Talk:Libertarianism/Alfrem

political philosophy

 * Harry491 wrote: (Political philosophy is "tudy of the fundamental questions about the state, government, politics, property, law and the enforcement of a legal code by authority" go to talk.

No. The study on the enforcement of a legal code by authority is no part of Libertarian philosphy. You tell me nonsense. Libertarianism is at first the NAP-axiom and then the derivation of all consequences. Politics is no topic in Libertarianism. (Maybe in the LP, but not in Libertarianism.) --Alfrem 13:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I was under the impression that Libertarianism opposes, where possible, of the enforcement of a legal code by an authority. And Libertarianism has things to say about the government. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:36, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Clearly libertarian philosophy has things to say about the state, the government, property and law enforcement. So it is a political philosophy in any sensible usage of the term. Cadr 18:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * No. "Law enforcement" is something else than "the enforcement of a legal code by authority". Libertarianism has also not more to say, than "government is evil" by definition. What is political at it? And there is not named only one libertarian thinker on Political philosophy. That should make you thoughtful.  --Alfrem 18:40, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Uh, what? "Thus, they oppose governmental initiation of force, even if it is supported by a democratic majority" and "As a result, they oppose prohibition of 'victimless crimes.'". Libertarians most definitely have opinions on law enforcement. Besides which, law enforcement is just one component of political philosophy. It also has things to say about the state, government, politics and property! So it therefore satisfies all criteria for being a political philosophy. I'm putting it back. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes. This may clear up the confusion: Politics has *two* meaning:  the study of the polis (Greek for city-state, or, more generally, society) and politics as in 'the processes of power'. So libertarianism is political in the first sense, but opposes the second.
 * No. "Politics is the process and method of making decisions for groups." Libertarianism itself makes no statement on any decision for groups. Libertarianism says only what is right from the view of the NAP. That's all. --Alfrem 08:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Your quotes are descriptions on people who are Libertarians. It is a political direction of those people. But it is no description of the philosophy. It is like a religion. Nobody comes to the idea to say: "the catholics are political". Of course they are political, but it is not their direct task and intension. The same is here. The libertariansim is a philsophy on the NAP. What some people do with it in Libert. Parties and so on is something else. And again: "Law enforcement" is something else than "the enforcement of a legal code by authority". --Alfrem 08:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * How can law enforcement be anything but the "enforcement of a legal code by authority"?. Law is by definition encoded, and any enforcing agent is by definition an authority. Anyway, libertarianism is usually seen as a political philosophy for the reasons give above: it has lots to say about political issues such as the role of government, taxation, etc. Politics is not just "...the process and method of making decisions for groups", it's clearly far more than that. Cadr 12:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Obviously you have no idea of customary law.
 * I think customary law fits the definition. It's a code (even if it's an unwritten code) and even if enforcement is not carried out by a formal authority, one still needs some sort of authority in order to enforce anything. In fact, by enforcing a standard (either collectively or individually), the enforcing agent becomes an authority. Cadr 15:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * "libertarianism is usually seen as a political philosophy" - yes, that is true for the public meaning, and you can wording it so, but it is anyhow a POV-assertion. "...the process and method of making decisions for groups" is one pressupposition. --Alfrem 15:10, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, let's write an article on the public meaning of libertarianism, not your private meaning. Cadr 15:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Don't begin an edit war or you get an entry in Vandalism_in_progress ! --Alfrem 15:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Excuse me? I think I reverted your change once, a couple of days ago. I'm not starting an edit war, but you are refusing to respond to anything I'm saying in a constructive manner. Cadr 20:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The problem here is that one may understand Libertarianism as political movement. Yes. The movement is political, but not the philosophy. --Alfrem 08:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * There is definitely an enormous ethical component to libertarianism. "Political" philosphy would seem just to emphasize the factional component, whereas libertarians tend to take principled stands, whether it is too their individual benefit or not.--Silverback 09:03, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * People of more or less every political stripe claim that they are taking principled stands without regard to their own interests. I don't see how this disqualifies libertarianism from being a political philosophy. Political philosophies usually do have their basis in a moral theory of some sort. Cadr 12:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * In WP exists a strict NPOV-rule. You have every right to hold your own POV, but to say Libertarain philosphy must be political comes from your point of view. Therefore I can't accept it. --Alfrem 12:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * You haven't provided any sensible argument in favour of not describing libertarianism as a political philosophy. Given that it is near-universally regarded as such, you need to do so. You do need to justify your POV -- otherwise what's to stop me or anyone else claiming something even more ridiculous (e.g. that libertarianism isn't a philosophy at all) and insiting that the page incorporates this POV. Cadr 13:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. Libertarianism is based on the NAP-axiom. There is no compulsive reason to make a political doctrine of it. Thats only your wish. --Alfrem 13:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not my wish, I'm not a libertarian. The NAP-axiom has clear political consequences (e.g. against taxation), and libertarians almost always concentrate on the political consequences of NAP (which is probably why they fail to realise how absurd their philosophy is). Libertarianism is a political philosophy. Cadr 14:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * There is no more need to dicuss the point again. Look into politics and political philosophy. The term fulfills not the presuppositions. --Alfrem 15:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I have, and it does, for the reasons I've given above. Do you have a response? Cadr 15:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * How old are you? --Alfrem 15:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * What the heck does that have to do with anything? This is an ad hominem attack. Don't use it. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * 20. You? When we've established our respective age, ethnicity, hair colour, etc., can we get back to discussing the article? Cadr 20:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Libertarianism is the first of several examples of a political philosophyon this professor's course page. About.com defines libertarianism as a political philosophy here. A libertarian web publication calls libertarianism a "political philosophy. The Los Angeles Times calls libertarianism a political philosophy.  Encarta defines libertarianism as "political philosophy emphasizing the rights of the individual." Dave (talk) 12:30, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * No evidience. Same POV in this sources. So what? --Alfrem 12:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Have placed a note on RFC regarding this issue. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course libertarianism is a political philosophy. It's a moral system which attempts to define the role of government. Rhobite 04:16, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Saw this on RFC, libertarianism is obviously a political philosophy; read the definition at politics and this is clear. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:23, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)


 * No, it is not clear. This is your clear POV. --Alfrem 06:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Can I have a clear explanation of why it is not a political philosophy? The page that it references is quite clear on its definition. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:25, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I am quite clear, it is not. Do you accept to determine the term by politics and political philosophy? And then show me why it must be one. Which undeniable assertion(s) of the libertarian philosophy is/are making it political? --Alfrem 08:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Politics is about the process of making decisions for groups. Libertarianism supports a non-agression/non-coercion principle which obviously strongly impacts group decision making. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:14, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
 * And how can I use the NAP to make any political decision for groups? This is the same nonsense as to say the Christian love would be political. --Alfrem 17:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I think I see what you mean. While you can argue, for example, that prohibiting marijuana or prostitution is wrong because it violates the NAP, you can't use the NAP per se to make that decision for the group.  Individuals in the group still have to decide for themselves.  Is that what you mean? --Serge 17:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * When you mean "per se not at all" then yes. Every political group decision must be a breach of NAP because it is an aggression. So why is the NAP political? Are the Libertarians all crazy? Therefore the most libertarians are even not in any party or in political associations. But the statist sees only what the LP and Harry Browne are doing. --Alfrem 18:07, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The LP are libertarians. You cannot artificially restrict the group of people who are allowed to be called "libertarian" to suit your pet theory. Question: If you want to exclude the hundreds of thousands of big-L libertarians from this article, what article should they be discussed in? Rhobite 18:47, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course, there are libertarian people in the LP, but libertarian is not their sole attribute. You cant know WHY they make political decisions. But it cant be the NAP. --Alfrem 19:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * You're great at dodging questions. Rhobite 19:13, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Every political group decision must be a breach of NAP? What if you buy a home in a private community, which involves explicit agreement to abide by the R&Rs of that community, which includes adhering to the decisions made by the home owners association (HOA) board (within some well-defined paramaters).  Say the board decides that it's time to repave the community's shared roads (a decision clearly within the paramaters), and you want to wait a year.  Is the "group decision" to fine you (as per the R&Rs) for not adhering to the "group decision" (to which you agree to abide by) a breach of the NAP?  This is not a subtle point.  I am illustrating that libertarian communities can be formed that make group decisions without requiring unanimity every time, and without violating the NAP.  A frequent criticism of libertarianism is that libertarian communities could not be formed since the unanimity that would allegedly be required to resolve community issues is practically impossible to achieve. But the HOA model, which I contend does not breach the NAP (by establishing a priori consent), shows otherwise. --Serge 18:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I cant understand all your terms.(R&R, repave). I am German. But I try an answer. Political philosophy is addressing laws. When everybody agree with a law or when nobody must take a disadvantage, then nobody must take a breach against NAP. But unanimity is not the aim of laws. Unanimity is a aim of market decisions. So a decision of a group, you can say it is a political decision like a sesssion, because it is also a question of power. But this would be a political and hypothetical decision and no political and libertarian philosophy. Power is no part of a libertarian philospohy. In your example of libertarian communities in seems to me that people agree that someone or something may make decsions for the group and has might to make decisions. Therefore, this process is political. But this is an internal (no libertarian) problem in the community, isn't it? --Alfrem 20:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Your conception of political philosophy is too narrow. It addresses the means of making decisions for groups -- for instance, the governing structure of firms (boards of directors, etc.), home owners associations, and families. It also addresses means like coercion, enslavement, and murder. Libertarianism makes a clear distinction between the voluntary means and coercive means - this is the NAP. By making this distinction, libertarianism declares some types of political interaction valid and others invalid (in the same way that, say, nationalism as a political philosophy declares some types of political interaction valid and others invalid). In short, libertarianism speaks to what sorts of political arrangements should exist (voluntary only), and is therefore a political philosophy. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:32, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
 * When you think my defintion of political philosophy is too narrow, then change the defintion on political philosophy. --Alfrem 21:24, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * It should also be pointed out that virtually all forms of libertarianism endorse a conception of physical property. Property is a political arrangement because it declares that one individual or group has certain rights over something. Let's say you and I are trying to decide what to build on a piece of land. Property affects this decision making process because if you own the land, you can decide. To the extent that libertarianism includes a specific framework of property, this makes it a political philosophy. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:37, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
 * The social question of propertery don't allude enough the topic on political philosophy. It is also no question for groups. I can also say: It is a question of justice. --Alfrem 21:24, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alfrem: Please provide sources for your assertions. Wikipedia typically excludes opinions such as these that cannot be found in the literature. See the page on Original research. As far as I can tell, your views fall into the category of "statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation". Dave (talk) 22:43, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * It is not my assertion that libertarianism must be a political philosophy. Where is the evidience of this assertion? Therefore, I cant know, why you mean, that it should be. I can not examine it without reason. It's a quest with infinte possibilities. You make a reversal of the burden of proof. --Alfrem 23:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * The evidence was the half dozen articles, webpages, essays, and book reviews I linked to. You're the one with the novel interpretation unsupported by the literature.  What makes you think you know more than, say, law professors do on this issue?  Is it possible that it's a translation issue? Dave (talk) 02:22, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * Which evidence? In the first link above from the "professor", you give the assertion: Libertarianism would be also called "classical liberalism" or just "liberalism". Such nonsense should be an evidience? And your political philosophy seems to be without political philosophers. Where are the political philosophers of Libertarianism? --Alfrem 09:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * The terminology varies from country to country and over time. Friederick Hayek called himself a liberal, though he wouldn't be considered one today in the U.S. See for example Why I am Not a Conservative, which discusses the terminology.  I'd say that Murray Rothbard, David Boaz, Ayn Rand, and especially Robert Nozick are all political philosophers that support variationss on libertarianism (including anarcho-capitalism and Objectivism). Friederick Hayek (though he called himself a "liberal" for historical reasons) and Randy Barnett have written in detail about the best kind of government for implementing libertarian views.


 * If you're interested in learning something instead of continuing to spout your preconceptions, I encourage you to look at this page which has information on Hayek and calls him a "great Austrian economist and political philosopher." and then read chapter six from this document, which is all about different types of law, democracy's role, and designing a constitution. Lastly, libertarians look to political philosophers of other persuasions as well.  If the Federalist Papers aren't political philosophy according to your definition, you need to change your definition.


 * Dave (talk) 14:17, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

www.adamsmith.org is a classic liberal page and "great Austrian economist and political philosopher." comes only from a book review. And Hayek was by defintion a claasic liberal, so he must be a political philosopher, but he must not be a libetarian political philosopher. Stop this nonsense!!!!!!!!!! --Alfrem 14:57, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * My side has made sufficient arguments that your position is untenable, and was from almost the beginning. If you start making arguments of your own, I may bother to respond to them.  Until you start writing coherently and support your position with evidence this conversation is over. Dave (talk) 18:27, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Non-aggression principle as the first sentence of the article
Alfrem has twice edited the article to add this as the very first sentence: "Libertarianism is a philosophy which is completely based on one axiom - the non-aggression principle."

I think absolute statements like this one are inherently POV. In this case it's also inaccurate - libertarianism is too vague of a concept to apply such black and white thinking here. It means too many different things to different people. Civil libertarians and left libertarians don't believe in the non-aggression principle as an absolute, for example.

On a side note, libertarianism is obviously a political philosophy. This isn't even a debate. Please stop adding these POV notes and removing words from the article, Alfrem. Rhobite 06:41, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Although semantically it seems like they are, philosophically civil libertarians and left libertarians are not necessarily libertarians, or followers of libertarianism, unless they also happen to subscribe to the non-aggression principle. Otherwise, you're right, "libertarianism is too vague of a concept" to apply to anything, and would be essentially meaningless.  Serge 17:27, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I would love it if you or Alfrem could cite a source for the "one true definition" of libertarianism that you seem to cling to. Of course you can't, there is no such thing as a single correct definition. I hate arguing about definitions. Why do people go around forcing absolute definitions on broad terms such as capitalism, libertarianism, etc? Rhobite 19:27, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * All what I do is that I ward your absolute political attribute off. --Alfrem 20:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course, there is no source for the "one true definition" of anything. So my inability to produce such for "libertarianism" means nothing. However, I contend that virtually all references to the term "libertarianism" (and "libertarian") -- used without modifiers like "anarcho", "civil" or "left" --  in common usage today, are consistent with the philosophy based on the NAP.  If this is not true, it should be pretty easy for you to cite sources where the term is used with a meaning inconsistent with this definition. --Serge 21:09, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Where are you coming from? The Libertarian philosophy makes the absolute statement of NAP by defintion, not Alfrem.


 * And "political" is disputed. The libertarian movement is political. But the philosophy is no movement. --Alfrem 06:48, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * So where is this "one true definition" you're using? You keep speaking about the "definition of libertarianism". That's just silly, there is no such thing. And if you link to a dictionary I will be diasppointed. Rhobite 06:51, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * It is the first axiom of the ideology. Do you need refereces? No problem! --Alfrem 06:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Ooh, an axiom of an ideology. Sounds important - who wrote it? Rhobite 06:56, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Why do you not look for this in non-aggression principle ? --Alfrem 07:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * So Walter Block came up with it in 2003? What was libertarianism "completely based on" before Block's epiphany? OK, so I'm being sarcastic. My point is that there is no single definition of libertarianism. Rothbard agrees with you. Political libertarians such as Harry Browne approach the philosophy from the small government side, not from the non-aggression side. Many more moderate libertarians believe in limited government, but I suppose you'd exclude them from the "one true definition of libertarianism". Convenient. Rhobite 07:17, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Harry Browne is a politican. He makes political demands, but not a philosophical definition. We are speaking about the philosopical description. Politics of Libertarians is an other additional view. Show me only one - ONLY ONE - libertarian who dont accept the NAP! --Alfrem 07:58, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * You are imposing artificial restrictions on this debate, one after another. I won't have any more part of it. Please quit pushing your POV in the first sentence of this article. Rhobite 08:24, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * You tell nonsense. You make a revert and you have no empiric evidience of your position. Your unique argument is that the most people have problems with my point. So what? Populism. Troll. --Alfrem 08:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is there anyone who can follow the "arguments" of Rhobite? --Alfrem 08:50, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * This from a guy who thinks that a Geocities site called "Jacob's libertarian press" is a better source than Harry Browne. Rhobite 15:20, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * On homepages is sometimes very good stuff. So what? And Harry Browne is a politican at first. So all what he say is to assess in this view at first. --Alfrem 17:48, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Not really. Geocities have low verifiability: it could be anyone posing as that person, and the information could change at any time - there is no edit history as on Wikipedia to see what the change was. We frown on those pages, though sometimes they can be used. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:30, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * So what? I don't use it as evidience. But Harry Browne?! --Alfrem 06:38, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Just pointing it out... no idea who Harry Browne is, so can't make any comment on this. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:38, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Harry Browne is a libertarain writer with very strong political interest. So what do you want tell me? That the program of the LP is a fine libertarian philosphy? --Alfrem 12:48, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This entire debate is lacking historical references. For example, Max Stirner was one of the first individualist anarchists, which like all anarchist thought falls under the larger umbrella of libertarianism, or libertarian philosophy. He rejected the entire concept of ethics as imaginary. He would argue ethics do not exist. He would have therefore rejected any "non-aggression principle". Benjamin Tucker, who was an influence on Murray Rothbard, also gave up on natural law and moved to the amoralism of Stirner Egoism. I am a libertarian, and I reject the NAP. I have instead developed my own ethical theory. Historically the NAP is not necessary to the definition of libertarianism; there have been a few different ethical theories, and some who even reject ethics altogether. What makes one libertarian or not is actions (whether or not you coerce others who have not first coerced)...this can result from Stirner Egoism (a rejection of ethics, but actions which refuse to act coercively because of penalties one might face for doing do - ie, self interest), the NAP (either derived via deontological or consequentialist means), or some other ethical theory (like my ethical theory which disregards aggression entirely, instead focusing on coercion as the enemy of liberty - which means acts of aggression are embraced insofar as they are the path of least coercion possible). In all cases actions may be exactly the same, resulting in libertarian behavior (non-coercive behavior). The way the come to these actions, via thought in ethics (or lack thereof), is irrelevant. Post-left anarchism ran into this problem some years ago, and it was a minor part of the "lifestyle anarchism" debate. There are just too many historical examples, and modern examples, of minority opinions in libertarian circles where the NAP is not the ethics embraced. To argue the NAP is necessary to the definition of libertarianism is ahistorical and amounts to argumentum ad populum (appeal to majority opinion). 2001:5B0:23FF:3CF0:0:0:0:38 (talk) 22:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I happened to be thinking a bit about the NAP recently. I think it is quite important to libertarian philosophy despite the fact that it doesn't really say much. It's an axiom. The additional principles of libertarianism fit into it, but, despite what some libertarians think, they don't follow automatically from it. A lot of people of various political stripes would find the NAP to be quite agreeable; it just stands to reason in the minds of a fair number of people, which is why it makes a good axiom.

So, I certainly don't agree that the NAP should be described as the be-all-and-end-all of libertarianism, although we should state clearly that it is fundamental to most libertarianism. There are, on the other hand, some people who would say they agree with the NAP but are not libertarians. Also, there is probably a substantial minority of libertarians who do not accept the NAP. - Nat Krause 13:34, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) It is the basic rule for all and you say: it doesn't really say much
 * 2) they don't follow automatically from it - It is a theory or a rule. Libertarain favor the theory or the rule, but they are not Jesus Christ. So what?
 * 3) say they agree with the NAP but are not libertarians - maybe they dont identify themself with this group. I, too.
 * 4) is fundamental to most libertarianism -- where not? Where is the Libertarian, who dont favor the NAP. And then tell me what he favors if it is not the NAP.
 * 5) probably a substantial minority of libertarians who do not accept the NAP -  probably, so you dont know. It is POV. Then let them speak themself. Maybe there is nobody. --Alfrem 14:12, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * "Libertarain favor the theory or the rule, but they are not Jesus Christ. So what?" Quote of the year! Although I don't know what it means.
 * "Where is the Libertarian, who dont favor the NAP." Well, off the top of my head, Randians, at least, don't believe that the NAP is an axiom. Some libertarians very likely are Stirnerite egoists, and/or believers in might-makes-right. Some are probably in favor of aggression if it is sanctioned by the Bible or the Koran. Where is your evidence that every libertarian supports the NAP? - Nat Krause 01:48, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ayn Rand, Objectivism, and Max Stirner, and his Egoism are not part of Libertarianism. You tell me nonsense again. And for evidence you can visit Non-aggression principle, troll --Alfrem 28 June 2005 08:34 (UTC)
 * Geez, you got a bad attitude, Alfrem. I suppose you're right that the NAP is fundamental to all libertarians, if you are willing to define those who don't support it as automatically non-libertarian. By the way, what about the Christian or Muslim libertarians? - Nat Krause 28 June 2005 09:01 (UTC)
 * Nice day, troll --Alfrem 28 June 2005 09:20 (UTC)
 * Stirner was certainly a libertarian, as he was an anarchist and an individualist. Are you suggesting Tucker wasn't a libertarian too? He also bought into Stirner Egoism, and yet he is praised as in influence on both Rothbard and others over at Mises.org and other libertarian sites (especially among anarchists, both "left" and "right"). Just because you disagree on amoralism isn't evidence it isn't anarchic or libertarian for that matter. How can one be an anarchist and NOT a libertarian? It's makes no logical sense, given the goal of liberty for both. The goal of liberty, via the NAP, some other ethical theory, or a total rejection of ethics, and the actions of liberty (non-coercion of non-victimizers) make one libertarian. And even that is no hard and fast definition. I would say though, Objectivists aren't libertarians for the most part (or at all), even by their own admissions. Rand hated libertarians, and said as much many times. But her egoism WAS an ethical theory (see The Virtue of Selfishness), unlike Stirner's Egoism. And Rand was a minarchist, whereas Stirner was an anarchist. Rand's rejection of anarchism is very close to Nietzsche's rejection of anarchism, even though like Rand he hated the state with a passion (although Rand was clear on thinking the state necessary, while Nietzsche was much more ambiguous about the need for a state). So, you were half right, and half wrong. 2001:5B0:23FF:3CF0:0:0:0:38 (talk) 22:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Political philosophy
I'm pretty sure we have established that Libertarianism is a political philosophy. Alfrem has reverted all our edits several times now and has not given us a clear and succinct reason why we should not call it by this term. I have left a message on Alfrem's talk page asking him to cease doing this. If he can find a source that disagrees with this, I would be more than happy to see it as a discussion on the page. Until then, I am requesting that we keep political philosophy. I have footnoted this, if people find further evidence for it, please feel free to add to the footnote. If need be we can incorporate the footnote into the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:53, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * No. You must give the evidence. Its your assertion, that L. should be a political philosophy. I cant know why you think it. Rothard and Hoppe did not wrote about it, so obvoiusly it isn't. --Alfrem 00:23, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I did give evidence. You would know this, after all you removed the footnote several times! - Ta bu shi da yu 00:25, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * At the risk of being called a "populist troll" another time by Alfrem, we have given evidence and explained this to you several times. To date, nobody agrees with you that libertarianism is not a political philosophy. Please move on. Rhobite 03:57, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * Look in evidence and you find this: "... Apparent censorship through refusal to publish ideas unpopular with mainstream scientists (unpopular because of ideological reasons and/or because they seem to contradict long held scientific theories) has soured the popular perception of scientists as being neutral or seekers of truth and often denigrated popular perception of science as a whole."
 * And secondly, wikipedia is no democrazy.--Alfrem 28 June 2005 08:16 (UTC)


 * Sorry, what's your point? Yes, we are not a democracy, we are an encyclopedia. And as for censorship: that's not what we are doing. Applying your logic, you are more at risk of censoring the views of others because you remove the political philosophy part all the time! If you have evidence that backs up your claims, then we would have it now. We don't appear to have it, so we are maintaining that Libertarianism is a political philosophy. If you have evidence that shows that some don't believe this to be the case, please add it, but cite your sources. To put it more bluntly (and rudely): put up or shut up. - Ta bu shi da yu 28 June 2005 09:17 (UTC)


 * I have evidence that you have no evidence. So POV!!!!!! --Alfrem 28 June 2005 15:06 (UTC)


 * OK, that's ridiculous, and I think we all know it. Alfrem, one last time: I have provided a footnote and have only just updated it with an Encyclopedia Britannica reference that it is a "political philosophy". To risk treating your ridiculous statement seriously: I have evidence that proves that you have no evidence that I have no evidence! - Ta bu shi da yu 29 June 2005 01:47 (UTC)

Is libertarianism a political philosophy to the exclusion of being a moral philosophy or and idealogy? Political philosophy may be minimal common denominator, but for many it is way of life, a commitment to non-coercion even within the existing coercive culture. Some, especially the anti-fraud contingent, see it as a commitment to honesty and integrity as opposed to a license to explore the limits of the liberty they seek.--Silverback June 29, 2005 09:37 (UTC)

User conduct RFC filed on User:Alfrem
I have filed Requests for comment/Alfrem, due to his constant reversions on this page, his POV pushing, his lack of sources for assertions made in the article and for finally making a personal attack when losing an argument (he called User:Harry491 a "troll", when he is clearly not a troll). I would like to state for the record that I bare Alfrem no animosity, but that he has given me no choice but to file this RFC. Alfrem, I hope, will take the RFC as a wakeup call that his behaviour must change if he wishes to successfully edit Wikipedia in the future. - Ta bu shi da yu 29 June 2005 01:43 (UTC)


 * Thanks for setting this up. Next time, I'll know how to do it myself.  Is there any way to get an injunction on Alfrem's edits to libertarianism-related articles until the RFC closes? Dave (talk) June 29, 2005 02:46 (UTC)
 * The purpose of RFC is not to halt the editing of a user. The RFC is just that: a request for comment on that users behaviour. It is one of the first steps in dispute resolution. The steps are usually as follows:
 * Ask on talk page what is going on
 * Ask user on their talk page to cease from reverting, ask them to clarify why they are doing this and see if a resolution can be found
 * File an RFC about the page in question to solicit feedback from other Wikipedia editors
 * File a user conduct RFC on the user
 * File a request for Arbitration: if need be this is where you ask for an injunction on editing this article
 * Once ArbCom accepts the case, present evidence
 * The process, while it is long, is designed to be as fair as possible to all parties concerned. At any point the offending party can start altering their behaviour. If all avenues are exhausted, then they can blocked from editing for some time. - Ta bu shi da yu 29 June 2005 03:01 (UTC)


 * Good. His edits are absurd and it is impossible to reason with him. --Malathion 29 June 2005 02:47 (UTC)


 * this is absurd, these are the excat same arguments(with even the excat same evidence) that were going on in this page a year ago Chuck F 2 July 2005 12:36 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps you could elaborate further on the RFC? - Ta bu shi da yu 2 July 2005 14:16 (UTC)

political / RFC
Do people know this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Alfrem

--Alfrem 29 June 2005 14:36 (UTC)


 * Yes. If you actually bothered to read this very talk page you would note (a few sections up) that I have told people about this. I also left a message for you about it on your talk page. - Ta bu shi da yu 30 June 2005 00:08 (UTC)

pov-tag
Why no pov tag when it is so? --Alfrem 29 June 2005 13:41 (UTC)
 * You have not proved or made clear what is POV. Clearly state (in an understandable fashion) what is POV, then we can address the concerns. - Ta bu shi da yu 29 June 2005 13:43 (UTC)
 * Oh, P.S. Alfrem, remove the political philosophy text again and I'll file an arbcom request and request that a temporary injunction be issued so that you can't edit Libertarianism related articles. I'd prefer not to, but I'm not a man to be tested. - Ta bu shi da yu 29 June 2005 13:48 (UTC)


 * You can only have one thing: a political philsophy with pov-tag, or a philosophy without pov-tag. This is stand of discussion. What is "arbcom"?


 * It seems to me that there is a strong consensus that the intro should include the term "political philosophy." A number of editors have posted regarding this and as far as I can tell all, excluding you, support the use of the the term "political philosophy." Despite your beliefs, in the presence of this consensus you should not continue to revert the article. Doing so continually is in violation of policy. This issue, as far as I can tell, has already been resolved, and unless you have other issues the POV tag should be removed. Christopher Parham (talk) 2005 June 29 14:02 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is no democrazy. --Alfrem 29 June 2005 14:06 (UTC)


 * That's why we're not voting. Christopher Parham (talk) 2005 June 29 14:25 (UTC)


 * But you need "majority" as argument?! --Alfrem 29 June 2005 14:36 (UTC)


 * If your argument is that Wikipedia is not a democracy, then you cannot complain when what you believe to be the route that the article should go is not taken. We do not need majority as an argument, we need to understand where we can fix the article. So far you've not given us any real arguments! - Ta bu shi da yu 30 June 2005 00:06 (UTC)


 * Who is we? I can fix the article myself. This doesn't mean that all arrogant people must understand what happened. --Alfrem 30 June 2005 07:40 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and fix it then. However, if you feel that "fixing" an article is by removing well sourced material and adding in material that is not well sourced, I think you need to rethinking your definition of the word "fixing". - Ta bu shi da yu 30 June 2005 07:48 (UTC)

Is "political philosophy" intended to exclude the moral and idealogical elements of libertarianism? Why be specific, or why not list all elements?--Silverback June 29, 2005 17:17 (UTC)


 * I think its character as an ideology is expressed by its description as a political philosophy. As far as its moral elements, aside from the basic right/wrong approaches described by its political aspect, I think describing libertarianism as a system of morality would be highly questionable. Unlike a more complete philosophic system like Objectivism, libertarianism skirts around most issues of right and wrong, aside from what follows from its political premises. Christopher Parham (talk) 2005 June 29 17:35 (UTC)


 * The sole ideological affair of L. is the non-aggression axiom. Now say me, what is political at this ethic? --Alfrem 29 June 2005 18:06 (UTC)


 * Provide a source that backs up this argument!!! - Ta bu shi da yu 30 June 2005 00:07 (UTC)


 * non-aggression principle --Alfrem 30 June 2005 07:40 (UTC)


 * What? Please quote (using copy and paste if you need to) the exact words in that article that state theat the "sole ideological affair of L. is the non-aggression axiom". Thanks. - Ta bu shi da yu 30 June 2005 07:48 (UTC)
 * P.S. As you don't seem to understand a basic request, allow me to show you what I mean:
 * "Walter Block, a U.S. Austrian School economist believes that the non-aggression axiom is the central lynchpin of the philosophy of libertarianism ."
 * But wait! There's more! Block himself says that this is not actually agreed upon by all who call themselves libertarian, as he says: "The non-aggression axiom and private property rights theory which underlies it have recently come under furious attack, amazingly, from commentators actually calling themselves libertarians." NPOV policy would state that those opinions must be detailed.
 * Now do you finally see what I'm asking for? If you have sources to information on this, provide them! That's what we've been asking for. Perhaps now I've shown you what we need then you will help us? - Ta bu shi da yu 30 June 2005 07:57 (UTC)


 * Notes
 * Walter Block, "The Non-Aggression Axiom of Libertarianism". February 17, 2003. Accessed 30 June, 2005.
 * That is just one viewpoint. - Ta bu shi da yu 30 June 2005 07:54 (UTC)


 * This is only a evidence of your silliness. Block points out "1. They misunderstand the nature of libertarianism." and so on. There is no serious dispute about that under scholars." When you don't accept the testimony of non-aggression principle I cant help you, then go your way. Or else, it must be clear what is the basis of the ideology. --Alfrem 30 June 2005 09:38 (UTC)
 * Really? Perhaps you could explain how libertarianism deals with the following scenario:
 * A group of libertarians exist in peace and harmony and follow the non-aggression principle to the letter. Another group, living close by, have a practice of enslaving their people and yet also live by the principle that it against their moral principles and law to enslave any people who exist outside of their community. One day one of their slaves finds out about the group of libertarians and decides that this is where she wishes to live. She escapes and goes to join the libertarians, living amongst them and strictly following their principle of non-aggression.
 * Shortly thereafter, the group who enslaved the women discover where she has gone and come after her in force. They capture her through aggressive force and coerce her to leave with them, back to her life of slavery. Because of their moral and legal understanding that they must not enslave people who live outside of their community, they leave the libertarian community alone.
 * So: what do the libertarians (who live by your definition) do? Do they defend her and stop them from capturing her, or do they meekly let her be enslaved again? I would very much like to hear your answer, if you have one. - Ta bu shi da yu 30 June 2005 10:30 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you want. Slavery is a breach of NAP. So what? How can I know what people will do? --Alfrem 30 June 2005 12:13 (UTC)


 * That's my point, Alfrem. There is a school of thought that believes that NAP is not necessarily the sole axiom of the Libertarianism. My question stands: do libertarians let the girl go into slavery, or do they assist her gain her liberty? - Ta bu shi da yu 30 June 2005 12:49 (UTC)


 * This is nonsense. Libertarianism is at first a theory which says: non aggression principle. This theory doesn't get rifts solely the practies avoid the enforcement or realization. --Alfrem 30 June 2005 14:23 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I don't understand the sentence "This theory doesn't get rifts solely the practies avoid the enforcement or realization." Can you please rephrase? Chairboy 30 June 2005 14:36 (UTC)


 * Sorry for my English. The NAP rule as moral is always valid. It remains just as well valid when self-defense is not realizable. --Alfrem 30 June 2005 14:49 (UTC)

ArbCom request filed against User:Alfrem
See Requests for arbitration. Anyone who wishes to participate must add themselves to the relevant party list. - Ta bu shi da yu 7 July 2005 08:51 (UTC)


 * Agree with Ta bu shi da yu, User:Alfrem is going nuts with no justification. Is he some Lyndon Larouche person?  BTW, on his issue as to removal of "political philosophy" from the summary, if he wants to make the argument (if he can make the argument) he can put it down below.  But in the summary, he just fundamentally misunderstands what "political philosophy" means and the purpose of the summary, which is to broadly state the issue. --Noitall 16:54, July 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Tell me, what must be so clearly political. Or you are going nuts. --Alfrem 20:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Alfrem violated the 3RR, deleting "political philosophy" 4 times within 24 hours (actually he missed 5 times by a couple minutes). Who is going to fill out a report? --Noitall 21:43, July 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * lies, but no answer. --Alfrem 21:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I've already reported this here, but if you see that I missed any of his reverts, please add them. Feel free to add your comments as well. --Malathion 22:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * kindergarten --Alfrem 22:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

There are sources which clearly differentiate between political and non-political libertarian views.

"Libertarians buy into the system to a still lesser degree. We need a distinction between political and non-political Libertarians. Political Libertarians seek to bring about freedom via political means to change the political system. They have bought into the system in that they employ political means.

Non-political Libertarians reject political means to bring about freedom. They tend to buy into the system to a lesser degree than political Libertarians, but they still tend to believe they can't be free unless the political system is changed. They may focus on educational activities such as distributing literature and writing letters to newspapers. They've bought into the system to the extent they believe they must obey the system and the system must be changed for them to be free." Frederick Mann - http://www.mind-trek.com/reports/tl50c.htm

"Libertarianism is typically formulated as a theory of the permissible use of force. This political libertarianism holds that the use of force is permissible just in case it violates no one's libertarian rights (e.g., is consensual or is necessary to prevent a rights violation). Here we will briefly note two other topics that libertarianism could be taken to address. One is moral permissibility in general. Libertarianism, that is, could be taken as giving a full moral theory of permissible action. This ethical libertarianism says that an action is permissible just in case it violates no one's libertarian rights. This is a much more radical doctrine than political libertarianism. For it denies that there are any impersonal duties and that there are any non-enforceable duties owed to others. Most political libertarians probably reject ethical libertarianism." - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/libertarianism/#5

--Alfrem 22:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm reluctant to respond to Alfrem, but I'd like to point out that these quotes do not seem to support his assertion that libertarianism is not a political philosophy. Rhobite 23:52, July 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * It is not my assertion to coin Libertarianism as non-political. It is your assertion to claim it must be political. --Alfrem 08:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Just because those within this extremely narrow community believe some wierd argument about the term "political" does not mean that it should be addressed in the summary. In addition, the term "political philosophy" has nothing to do with their argument but with a categorization of general thought.  --Noitall 23:58, July 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * A categorization of general thought is not: Libertarianism = political philosophy. The most books about political philosophy don't deal with Libertarianism. Also, political philosophy is giving no empirical evidence. --Alfrem 08:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Good Lord. Alfrem has just quoted someone as saying that there is a political component to Libertarianism... so much for the philosophy never dealing with politics!
 * Anyway, now that Alfrem has finally provided sources, it might be worthwhile to note that some Libertarians do not believe it to be a political philosophy, while others do. - Ta bu shi da yu


 * I don't think so. "Libertarian" has several obscure meanings in philosophy, depending on what you're talking about, and that's all the Plato article is saying. For example, "libertarian" in the context of moral philosophy means someone who thinks we have free will. Unless you plan to fork and disambiguate the page into several separate articles (such as Libertarianism (political philosophy) I think it's fine for Wikipedia to stick with the common definition. After all, anyone who even knows the various definitions of libertarian isn't likely to be looking here for them. --Malathion 02:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The common definition is even not to call it "political". All better sources (Rothbard, Hoppe, Block, de Jasay, D.Friedman) avoid the misleading term "political". --Alfrem 08:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * There is no general "political component to Libertarianism". There are some liberal applications mixed in libertarian thinking which are not general accepted (limited government) of all libertarians. "Libertarian philosophy" is not "Libertarian philosophy". But you lump all together. --Alfrem 08:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * "Libertarian philosophy" is not "Libertarian philosophy". Uh-huh. Thanks for clearing that up for us all, Alfrem. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * wow. Dave (talk) 15:14, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Ta bu shi da yu blocked Alfrem 48 h and runs riot in the article. I am not clear by which right.--80.131.0.46 08:48, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 80.131.0.46 appears to BE Alfrem, based on his edits to the Libertarianism article, plus the IP resolves to a german ISP. It is not certain how his actions are anything other then pure vandalism at this point.  If he needs to lie, there's something wrong with his position. - Chairboy 14:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * ArbCom is aware of the situation. They're probably going to treat this IP (and any others that act like Alfrem) as sockpuppets. --Malathion 15:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Temp injunction
The arbitration committee has issued a temporary injunction, prohibiting Alfrem from editing this article pending the outcome of your arbitration case. Furthermore, ''It shall be presumed that any user, such as 80.131.0.46... who makes Alfrem's trademark edit, removal of the phrase "Libertarianism is a political philosophy[2]," from the article is a sockpuppet of Alfrem. Such sockpuppets may be banned indefinitely if practical.'' &rarr;Raul654 20:56, July 13, 2005 (UTC)