Talk:Libertarianism/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

1 What does that have to do with the article?
2 Log in
3 Revert War
4 Now that I have neutralized my additions, I think its high time your camp does the same
5 Alright, I just want to rant, so just skip over this if your not interested
6 A Vast Improvement
7 Critique of the version proposed by Political Nerd
8 Note: Classical Liberalism is VERY different than right-wing libertarianism
9 Please remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox

What does that have to do with the article?

I made every effort to be neutral when writing the article. If you want to read my personal views, read this discussion thread. The article is all facts, it does not contain anything that is my opinion. All those quotes you just posted are from the discussion thread.

Once again, if you're going to delete things, please delete specific statements which are either 1) untrue or misleading, 2) irrelevant or redundant. All you have done is conitually reverse the things I have added. Feel free to add your own information that is factual and relevant to the topic, but do not delete facts just because you don't like them.

Log in

I'm looking at a revert war between IP addresses here. What gives? Create an account for what you're doing; show us which if either of you intends to stick around. Jdavidb 19:39, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My apologies, Jdavidb. My computer logs me out periodically. PoliticalNerd

Revert War

I've reached my limit of 3 reverts in 24 hours. I hope others will look closely at this issue and take some action. The article probably needs to be protected, as Political Nerd has made it clear he has no intention of stopping. Ubernetizen 21:12, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Political Nerd is not interested in anything but "hearing" himself. It is pointless to argue with any religious zealot. They simply cannot live in peace unless others agree with them, or they capitualte out of exhaustion. That is why, as someone already said, they are the kinds of people who put others in camps. In this respect (as well as others), Mises and Hayek were on the mark in equating Nazism and socialism...indeed, all statist arrangements led by zealots. Ockham 21:25, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Statist" is the word your camp uses to label everyone you disagree with. I have met enough of your type to know this. I am not a religious zealot. In my experience, it is your ideology which has this tendancy. Unlike Socialists, I still basically believe in a market economy, but unlike the Neoliberals (and in many ways like Smith) I believe that the market should be social market, not a capital market. And unlike Anarchists, I do believe that a state is a neccessary evil, but I believe that it should be as decentralized and democratic as possible. I also believe very strongly in nonviolence and human rights. How are any of those signs of a religious zealot? I think you guys just have a hard time admitting that the word "libertarian" has more than one meaning! - Political Nerd

Young fellow, as I suspect you are, I could care less what you believe, it is irrelevant; you just go on and on with eclectic nonsense gathered from here and there, without much coherency, intent on showing others what you know..or think you know. The time you have on your hands certainly shows that you are not a member of the exploited working class that you seek to protect. The fact is, you want to tell people how they should live their lives so that they might attain paradise...your paradise....and avoid sin, which is to disagree with you and the scriptures important to you. You are as full of religious zeal as any right-wing fundamenatlist. This article is supposed to describe libertarianism, and, as someone said before, that would mean taking into account the consensus view, the common usage and understandings of libertarians. It does not mean that one has to agree with libertarianism, only that the prevailing views of its major proponents are fairly representated. Instead you see it as an opportunity to write a polemic. Ockham 05:48, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC) has left the building.

What makes you think I'm young? Perhaps you are just old. I mean 32 is young compared to roughly half the population...

And are you implying that Chomsky is not a "libertarian"? Maybe you need to rethink what the word libertarian really means... Thats kind of my point- libertarian means more than one thing depending on who you talk to. After all, who could disagree with the idea of liberty?

-Political Nerd

Now that I have neutralized my additions, I think its high time your camp does the same

Here are a number of things, in no particular order, which are not NPOV.

Libertarians believe that individuals should be free to do anything they want, so long as they do not infringe upon what they believe to be the equal rights of others. In this respect they agree with many other modern political ideologies. The difference arises from the definition of "rights". For libertarians, there are no "positive rights" (such as to food or shelter or health care), only "negative rights" (such as to not be assaulted, abused, robbed or censored), including the right to personal property. Libertarians further believe that the only legitimate use of force, whether public or private, is to protect these rights.

The whole thing about negative and positive rights is definetly POV. Based on this definition of positive rights, private property would also be a positive right. No one is entitled to privately control/own anything outside themselves (especially land), until they or the state are able to use force and coercin to keep others from using it. Perhaps I should rephrase that- creation and protection of private property is a positive right, and attempts to protect it infringe on the rights of others. Private property does not exist until a person decides to stake off a fence and call the land their own- thus the expression "Property is Theft." (That phrase comes from one of the very first libertarians in all of the history of political thought- Pierre-Joseph Proudhon)

But most importantly, it sets up a straw man of positive rights to knock down. Positive liberty is the conception that freedom is based on ones automony and ability to do what one wishes. Positive liberty is NOT "food or shelter or health care", it is the ability to get those things if one so chooses without sacraficing inordinate amounts of personal liberty.

This needs to be fixed.

In the US some libertarians feel conservative and some conservatives feel libertarian, because both groups claim as theirs the ideology of the founding fathers of the USA. Still, it is possible to distinguish quite neatly two different and often opposite traditions, and it is only a matter of terminology when confusion occurs.

This is a POV. I believe that conservatives and right-wing libertarians actually come out of the same tradition, though there has been somewhat of a divergence in recent years. For most intents and purposes the history books back me up on this. It was conservatives that usually imposed harsh reactions on the radical labor union movements of the 19th century, and they used the economic rationalizations that later became right-wing libertarianism. Conservatism and right-wing libertarianism are very much the same tradition, just that conservatives are the political (electoral) side and right-wing libertarians are the intellectual/academic side. Of course, there are disagreements, but all political traditions have internal disagreements.

As an example, many libertarians hold that personal liberties (such as privacy and freedom of speech) are inseparable from economic liberties (such as the freedom to trade, labor, or invest). They make this point to contrast themselves with socialists who believe that economic regulation is necessary for personal freedom and personal well-being

It depends which type of socialist you are talking about. Libertarian socialists don't believe in any regulation whatsoever, including regulation from private property laws, corporate charters, bosses, managers, CEO's, patriarchs (dominant male, head of household) etc... So again, this is POV.

It is a chief point for many libertarians that rights vest originally in individuals and never in groups such as nations, races, religions, classes, or cultures. This conception holds it as nonsensical to say (for instance) that a wrong can be done to a class or a race in the absence of specific wrongs done to individual members of that group. It also undercuts rhetorical expressions such as, "The government has the right to ...", since under this formulation "the government" has no original rights but only those duties with which it has been lawfully entrusted under the citizens' rights.

Yea, that is hardcore POV. It also contradicts itself because it creates a class called "citizens".

Indeed, libertarians consider that no organization, including government, can have any right except those that are voluntarily delegated to it by its members -- which implies that these members must have had these rights to delegate them to begin with. Thus, according to libertarians, taxation and regulation are at best necessary evils, and where unnecessary are simply evil. Government spending and regulations should be reduced insofar as they replace voluntary private spending with involuntary public spending

POV! In fact, paying income taxes IS voluntary. If you don't like it, then stop using United States currency. Invent your own currency.

Plus, the members of the United States HAVE voluntarily delegated the power to collect taxes to the government. So this statement isn't only POV, its dead wrong-

Article XVI. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Proposal and Ratification

The sixteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States was proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the Sixty-first Congress on the 12th of July, 1909, and was declared, in a proclamation of the Secretary of State, dated the 25th of February, 1913, to have been ratified by 36 of the 48 States. The dates of ratification were: Alabama, August 10, 1909; Kentucky, February 8, 1910; South Carolina, February 19, 1910; Illinois, March 1, 1910; Mississippi, March 7, 1910; Oklahoma, March 10, 1910; Maryland, April 8, 1910; Georgia, August 3, 1910; Texas, August 16, 1910; Ohio, January 19, 1911; Idaho, January 20, 1911; Oregon, January 23, 1911; Washington, January 26, 1911; Montana, January 30, 1911; Indiana, January 30, 1911; California, January 31, 1911; Nevada, January 31, 1911; South Dakota, February 3, 1911; Nebraska, February 9, 1911; North Carolina, February 11, 1911; Colorado, February 15, 1911; North Dakota, February 17, 1911; Kansas, February 18, 1911; Michigan, February 23, 1911; Iowa, February 24, 1911; Missouri, March 16, 1911; Maine, March 31, 1911; Tennessee, April 7, 1911; Arkansas, April 22, 1911 (after having rejected it earlier); Wisconsin, May 26, 1911; New York, July 12, 1911; Arizona, April 6, 1912; Minnesota, June 11, 1912; Louisiana, June 28, 1912; West Virginia, January 31, 1913; New Mexico, February 3, 1913.

Ratification was completed on February 3, 1913.

The amendment was subsequently ratified by Massachusetts, March 4, 1913; New Hampshire, March 7, 1913 (after having rejected it on March 2, 1911).

For libertarians, government's main imperative should be Laissez-faire -- "Hands off!" -- except to protect the individual rights recognized by libertarianism

Laisezz Faire does not mean "hands off". Its a French phrase that means "to leave alone" or "to let be". In fact, much of its original definition revolves around political laisezz faire, or letting the people decide the way that society should be run- aka democracy. If there was a major labor strike, a laisezz faire government would let the strikers and the boss work things out on their own. If that ment the workers would seize control of the factory, so be it. Private property would not be immune to the polity, or the will of the people.

So again, this is POV.

Libertarians believe in minimizing the responsibilities of citizens towards the government, which directly results in minimizing the responsibilities of the government towards its citizens.

I actually tend to agree with that statement, but it is still most definetly a POV.

The minarchists believe that a "minimal" or a "night-watchman" state is necessary to guarantee property rights and civil liberties, and is to be used for that purpose only. For them, the proper functions of government might include the maintenance of the courts, the police, the military, and perhaps a few other vital functions (e.g., roads). While they are technically statists since they support the existence of a government, they would resent the connotations usually attached to this term.

I don't actually have a problem with that passage, I just think its funny because it only proves my point that you guys use the term "statist" as a perjorative to label anyone with whom you disagree.

Minarchists consider that they are realists, while anarcho-capitalists are utopian to believe that governments can be wholly done without. Anarcho-capitalists consider that they are realists, and that minarchists are utopian to believe that a state monopoly of violence can be contained within any reasonable limits.

I have had this debate with other right-wing libertarians, and that is definetly a POV. The state does not in fact have a monopoly on force, or even legal use of force for that matter. Legal use of force is defined by the state itself and only has legitimacy so long as the people do not overthrow it- so really legality comes back to the people, aka the polity, aka democracy. In an area of wilderness with no state presence, anyone can claim to be the state and institute a monopoly of force. In fact, isn't the existence of private property a monopoly of force over that property?

Libertarians feel much more strongly about their common defense of individual liberty, responsibility and property, than about their possible minarchist vs. anarchist differences.

THAT is a point of view, bigtime.

An exposition of utilitarian libertarianism appears in David Friedman's book The Machinery of Freedom, which includes a chapter describing an allegedly highly libertarian culture that existed in Iceland around 800 AD.

I guess this isn't technically POV, but it is a lie of ommission. The Icelandic culture was indeed libertarian, but it was collectivist as well. It was anarchism (democratic libertarian collectives) much the way that Proudhun advocated, not libertarian capialism. Still, this reference should be either mention the anarchist view of Iceland or just be removed.

I suggest one of you go through and correct all these POV errors as I have corrected mine. And please do not do any more than minor edits to my work as I have hardly touched yours.

ITS A GOOD THING FOR YOU THAT (until now) I HAVEN'T HELD YOUR WRITINGS TO THE SAME STANDARDS THAT YOU HOLD MINE!

-Political Nerd

Alright, I just want to rant, so just skip over this if your not interested

Now here's some quotes from a modern day, well known, American left-wing libertarian. So you can't keep claiming that the classical defition of libertarian is irrelevant today.

"Now, the Libertarian Party, is a capitalist party. It's in favor of what I would regard a particular form of authoritarian control. Namely, the kind that comes through private ownership and control, which is an extremely rigid system of domination -- people have to... people can survive, by renting themselves to it, and basically in no other way... I do disagree with them very sharply, and I think that they are not..understanding the fundamental doctrine, that you should be free from domination and control, including the control of the manager and the owner." -Noam Chomsky

"Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if ever implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few counterparts in human history. There isn't the slightest possibility that its (in my view, horrendous) ideas would be implemented, because they would quickly destroy any society that made this colossal error. The idea of "free contract" between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke, perhaps worth some moments in an academic seminar exploring the consequences of (in my view, absurd) ideas, but nowhere else. I should add, however, that I find myself in substantial agreement with people who consider themselves anarcho-capitalists on a whole range of issues; and for some years, was able to write only in their journals. And I also admire their commitment to rationality -- which is rare -- though I do not think they see the consequences of the doctrines they espouse, or their profound moral failings." -Noam Chomsky

Anarcho-capitalism is not libertarianism Chuck F 03:41, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"that's why if you look at the *ideology* of the founding fathers -- not what they actually *believed* -- but at the doctrines that they professed, which is something quite different, they were opposed to centers of power and authority. In the 18th century that meant they were opposed to the feudal system, and the absolutist state and the church and so on.

"Now those very same doctrines apply to the 19th century and the 20th century and they should, if we take them seriously, make us opposed to the patterns of authority and domination that exist now -- like for example corporate capitalism, which is a system of authoritarian control that Jefferson never dreamt* of. Or the powerful 20th century state linked* to the corporate elite, which, again, is a system of power and domination on a scale that, say, Jefferson couldn't have imagined. But the same *principles* would lead us to be opposed to them." -Chomsky

"An essential feature of a decent society, and an almost defining feature of a democratic society, is relative equality of outcome -- not opportunity, but outcome. Without that you can't seriously talk about a democratic state... These concepts of the common good have a long life. They lie right at the core of classical liberalism, of Enlightenment thinking... Like Aristotle, [Adam] Smith understood that the common good will require substantial intervention to assure lasting prosperity of the poor by distribution of public revenues." -Noam Chomsky

"There isn't much point arguing about the word 'libertarian.' It would make about as much sense to argue with an unreconstructed Stalinist about the word 'democracy' -- recall that they called what they'd constructed 'peoples' democracies. The weird offshoot of ultra-right individualist anarchism that is called 'libertarian' here happens to amount to advocacy of perhaps the worst kind of imaginable tyranny, namely unaccountable private tyranny. If they want to call that 'libertarian,' fine; after all, Stalin called his system 'democratic.' But why bother arguing about it?" -Noam Chomsky

"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right." -Thomas Jefferson

"Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all." -Adam Smith

"In a society of an hundred thousand families, there will perhaps be one hundred who don't labour at all, and who yet, either by violence, or by the more orderly oppression of law, employ a greater part of the labour of society than any other ten thousand in it. The division of what remains, too, after this enormous defalcation, is by no means made in proportion to the labour of each individual. On the contrary those who labour most get least. The opulent merchant, who spends a great part of his time in luxury and entertainments, enjoys a much greater proportion of the profits of his traffic, than all the Clerks and Accountants who do the business. These last, again, enjoying a great deal of leisure, and suffering scarce any other hardship besides the confinement of attendance, enjoy a much greater share of the produce, than three times an equal number of artisans, who, under their direction, labour much more severely and assiduously. The artisan again, tho' he works generally under cover, protected from the injuries of the weather, at his ease and assisted by the convenience of innumerable machines, enjoys a much greater share than the poor labourer who has the soil and the seasons to struggle with, and, who while he affords the materials for supplying the luxury of all the other members of the common wealth, and bears, as it were, upon his shoulders the whole fabric of human society, seems himself to be buried out of sight in the lowest foundations of the building." -Adam Smith, first draft of Wealth Of Nations

"Liberalism is not socialism, and never will be... Liberalism has its own history and its own tradition. Socialism has its own formulas and aims. Socialism seeks to pull down wealth; Liberalism would preserve private interests in the only way in which they can be safely and justly preserved, namely, by reconciling them with public right. Socialism would kill enterprise; Liberalism would rescue enterprise from the trammels of privilege and preference. Socialism assails the pre-eminence of the individual; Liberalism seeks, and shall seek more in the future, to build up a minimum standard for the mass. Socialism exalts the rule; Liberalism exalts the man. Socialism attacks capital; Liberalism attacks monopoly." -Winston Churchill, 1908

"The poor object to being governed badly, while the rich object to being governed at all." -G. K. Chesterton

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute toward the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state ....[As Henry Home (Lord Kames) has written, a goal of taxation should be to] 'remedy inequality of riches as much as possible, by relieving the poor and burdening the rich." -Adam Smith

"On the conservative side, today's libertarianism is far more dogmatic and devoid of qualification than the liberalism of Adam Smith or J.S. Mill. Like Marxism, libertarianism is a utopian worldview based on an economic-determinist vision of history. Unlike Marxism, libertarianism is highly specific in its predictions about the transition to the utopian world order, rendering it vulnerable to fact." -Michael Lind, The American Prospect, Dec. 1, 1994

"[What Hayek] does not see, or will not admit, [is] that a return to "free" competition means for the great mass of people a tyranny probably worse, because more irresponsible, than that of the State. The trouble with competitions is that somebody wins them. Professor Hayek denies that free capitalism necessarily leads to monopoly, but in practice that is where it has led, and since the vast majority of people would far rather have State regimentation than slumps and unemployment, the drift towards collectivism is bound to continue if popular opinion has any say in the matter." -George Orwell, in a 1944 review of "The Road to Serfdom"

"The question whether the state should or should not "act" or "interfere" poses an altogether false alternative, and the term "laissez faire" is a highly ambiguous and misleading description of the principles on which a liberal policy is based. Of course, every state must act and every action of the state interferes with something or other. [...] The state controlling weights and measures (or preventing fraud and deception in any other way) is certainly acting, while the state permitting the use of violence, for example by strike pickets, is inactive. Yet it is in the first case that the state observes liberal principles and in the second that it does not." -Hayek, "The Road to Serfdom"

"that you should be free from domination and control, including the control of the manager and the owner." Chomsky would just replace managers with democratic despotism. And remember that liberal thinkers in 18th and 19th century were hostile to democracy, thinkers like Voltaire distrusted democracy, which he saw as propagating the idiocy of the masses. To Voltaire only an enlightened monarch, advised by philosophers like himself, could bring about change as it was in the king's rational interest to improve the power and wealth of France in the world. Voltaire is quoted as saying that he "would rather obey one lion, than 200 rats of (his own) species". Voltaire essentially believed monarchy to be the key to progress and change.

That comes from a thinker who defended Pol Pot and claimed that there wasn't a genocide going on in Cambodia? And claimed that there wasn't Gulag prison system in Soviet Union?

"their profound moral failings"

Anarcho capitalist moral failing? How about collectivist moral failings wich in 20th century claimed millions of lives?

"corporate capitalism, which is a system of authoritarian control that Jefferson never dreamt* of."

Corporatism is produced by Keynesianism. And as Chomsky has himself has said Keynesianism is preferable to laissez-faire, so why is he opposing the very idea he sees preferable?

This only shows how Chomasky and some people here are trying to rewrite history for their own utopian schemes.

People differ in capacity, skill, health, strength and I can not see how equility would be accomplished by not making them slaves for the "common good"

From the fact that people are very different it follows that, if we treat them equally, the result must be inequality in their actual position, and that the only way to place them in an equal position would be to treat them differently. Equality before the law and material equality are therefore not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time.

"The only stable state is the one in which all men are equal before the law." - Aristotle

TO TAX ONE TO GIVE TO ANOTHER VIOLATES "THE FIRST PRINCIPLE OF ASSOCIATION"

[The tax system must] be equally and fairly applied to all. To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare [give] to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it." If the overgrown wealth of an individual be deemed dangerous to the State, the best corrective is the law of equal inheritance to all [of his kin] in equal degree; and the better, as this enforces a law of nature, while extra-taxation violates it. (Emphasis his.) Thomas Jefferson (Note in Destutt de Tracy's Political Economy, 1816)

"That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest." - James Madison (1792)

"Government has no other end than the preservation of property." - John Locke

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government which impartially secures to every man whatever is his own.

James Madison, Essay on Property, March 29, 1792

Liberalism would rescue enterprise from the trammels of privilege and preference. - Churchill

This is very good quote, I like it, but you know that Chomsky would kill enterprise (as he has expressed in your posted quotes) and not save it, like it would seems to be have supported by Adam Smith and Churchill. If he would save it, he would be social liberal, but that's hardly accurate.

Soviet death camps would be revealed only later and many considered Soviet Union as a socialist utopia at that time.

This quote is in support of "single tax on land" (later proposed by Henry George) and was not a new idea, French Physiocrats supported "single tax" and they were ones who developed the laissez-faire doctrine.

--Stratofortress 19:55, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

""An essential feature of a decent society, and an almost defining feature of a democratic society, is relative equality of outcome -- not opportunity, but outcome. Without that you can't seriously talk about a democratic state... These concepts of the common good have a long life. They lie right at the core of classical liberalism, of Enlightenment thinking... Like Aristotle, [Adam] Smith understood that the common good will require substantial intervention to assure lasting prosperity of the poor by distribution of public revenues." -Noam Chomsky"

The simple and timeless fact, as described by Adam Smith in 1776, is: given the diversity of man's knowledge, only the individual, through his or her own industriousness and ingenuity, is capable of advancing his or her own particular interest or interests. It is only the individual person who can properly assess the matter before him or her; and, considering what is at stake, it is that individual who knows how best to apply the needed industry and capital. It can only be the individual who has the matter at stake, who can best predict the product that might result from the application of his or her preserved industry and capital. It can only be the individual who can take into account his or her local situation; and, being at the level where the action must take place, take the action which is likely required to achieve the desired results. No person can do these things for another even if they be described as a statesman or a lawgiver. If, the inappropriate, or wrong action is taken, or no action is taken where some was called for -- with the result of an undesired impact on the individual; then, that individual has no one to blame but himself or herself; and a lesson becomes available for the learning.

"These concepts of the common good have a long life. They lie right at the core of classical liberalism" The basic tenets of liberalism were formulated in this period [in eighteenth-century Europe]. They may be summarized as follows. The individual is the source of his own moral values; the process of trade and exchange between individuals has both efficiency and freedom-enhancing properties; the market is a spontaneous order for the allocation of resources; exchange between nations will not only maximize wealth through the international division of labour, but also tends to reduce war and political tension; and public policy should be limited to the few common concerns of individuals.

Noam Chomsky isn't even libertarian socialist, because of his support for big government: "The organization and the rule of society by socialist savants," [Bakunin] wrote, "is the worst of all despotic governments." and Balkunin was one of the most prominet libertarian socialist of all time. --Stratofortress 23:32, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A Vast Improvement

Thank goodness this article is no longer a screed for Marxism seen through a Chomsky-colored lens. The recent editors did good work, but we owe it to Ubernetizen for his intrepid perserverance in manning the barricades against this attack with fact and reason.icut4u 04:38, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm curious why you guys have decided to consistantly insult and call me names as well as whine about my additions, but have refused to even discuss the seriuos POV problems with the old article. Aside from one discussion post in which one of your members pointed out 4 specific problems he had with my additions (only two of them were valid, and I did fix those), your discussion posts have amounted to mob-like scorning. They are completely deviod of any intelligent arguements or serious debate about the meaning of the word libertarian. Instead of calling my view "Marxist", which it is not, why don't you discuss the issue at hand- the meaning(s) of the word libertarian?

In addition, I have pointed to a whole series of POV problems with the contents of the article in both the new and old variation, but you have totally failed to address them because you know that you have no case. -Political Nerd

Critique of the version proposed by Political Nerd

For sake of argument, here are the problems that I see in Political Nerd's proposed version of the article. There might be a few points I'm missing, and I'm not sure if time will allow me to continue debating the fine points of the article in detail.

"Market Libertarianism is the form most commonly known in the United States. Its adherents can also be described as right-wing libertarians, or libertarian capitalists.

I think that the pro-market libertarianism is the mostly widely used expression not just in the US but throughout the English-speaking world. Furthermore, the example of the Libertarian Movement Party in Costa Rica indicates that it is also making inroads into other languages.

Libertarian Socialism, or Classical Libertarianism, is a much older libertarian ideology

This assumes your conspiracy-theory account of the history of libertarianism is correct. If we trace libertarianism back to the classical liberals, which is the traditional interpretation of history, then it is older than libertarian socialism.

The paragraph beginning "The term libertarian, in the capitalist sense, first came into use in the United States, where," is incoherent.

These thinkers therefore came to call themselves libertarians.

By saying "these thinkers", you render it unclear whether you are talking about the sui dissant modern classical liberals or about the modern welfare state liberals.

Market libertarianism places a strong emphasis on private property, free trade, and the economic free market. Its origins may be traced to the mid-19th century school of economic thought known as marginalism, which held that all economic value came from the "utility at the margins" to the owner of the object of value. At that point in time, the marginalist school was considered a conservative ideology.

This is an unsupported and controversial assumption. Many libertarians argue that they had been considered a left-wing school of thought in previous centuries. Moreover, it presupposes that marginalism itself came out of nowhere, instead of having its roots in classical liberal economic theory (although I will agree to stipulate that most of the major English-speaking classical economists, including Adam Smith, supported the labor theory of value). Moreover, it presupposes that the roots of modern libertarianism come exclusively from a school of economics.

It has been noted by some political analysts such as the Political Compass that market libertarianism is not as incredibly libertarian, in the sense of anti-authoritarian, as it is incredibly economically right-wing. Most right-wing libertarians would argue, in opposition to classical left-wing libertarians, that this is only natural since most human societies have some forms of authority. The question for a right-wing libertarian is if one is able to freely choose which authority one submits too.

The first sentence here is sneaky POV of the "it has been noted" variety, and is poorly worded to boot. The rest of the paragraph is a little misleading. Some libertarians would agree with this wording, but many would quibble with the phrasing. Personally, I don't think it's accurate to say libertarianism involve "submission" to anything (although it allows for religion, of course), but I know what you mean.

For example, the classical liberal thinker John Stuart Mill was not opposed to the state and saw a role for the state in the delivery of education, maintenance and expansion of public utilities and even in the provision of assistance to the poor; libertarians are often hostile to the state and think its role should be severely restricted or even eliminated. Libertarians also argue that the market can be used to organize all or most aspects of society and have developed rational choice theory accordingly, while classical liberals such as Adam Smith argued there were limitations to the market's utility as a means of social organization. /paragraph/ There are also many important differences in the understanding of authority, class, politics, and the political economy between classical liberals and libertarians. Critics of libertarianism point out that modern libertarians tend to be very pro-business and believe that the rich have earned their place, while the classical liberals were often skeptical of the rich, businessmen, and corporations seeing them as aristocrats with desires to tyranize the people. Perhaps the most important classical liberal of this strain was Thomas Jefferson who advocated for progressive taxation, writing in an 1787 letter, "Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." Jefferson also stated in a letter to James Madison, "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of the moneyed corporations which already dare to challenge our Government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." He was also very mistrustful of the rich saying, "Those seeking profits, were they given total freedom, would not be the ones to trust to keep government pure and our rights secure. Indeed, it has always been those seeking wealth who were the source of corruption in government...I am not among those who fear the people. They, and not the rich, are our dependence for continued freedom."

This, along with what follows, simply goes into too much detail on a subject which is tangential to the main article. As Chuck F noted, the purpose of this article is not to debate the ties of modern libertarians to Jefferson, Smith, and Rousseau.

Critics will also make the claim that the modern understanding of private property by libertarians is much different than the way classical liberals understood it. In the classical times, the right to private property was a means by which farming peasents freed themselves from oppressive feudal landlords, and not to justify very large accumulations of private property in a few hands.

The second sentence is clearly POV. Ubernetizen pointed this out before, but you made no significant changes.

In addition, much of Adam Smith's theory of economic liberalism is inconsistant with the claims of modern libertarians. Rather than viewing the business-based economic market as a positive thing, Smith merely viewed it as the least of possible evils. Smith also viewed businessmen with much suspicion. His most famous quote in regards to this is in The Wealth of Nations, where Smith claimed that businessmen are "an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it."

The first two sentences make rather sweeping claims that are supported only by a couple of quotes from The Wealth of Nations.

Smith also saw little useful purpose for corporations in a market economy, having stated in The Wealth of Nations that, "The pretense that corporations are necessary to the better government of the trade is without foundation."

As you have noted, corporations in the 18th century were a different animal than corporations today. Although it is worth noting, as you do in the following passage, that Smith advocated the labor theory of value, while few modern libertarians do.

Classical libertarians (libertarian socialists) also point out that the Nolan Chart totally fails to account for their ideology. / paragraph / These critics point out that the Nolan chart fails to account for varying degrees of authoritarianism and libertarianism that are exclusively on the left or right. One such example is the difference between Augusto Pinochet who led a brutal fascist dictatorship that was intent on absolute free-market policies, Hitler whose fascist regime used Keynsian policies (government fiscal stimulation of the marketplace) to build Germany's industrial capacity, and George W. Bush whose fiscal policies are closer to Pinochet's than Hitler's but does not practice nearly as authoritarian of social policies as either. On the libertarian end, the Nolan chart would fail to draw a distinction between liberal Social Democracy as practiced in Scandinavia, and classical libertarianism (libertarian socialism)- both would simply appear as a hard left. / paragraph / These critics would argue that a more accurate and scientific chart is the political compass which places left and right on a single axis measuring economics, and authoritarian/libertarian on another. On this scale, classical libertarianism (libertarian socialism) is on the hard left and very bottom corner, while Scandinavian Social Democracy would appear as center-left and somewhat libertarian. Libertarian capitalism as advocated by Nolan is on the hard right and somewhat libertarian position. Hitler would appear as a hard authoritarian and slightly right of center, Pinochet as a hard authoritarian and hard right, and Bush as a soft authoritarian and almost as right as the market libertarians on the economic scale.

I don't really follow this at all. For one thing, this is way too much discussion of the Nolan chart for the libertarianism page; it's just not that important. It should go on the Nolan chart page if anywhere. Further, the only difference I can see between the political compass chart and the Nolan chart is that the former is tipped on its side; both have a social freedom/authority vs. left/right economics axis. Hitler, Pinochet, etc. would appear at approximately the same place on both charts. Also, you attempted to NPOV "the Nolan chart fails to account for varying degrees of authoritarianism and libertarianism that are exclusively on the left or right" by added "these critics point out that", but "point out" is a weasel term for introducing a POV statement. Finally, do you really think that "these critics" of the Nolan chart generally endorse the political compass (especially considering their similarities)? Or even know what it is?

Both minarchists and anarcho-capitalists differ in their beliefs from the anarcho-syndicalists, anarcho-socialists and libertarian socialists, who are usually considered not to be libertarians at all (the feeling is mutual; anarcho-socialists and libertarian socialists claim that capitalism is incompatible with freedom, and thus libertarian/anarcho-capitalists cannot be considered libertarians at all).

This is a needless and distracting redundancy. It's fine to remind the reader of unrelated and opposing viewpoints, but it need not be done at such length.

The How to become a libertarian essay link that want to add to the page has little substantial value and is no more than a broad parody.

- Nat Kraus e 14:24, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"I think that the pro-market libertarianism is the mostly widely used expression not just in the US but throughout the English-speaking world."

I have never heard it used once in Britain to describe this solely US based political tradition.

Well, there is a UK Libertarian Alliance, although I'm not sure how active it is currently. However, this is not necessarily relevant, because Britain represents less than a fifth of the world's population of native English speakers. - Nat Kraus e 16:37, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"This assumes your conspiracy-theory account of the history of libertarianism is correct. If we trace libertarianism back to the classical liberals, which is the traditional interpretation of history, then it is older than libertarian socialism."

It is certainly not the traditional interpretation of history on this side of the atlantic.

That's odd. What historians can you cite to that effect? It may be that they have somewhat limited knowledge of the matter, if it is the case, as you suggest, that libertarianism is based solely in the new world. - Nat Kraus e 16:37, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Anyhow, stop quibbling about the use of the word - disambiguate and move on. Slizor 15:48, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)

The page is already disambiguated. We have been discussing how to disambiguate. - Nat Kraus e 16:37, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I can say (for sure) that in finland and (most possibly) in other fenno-ugric languages (hungary) as well as other nordic countries (sweden, norway..) the term libertarian means exactly what it means here ("right" libertarianism). The term libertarian socialism is in the finnish wikipedia mainly as an "this is one strange ideology known somewhere in the continent". --Tmh 22:23, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Note: Classical Liberalism is VERY different than right-wing libertarianism

Question: Who first suggested the idea of social saftey nets and the welfare state?

Answer: Thomas Paine, a classical liberal. Read "The Age of Reason" and "Rights of Man"

Question: Who was the first political thinker to criticize the institution of privately controlled property?

Answer: Jean Jacques Rosseau, also a classical liberal

Question: Which classical liberal suggested what today is known as progressive taxation.?

Answer: Thomas Jefferson in a 1785 letter to James Madison

Question: What did classical liberals think of corporations, which in their time were much smaller, less powerful, and much more restricted in their roles and what they were allowed to do?(corporations could not own other corporations, they were limited to do the *specific* tasks set forth in their charters, and they did not have any rights since they were not considered legal persons as they are today)

Answer: See for yourself.

"The country is headed toward a single and splendid government of an aristocracy founded on banking institutions and monied incorporations and if this tendency continues it will be the end of freedom and democracy, the few will be ruling and riding over the plundered plowman and the beggar . . . I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a money aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. This issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of the moneyed corporations which already dare to challenge our Government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." -Thomas Jefferson THAT SOCIALIST! BURN HIM!!!!!

"Those seeking profits, were they given total freedom, would not be the ones to trust to keep government pure and our rights secure. Indeed, it has always been those seeking wealth who were the source of corruption in government. No other depositories of power have ever yet been found, which did not end in converting to their own profit the earnings of those committed to their charge…I am not among those who fear the people. They, and not the rich, are our dependence for continued freedom." -Thomas Jefferson FREEDOM HATER!

"The rich will strive to establish their dominion and enslave the rest. They always did...they always will. They will have the same effect here as elsewhere, if we do not, by the power of government, keep them in their proper spheres." -Gouvernor Morris, head of the committee that wrote the final draft of the U.S. Constitution

STOP TRYING TO ATTACK RICH PEOPLE FOR BEING RICH!!!

“To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers. To widen the market may frequently be agreeable enough to the interest of the public; but to narrow the competition must always be against it, and can serve only to enable the dealers, by raising their profits above what they naturally would be, to levy, for their own benefit, an absurd tax upon the rest of their fellow-citizens.” -Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

(you get the idea...)

“[Businessmen are] an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it.” -Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

“The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily; and the law, besides, authorizes, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen. We have no acts of parliament against combining to lower the price of work; but many against combining to raise it. … Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labour above their actual rate. … Such combinations, however, are frequently resisted by a contrary defensive combination of the workmen; who sometimes too, without any provocation of this kind, combine of their own accord to raise the price of their labour.” -Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

"The pretense that corporations are necessary to the better government of the trade is without foundation." -Adam Smith

Question: What did the classical liberals think about democracy.

Answer: They were strong (small d) democrats. Their view of private property and free markets was subserviant and secondary to their belief in democracy, equality, and individual dignity and freedom. (To right-wing libertarians today, its just the opposite)

"I am convinced that those societies (such as the Native American peoples) which live without government enjoy in their general mass an infinitely greater degree of happiness than those who live under the European governments. Among the former, public opinion is in the place of law, & restrains morals as powerfully as laws ever did anywhere. Among the latter, under pretence of governing they have divided their nations into two classes, wolves & sheep. I do not exaggerate." -Thomas Jefferson

hmm...he seems more like a libertarian socialist than a libertarian capitalist, though neither of these ideas existed at the time

"I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves, and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion." -Thomas Jefferson

"Information is the currency of democracy." -Thomas Jefferson

“The will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object.” - Thomas Jefferson

"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." -John Stuart Mill

"In the US some libertarians feel conservative and some conservatives feel libertarian" -This article (at least you guys admit your ideology is basically a conservative one)

Question: Why did I make this post?

Because classical liberalism is not the same thing as right-wing libertarianism. Right-wing libertarianism comes out of a more conservative tradition of thinkers such as Alexander Hamilton, Edmund Burke, and the marginalist school of economic thought. Equating right-wing libertarianism and classical liberalism is not only propoganda, it is an out-and-out lie.

-Political Nerd

By the way, if you knew more about Alexander Hamilton, you wouldn't think he has anything to do with libertarians. - Nat Kraus e 08:39, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nor would Edmund Burke, hardly a thoroughgoing capitalist. Not to mention that Plato, Plotinus, Moore, and many others have argued for welfare states and abolilshing private property long before Paine or JJR. I suppose they were "classical liberals," too. icut4u 15:40, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC) Oh, and one other thing, which points to the difficulty of labels, Hamilton not only was not a libertarian of any stripe, I would not call the author of the largest number of Federalist Papers a conservative, either; he was suspicious (not opposed to) of democracy, to be sure, but primarily because the tyrrany of the majority could be used to to suppress liberty. Hamilton, unlike Jefferson, was ardently opposed to slavery, in fact, belonged to an abolitionist society...this is the 18th century, mind you. And, unlike other abolitionists, he believed the black man was equal to the white man in intelligence. He was ahead of his time in many ways. icut4u 19:42, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What Icut4you is trying to say is that if a Classical Liberal takes a view which isn't "Libertarian" then they aren't really a Classical Liberal at all. Which probably would reduce 19th Century Classical Liberals down to Bastiat (which is why Libertarians always go on about him.) Slizor 19:44, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)

No, I was not "trying" to say that at all, I have no idea what led you to think that; perhaps you think I am a libertarian, but, as I made clear earlier, I am not. Not that it matters or anyone cares, but I am a liberal in the broadest sense of the word, however, I do not subscribe to any grand scheme or doctrine. I think libertarianism is one species of liberalism...and that there are several others. Unfortunately, conservatives have made the word liberal an epithet, much as Marxists did in a prior era. To my mind, liberals of all kinds share a belief in private property, liberty, and the consent of the governed, ideas that did not originate in the Enlightenment, but that were perhaps given their best explication and defense then. The differences among liberals are largely a matter of emphasis. Modern conservatives, for example, tend to emphasize property and deemphasize certain kinds of liberty, whereas modern liberals tend to emphasize the consent of the governed and particular kinds of liberty. Libertarians...at least of the kind with whom I am familiar (Nozick, Hospers, Freidman, Mises, etc.), tend to emphasize liberty expressed as a negative right, that is, the right to be left alone, and to place it above any other consideration. In contrast, a modern liberal would treat certain positive or prescriptive rights with equal importance. I think that pure socialism (I do not mean re-distribution to a certain degree...I mean the ownership of production and the abolition of private property) and communism are antithetical to liberalism. Conservatism and progressivism seem to me to be relational terms, not doctrines with core principles. In other words, they can only be understood in relation to other doctrines, practices, or principles. Conserve what? Progress to what? A conservative in the 18th century was very differnt than a conservative today. Indeed, modern conservatives are interested in conserving and emphasizing certain princples of liberalism. Modern liberals emphasize others. The fact is, modern conservatives, liberals, and libertarians have much more in common than any one of them would care to admit, and among the things they have in common are roots in the classical liberal tradition. These internecine and quasi-Talmudic battles over definitions and the ownership of political lables have a long history. Everyone wants to justify their position using holy writ, in this case, Locke, Smith, Mill, and the like; however, it seems to me that there is merit to characterizing the various forms of liberalism, in this case, libertarianism, with some appeal to common usage and common understanding, which is what Political Nerd is refusing to do. Rather, he wants to redefine it in order to incorporate and promote other doctrines, doctrines which certainly have a place in an encyclopedia, but not under the rubric of libertarianism. icut4u 21:00, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well said, Icut4u. I don't understand the hubbub over points on which classical liberals and contemporary libertarians disagree. That the two are essentially cut from the same cloth is incontrovertible. The differences between, say, a Madison and a Hamilton or a J.B. Say and a Thomas Sowell do not negate the fact that both are bearers of the same broad tradition. Ubernetizen 21:56, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My point is that this article needs to stop making POV and untrue claims about both classical liberalism and liberatarianism. The specific ideology described in the article is a very modern one and was by no means the first libertarian ideology, and is not the heir of classical liberalism.

This article is hopelessly POV. When I have some time, I am going to go through and address the concerns about my version of the article that were posted above. It is only unfortunate that the right-wing libertarians will not do the same since I have posted my specific concerns as well.

I still believe that this article needs to be clear that there are multiple forms of libertarianism, and that the one it emphasizes is a form which is almost exclusive to the United States, and is specifically an economic libertarianism not a social one. In addition, it needs to include criticisms of right-wing libertarianism from both a liberal and left-libertarian POV if it is to be neutral. We may also want to include a conservative criticism as well, though that would be harder since conservativism tends to have much in common with right-wing libertarianism.

-Political Nerd

My lord dude, this is kinda off the subject of the libertarian page, but your anti-corporation feelings that they shouldn’t exist at all are amazing. I don’t want to debate with you here but I’m curious are you advocating a world where corporations(people voluntary choosing to associate with others) don’t exist at all and local people sells his crops to local community members or just tighter restrictions on corporations or do you think government should be in charge of everything? – Chuck

What the hell are you talking about? A corporation is not simply people collectively acting. A corporation is a legal entity which is given certain "rights" under US and international law. As PoliticalNerd has said before the legalities under which corporations operate have changed since the times that the founders of the US penned the constitution (for instance in the 1890's corporations were granted legal personhood, and in the 1990's patent law was extended to include life forms created by artifical means in a laboratory -- a law which inevitably only helps corporations which now have the "right" to intellectual property).

I've come to this conversation late, but I have to agree with PoliticalNerd, on most of her/his (what sex do you identify as?) points. Its interesting to see someone come with so many citations, and historical facts, only to be barked at by people who have very little evidence to support their own "arguments"; and then, of all things, to be derided for presenting evidence in favor of his/her position. It seems the greatest ire of right wingers is reserved for those who are actually credulous enough to believe that factual information is ever relevant. millerc 01:17, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Question: What did the classical liberals think about democracy.Answer: They were strong (small d) democrats. Their view of private property and free markets was subserviant and secondary to their belief in democracy, equality, and individual dignity and freedom." To John Locke (the father of classical liberalism), property was more important than the right to participate in government and public decision-making: he did not endorse democracy, because he feared that giving power to the people would erode the sanctity of private property. Most early liberals were not democrats. Neither Locke nor Voltaire had believed in universal suffrage, and even most 19th-century liberals feared mass participation in politics, holding that the so-called lower classes were uninterested in the principal values of liberalism, that is, that they were indifferent to freedom and hostile to the expression of diversity in society.

"STOP TRYING TO ATTACK RICH PEOPLE FOR BEING RICH!!!"

Neither did this quote support cutting down the rich. For classical liberals Rule fo Law must be maintained, and poor can undermine Rule of Law as much as rich. Aristotle defines a republic as the rule of law. "...it is preferable for the law to rule rather than any one of the citizens, and according to this same principle, even if it be better for certain men to govern, they must be appointed as guardians of the laws and in subordination to them;... the law shall govern seems to recommend that God and reason alone shall govern..." He further argues that a democracy puts the people above the law: "men ambitious of office by acting as popular leaders bring things to the point of the people's being sovereign even over the laws."

"Question: Which classical liberal suggested what today is known as progressive taxation.? Answer: Thomas Jefferson in a 1785 letter to James Madison"

TO TAX ONE TO GIVE TO ANOTHER VIOLATES "THE FIRST PRINCIPLE OF ASSOCIATION" "The tax system must be equally and fairly applied to all. To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare [give] to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it." If the overgrown wealth of an individual be deemed dangerous to the State, the best corrective is the law of equal inheritance to all [of his kin] in equal degree; and the better, as this enforces a law of nature, while extra-taxation violates it. - Thomas Jefferson (Note in Destutt de Tracy's Political Economy, 1816)

"Question: What did classical liberals think of corporations, which in their time were much smaller, less powerful, and much more restricted in their roles and what they were allowed to do?(corporations could not own other corporations, they were limited to do the *specific* tasks set forth in their charters, and they did not have any rights since they were not considered legal persons as they are today)" Classical liberals defended invidiual enterprise and were not so supportive about collective enterprise and your attack against collective enterprise generalizes about free market.

"(you get the idea...)" Yeah, I get the idea and it's right that libertarianism and classical liberalism are different things but free markets and private property is a fundamental part of classical liberalism.

"Question: Who was the first political thinker to criticize the institution of privately controlled property? Answer: Jean Jacques Rosseau, also a classical liberal" Who was the political thinker who supported Bourgeoisie Capitalism: Voltaire, also a classical liberal.

"STOP TRYING TO ATTACK RICH PEOPLE FOR BEING RICH!!!" Voltaire didn't support the weakening of the rich for the service of the poor.

For your inforamtion about classical liberal economics I would suggest the same author as Thomas Jefferson: "I think there does not exist a good elementary work on the organization of society into civil government: I mean a work which presents in one full and comprehensive view the system of principles on which such an organization should be founded, according to the rights of nature. For want of a single work of that character, I should recommend Locke on Government, Sidney, Priestley's Essay on the First Principles of Government, Chipman's Principles of Government, and the Federalist. Adding, perhaps, Beccaria on crimes and punishments, because of the demonstrative manner in which he has treated that branch of the subject. If your views of political inquiry go further to the subjects of money and commerce, Smith's Wealth of Nations is the best book to be read, unless Say's Political Economy can be had, which treats the same subjects on the same principles, but in a shorter compass and more lucid manner." --Thomas Jefferson to John Norvell, 1807. ME 11:222

Thomas Jefferson was entranced by the work of Condillac and Destutt de Tracy. Destutt de Tracy's main work was the series Eléments d'idéologie (1801-1815) which followed up on the philosophy, psychology and economics of Condillac. Like Condillac, Destutt de Tracy sought to ground value in psychology, particularly utility. He explicitly repudiated Adam Smith's cost theory of value (although he was sympathetic with much of the rest of his analysis). Tracy's insistence that value must be measured in invariable units inspired Ricardo's search.--Stratofortress 14:39, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Question: Who was the first political thinker to criticize the institution of privately controlled property? Answer: Jean Jacques Rosseau, also a classical liberal"

Rosseau was not an classical liberal, he contributed into a liberalism but was not an liberal as this article from Standford University explains:

"‘By definition’, Maurice Cranston rightly pointed out, ‘a liberal is a man who believes in liberty’ (Cranston, 459). In two different ways, liberals accord liberty primacy as a political value. First, liberals have typically maintained that humans are naturally in ‘a State of perfect Freedom to order their Actions…as they think fit…without asking leave, or depending on the Will of any other Man’ (Locke, 1960 [1689]: 287). Mill too argued that ‘[T]he burden of proof is supposed to ith those who are against liberty; who contend for any restriction or prohibition…. The a priori assumption is in favour of freedom…’(Mill, 1991 [1859]: 472). This might be called the Fundamental Liberal Principle (Gaus, 1996: 162-166): freedom is normatively basic, and so the onus of justification is on those who would limit freedom. It follows from this that political authority and law must be justified, as they limit the liberty of citizens. Consequently, a central question of liberal political theory is whether political authority can be justified, and if so, how. It is for this reason that social contract theory, as developed by Thomas Hobbes (1948 [1651]), John Locke (1960 [1689]), Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1973 [1762]) and Immanuel Kant (1965 [1797]), is usually viewed as liberal even though the actual political prescriptions of, say, Hobbes and Rousseau, have distinctly illiberal features.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/

--Stratofortress 17:18, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I wan't to say that the Icut4you post previously was an impressive work and I totaly agree with it.--Stratofortress 23:11, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

“Wherever there is great property, there is great inequality. For one very rich man, there must be at least five hundred of the poor, and the affluence of the few supposes the indigence of the many.” -Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations It's a very big misquote, if you would have finished the meaning of the quote: "Wherever there is great property there is great inequality. For one very rich man there must be at least five hundred poor, and the affluence of the few supposes the indigence of the many. The affluence of the rich excites the indignation of the poor, who are often both driven by want, and prompted by envy, to invade his possessions. It is only under the shelter of the civil magistrate that the owner of that valuable property, which is acquired by the labour of many years, or perhaps of many successive generations, can sleep a single night in security. He is at all times surrounded by unknown enemies, whom, though he never provoked, he can never appease, and from whose injustice he can be protected only by the powerful arm of the civil magistrate continually held up to chastise it. The acquisition of valuable and extensive property, therefore, necessarily requires the establishment of civil government. Where there is no property, or at least none that exceeds the value of two or three days' labour, civil government is not so necessary." - Adam Smith --Stratofortress 12:16, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox

...or a discussion forum. It would be best for the article if we kept the political debating to a minimum here, and stuck to the facts. From Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: "Please try to stay on task (the task here is to create encyclopedia articles). Wikipedia is not a discussion forum or chat room ... But of course you can chat with folks on their discussion pages, and you can resolve article problems on the relevant Talk: pages."

This talk page is not the place for libertarian evangelism or libertarian bashing. Rhobite 02:39, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

Although some of the previous conversation had gotten out of control, I think that most of what was said is important to the article because it was in relation to what PoliticalNerd put on the page. The info given above by PoliticalNerd supports the content that he/she had written (which was good content), which was erased by others who simply refused to look at the evidence given. millerc 04:49, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It strayed into political argument, and now it's tedious to sift through the rhetoric looking for actual content-related stuff. Rhobite 19:26, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives

Talk:Libertarianism/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

What does that have to do with the article?

Log in

Revert War

Now that I have neutralized my additions, I think its high time your camp does the same

Alright, I just want to rant, so just skip over this if your not interested

A Vast Improvement

Critique of the version proposed by Political Nerd

Note: Classical Liberalism is VERY different than right-wing libertarianism

Please remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search