Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Alfrem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Following Comments Deleted by Alfrem from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Alfrem#Response

None of that made any sense, even when I tried parsing this several times. - Ta bu shi da yu 29 June 2005 13:26 (UTC)

You should specify what you mean when I have to understand it. --Alfrem 29 June 2005 14:03 (UTC)

That does not make sense either. Again in English please. - Ta bu shi da yu 30 June 2005 02:43 (UTC)

Not to put words in Alfrem's mouth, but he seems to insist on a very narrow definition of political philosophy: i.e. systems of government and/or laws, which by definition would preclude any anti-statist philosophy (Anarchism,Liberalism,anarcho-capitalism) from being included. He also seems unwilling to accept that he is operating from non-standard definitions, and has a desire to inflict them on everyone else. Saswann 30 June 2005 13:39 (UTC)

Laughable. I used political philosophy as standard defintion. --Alfrem 30 June 2005 14:32 (UTC)

You don't seem to grasp that if a philosophy opposes the government, then they have something to say about the government and thus fulfill the criteria for being a political philosophy!!!! I cannot really understand how you cannot grasp such a simple concept! - Ta bu shi da yu 5 July 2005 07:47 (UTC)

From your own wiki link:

Political philosophy is the study of the fundamental questions about the state, government, politics, property, law and the enforcement of a legal code by authority: what they are, why they are needed, what makes a government legitimate, what rights and freedoms it should protect and why, what form it should take and why, what the law is, and what duties citizens owe to a legitimate government, if any, and when it may be legitimately overthrown - if ever.

The proposition that a state should not exist is an answer to all these "fundamental questions about the state." Any philosophy that takes a position on the "state" or "government" or "property" or "law"— even if it is a rejection of the premise— is a political philosophy. Saswann 30 June 2005 15:10 (UTC)

This has been pointed out to Alfrem several times on Talk:Libertarianism. Either Alfrem doesn't understand, or is ignoring these arguments. Either way, its quite disruptive. A comment: while I do not wish to disrespect non-English speakers who contribute to en.wikipedia, if their lack of understanding of English means they cannot follow arguments and cannot make themselves clear in arguments, and they are disrupting an article, then I believe that they should reconsider whether they should be contributing to the English Wikipedia. I do not wish for these comments to be misunderstood: may I emphasise that I am not advocating that those whose primary language is not English be stopped from editing. Only those who cannot follow arguments and cause disruption because of their English skills. - Ta bu shi da yu 1 July 2005 01:29 (UTC)

Agreed. I've seen some good articles written by people for whom English was a second (or third) language (I think Portugal is such an example). Alfrem is not such an author, and if he can't deal with the arguments controversial (and wrong) edits create, he should stick to the German Wikipedia or defer to English-speaking authors if he can't follow something here. If it's really important, it would be preferable for him to write a coherent argument in German and ask someone to translate. But language isn't the real issue, and even if he were writing personal attacks and engaging in edit wars in perfect English, he'd still be a problem. Well-intentioned but poorly phrased edits are welcome. Personal attacks are not. Dave (talk) July 1, 2005 15:20 (UTC)

Your aware mistake is to ignore "and the enforcement of a legal code by authority". To say: "I don't need a state!" doesn't mean that all libertarian philosphy is designed to make libertarian rules generally accepted against people who don't want libertarian rules. Just only this can become politics. Politics is the public. Libertarians don't want the public by defintion. Anarchos even want the opposite. They want to be sovereign on their own affairs. They don't need general public rules. --Alfrem 4 July 2005 15:08 (UTC)

And what is a legal code? Why, it's "a moral code enforced by the law of a state. It implies an ethical code of court procedures and evidence rules that apply to jurists, i.e. to judges and lawyers. In its most general form a legal code is a compact restatement of the law that is designed to be clear, understandable by the lay person (one without a legal education). Legal codes can be of a general private law nature, or they may cover specific areas of law such as in the area of criminal law or certain kinds of statutory types of laws, i.e. traffic code.". You might note that the political philosophy article also states includes a colon to further define what is meant by that statement and continues: "what they are, why they are needed, what makes a government legitimate, what rights and freedoms it should protect and why, what form it should take and why, what the law is, and what duties citizens owe to a legitimate government, if any, and when it may be legitimately overthrown - if ever." Libertarianism does deal with these issues: it deals with what makes a governments legitimate: that the government does not intervene in the private lives of citzens and is not able to use force in their dealings with those citzens. "Libertarians believe that if individuals are not initiating coercion against others, then government should leave them in peace". Enforcement of a legal code!

No offense, but it is all spelled out in clear English. If you cannot understand this, please brush up on your English so that you can better follow the concepts and explanations we have on en.wikipedia. BTW, I do not mean to be attacking you personally here, and your contributions would be valuable, but do be aware that if you do not have an excellent grasp of English and you are causing lots of strife because you don't understand what is going on then, as Dave said, you should defer to native-English speakers. The English Wikipedia is designed for speakers of English. - Ta bu shi da yu 5 July 2005 07:44 (UTC)

You have started with one mistake and now you try to fix your mistake with new mistakes.

# You believe that I wouldn't understand as German - killer argument.

# You don't get the point what politics is. Politics is the public (from Greek: polis). This means that politics deals with public rules, i.e. rules for the whole community. Libertarian anarchists don't want this. They want only market rules. Market rules are no political rules. The only general rule which could be political is the rule of non-aggression. But for most libertarians it makes no matter when you burn old witches on stakes in your own community.

# legal code in its most general form has no political meaning. You say yourself: "is a compact restatement", and "that is designed to be clear", and "understandable by the lay person (one without a legal education)". So what should be a politics and what is there about that you want make libertarian politcal thinking? The next step could be that you make the Pythagorean theorem political. Rothbard has obviously no role in any book about political philosophy.

# There is more than one way to pursue libertarian philsophy. You know it. But you take anything of any libertarian or who is called anyhow libertarian and then, you are generalizing it on all libertarians. This is an extremly misleading failure. ("Libertarianism does deal with these issues"). But there is a great difference between such libertarians which call for minarchism or privatisation, and such who want secede only. The latter have no political doctrine for the society.

--Alfrem 5 July 2005 13:20 (UTC)

Alfrem, secession is a political doctrine. But when it comes down to it, your whole answer shows that you have little understanding of how the words "politics" and "political" are used in the English language. In English, politics can refer to any interpersonal power relationship-- so any philosophiy that in any way deals with such relationships is political. "Politics" does not in any way imply "the whole community" or even a signifigant portion thereof. All groups have a political structure, even groups that deny the larger political structure around them... but you obviously don't get this. Saswann 6 July 2005 14:32 (UTC)

Again also you come with prejudices and mistakes.

# secession in the form of _individual_ secession (only this is the meaning here) is no political doctrine.

# I know the meanings of political and poitical. It is also in German, "politics can refer to any interpersonal power relationship". So what? The libertarain philsophy has also no political intensions in notionally "libertarian communities". The NAP is a unanimous rule. You don't need poltics therefore. You are completely wrong. There is also no doctrine for such groups. --Alfrem 6 July 2005 15:56 (UTC)

It's like talking to a brick wall... - Ta bu shi da yu 6 July 2005 23:44 (UTC)

When you have no better answers then I will delete your politics.

My own fault to believe that logic actually would make sense to such a person. Anyone who could write the above paragraphs without a deliberate satirical intent has certainly seceded into his own little world... Then again, maybe he is using another language that resembles English only because of some bizarre coincidence in spelling. ("I will delete your politics"??? That sounds like someting out of Mao's little red book) Saswann 7 July 2005 20:04 (UTC)

your "logic" (=POV) vs. "such a person" - I see, you have nothing to pay back. --Alfrem 7 July 2005 22:12 (UTC)

This is the third native English language speaker who is finding it hard to understand you. Your "retorts" (if that is what they are) may make sense in German, but make little sense in English! I fear that this is where the problem exists, though there is little we can do about it. - Ta bu shi da yu 7 July 2005 23:58 (UTC)

"may make sense in German" - and why not in English? What do you know about German? If your are not able to explain me even only one indisputable political matter in the view of every libertarian philosphy, then I must delete your POV. --Alfrem 8 July 2005 08:08 (UTC)

Like I say, it's like talking to a brick wall. - Ta bu shi da yu 8 July 2005 08:10 (UTC)

ok, your decision. --Alfrem 8 July 2005 08:15 (UTC)

I nominate this entire discussion for BJAODN Saswann 8 July 2005 18:25 (UTC)

"If your are not able to explain me even only one indisputable political matter in the view of every libertarian philosophy. . ." Hey! I think I understand Alfrem now! You see, if he actually allowed himself to conceptualize the idea that the rejection of politics is a political philosophy, the cognitive dissonance would make his head explode-- sort of like the computer at the end of Logan's Run... Saswann 8 July 2005 18:33 (UTC)

If you like it: "The libertarian political idea is the rejection of politics. Therefore it is a political philosophy." So accredited? --Alfrem 8 July 2005 19:29 (UTC)