Talk:Virginia Postrel/Archive 1

Broadly Libertarian?
The idea that she is "broadly libertarian" is playing really fast and loose with the word "broadly". Her time at Reason magazine was a downward turn ideologically for historic libertarianism. Her concern for making a once great and consistent magazine into acceptable to the mainstream was a stain for Reason. She is not even "broadly libertarian". In one of her blogs she now say she no longer writes on these issues. In my opinion she should have never written on them. I think she has found her niche as a speaker on the very substantive field of "glamour". --76.31.242.174 (talk) 03:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, unless you have any sources: whatever.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

"Yeah..whatever"? Thats your big comeback? Cmnon there I know you have more than that. Please go to her site and read her blogs or do a search of "libertarianism" on her search engine. The only reason I haven't mentioned this on the main article is that I don't think it would last up there. Folks like yourself would have their feelings hurt, which is fine nothing wrong with that. Also I did put up the last reference note to the link "Whose Afraid of Virginia Postrel" that does an excellent job detailing the sad case of Reason magazine under her, although its still does some good writing, it sounds more like a Republican party magazine. And like I said I think she has found her niche in lecturing on pop culture/glamour/style/fashion. She should stick to it, really. BTW I checked your profile and guess what!? You and I are not too unlike. You see I too am a Geocentrist. So lets not become antagonists over this and unite to convince the world that Galileo was wrong. We shouldn't let this divide us. We have bigger fish to fry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.242.174 (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Justin Rainmondo's article calls Postrel "guru of the 'dymamist' trend in libertarianism" which says to me that even he considers her a libertarian although they obviously have serious disagreements. She's clearly a libertarian. She doesn't stop being one simply because she chooses to focus her writing on things other than politics. —D. Monack talk 23:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You're kidding me right? I say this because I know for a fact you didn't read Raimondo's article other than the first paragraph where you were able to quote him to the effect that she is a "guru of the dynamist trend" and then pretend you read him. You see if you paid very close attention, this was Raimondo's way of saying its not much of a libertarian position at all. Its just her way of trying to reinvent it and make it hip and cool as opposed to us unabashed proud old school Rothbardian libertarians who seem to embarrass her. Fine, thats her right but what Raimondo and others are saying is she and others shouldn't pretend her "dynamist libertarianism" is libertarian. I'm sorry but it's not. Please read all the way to the end or just read the last paragraph if its too long. He does not say he believes she is a libertarian, quite the opposite. Now if you read what I wrote, I didn't say she wasn't a libertarian because she has gone on to speak and write on other topics. I said she wasn't because of the turn of Reason Magazine and because of what she has written on her blogs. Its not that libertarians can't be criticized but there's a diffrence between doing so from within the circle and from without. She is clearly out. I even said she is good at being a pop/glamour critic/speaker. Really I do, no sarcasm intended. BTW my criticism is not only with her but with the general trend of Reason after her. Its not the magazine of the 60's or 70's which is very sad. --76.31.242.174 (talk) 09:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The only circle Postrel is "clearly out of" is that of the Rothbardian libertarians, who comprise one of several schools of libertarian thought. Just because she doesn't agree with your particular subset doesn't mean she's not part of the whole -- especially when the disagreements Raimondo points out amidst his torrent of bile are on entirely one topic: US foreign policy. You may think that libertarian principles dictate a total non-interventionist policy, but not all libertarians agree with you and not all major figures agree with Rothbard on that point -- Ayn Rand, for example, who is easily as influential as him if not more so. Your (apparent) position that your view should be a litmus test of who is and isn't a "real" libertarian is no more valid than an Objectivist putting forth atheism as such a test. --Emamid (talk) 21:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

When did I say (or even apparently) that my view should be the litmus test ? I didnt. I was defending Rothbards libertarianism against Postrel's mischaracterizations. Those libertarians who support an internationalist FP are on the very obscure end of what can be labeled a "libertariansm". I never said that Rothbard was the only school of libertarianism but it most certainly is the one of the most important and serious branches of it. Today it is much more influential than Rands' followers. Postrel represents a new and improved look that really has no resemblance to any school of historic libertarianism. Frankly, nothing you wrote contradcited it. Point out what "bile" was in Raimondo's piece. If pointing out Postrel's maligning and baseless accusations of others like Rothbard is "bile" then he is guilty as charged. Otherwise it just seems you have nothing to substatiantiate your charge. I think a libertarian approach to war and FP does indeed call for a non interventionist policy. Those libertarians who do call for an interventionist FP are in the minority and their arguments are not very libertarian in their reasoning. Im familiar with her so dynamism and that is the basis for my rejecting what she has to say as serious libertariansim if its that at all. --76.31.242.174 (talk) 05:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Apology
The line at the end seemed out of place and weird, in regards to her history. I checked the link, and what is there can be called an apology I guess, but it's one guy. One single guy, who was obviously harangued into feeling bad. So I made it accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.239.111.76 (talk) 16:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)