Libertarians perspectives on revolution

Libertarians perspectives on revolution

(Redirected from Anarcho-capitalist perspectives on violent revolution)
This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.
Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page.
Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the guide to deletion.

Steps to list an article for deletion: 1. {{subst:afd}} 2. {{subst:afd2|pg=Libertarians perspectives on revolution|cat=|text=}} ~~~~ (categories) 3. {{subst:afd3|pg=Anarcho-capitalist perspectives on violent revolution}} (add to top of list) 4. Please consider notifying the author(s) by placing {{subst:adw|Libertarians perspectives on revolution|Anarcho-capitalist perspectives on violent revolution}} ~~~~ on their talk page(s).
This article has been flagged for rescue.

If you help improve this article, you could prevent it from being deleted! For example, you might demonstrate that its topic is notable or verify any unsourced statements. Read the deletion discussion to find areas that need work.

Some tools for finding sources: Google News, Google Book Search, Google Scholar, FindArticles.com

As a courtesy, please keep this tag until AFD has closed.

This article or section has multiple issues. Please help improve the article or discuss these issues on the talk page.

Libertarian perspectives on revolution include the disparate views held by various libertarians on the desirability of creating fundamental change in power or organizational structures in a relatively short time. Libertarian revolutionary goals often include dissolution of current states and even the abolition of all states.
Contents
[hide]

* 1 Necessity for revolution
* 2 Methods
o 2.1 Nonviolent action
o 2.2 Non-cooperation with the state
o 2.3 Violent Rebellion or Terrorism
o 2.4 Opposition to Violence
* 3 Related topics
* 4 References

[edit] 1 Necessity for revolution

Murray Rothbard, after noting that convincing the ruling groups, and the recipients of their largesse, of their own iniquity would be almost impossible in practice, opines:
“ ...beyond the problem of education lies the problem of power. After a substantial number of people have been converted, there will be the additional task of finding ways and means to remove State power from our society. Since the state will not gracefully convert itself out of power, other means than education, means of pressure, will have to be used. What particular means or what combination of means – whether by voting, alternative institutions untouched by the State or massive failure to cooperate with the State – depends on the conditions of the time and what will be found to work or not to work. In contrast to matters of theory and principle, the particular tactics to be used – so long as they are consistent with the principles and ultimate goal of a purely free society – are a matter of pragmatism, judgment, and the inexact "art" of the tactician.[1] ”

Samuel Edward Konkin III and Wally Conger wrote:
“ "Get-Liberty-quick" schemes from anarchozionism (running away to a Promised Land of Liberty) to political opportunism will seduce the impatient and sway the incompletely informed. All will fail if for no other reason than Liberty grows individual by individual. Mass conversion is impossible. There is one exception – radicalization by statist attack against a collective. Even so, it requires entrepreneurs of Liberty to have sufficiently informed the persecuted collective so that they laze coherently libertarian-ward rather than scatter randomly or worse, flow into out-of-power statism. These Crises of Statism are spontaneous and predictable – but cannot be caused by moral, consistent libertarians.[2] ”

The Libertarian Party, U.S. platform quotes the U.S. Declaration of Independence in the “Self-determination” plank of its platform: "Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of individual liberty, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to agree to such new governance as to them shall seem most likely to protect their liberty."[3]

Lew Rockwell raises the example of the American Revolution, asking, "[w]ho writing about politics today might have joined the founding fathers in their conspiracy to overthrow imperial rule? The question is an important one because this event, more than any other in our history, embodies the core of the American political idea, that men are entitled to liberty from despots. This idea, the founders believed, ought to be acted upon by real people against really existing governments."[4]

Author Pierre Lemieux writes: "Could we say that the more powerless the tyrant, the less likely it is that the revolution will devolve into the destruction of all social authorities? If so, it would mean that a libertarian revolution now would be much less dangerous than a revolution when tyranny has become unbearable. Better to make the revolution when it does not have to be devastating; better to do it sooner than later."[5]

Professor Bruce L. Benson writes about the interaction of rebellion and state power: "Unfortunately, once an economy becomes strong, the opportunity costs of rebellion and other efforts to constrain the state become higher and the temptations to use the state as an internal wealth transfer mechanism get stronger, so resistance to the state can decline. When that happens, the state grows faster, and the economy can collapse under its weight unless the state is rolled back (New Zealand is a recent example that comes to mind)."[6]

[edit] 2 Methods

[edit] 2.1 Nonviolent action

"The Voluntaryist" is a publication founded in 1982 which promotes a libertarian form of nonviolent resistance and civil disobedience they call voluntaryism. Its statement of purpose reads: “Voluntaryists are advocates of non-political, non-violent strategies to achieve a free society. We reject electoral politics, in theory and in practice, as incompatible with libertarian principles. Governments must cloak their actions in an aura of moral legitimacy in order to sustain their power, and political methods invariably strengthen that legitimacy. Voluntaryists seek instead to delegitimize the State through education, and we advocate withdrawal of the cooperation and tacit consent on which State power ultimately depends.”[7]

Otto Guevara of Movimiento Libertario told Reason Magazine that the "revolutionaries of the 60s and 70s were all socialists. Now the natural impulse of youth to rebel is being channeled against the socialist establishment." He used as examples young people engaging in acts of "self-ownership" like tattooing and piercing, sexual liberty, the freedom to use drugs, as these are all areas where our position is appealing to the young. He described supporting one form of rebellion: "a huge, subterranean informal economy that's opposed by the larger, established companies...'el diputado pirata.' Someone wants to import and sell a used car... we said, 'what's the problem?' Used clothing, used shoes, these are big markets, and we thought it was absurd that there should be legal obstacles to people trading in these things."[8]

Libertarians support the right of individuals, communities, states and regions to secede from larger entities. Libertarian professor Walter Block writes: "Those who are not free to secede are in effect (partial) slaves to a king, or to a tyrannous majority under democracy. Nor is secession to be confused with the mere right to emigrate, even when one is allowed to take one’s property out of the country. Secession means the right to stay put, on one’s own property, and either to shift alliance to another political entity, or to set up shop as a sovereign on one’s own account."[9]

[edit] 2.2 Non-cooperation with the state

Sam Konkin was one of the foremost supporters of libertarian economic secession, advocating that the revolutionaries use counter-economics.[citation needed]

Mike Huben promotes "sovereignty." "A working libertarian experiment could be easily county sized. A tiny religious sect was able to buy control of Antelope, Oregon and relocate there a few years ago: the vastly more numerous libertarians could do much more. Privatize the roads, schools, libraries, police."[citation needed]

[edit] 2.3 Violent Rebellion or Terrorism

The book Radicals for Capitalism notes, "Libertarians have always been more likely to head to a bookstore than an armory, which some think is half the problem."[10]

In The Ethics of Liberty, Murray Rothbard notes: "To say that someone has the absolute right to a certain property but lacks the right to defend it against attack or invasion is also to say that he does not have total right to that property."[11] However, Rothbard warns against harming innocents: "...the libertarian goal, the victory of liberty, justifies the speediest possible means towards reaching the goal, but those means cannot be such as to contradict, and thereby undercut, the goal itself. We have already seen that gradualism-in-theory is such a contradictory means. Another contradictory means would be to commit aggression (e.g., murder or theft) against persons or just property in order to reach the libertarian goal of nonaggression."[12]

In 1996, Claire Wolfe, in her book 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution, asserted "America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." In September 2005, she blogged, "I admit that, somewhere between passage of the Real ID act and the brutal bureaucratic botch after Hurricane Katrina, I was slapped into the conclusion that this is the time to shoot the bastards."[13]

Libertarian and crypto-anarchist “Jim Bell tried to create an assassination market, a prediction market or dead pool where any party can place a bet on the date of death of a given individual, and collect a payoff if they "guess" the date accurately. After he was found in possession of various allegedly suspicious materials and weapons, and after placing a “stink bomb” in an Internal Revenue Service office, he was prosecuted and convicted of two felonies, for which he served eleven months in prison.[14] [15][16]

[edit] 2.4 Opposition to Violence

David D. Friedman argues in The Machinery of Freedom that "[c]ivil disorder leads to more government, not less. It may topple one government, but it creates a situation in which people desire another and stronger. Hitler's regime followed the chaos of the Weimar years. Russian communism is a second example, a lesson for which the anarchists of Kronstadt paid dear. Napoleon is a third."[17]

Linda and Morris Tannehill write in The Market for Liberty, "[n]ot only is violent revolutionary action destructive, it actually strengthens the government by giving it a 'common enemy' to unite the people against. Violence against the government by a minority always gives the politicians an excuse to increase repressive measures in the name of 'protecting the people.' In fact, the general populace usually join the politicians' cry for 'law and order.'"[18]

The Tannehills fear the tendency of revolutionary leaders to seize power: ...revolution is a very questionable way to arrive at a society without rulers, since a successful revolution must have leaders. To be successful, revolutionary action must be coordinated. To be coordinated, it must have someone in charge. And, once the revolution has succeeded, the 'Someone in Charge' (or one of his lieutenants, or even one of his enemies) takes over the new power structure so conveniently built up by the revolution. He may just want to 'get things going right,' but he ends up being another ruler. Something like this happened to the American Revolution, and look at us today."[18]

Libertarian anarchist professor Bryan Caplan argues that "when terrorism succeeds in destroying an existing government, it merely creates a power vacuum without fundamentally changing anyone's mind about the nature of power. The predictable result is that a new state, worse than its predecessor, will swiftly appear to fill the void."[19]

[edit] 3 Related topics

* Anarchism and violence
* Anarcho-capitalism and minarchism
* Controversies within libertarianism
* Nonviolent resistance
* Voluntaryists

[edit] 4 References

1. ^ Rothbard, Murray N.. "A Strategy for Liberty", For a New Liberty. ISBN 0-930073-02-9.
2. ^ Wally Conger, Samuel Edward Konkin III, New Libertarian Manifesto and Agorist Class Theory, Lulu.com, 2006, 44. ISBN 1847287719, 9781847287717
3. ^ Libertarian Party, U.S. platform
4. ^ Lew Rockwell, The General Line, LewRockwell.com, December 7, 2001.
5. ^ Pierre Lemieux personal web site.
6. ^ Bruce L. Benson, The Most Significant Market Failure, Cato Institute blog, August 15th, 2007.
7. ^ The Voluntaryist main page and "support us" page.
8. ^ Julian Sanchez, The Other Guevara, Reason interviews Costa Rica's Libertarian revolutionary, Reason Magazine interview with Otto Guevara of Movimiento Libertario, August 12, 2003.
9. ^ Walter Block, Secession, LewRockwell.com, July 2, 2002.
10. ^ Doherty, Brian. Radicals for Capitalism, 378.
11. ^ Murray Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty, Chapter 12 "Self-Defense," at Ludwig Von Mises Institute.
12. ^ Murray Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty, Chapter 30 "Toward a Theory of Strategy for Liberty," at Ludwig Von Mises Institute.
13. ^ Claire Wolfe blog
14. ^ "IRS Says Man From Tacoma Part of Plot ", The Oregonian, 1997-11-20, p. C02
15. ^ McCullagh, Declan (2000-11-11). "IRS Raids Cypherpunk's House". Politics : Law. Wired. Retrieved on 2007-11-07.
16. ^ Associated Press, "Bell gets 11 months in prison, 3 years supervised release, fine", The Oregonian, 1997-12-12.
17. ^ Friedman, David D.. "Revolution Is the Hell of It", The Machinery of Freedom, 149-150. ISBN 0-8126-9069-9.
18. ^ a b Tannehill, Morris and Linda. "The Force Which Shapes the World", The Market for Liberty, 161. ISBN 0-930073-08-8.
19. ^ Bryan Caplan, Instead of a FAQ, by a Man Too Busy to Write One, Version 5.2, section 22.

[hide]
v • d • e
Libertarianism
Schools
Agorism · Anarcho-capitalism · Autarchism · Christian libertarianism · Classical liberalism · Dialectical libertarianism · Free-market anarchism · Geolibertarianism · Green libertarianism · Individualist anarchism · Left-libertarianism · Left-Rothbardianism · Mainstream libertarianism · Minarchism · Moderate libertarianism · Mutualism · Neolibertarianism · Paleolibertarianism · Propertarianism · Right-libertarianism · Thick and thin libertarianism · Voluntaryism
Origins
Austrian School · Chicago School · Classical liberalism · Individualist anarchism · Liberalism
Ideas
Civil liberties · Consequentalism · Counter-economics · Decriminalization · Deontology · Economic freedom · Free market environmentalism · Free markets · Free trade · Free will · Freedom of contract · Homestead principle · Humanism · Individualist feminism · Individualism · Laissez-faire · Liberty · Natural rights · Night watchman state · Non-aggression · Non-interventionism · Private property · Self-government · Self-ownership · Subjectivism · Tax resistance
Topics
History · Movement · Controversies · Parties · Theories of law · Views of rights · Criticisms
Related Subjects
Civil libertarianism · Constitutionalism · Libertarian capitalism · Libertarian center · Libertarian Christianity · Libertarian conservatism · Libertarian Democrat · Libertarian progressivism · Libertarian Republican · Libertarian socialism · Libertarian transhumanism · Objectivism
Portal:Politics

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarians_perspectives_on_revolution"

This page was last modified on 2008-08-29, at 02:48:16. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.)
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.


This page was last modified on 2008-08-29, at 02:48:16. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.)
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.

Talk:Libertarians perspectives on revolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Socrates
Philosophy portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
[show]Additional information:

Related task forces (core areas):
Ethics
Related task forces (major traditions):
Anarchism
Related task forces (periods):
Contemporary philosophy
Did You Know A fact from Libertarians perspectives on revolution appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 2008-08-02.
Wikipedia
Contents
[hide]

* 1 John T. Kennedy
* 2 the potential for causing greater repression
* 3 Jim Bell
* 4 Systemic bias
* 5 Use of quotes
* 6 So many anarchisms, so little time
* 7 Title
* 8 Delete this article?
* 9 "Violent"
* 10 Some more viewpoints that should be mentioned this article
* 11 Typo in page move
* 12 Making article conform to wikipedia policies

[edit] 1 John T. Kennedy

I appreciate being quoted here but my quote is miscategorized since I advocate and expect a peaceful transition to anarcho-capitalism by means of markets rather than collective politics. --Jtk3 (talk) 20:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2 the potential for causing greater repression

I was thinking that "the potential for causing greater repression" should probably not be listed under "arguments in favour." Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 02:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

And there I thought the evil anarcho-capitalists were scheming to repress the working man even more through violent revolution! Sorry, I actually made a mistake in shortening the section title. Be bold! In other news, thank you for this fantastic, well-sourced article; I was so impressed, I nominated it to be included in the Did you Know? section of the Main_Page. Skomorokh 02:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully in the future, the tense will be changed, and people will be asking, "Did you know that one of the chief motivations for anarcho-capitalist revolution was the impossibility of implementing anarchy through peaceful means?" And the obvious reply will be, "Of course, everyone who's taken a history class knows that." Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 03:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha…good luck with that. Nathan for Congress as the first step towards global anarchy? Stranger things have happened, I suppose. Skomorokh 03:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3 Jim Bell

Does Jim Bell merit any mention here? I suppose people have promoted a mix of things – anarcho-capitalist methods of obtaining generic anarchy; collectivist methods of obtaining anarcho-capitalism; anarcho-capitalist methods of obtaining anarcho-capitalism; etc. Not sure what category he falls into. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 03:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as he is a crypto-anarchist which is a form of anarcho-capitalism according to our sources. I suggest an "ends and means" section to go along with the arguments for and against. Bell's assassination politics would do nicely there, and the content can be lifted straight from his and the assassination market article. Skomorokh 03:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this source reliable, by the way? I find it a bit dubious, since I couldn't find any other copies of it on the internet other than from a mailing list. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 04:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, juicy info. I don't know if it's reliable. It's not a peer-reviewed or editorially-overseen source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, but it may qualify as an acceptable self-published source as McCullough is the expert on the subject, and has been published by Wired. The site it is hosted on is run by Gordon Lyon, so it is credible that it is actually McCullough writing and not an identity thief. Looks good. Thanks for digging this up, and anything else you can find is highly welcome, as the artilcle has become starved of additional sources. Mahalo, Skomorokh 16:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I found this source so it appears to be good info. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 4 Systemic bias

I'm thinking that there might be some non-Wikipedia-related systemic bias causing it to appear that there are fewer advocates of revolution than there really are, in that most people don't want to come right out and say "this is the time to shoot the bastards" lest they get hauled off to jail or suffer other negative consequences. I guess they'll come out of the woodwork later, though. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 04:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 5 Use of quotes

Although this article is a great collection of sources on the topic, I feel it over-uses quotes in its current state. On Wikipedia, we generally only use quotes when the material cannot be better summarized in neutral language; for example quoting a particularly colourful or idiosyncratic phrase. For example, Rothbard's "Weimar...Kronstad...Napolean" quote is a short punchy rhetorical flourish that is best kept as a quote, whereas his "just war" quote is plain, descriptive English that could be easily summarized. A good way to proceed would be to start a Wikiquote page on this subject, copy these quotes there, and then start summarizing the ordinary-language quotes (eg. Benson, Huben) here. Skomorokh 17:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(Actually that was David D. Friedman.) Yeah, it overuses quotes, I'm having a bit of trouble figuring out the best way to organize this article at the moment, so feel free to have at it. I think I'm starting to run out of sources. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no rush, just something to think about for the future development of the article. There are more than enough sources in the article already to give the concept a decent presentation. Keep up the good work (and sorry for mistaking Friedman). Skomorokh 19:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. This isn't just a matter of WP:MOS, this extensive use of quotes could be a copyvio issue (but then again I guess anarchist writers don't care about copyright...) Lampman (talk) 04:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 6 So many anarchisms, so little time

Man, I have trouble keeping track of all these different types of anarchism. It seems like there's a lot of overlap among them. And thus, there could also be overlap among anarcho-capitalist revolution, free market anarchist revolution, individual anarchist revolution, etc. Yet, we cannot simply call it anarchist revolution, either, can we? It would be too broad. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 19:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The general rule of thumb on Wikipedia is to use anarcho-capitalism to refer to post 1950's market anarchism in the US, and "individualist anarchism" for pre-1950's. "Free-market anarchism" is disputed, but it's basically a lesser-used synonym for "anarcho-capitalism", and anarchist revolution is too broad, you're right. So no problem using this article for all pro-capitalism anarchist's views of revolution. Skomorokh 19:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

This guy seems to dislike the proliferation of x-anarchisms as well. Interesting that anarchists spend so much time developing their specific niches rather than heeding the advice to "Smash the state, already." Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 22:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

yup. Skomorokh 22:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 7 Title

Trying to figure out the best title for this page. I think it would be good to specify from the get-go that this is about controversies among those who already agree with libertarianism. Of course, libertarianism also includes minarchists. Maybe anarcho-capitalist perspectives on revolution? Should we specify in the title that we're not talking about peaceful revolution? I just noticed today, by the way, that there is the page, controversies within libertarianism which has links to a series of contentious subjects. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 13:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 8 Delete this article?

It was created by someone who soon after was banned for bad behavior, including lots of original research. While it has some good sources, it is pretty much this person's hobby horse of the week. And I agree with comments above questioning the article itself, i.e. how many different libertarian/anarchist sectarian articles on this topic could you have?? Thoughts? Carol Moore 16:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Frankly this is a ridiculous suggestion. The topic is beyond all reasonable doubt notable, and the coverage here is extensive. The main issue is that there is too few references to secondary and tertiary sources, with overreliance on (extensive quotations from) primary sources. I suggest you focus on improving the referencing in our scattered libertarianism articles instead of tagging entire articles with ugly templates. Sincerely, Skomorokh 16:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Some of I tagged were started by an editor who was quickly kicked off for multiple violations and probably is editing under another name now. Much of the language and organization is WP:OR or WP:POV, reflecting extremely personal issues of the editor. (I put tags on other articles that looked like they were put up on a whim, or by extreme partisans, with no real WP:RS.) Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a place to promote views that are not covered by WP:RS sources. (Including me, since I'm not unless published in some edited publication that would pass wikipedia muster.)
Putting up tags is one way to figure out if anyone is paying attention. I only asked about deletion at talk and didn't go further, as you'll notice. I do agree that with the person above who said it is silly to have an article on every libertarian/anarchist sub-group's views on revolution. But if people think it's so necessary for this article to exist and are willing to clean it up worst problems, who am I to complain? I'll give it a week and come back and see if the worst WP:OR and WP:POV issues are solved. And then maybe I'll fix a few of the worst ones. Carol Moore 01:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Showing the widest range of disagreeing views on a topic, as this article strives to do, is nothing close to promotion of a single POV. Moreover, primary sources are reliable sources for the views of the authors concerned. I'm sure it's not your intention, but you give the impression of being on something of a personal crusade independent of the goals of the encyclopaedia. You're not in a position to delete this article, or make demands of those who want to keep it. If you want to improve it, fantastic. If you want it deleted, put it up for AfD. But please bear WP:POTENTIAL in mind. Regards, Skomorokh 01:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think I've made my points in latest tags and changes. Could continue in same vein through rest of article but will give it a rest tonight. The point is that if the article is to be about anarcho-capitalists and revolution it should not be quoting people who do no self-identify or are not called anarcho-capitalists. Among other things it's a violation of WP:BLP. Plus there are all sorts of WP:synthesis summaries and arguments, a few of which I deleted. If you think I'm not making the right critiques or changes, do tell. But I am tagging them so the person who made the entry - should he still be editing - can learn that one can't just opine and synthesize on wikipedia and use WP:RS loosely to make one's own personal point. Carol Moore 02:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

In reference to this edit summary, Rothbard is not only an anarcho-capitalist but the inventor of the term. EVCM (talk) 03:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 9 "Violent"

I inserted "violent" into the title; I think that we might put ideas on peaceful secession or peaceful revolution into another article, if that hasn't been done already. Most, if not all, anarcho-capitalists favor a "revolution" in the sense of a drastic change in governance, i.e. from public to private. EVCM (talk) 02:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Basically it should have one section "Arguments for" with actual explicit pro-violence quotes and summaries. The second would have anti-violence quotes and summaries. Neither would have your own original research synthesis and theorizing. Where the person doesn't obviously take a stand one way or the other, such that the implication is they support violent revolution, it is a violation of WP:BLP and can be removed immediately. So why not organize thusly. Carol Moore 04:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

It's a bit of a sticky widget in that many people will make oblique references to violence, since they don't want to come out and say "OK everyone, go blow stuff up," given that it's an illegal act. EVCM (talk) 04:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The article it´s not so big to divide in two ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nihilo 01 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

True, but the article is almost completely about violent revolution. Does nonviolent civil disobedience even count as "revolution"? EVCM (talk) 21:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 10 Some more viewpoints that should be mentioned this article

It currently has a rather anti-revolutionary slant; these articles should be addressed as well:

* http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard39.html
* http://www.lysanderspooner.org/bib_new.htm
* http://www.lewrockwell.com/chodorov/chodorov12.html
* http://www.mises.org//journals/lf/1970/1970_10_01.pdf

EVCM (talk) 18:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 11 Typo in page move

It was intended that this be moved to libertarian perspectives on revolution. EVCM (talk) 04:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 12 Making article conform to wikipedia policies

Needless to say the creator of the page User_talk:Aldrich_Hanssen who was quickly banned for reasons discussed at that page engaged in a lot of WP:POV WP:Original research in this article, which is why it is heading for deletion. However, when your remove all the personal opinions and synthetic interpretations which are against wikipedia policy, there is a lot of good material that stands on its own now that the article covers the broader libertarian movement. So I started out by cutting out the worst POV, WP:OR material and now will look at the categories and see if there is a more logical order that conforms to the established body of thinking on revolutionary strategies that exist. IE for example it could have sections on Noncooperation, Nonviolent action, and some euphemism for violent action that doesn't sound like a bunch of crazies out to blow things up because they hate capitalism or statism or just want attention or are sexually frustrated. :-) Plus one or two of the existing categories. In other words, encyclopedic, not propagandistic. Carol Moore 23:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I'm an editing machine - did it. Added some good and relevant quotes. Took out least relevant, unsourced, WP:OR ones from first version. Enough for now. Some references from the NY Times or LA Times or some major WP:RS sources would be helpful since this article is up for deletion and the usual libertarian sources may not pass muster. Also good to make it clear when person quoted is a professor, etc., something which still needs more work. Carol Moore 02:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Libertarians_perspectives_on_revolution"

This page was last modified on 2008-08-29, at 02:51:23. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.)
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.


This page was last modified on 2008-08-29, at 02:51:23. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.)
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.