Archives:

• Talk:Libertarian, discussion for a page which has been merged with this article.
• Talk:Libertarianism/Archive
• Talk:Libertarianism/Archive2
• Talk:Libertarianism/Archive3
• Talk:Libertarianism/Archive4

Contents

1 Property sentence 2 Latest version 3 Redistribution of wealth 4 Private Property section 5 ACT Party of New Zealand 6 Silverback's edits 7 Notes Formatting 8 Notes 9 Ready to submit to Featured Articles? 10 You may be asking why Dave is cutting so much from the article....

Property sentence

There seems to be a dispute over the last sentence here: "Libertarians do not consider the kind of authority that property provides the owner to be dangerous, as some anarchists do. To libertarians, such power is diffuse and fleeting, and ultimately subject to the constraints of the marketplace. Libertarians see this decentralized authority as less dangerous than any centralized, monopoly authority that uses force." Radicalsub says: the sentence implies that (anti-capitalist) anarchists do believe in "any centralized, monopoly authority that uses force", when in fact they don't. However, that's not what the sentence means. It is answering the charge that property constitutes a state or a major danger. To see it as a criticism of anarcho-socialists is a misreading. - Nat Krause 10:51, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The fact that two reasonably experienced editors read it that way indicates that it probably needs to be rewritten or relocated. RadicalSubversiv E 16:13, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hopefully everyone likes this version:

Libertarians do not consider the kind of authority that property provides the owner to be dangerous, as some anarchists do. To libertarians, such power is diffuse and fleeting, and ultimately subject to the constraints of the marketplace. Many anarchists, however, see it as part of the same hierarchy as the centralized, coercive monopoly of modern states that both groups oppose.

(I edited it, posted it here, and re-edited it. This is the most current version.) Dave (talk) 17:21, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Your version is very good. What was then appended to it was not, and I removed it given that it imports several hidden assumptions and relies on what appears to be a straw-man anyway. I need to emphasize here that there is nothing wrong with giving these arguments as explication of libertarianism, that is both appropriate and necessary in this article. What is inappropriate is to assign to anarchists arguments that they may or may not even hold, like for example that active redistribution of land would be necessary once the state enforced property system of today is abolished, or that a system of property enforcement can be legitimately refered to as "voluntary" or that any anarchist would seek to "prevent people" from voluntary relations in the first place.

Here is the passage: "Some libertarians contend that if there were ever to be egalitarian "redistribution" of land and capital (either forced or voluntary), that individuals would voluntarily choose to trade and an unequal distribution of resources would again result in time, and, that the only ways to prevent people from engaging in trade are through persuasion or coercion. As libertarians believe that trade tends to be mutually beneficial, attempts to persuade individuals against trading when they insist there is benefit in it would be futile. This would leave anarchists or socialists with nothing but the hope that others would see merit in arguments that extoll the benefits of refraining from trade and rejecting private ownership of property." Kev 01:26, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Latest version

The latest version of the above passage now contradicts itself. A move has been made to include socialists in general into the passage, and that was proceeded with the reinsertion of the appended portion above which did not apply to anarchists but does to socialists. But now the passage reads that socialists in general oppose centralized monopolies, which is plainly false in the case of state socialists, and the appended portion which is now properly replying to the state socialist position is -still- presenting an anarchist position that does not exist. I'm trying to correct this, but it would be helpful if editors like RJ would discuss this rather than simply reinserting inappropriate edits. Kev 04:54, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I should add that making this section NPOV now makes it far too long and too much of a tangent. The subject is supposed to be libertarianism, and in this section it should not be diverted into long libertarian exposition on other ideologies. I would prefer the whole part to be removed and restored to the version Dave made, but if RJ insists on adding these libertarian "responses" then the state socialist and anarchist positions simply can't remain conflated as they are. Kev 05:00, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure you would like to see it removed. But it's an important part of libertarian/capitalist philosophy. I'll take out the reference to anarchism if it bothers you. RJII 05:05, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't fix the problem. The referance to anarchism was there because it further informed on the libertarian position to indicate that it does not consider property to be coercive in nature. But if this section is going to be used as nothing more than a soap box for deriding other ideologies, it needs to at least get its facts straight, and the fact is that state socialism is the only thing libertarianism is being compared to in your edits while it is not the only thing open to comparison. Kev 05:16, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, it's relevant to socialism -state or stateless. RJII 05:46, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The responses you have inserted are relevant -only- to those forms of socialism that believe that a "redistribution" of wealth is necessary. Many anarchists, who are themselves socialists, do not believe that redistribution is necessary when the current active enforcement of capital ends. That you want to suppress this view and conflate these different positions speaks volumes to your bias. Kev 08:31, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Redistribution of wealth

"Libertarians would accept, for the most part, the problematic nature of the existing arrangement of wealth, but only allow future transfers of wealth to occur through what they consider voluntary means."

This statement is proceeded by the claim that libertarians do not support a redistribution of wealth. Either that statement needs to be qualified, or the qualification in this statement needs to be removed, because at the moment they contradict. Kev 17:41, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Read the sentence a little closer. It says "for the most part." Looks like a "qualification" to me. RJII 18:19, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Uh... yeah... that is the point. This is going to be very hard to get through to you, isn't it? Okay, why don't you reread what I wrote and try one more time before I have to explain it to you, because this is just too funny atm.

No, nvm, I have no hope that you will figure this out. Okay, check it out. In the above statement the qualification "for the most part" indicates that libertarians -would not- accept the entire nature of existing wealth. In other words, that they -would- support some form of limited redistribution. If this is true, then the passage that comes before this one needs to be changed make it clear that they do in fact support redistribution, just not egalitarian redistribution. If it is not true, as I already said, the qualifier needs to be removed. Kev 18:25, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you're saying. You should have said so in the first place. Most would not support any "redistribution" whatsoever, unless someone is holding stolen property. I can modify it. RJII 18:28, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Great. Mind you, I did say so in the first place, quite explicitly, but I'm very happy that communication eventually took place anyway. Kev 18:30, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No you didn't. RJII

FYI, not all libertarians accept that the current distribution of wealth is problematic, and they disagree on the extent to which it should be protected if it is problematic. But, I would expect the consensus on the second point would be at least "for the most part". - Nat Krause 05:16, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Private Property section

There is way too much criticism from socialists and anarchists in the Private Property section. This is not supposed to be a place to have back-and-forth arguments but to present the philosophy. There are other sections specifically for criticism. I suppose it's ok for now, to get libertarian positions worked out, but eventually I think the criticisms should be taken out. It makes for a really awkward encyclopedia entry. The socialists or leftist anarchists should really lighten up and not be so paranoid (actually it seems to be just one person). It's not like this article is going to change the world and convert everyone to libertarianism. Just let the libertarians to decribe their philosophy. Criticise in a criticism section. RJII 02:26, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

RJ, you have biased every single section that has been unfortunate enough to been edited by you, you are not describing philosophy, you are preaching rhetoric. I only added in the part on anarchists because you didn't even preach properly, in that you kept describing anarchists as holding views that they do not by conflating all socialists with state socialists. But yes, I'm going to try and leave the article alone for a bit, if only in the hopes that you will tire of your edit spree and move on so that it can be fixed later. Kev 03:40, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good riddance. RJII 12:51, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hehe, given that, I gotta say buddy, NVM. Kev 18:15, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kev, you put back in "Transfers of private property are only considered legitimate when the result of trade or gift, or when enough time has passed that they can no longer be certain of the legitimacy of its origin" after I deleted it the part after the comma and explained why. This is false. There are no exceptions to the rule that transfers of private property are only considered legitimate when the result of trade of gift --there are no additional ways to legitimately obtain property. What kind of point are you trying to get across? RJII 22:29, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The point that if one steals property, or murders everyone who owned it, or obtained it through taxation, or whatever, all of that is considered to be perfectly legitimate after enough time has passed that it supposedly can no longer be determined whether or not that property was actually obtained legitimately. Case in point, libertarians do not believe that U.S. land should be handed back to the native american descents whose ancestors it was stolen from, and whom were killed in large numbers to make the land more readily available. Kev 22:42, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok, but that doesn't negate the fact that libertarians think the only way property may legitimately be obtained is through trade or gift. Libertarians don't think stealing property is legit regardless of how long ago it occured. The point about past stolen property is already made earlier in that section isn' it? It doesn't make sense with that sentence. The only ways that libertarians think that property can be legitimately transferred is trade or gift ..there are no other ways. RJII 23:41, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think libertarians consider it more of an injustice that can't be reversed or can't be determined with certainty. This makes it "indeterminate", not "legitimate". And as a libertarian, I find it very condescending to see you tell me what I believe. The article is supposed to explain what libertarians purport to believe. It's not POV, because the article doesn't claim any of these beliefs are true, it's just factual, because libertarians actually do believe these things. Philwelch 23:38, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So you are saying that it is considered acceptable for libertarians to trade "indeterminate" property in the same way they do "legitimate" property? If so, then for all practical purposes it is considered legitimate. If not, then the article is currently misrepresenting libertarianism. If it really is strictly true that libertarians think property is only legitimate when transfered through trade or gift, then there should be some other kind of response to "indeterminate" property. Kev 02:54, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's a well-reasoned dispute to libertarian principles on the issue. However, that does nothing to further clarify what libertarian principles on the issue are. Your being able to credibly indict a certain part of an ideology as contradictory (credibly, but not uncontroversially, so it's still an issue of POV) does not mean that the part of the ideology you are critiquing is not, in fact, part of the ideology. Philwelch 03:51, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that there was an actual contradiction here, I assumed it was an artifact of the editing process. If this is an actual criticism of libertarianism, then I'm sure it exists in some form somewhere already and ought be added to the criticism section, but I'm still wondering if it isn't actually that the philosophy is being described in non-npov ways. Again, if it is true that this "indeterminate" property can be traded in the same way as "legitimate" property, then it is POV for the article to say that libertarians only trade in legitimate property, or even to say that they only trade in property they believe is legitimate, since neither is necessarily the case. Kev 18:26, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The personal "trading" habits of libertarians aside, find this criticism somewhere else and add it to the criticisms section if you want. But it would be considered original research if you can't find another source.. Philwelch 18:49, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll admit I haven't been following this section during the past week very well. I hope the current version is acceptable to everyone. I'm not sure what all the concerns are, but I hope the quotes addess some of them. If not, I'll change it. Dave (talk) 17:41, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's at all worth stress from anyone, but the following passage I don't think is entirely accurate:

Theft is considered illegitimate regardless of how long ago it occured, and some even concede that the existing structure of wealth has been influenced by past coercion, but libertarians tend to oppose reparations that do not involve the thief and victim directly. For most practical purposes, such property is treated as legitimate: if the original participants are long dead, taking property from its current owner and giving it to the victim's descendents is considered initiation of force, and the property remains with its current holder. For example, on the subject of reparations for slavery, Steve Dasbach , executive director of the Libertarian Party said that "Forcing people who had nothing to do with slavery to pay others who were never enslaved is the height of injustice and will only exacerbate racial tension in America."

a) some libertarians (especially moderate, Reason magazine types) believe in statutes of limitations.

What would you like to see done with this issue?Dave (talk)

I don't know yet, I'll think about it. Shouldn't most of this stuff be discussed at property rather than here? - Nat Krause 18:57, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the libertarian views on property are distinct enough to deserve their own discussion. Maybe it could go in like a "libertarian views on property" article, though. Dave (talk) 19:17, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

b) "even concede ... influenced", is an odd way to put it -- it would seem hard to deny an influence; the questions (as far as I am aware) are what is the extent of this influence, what effect will it have on people in the future, and what can or can't be done about it?

I'll see what I can do with the wording. I'm not an expert on this point, I only know what a few authors think about this issue. Dave (talk)

Yeah, I can see where it's hard to get the nuance right. - Nat Krause 18:57, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

c) "taking property from its current owner and giving it to the victim's descendents is considered initiation of force" doesn't exactly fit with the example statement, "Forcing people who had nothing to do with slavery to pay others who were never enslaved ..." If I am really in possession of property that was stolen from your ancestor 200 years ago, then I don't have "nothing to do" with whatever the initial crime was. I think what most libertarians object to is taking and giving property when no claim can be proven (which is why possession is 9/10 of the law).

I'm not sure what you're getting at. The libertarian dude I quoted is saying that posession is having "nothing to do" with it. He obviously doesn't agree that posession is the issue. Most libertarians would argue that force is the issue, not posession. Dave (talk)

I'm not sure that's what he's saying at all. I can think of two distinct situations: 1) I am descended from a guy who stole some money from your great-grandfather. You want me to give you some money; 2) You are descended from a guy who had some money stolen from him. You want the government to tax people and then give you some money. You might have different reasons for opposing both suggestions, but the second one is a lot more clearcut, because in the that case the people who are paying really have nothing to do with the matter. The first sentence fragment quoted above seems to refer to the first situation, but the second seems to refer to the second. Am I misreading something? - Nat Krause 18:57, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I see your point. I think the two issues get conflated a lot in reparations debates. I think the ancestory-is-responsibility argument is usually implied. Plus, even if it isn't, the article doesn't say anything about the ancestory of the current property holder--it just says that (s)he has property that was once stolen. You can read the press release (which I forgot to put a link for originally) here

d) one point that is not brought up here is the idea a lot of libertarians, such as Ayn Rand, have had, that the initial distribution of assets is largely irrelevant because it will quickly move toward a just distribution in a free economy; I wonder if someone can dig up a Rand quote?

I'll see what I can do. It shouldn't be hard. Dave (talk)

ACT Party of New Zealand

Why is this party being deleted from this list of libertarian parties? [1] It is party whose philosophy is libertarian. A party doesn't have to have "libertarian" in the name to be a libertarian party; libertarianism is a philosophy. It may not be *as* libertarian as very small "Libertarianz" party, but their philosophy is still libertarian. RJII 17:45, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, you misplaced the link for first (there's a "list of libertarian parties" further up for internal links, external links belong where you put it). Secondly, ACT calls themselves "The Liberal Party", they don't refer to themselves as libertarian. Philwelch 18:45, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether they call themselves "libertarian." If you look at their web page, it's clearly a libertarian philosophy --maybe not as extremist as some prefer. They call themselves "classical liberals." RJII 19:47, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alright, it's not that big of a deal, although libertarianism is arguably the radical wing of classical liberalism. Philwelch 19:56, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is from an article in Liberty magazine: "If by "libertarian," we mean a person who favors radically reducing the power of government, then it is safe to say that libertarians are vastly more influential and prominent in New Zealand than in the United States. New Zealand has two different libertarian political parties: ACT (more formally, the Association of Consumers and Taxpayers) and the Libertarianz." [2] RJII 20:13, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Some more info: "ACT's philosophy is spelled out in Douglas' book, Unfinished Business. ACT New Zealand wants to eliminate government in health, education and pensions, and abolish the income tax" [3] RJII 20:13, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Silverback's edits

Some of them were good, but I rolled back a couple and modified his addition to property. Here are my reasons:

• changed the style of the big addition to property to make it more concise
• changed "affirmative action" back to "racial discrimination" because it's about things like segregation. Added "health care" (like social security) as another example of a positive right that's now the status quo and changed the text back to "many rights". Other examples include the Americans with Disabilities Act, public schools, police, fire protection, negative income taxes, medicare, medicaid...... I'd say that's many. If you want more, I'll come up with more.
• Hayek wasn't skeptical of the paleolibertarian movement because he was dead at the time. Added Silverback's comment about Hayek being popular with conservatives.
• reworded deferral of consumption, which was a good point.

I just wanted to make sure everyone saw what I was doing. Dave (talk)

It may be verbose but I think the list of choices, rather than your concise language, makes clear the types of choices that most people think people should be free to make. There is a tradition of criticism where supporters of freedom are accused of not being willing to help people who make bad choices and suffer the consequences of poverty, of course, statist types think people should be prevented from making those choices by a government that make them for them. This list makes it clear that choices that most people believe people should be able to make, also have wealth implications, and people can make them without necessarily having regrets, but knowing they are making a wealth effecting choice. Even some of those who ended up wealthy may have really preferred one of the other options.

On the deferral of consumption, I think my language is more self explanatory than the "costs of deferral". People might wonder what those are, when the deferral of consumption is itself the cost, and the store of value in savings and capital represents the amount that was not consumed. After all, someone who has accumulated a pile of savings, has really put far less of a burdon on the economy than someone that spent and consumed that amount instead. If the resources of the economy were all being consumed, there would be none left over to dedicate to improving the productivity of labor, through capital equipment or planning improved organization and management.

The other changes are improvements, thanx. --Silverback 18:51, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. Dave (talk) I think this is better. Check it out. Dave (talk) 19:05, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Was yours really a good faith summary? Only mentioning some people choosing "art or dance" seems dismissive of the point. Many other decisions effect wealth distribution, education, training, religious orders, returns to simpler, perhaps traditional life styles. Some people just don't live to work, but have other goals. People who object to unequal income distribution, are either forcing other people to subsidize these choices or are precluding the choices and forcing all to work and contribute as others see fit. If you value liberty then you must also accept material inequality. Of course, material inequality is a very narrow perspective, many who make other choices have no regrets about their decision and count themselves ahead by other standards.--Silverback 06:52, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're questioning my good faith. You seem to think everything else I've done is an improvement, so I'm not sure why you'd attribute ulterior motives to me on this. You're welcome to fix anything you don't agree with. In the mean time, I'm paraphrasing what you just said and trying to work it in. Dave (talk) 14:27, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

I hope you like this better. I think "art or dance" were actually your words, not mine. I said "artistic expression." Cheers. Dave (talk) 14:37, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

I moved the whole thing to libertarian economic views. I think only a few pieces of it belong in the main article. If you want to put them in, feel free. I think I was probably overzealous. Dave (talk)

Notes Formatting

How do we want to format the notes section? What order do we want them in? Alphabetical? The order they're referred to? Do we repeat articles that are listed multiple times? I don't have any idea. Suggestions are welcome. Dave (talk) 14:48, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Before people comment, I thought I should point out that repeating authors won't work well with the current setup because it always goes to the first instance, as in the Hayek one (where the second one has nothing linking to it). Dave (talk)

Notes

I would like to thank Dave and everyone else responsible for the excellent notes we have at the end of the article. This really makes Wikipedia look like a professional encyclopedia. Good job! Philwelch 17:21, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks:-) User:Mozzerati did most of the work. I think he actually designed the template, and he implemented it on this page at my request. Dave (talk)

Ready to submit to Featured Articles?

I'd like to get a sense from the other editors of how they think the article is right now. My feeling is that it's just short of being featurable, but I'd like to hear from more experienced wikipedians before taking the plunge.

Thanks, Dave (talk) 21:11, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

You may be asking why Dave is cutting so much from the article....

I'm doing it because I want to get the page featured and some of the people on the featured articles candidates page are pretty strict about the length. If History of science is currently 38 kb and failed because of length, I don't think we can get away with the 50+ kb it was at earlier. So I'm moving stuff to subpages, and also cutting redundancies and wordiness, and (hopefully not too much) content. If I'm overzealous, please feel free to let me know or put stuff back. Dave (talk) 01:52, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

You removed the Private Property section. Private property is ESSENTIAL to libertarianism (as opposed to socialist libertarianism). What should be cut is the Criticism section. It's absurdly long relative to the length of the article. I'm not sure but it looks like AT LEAST half of the article is the criticism section. It's ridiculous. NPOV is one thing, but I think it goes overboard. RJII 14:33, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We could make criticism a separate article. The article on anarchism, for comparison, contains virtually no critical material in the article itself. - Nat Krause 14:50, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. RJII 15:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It can definitely be a separate article, but it must be summarized here, the same as other subpages. RadicalSubversiv E 17:41, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)