Talk:For a New Liberty

Startup comments

 * Thanks for getting this page started. It's been on my mental "To Do" list and am glad you have beaten me to it. :) -- RayBirks 02:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I couldn't help myself. Added a few ISBNs and a few headers to break it up a bit and generate a table of contents box. Please hack away if it doesn't suit. :) -- RayBirks 02:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

A difference?
Is there actually a difference between the 1989 and 2006 editions? Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 02:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

"First modern free-market anarchist manifesto"
Is it really accurate to say that it was the "first modern free-market anarchist manifesto"? What about The Market for Liberty, which was published in 1970? EVCM (talk) 03:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Refimprove?
I've removed the refimprove template since no justification for it's use has been given. It's probably better to use fact on sentences in question (whcih?) Nsaa (talk) 22:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The whole thing needs more citations; it's only got two right now, one of which is just a link to the entire text. I'm hesitant to use fact tags because I'd have to place quite a few of them. As a rule of thumb, we should have citations:
 * At every claim that is likely to be challenged, and
 * At every quote.
 * Also, I think we should use shortened footnotes, since most of the references are just going to point to a particular page of the same book. If you still want me to be more specific, let me know and I'll go ahead with the fact tags. -- Explodicle (T/C) 00:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Mainstream publishing contracts
"It is the only book for which Rothbard received a mainstream publishing contract." Really? Van Nostrand, Columbia University Press , Richardson & Snyder and others are not mainstream? – S. Rich (talk) 18:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Disgraceful bias
The article appears to have been written by Rothbard's fellow travelers, insofar as it presents his fringe philosophical views as if they were accepted fact. Consider this passage on education:

''Chapter 7, "Education", voices opposition to government involvement in education. He notes that the very nature of the public school requires the imposition of uniformity and the stamping out of diversity. Social conflict is unnecessarily generated by the school system having to choose between traditional or progressive, segregated or integrated, rather than letting each school and each customer choose individually what is best for them.''

And another passage on the non-aggression principle:

''He points out that while [the nonaggression principle] is almost universally applied to private individuals and institutions, the government is considered above the general moral law, and therefore does not have to abide by this axiom. Herein lies the fundamental distinction of libertarians'':

Note that these fringe/extremist assertions are either said to have been "noted" or "pointed out" by Rothbard, or are presented without even being attributed to him; the clear implication is that these assertions are established fact. For a New Liberty's "encyclopedic" entry is a disgrace. We need to find independent mainstream RS (not from Rothbard's employees who wrote reviews for "Mises Academy" or whatever) evaluating the views expressed in this book. Steeletrap (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Because no one has made any meaningful attempt to address these issues over the last two years, I have the taken the initiative by simply removing most of the description of Rothbard's book. It was very poorly written and poorly organized, as well as bloated and overly detailed. I have a copy of the book (actually, I'm the proud owner of no less than two different editions), so it will be possible for me to gradually add something better as a replacement for what I removed. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)