Talk:Libertarian theory

I started this article in order to outline some of the major ideas attending libertarian theory and to highlight some criticisms and counter-arguments, without constant rejoinders, remembering that in-depth analysis is best left to primary sources, not an encyclopedia article. The other article, libertarianism, is rather disorganized and something of a hodge-podge; one loses the central thread about what libertarians believe in reading it. The contentiousness over the latter article about what words, ideas, texts, and thinkers belong to whom are reminiscent of battles over the true meaning of the sacred texts and prophets. It appears intractable to me. The purpose of the article is not to persuade anyone of a point of view, but simply to describe the perspectives propounded by libertarians, whether those perspectives be right or wrong. This is my humble attempt to start anew with something that I hope will not inspire as much vitriol or dissatisfaction as the other one did. After all, in the final analysis, it is only for fun! icut4u 05:46, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you. It certainly seems more organized and deals with many points that have been neglected. I like your disambiguation; it deals with the commonalities of different things called "libertarian" in different languages, as well as their differences. I hope that will help to bring people together. &#8212;FOo 00:09, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate the kind remarks, Fubar! I fear it has already become clear, however, that I have failed. I am going to leave this to others, now; I have done my best to render a factual, descriptive, NPOV on the subject. icut4u 18:33, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Chuck, the article I wrote simply acknwoledges that "some" have coined the description you find so offensive, an empirical fact. It does not say many, most, or anything of the like. Second, it state that libertarians would generally object to the appellation, for the simple reason that most ground their views in non-economic concepts. Again, an empirical fact. I see nothing in such statements that should cause you to want to eliminate them. I, too, as you can easily see from the libert. page, believe what the descriptor implies is incorrect, and I agree it is not widely used...and not used at all amongst prominent libertarain theorists. That, however, does not mean it doesn't exist.

Reithy, libertarianism as renedered here is the form of libertarainism that dominates the English-speaking world. Again, an empirical fact, one that can be easily discovered by reading the various libertarian authors from England, U.S., Canada, and Australia. It is not the only form, however, and that is acknowledged.

Chuck and Reithy, the issue of who "owns" terms is not constructive and reminiscent of the squabbles of Marxists and church people. Let's qualify our usage to point out that there are different interpretations, which the artilce does, and then get on with describing the relevant ideas. All the best... icut4u 00:15, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I do not see what Chucky's problem is. He has only said he as a problem with the phrase 'libertarian capitalism'. Nobody is trying to add that to this article and as an attempt at compromise I actually took it out of libertarianism. But he still keeps reverting. I know that outside of America the word does not mean what is discussed in this article. Every time I have seen the the word in my life it does not mean what is discussed in this article and a lot of other people have the same experience. Chucky refuses to accept this and his edits here and on libertarianism are no more than POV vandalism. He is even deleting entire chunks of Icut4you's writing without any explanation. He just will not allow articles to contain facts that he does not like. Does anyone apart from Chucky disagree with the current version?


 * it's ridiclous to say that some people have coined the term, CONSIDERING THE FACT GOOGLE HAS 600 hits for it, 100 of which look like they are just copies of wikipedia article, arguing about whatever or not the term exists. This is like recursion of the stupidest sense. You coin the term, then you go and put it in as being enclyopeidc "some people have coined the term to describe this". because you describing the theory as with capatalism has somehow now made the capaalism the correct enclyedic defination. 600 hits is not valid, most of which come from wikipedia are not valid showings of defination.


 * So, Chuck, you are saying that the term 'libtertarian' has been coined by Wikipedia users?

You know what, I'm going to go and and put in a ton of wikipedia articles the term un0tasty socalist, and then put in the socalist article some people have coined the term tasty socalist to refear to the facct that many of them are vegterians and vegterains are not that tasty, it's as stupid as what you are doing


 * Yet more vandalism. You're heading for a ban.

Tasty Socialist
I once dated a tasty socialist. Nice girl Reithy 12:22, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

childishness on display
The collection of childish and ill-mannered responses on this and other pages speak poorly of both of you, assuming, that is, that there really are two of you instead of one. It is patently clear that you have no real interest in the article or in libertarian thought, but only in arguing for its own sake. I am leaving you to yourselves. icut4u 14:17, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

vandalism
I wrote this article in the hope of avoiding some of the nonesense that has transpired on the Libertarianism page, and in the further hope of amplifying the theoretical discussion pertaining to libertarainism. This article remains substantially unaltered, except for the fact that Chuck continually removes a section that both clearly and fairly states both sides of the issue regarding the use of "libertarian capitalism" without taking a position one way or the other, and he refuses to accept that the article describes libertariansm as it is understood in many, but not necessarily all places. It does not maintain that the usage of lib. cap. is common, accepted by many, or anything of the sort....simply that it exists and that it is controversial, both of which are irrefutable facts. And, it does not overstate the case by saying that libertarianism is understood the same way everywhere, today, something the user has not demonstrated and something that is unnecessary to present the theory accurately. I note the user has not contributed one iota of substance that would serve to illuminate the topic on either page. Changing this continually, without discussion, is one thing; but the fact that no one, including several, admitted libertarians, has seen fit to support him in his quest is quite telling. Moreover, the 3-revert custom (or rule) has been torn assunder both here and wherever this user and his alter-ego Reithy travel. It amounts to little more than wanton vandalism. icut4u


 * I'm a libertarian. I find the expression "libertarian capitalism" misleading to the point of being mildly derogatory, for reasons I've stated amply elsewhere. And ... I've reverted Chuck_F a few times. I agree with you that what he's doing is vandalism, especially if he's been doing it in violation of injunction. I don't see why he isn't yet banned outright; he certainly doesn't seem to be doing anything constructive to make up for the damage he's done to (a) the articles and (b) the dialogue.


 * My motives here: I want libertarianism described accurately. I don't want to see the term "libertarian capitalism" used here to describe the phenomenon x which is usually (when it is spoken of at all) called "libertarianism", and which is the majority meaning of "libertarianism". I don't want Wikipedia used for social engineering by people who think that "fairness" is more important than accuracy. I certainly don't want Chuck_F's trolling and vandalism taken as representative of libertarians; indeed, I don't think he is one, or he would consider respecting the private property that is Wikipedia, and the rules that its owners have set up for its administration.


 * I can't figure out Chuck_F's motives. Maybe he is simply one of those people who likes to see his name and his words in print, and can't take the fact of life on Wikipedia that others will edit his words for accuracy and neutrality. His motive can't simply be to propound libertarianism or his view thereof, in any kind of long term -- as it is, he's achin' for a breakin', and once he's hard-banned he will not be able to further that goal. He certainly isn't winning friends and influencing people. I wouldn't be too terribly surprised if he was either (a) just a troll here to rile up libertarians and anti-libertarians; or (b) an opponent of libertarianism here to give it a bad name. Maybe he's really Bret Cahill, the Usenet kook who used to pester talk.politics.libertarian. :)


 * My suggestion? Revert him when he vandalizes; wait for (or invite) administrative action to get his vandalism out of the way; and let's continue to work on these articles. --FOo 01:57, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I agree with everything you have said.  I myself think there is a possibility that Chuck-F and Reithy are one and the same person. It is possible to disguise IPs, of course. Anyway, I wish the powers would ban him. In time, I suspect they will. icut4u

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)

Wikification pls
Pls wikify night-watchman state, minimal state, book names in the end et cetera. --Tmh 18:50, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Libertarianism article
Should this page still be separate from libertarianism? They say the same thing, and the Libertarianism article is now much better than it was. I'd like to hear your opinions before I tear this page apart. Dave 16:34, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * I just went through and added everything to the libertarianism article from here that wasn't there already. I think this article should:


 * 1) redirect there
 * 2) be deleted
 * 3) get new content instead of duplicating the libertarianism page.
 * Let me know which is preferred by ya'all. Dave 18:02, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)Dave


 * You were not involved in the tiresome, highly charged edit wars the transpired last year on Libertarianism, which caused me to author 99% of this page. Libertarianism is much improved. You have my support to redirect.  icut4u


 * With the support of the author of "99%" of the contents, this page will now redirect. If anyone wants to write new content that for some reason doesn't belong in the original article, they're welcome to override this as far as I'm concerned.Dave 18:39, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)