Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Libertarianism

2010-03-28T03:43:18Z

Mjbauer95:

Jaques-- why did you delete the link to liberalism (which is a page that exists) but leave the link to classical liberalism (which is a page that doesnt exist)??--[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 18:04, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Is that supposed to be humorist Dave Barry? Links would help on these people if they are important enough to be listed here. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:16, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm unsure how libertarianism is "closely" connected to liberalism. From the social point of view, this is evident; However, libertarians believe in small government, a viewpoint often shared by conservatives (except in times of war, it seems). [[User:KxWaal|KxWaal]] 22:16, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

== Right wing ==

"Libertarianism is generally considered right-wing." Is this true anymore? I know it used to be true before social issues were more important to the political landscape, but nowadays libertarians agree with liberals on things (war on drugs, abortion, war in Iraq, Patriot Act) so I'm not sure it's so accurate anymore. I know that ''some'' political scientists call them right wing but I wonder how general? At any rate, I put the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tag in there for now; I have no contrary sources to provide which would allow me to remove the statment entirely

PS: This article is in major need of organization and citations. I might start on this in the next couple days [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 15:53, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

*It is not generally considered "right", and hasn't in at least two decades, maybe more. Although Liberterians espouse some ideas (mainly Domestic Policy issues) many of their beliefs more aptly fit into what is now considered Liberal, especially in the Foreign Policy areas. Most favor a more pure form of Democaracy than is available in any government now established. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]] 17:40, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

There are a lot of overlaps on economic issues, obviously, but libertarians are far more "principled", whereas conservatives tend to determine actions on a case by case basis. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:44, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

:Oh you are preaching to the choir :) I'm very familiar with the ideological stance, just not as clear on how you fit them on the right/left scale (as a libertarian myself I have much animosity towards the one axis system). But no matter anyway, Andy removed the statement I was talking about. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Libertarianism&diff=236312&oldid=235195] [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 17:57, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

== Aquinas a Whig maybe but not a libertarian ==

There's an argument to be made for Aquinas and the Whig theory of consent of the governed [http://religionandliberty.blogspot.com/2005/09/aquinasfirst-whig-novaks-catholic-whig.html see for details] but that has nothing to do with libertarianism, so I'm dropping the reference. For Aquinas liberty is not the highest good, political or otherwise. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 14:20, 17 November 2008 (EST)

== Notable Libertarians ==
I am really unsure if most of these individuals and groups are notable. Would it be okay to reduce it to the ones that figure prominently in libertarian thought? We could add a link to Category:Libertarians for the others. [[User:Sulli|Sulli]] 12:13, 5 December 2008 (EST)
::yes, we should be especially careful about historical figures. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 12:19, 5 December 2008 (EST)
:::A lot of the minor celebrities, however, don't really seem too notable. That might just be me though. [[User:Sulli|Sulli]] 12:49, 5 December 2008 (EST)

== Reagan Quote in Bold? ==
Does the Reagan quote have to be in bold? It makes it seem like it is biased. --[[User:Mjbauer95|Mjbauer95]] 23:43, 27 March 2010 (EDT)

Jimmy Wales

2010-03-28T03:41:06Z

Mjbauer95:

[[Image:Jimmy_wales_1.jpg‎|right|250px|thumb|Co-Founder of Wikipedia, Jimbo Wales]]
'''Jimmy Wales''' is the co-founder of [[Wikipedia]] and self-described [[libertarian]]. Jimmy Wales claims to be an [[Objectivism|objectivist]] who follows the philosophy of [[Friedrich Hayek]] and [[atheist]] [[Ayn Rand]].<ref>[http://qanda.org/Transcript/?ProgramID=1042 Interview with Jimmy Wales conducted by Brian Lamb], C-SPAN Transcript, September 25, 2005.</ref> Wales told an interviewer in ''Reason'' magazine, "One can't understand my ideas about Wikipedia without understanding [[Hayek]]," <ref>[http://reason.com/news/show/119689.html Wikipedia and Beyond],
Jimmy Wales' sprawling vision, Katherine Mangu-Ward, ''Reasononline.com'', June 2007.</ref> however there is thin evidence for this given the radical [[leftist]] agenda of Wales close confidants in control of Wikipedia.<ref name="Left_in_Control_of_Wikipedia">{{cite news
|first=Jim
|last=Davis
|title=Left in Control of Wikipedia
|url=http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/5/13/212015.shtml?s=lh
|work=
|publisher=[[NewsMax]]
|date=May 14, 2007
|accessdate=2007-10-04}}</ref> Hayek wrote in ''Road to Serfdom'', "By the time Hitler came to power, [[Classical liberalism|liberalism]] was dead in Germany. And it was [[socialism]] that had killed it;"<ref>[http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-publication43pdf?.pdf ''Road to Serfdom'',] Friedrich A. Hayek, Reader's Digest Condensed Version, April 1945, pg. 36.</ref> editors trying to make this point in Wikipedia are routinely [[politically profiled|profiled]], stalked, harassed, slandered, and banned.

Jimmy Wales became a millionaire by trading commodity options; before funding Wikipedia, he funded Bomis Inc. in 1996, which contained pornographic material.<ref>http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2005/12/69880</ref> Besides funding the non-profit Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales also funded the for-profit [[Wikia]], a company that provides wiki services for businesses and organizations.

Wales was caught editing his own profile on Wikipedia in a bit of a scandal in an effort to downplay [[Larry Sanger]]'s role in the company and distance himself from his Bomis past.<ref>[http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,69880,00.html ''Wikipedia Founder Edits Own Bio''] Wired. Accessed 17 March 2008</ref>

==Controversy==

In early October 2005, former [[Robert F. Kennedy]] aide and retired journalist [[John Seigenthaler Sr.]] contacted Wales about false and libelous information in his Wikipedia biographical entry. [[Wikipedia#Second_casualty:_Wikipedia_.22experts.22_called_into_question.2C_the_Essjay_Scandal|Essjay]] got the call to deal with the situation.<ref>[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter]. Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.</ref> On December 1, 2005 Wales told ''Editor & Publisher'' magazine, the nation’s oldest trade journal serving the newspaper industry regarding Daniel Brandt,
{{Cquote|I don't regard him as a valid source about anything at all... I find it hard to take him very seriously ...<ref>[http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/article_brief/eandp/1/1001612839 Wikipedia Founder, Readers Respond to Seigenthaler Article], Jay DeFoore, ''Editor & Publisher'', December 01, 2005.</ref>}}Brandt was the victim of malicious<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=5641&pid=22336&mode=threaded&show=&st=0&#entry22336</ref> and vile slanders placed within his Wikipedia biographical entry<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Brandt&diff=prev&oldid=55132392</ref> by prominent Wikipedia contributors, in violation of numerous published Wikipedia policies.<ref>[http://www.conservapedia.com/Wikipedia#Impugning_critics Wikipedia#Impugning critics], Conservapedia.com</ref> Four days later in a joint appearance with Seigenthaler on [[CNN]] Wales said,
{{Cquote|we are very, very responsive to complaints and concerns.<ref>http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/05/lol.02.html</ref>}}
Essjay was entrusted with oversight responsibilities in the wake of the Seigenthaler scandal and wrote to a professor to persuade her to allow students to cite Wikipedia as a "reliable source,"
{{Cquote|It is never the case that known incorrect information is allowed to remain in Wikipedia; we strive to provide a resource that is both accurate and expansive. As we approach one million articles (far more than any other encyclopedia could ever hope to attain) on the English Wikipedia alone (there are hundreds of thousands of articles in the projects that make up the Wikimedia Foundation in dozens of different languages), we prove ourselves as a resource like none ever known before.}}

The derogatory smears against Brandt, self-cited to a certifiably "extremist source" which "should never be used" remained in Brandt's biography for one and half years, with Jimbo Wales and the WikiMedia Foundations full knowledge.

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
[http://blog.jimmywales.com/ Jimmy Wales' Blog] (this blog was last updated Feb. 16, 2007)

{{DEFAULTSORT:Wales, Jimmy}}

[[Category:Wikis]]
[[Category:Business People]]

Talk:Jimmy Wales

2010-03-28T03:38:43Z

Mjbauer95: /* Objectivist=Atheist? */

A men's portal? Would that be things like boxing, and suitcoats, and aftershave? Here we call things what they are. It may have been soft porn, but it was still in the business of sex sells. Also, if you are reverted and you revert back a minute later without using this section, you might as well be slamming the door on your own behind... and you'll have no one to blame but yourself. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:54, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

== Objectivist=Atheist? ==

It says in the beginning of this article that an objectivist is a type of Atheist. This is incorrect. Objectivistism is not a theological philosophy either. It is a statement that things are as they are whether we think so or not. It is a practical philosophy that does not claim any truth, such as theism or naturalism. Does anyone else agree, before I change it?

I agree. Though it is probably fair to say that most Objectivists are atheists, they are not equivelant. --[[User:Mjbauer95|Mjbauer95]] 23:38, 27 March 2010 (EDT)