreement. Reverting over 10 times on the same day can get you both in trouble. - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 14:01, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

But as other articles show, the word does not mean only what you want it to mean. Saying that the philosophy described as libertarianism is the be all and end all of libertarianism would be like saying the Republican party is the be all and end all of republicanism. The Websters, Chambers and the OED all define libertarianism as a general belief in liberty. Ever editor except you accepts that the word has a general meaning, that your meaning is a narrow one and inaccurate.

thoese are dictonarires, they have to be short and concisce (hence why the briticnia includes a liberarianism and a classical libertarianism entry, yet these dictonaries don't.). and this is also why I compromised to put modern as a prelude(I would like to change that to contemporay though, I forgot from college, that modern doesn't really mean today.) pretty much all encylopedias agree with my definitation. 208.62.52.1 14:16, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

as Usual, once the page is protect the aol anon ip no longer cares about the issue and just goes away refusing to discuss it 208.62.52.1 14:49, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Revert war

There's no obvious vandalism. Please discuss first and stop reverting, or you run the risk of getting banned. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 13:36, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Anon users (172.188.198.168 & 208.62.52.1), this is pointless. Put a comment on the Talk page if you feel strongly about your edits, but for the moment you are breaking Wikipedia's three revert rule... — Asbestos | Talk 13:49, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

These two are completely familiar with the 3RR, as they've both been blocked for violating it. RadicalSubversiv E 13:55, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)