The rhetoric of libertarianism is often qualified by a political discourse because it is what people may observe in a life determined by politics. People see at first of all what's going on in the media about libertarian parties to reduce the state and to pave the way to a laissez-faire culture. But it is not the basic message of libertarianism to enforce its content by a parliament. The consequence of the libertarian core would be to refuse all government intervention but it wouldn't only be to reduce government to a neoliberal level or to a minimal state without the right to secede. One may ask ultimately if that can be libertarian at all, because it will tend in best case to an utilitarian kind of "freedom" but not to libertarian laws.
The minarchist philosopher Robert Nozick posed the basic issue of all legal theory: "The fundamental question of political philosophy, one that precedes questions about how the state should be organized, is whether there should be any state at all. Why not have anarchy?" (Anarchy, State and Utopia, 1974) This issue is not really answered by the major contemporary political philosophers and theorists, unless in a circular way to support a preconceived positive view of the role of the state, e.g. by citing Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan. Nozick himself did it in an other way, attracting criticism from the anarcho-capitalist camp[citation needed] and rather positive attention from statists.[citation needed] Given Nozick's premise that it doesn't make sense to debate subtypes of state when the state itself has no affirmative basis, the result must be as Hans-Hermann Hoppe describes:
"Just look at Ludwig von Mises and Murray N. Rothbard. The two greatest economists and social philosophers of the 20th century were both essentially unacceptable and unemployable by the academic establishment. ... Despite all obstacles, it was possible for Mises and Rothbard to make themselves heard. They were not condemned to silence. They still taught and published. They still addressed audiences and inspired people with their insights and ideas. ... Rothbard had The Ludwig von Mises Institute, which supported him, helped publish and promote his books, and provided the institutional framework that allowed him to say and write what needed to be said and written, and that can no longer be said and written inside academia and the official, statist establishment media."[1]
So some of the most consequential libertarian scholars must work outside the academic establishment. But what has been done instead in the official, political institutions by liberal and minarchist thinkers who (less consequential) are willing to use the state as a social regulator for whatever reason? Milton Friedman and others have successfully promoted useful political concepts which may be necessary to the effective functioning of even an exploitative statist system (in the view of social scientists such as Franz Oppenheimer).
Rothbard (The Ethics of Liberty, 1982) explained his view of the actual task of political philosophy:
"In our view the major task of “political science” or better, “political philosophy” is to construct the edifice of natural law pertinent to the political scene. That this task has been almost completely neglected in this century by political scientists is all too clear. Political science has either pursued a positivistic and scientistic “model building,” in vain imitation of the methodology and content of the physical sciences, or it has engaged in purely empirical fact-grubbing. The contemporary political scientist believes that he can avoid the necessity of moral judgments, and that he can help frame public policy without committing himself to any ethical position. And yet as soon as anyone makes any policy suggestion, however narrow or limited, an ethical judgment—sound or unsound—has willy-nilly been made. The difference between the political scientist and the political philosopher is that the “scientist’s” moral judgments are covert and implicit, and therefore not subject to detailed scrutiny, and hence more likely to be unsound. Moreover, the avoidance of explicit ethical judgments leads political scientists to one overriding implicit value judgment-that in favor of the political status quo as it happens to prevail in any given society. At the very least, his lack of a systematic political ethics precludes the political scientist from persuading anyone of the value of any change from the status quo.
In the meanwhile, furthermore, present-day political philosophers generally confine themselves, also in a Wertfrei manner, to antiquarian descriptions and exegeses of the views of other, long gone political philosophers. In so doing, they are evading the major task of political philosophy, in the words of Thomas Thorson, “the philosophic justification of value positions relevant to politic.”
In order to advocate public policy, therefore, a system of social or political ethics must be constructed. In former centuries this was the crucial task of political philosophy. But in the contemporary world, political theory, in the name of a spurious “science,” has cast out ethical philosophy, and has itself become barren as a guide to the inquiring citizen. The same course has been taken in each of the disciplines of the social sciences and of philosophy by abandoning the procedures of natural law."[2]
There is a second reason why libertarianism must be rather an apolitical idea (i.e. to do something without government) originated in the meaning of the former Greek term of politics, i.e. 'polis'. So the 'Demos', referring to the population of an ancient Greek state, was the decided group within the process, by which uniform rules are made, should work. But there is no claim in libertarianism to make collective decisions within groups in a political process except that activism of inconsequently political groups considered to be made by "Libertarians". So 'politics' is historically and usually a term for a statist society to form the state. That doesn't belong to an anarchistic original interpretation of libertarianism. Consequently, the NAP (or libertarianism in its core) is not even content of the curriculum in any predominating political science or any reference book of political philosophy.
One may also understand libertarianism as a private intention to define the proper use of force. Such potential of behavior is described as "private law enforcement" or "security agencies". But just these issues are totally ignored in any bibliography of political philosphy. Also, libertarianism doesn't contain any intention to form a decided society. People could voluntarily agree to live in a Stalinist society, for example, without violating a single libertarian principle. But libertarian scholars rather eye the term 'society' suspiciously, because society don't act. Since only individuals act, the focus of study for the libertarian theorist is always on the individual.
For the record
For the record, I am not a minarchist. I'm not even a libertarian. Your personal attacks are as poorly aimed as they are misguided. — Saxifrage✎17:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apology and warning
My apologies for mispelling your username. From now on I will be sure to get the "er" right. I don't see how it's relevant to improving Libertarianism though. Now, as for your inappropriate and unceasing accusations of "troll":
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. — Saxifrage✎16:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alfrem/Irgendwer: If you continue making personal attacks you'll probably be involved in another arbitration case. I think you should focus on discussing the content of the libertarianism article instead of calling other users names. Rhobite16:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The No personal attacks policy disagrees with that. Regarding your insistence on calling editors you disagree with vandals, here is a {{npa2}} template for you:
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. .
For your information, calling editors who disagree with your edits "offended minarchist psychopaths" is a personal attack. I just wanted to be sure you know that it qualifies as a personal attack, as you have in the past been somewhat clueless as to what does and does not qualify in the past. If you continue despite the repeated warnings you have been given, my next action will be to ask an administrator to block you temporarily for violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Hopefully you understand that such attacks are unacceptable and that step won't be necessary. — Saxifrage✎18:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry. It is my hoenst opinion about some minarchists. I don't say it to insult you. I is the same to say that fat persons are fat when they ask if their are fat. You are too tetchy or too much minarchist. And you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia polices. "There is a difference between "You are a troll" and "You are acting like a troll"". --Irgendwer20:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it is my honest opinion that you are an evil baby-eater, it is against Wikipedia policy for me to say so, even though it might be my honest opinion. I'm sorry you feel that policy doesn't apply to you and that you persist in misunderstanding policy (you are saying "you are a troll", not "you are acting like a troll") when it has been pointed out so often. Since you are unapologetic and insisting that you are justified in continued personal attacks, I am asking an administrator to review your behaviour and issue a block if they feel it is warranted. — Saxifrage✎23:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have said, "you are an evil baby-eater". I say, "I think about some Minarchist that ..." It is your problem when you take my defintion about some minarchist on yourself. This produces just evidence for me that I am right. --Irgendwer05:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Irgendwer, I have tried to be reasonable, but I'm sorry to say that I'm getting frustrated. From your very first reply to me ([3]), it was apparent that you weren't going to be showing me much respect. That's fine, I'll deal with that, I've been on the internet for years, and I've got a pretty thick skin. At the same time, I would say that you've shown disregard for core policies like WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, with retorts along the lines of "so what?" and other attempts to evade serious discussion ([4][5][6][7][8]). Unfortunately, you seem to resort to personal attacks against your fellow editors on a regular basis ([9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] and plenty more) despite numerous friendly warnings from some of the very same people you've insulted ([18][19][20][21][22][23][24]). Please reconsider your behavior and stay cool, even in heated discussions. Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. Regards, Luna Santin19:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry. It is my hoenst opinion about some minarchists. I don't say it to insult you. I is the same to say that fat persons are fat when they ask if their are fat. You are too tetchy or too much minarchist. And you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia polices. "There is a difference between "You are a troll" and "You are acting like a troll"". --Irgendwer20:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your apology, but I'm not sure if you understand the gravity of what I'm saying. "Troll" certainly does seem to be your favorite word: [25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37]. That's just from a quick glance at your contribs. Should we bring up the prior Irgendwer RfC? I will ask, one more time, as politely as I can manage: please cease and desist your continued personal attacks against other editors. Thank you. Luna Santin06:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gladly -- just so long as you remain civil and avoid personal attacks against other users. I encourage you to keep a cool head. I would much rather that we discuss our differences calmly and peacefully. Luna Santin07:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've provided 34 diffs, 22 of which contain personal attacks. You've repeatedly called other users trolls, stupid, or even psychopaths [38]. Please look at some of those links, and/or read over the no personal attacks policy. I remain, as always, more than happy to discuss our differences of opinion, but I must insist that the discussion be civil and constructive. Regards, Luna Santin08:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you admin, a self called sherrif, an attorney of other people, or do you have to notice any current personal attack against you? --Irgendwer09:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an administrator, but I'm afraid that's beside the point. Personal attacks are not acceptable on Wikipedia, per the above-cited policy. Luna Santin09:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removing Warnings
Please do not remove messages from your talk page. Talk pages exist as a record of communication, and in any case, comments are available through the page history. You're welcome to archive your talk page, but be sure to provide a link to any deleted comments. Thanks. Paul Cyr22:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You may archive comments. Except in cases of clear vandalism, you shouldn't remove warnings from your talk page. If you feel a warning was made in bad faith, you should report it to WP:AN and ask someone to remove it. Paul Cyr06:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can archive but it is not forbidden to delete done message. "...erasing non-harassing personal messages without replying ... will probably be interpreted as hostile." The counterpart is to me: I may delete done messages. The user talk page is to talk with other users, not to archive needless crap. Please, where is this sentence supported: "Except in cases of clear vandalism, you shouldn't remove warnings from your talk page."? --Irgendwer07:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting the comments of other users from article Talk pages, aside from removal of internal spam, or deleting entire sections of talk pages, is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long Talk page to a separate file and then remove the text from the main Talk page. The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where users generally are permitted to remove and archive comments at their discretion, except in cases of warnings, which they are generally prohibited from removing, especially where the intention of the removal is to mislead other editors.
1. So, I still may delete done messages. 2. I have asked you for a official policy. Wikipedia:Removing warnings is no official policy. Where does your bold description come from? I cannot accept that users misuse wrong warnings (intentionally or not) to discredit me and than they leave the arena without my eyesore. --Irgendwer09:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eh! Your are not questioned. I am not so boring that I must spread your imputations to the next institution. Either it is an official policy or it is not. I think not. If not then it is not my problem. You can also go to administration. --Irgendwer10:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, I see. Thought you were referring to my earlier messages. To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure whether or not such blankings are expressly forbidden under policy, but in the event that all of this does end up at ArbComm or AN/I, I have a strong hunch it'd be frowned upon. I personally had no plans to revert you on that count, but the discussion is visible in the page history, anyway. I'm concerned about the escalation of the situation, but if that's what it takes for us all to find a resolution, then... I guess we'll head down that road. Whatever happens in the next few days/weeks, I wish you nothing but the best. Luna Santin10:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I understand. I should also leave warnings on these users talk pages when they make a controversial remark. Then they cannot delete the warning from their talk page and must die with it. Fine troll tactic. :-( --Irgendwer13:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you actually read what I said, you would have seen the part that says that you can take the issue to WP:AN and ask someone else to remove it.
Regarding your troll comment comment about my tactics being that of a troll:
You called my comment a "troll comment". Why? This is a personal attack. I will leave a warning on your user talk page. --Irgendwer22:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it would violate WP:AGF at this point to say that you knew that "your troll comment" refers to your comment where you said "Fine troll tactic". I've fixed it for you. Paul Cyr23:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now I can read that you asume that I wrote of "YOUR" troll tactics. So, you asume bad faith (again). I will leave a warning on your user talk page. --Irgendwer05:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removing warnings is generally not a good thing. Is there a solid policy on it? No. But on the other hand, it simply isn't a good idea. It sends all of the wrong messages. #1 It's assuming bad faith. It's saying that you are not accepting the warning and that you are assuming that others are placing the warning on your page due to malace or some other invalid reason. Paul is not the type of user who puts warnings on talk pages willy nilly. None of us are. So when you see a warning, you need to keep it there and accept that you made a mistake and move on. #2 It's an accepted convention that removing warnings is a bad thing and should not be done. How do I know this? Well for one thing, we have a Template:Usertalk-vprotect template that is used when blocked users are removing warnings from their userpages. And also, I know that if you asked admins, the vast majority have blocked someone due to them removing warnings from their talk page or they at least see it as something that should be avoided. #3 There is no hard and true policy on this but there isn't on alot of our conventions. It's much like the 3 revert rule, where it clearly states that just because users can revert up to 3 times in a 24 hour period doesn't mean that they SHOULD.
Because of all of this, just don't remove the warnings. I would recommend what Paul recommended. If you object, take it to AN or AN/I but do not remove the warnings. If you feel like you are being picked on or think you should be left alone because if you haven't done anything wrong, take it to AN or AN/I. That's what those forums are there for. Thanks. --Woohookitty(meow)08:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You say: "Paul is not the type of user who puts warnings on talk pages willy nilly." The fact for me is he have put a warning on my talk page willy nilly. Please remove it when you are honest. BTW: I am not the type of user who must weep on so.'s shoulder. It is easier for me to change to a new account. --Irgendwer08:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We've given you the procedure for this. Follow it instead of removing warnings. And please don't threaten to use sockpuppets. You are just going to get yourself into more trouble that way. --Woohookitty(meow)11:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How nice! Are you not competent for removing wrong warnings? Your other hint is also brazen. To change to a new account is no sockpuppetery. --Irgendwer12:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to be as patient as possible here, but you are on thin ice given your recent behavior and your previous blocks. Just please follow the procedure that you have been given. And I wouldn't recommend suggesting that an admin is not competent. There is no reason for me to remove legitimate warnings such as the ones here. --Woohookitty(meow)14:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Three-Revert Rule
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Paul Cyr04:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those are the most recent 3 edits within a 24 hour period. Both you and Saxifrage have been edit warring on that page for a few days now. Even if you do not outright violate 3RR, either of you may still be blocked for edit warring. Take the issue to the article's talk page. Paul Cyr08:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I pinpoint, 1. I don't have violate the 3RR but you blame me for 3RR. Your mistake. 2. It's true, there is a edit war. I shall take the issue on the article page. But I had done more than many times. My edit is an referenced improvement without POV. Saxifrage can't understand it or is not disposed to understand it. So he makes trouble. It's the same for me. I revert only to the more encyclopaedic version. Prove yourself. --Irgendwer09:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether or not English is your first language, but that comment made no sense to me. Please rephrase it. Paul Cyr23:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
