Talk:Paleolibertarianism

Rothbard and Religion

While everything said here holds true of Lew Rockwell, Rothbard was not as religious as this entry would suggest. While he did himself believe in God and he worked very closely with Lew, none of his writing with which I am familiar would suggest that he viewed religion as necessary for social order. I'm leaving the article alone for now because I'm not quite sure how to work this in. --dfranke

While from his writing I can tell he believes in God, I am curious what religion he was.(if any) I know he was born into a Jewish family but I get the impression he was, for lack of a better term, generically Christian? I know this is a little off topic but I could use some help user:Pzg Ratzinger —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 01:58, August 25, 2007 (UTC).

Old Republic

As it stands, Old Republic redirects to Galactic Republic (Star Wars). I'm pretty sure that Lew Rockwell wasn't referring to Star Wars. Can somebody who knows something about paleolibertarianism and Lew Rockwell fix this issue? —thames 00:33, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

It's a reference to the lost constitution or the constitution in exile. I'm linking it there unless someone has a better idea. Thanks for the heads-up. Dave (talk) 00:57, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Simple. I've just changed it so that "Old Republic" now links to "constitution in exile". Problem solved. —Per Hedetun (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Utilitarianism

Rothbard was a utilitarian. In general, some paleolobs are "hostile" to utilitarianism, but that shouldn't be listed here as a defining characteristic! --Christofurio 13:11, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Rothbard wasn't a utilitarian. He did believe that anarcho-capitalism would lead to the best society, but he based his philosophy off natural law. See "For a New Liberty". 66.116.18.114 03:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Rothbard

Paleolibertarianism, at least as described in this article, seems to be the general ideology of Lew Rockwell and the folks at lewrockwell.com. This is not especially characteristic of Rothbard, therefore, I'm removing/proposing to remove references to him such as they now are. Bob A 04:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

That is simply untrue. Lewrockwell.com was the successor of the "Rothbard Rockwell Report," and if lewrockwell.com is dedicated to the legacy of any man it is rothbard.

Furthermore, Rothbard called himself a paleolibertarian on many occasions, and his piece "Ron Paul and his enemies" is probably one of the major original pieces to paleolibertarianism before it came out. here is a prime example http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch16.html

walmart

I deleted the mention of walmart from this sentence... "Political alliances with paleoconservatism. The two groups are closely related, although they sometimes quarrel over the virtues of free trade, Wal-Mart and other issues.'

Better ways to organize description

Rather than have a section starting: "Paleolibertarianism is commonly distinguished by:" where I put the tag "original research?", either a) include references for each point or b) have section on what each person means by it. Carol Moore 00:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

I drank a lot of coffee this am and ended up cleaning up this totally WP:original research article that contained constant claims articles were about paleolibertarianism when that phrase not uses. Plus lots of WP:BLP violations because there were no WP:RS that people did or do call themselves paleolibs. Feel free to put back info with WP:RS of articles mentioning the word or actual descriptions of people calling themselves paleo libs. Same old bad info will just get deleted. There are just too many misleading WP:OR libertarianism articles with few or no WP:RS so I took advantage of sudden motivation in my caffeinated state to clean this up. Now I'll go back to researching dirt for Rahm Emanuel article - unless others hopefully get there first. :-) Carol Moore 17:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Anarcho-capitalism

This is definitely a ridiculous claim, at least as Wikipedia currently defines the term: "While practically all paleolibertarians subscribe to a philosophy of anarcho-capitalism [...]" 68.83.72.162 (talk) 15:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

agree and removed. too contentious without a source. CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Critiques?

For this article to bear any resemblance to NPOV, some part of it must contain responses to paleolibertarianism from people other than libertarians. the criticism from Hans-Hermann Hoppe hardly counts. and, if there is no critique from third parties, then the word is a nonencyclopedic neologism. i hope someone other than me can add some critiques to this, or even positive comments from nonlibertarians. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to find and put in some WP:RS info :-) !CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Federic Bastiat's Influence on Paleolibertarianism and/or Ludwig Von Mises

This would go a long way in debunking Mises supposedly Old Right economics. Some speculate Ludwig Von Mises was ambivalent about socialism versus free capitalism. Mises correctly uses the word capitalism as the use of capital, and states ambivalently that communists were merely capitalists who employed the state. I believe Mises was interested in innovation and effeciency in different market systems. --173.31.191.192 (talk) 18:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

We all have our opinions and speculations, but what matters is what WP:Reliable sources say. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Where's the definition?

The article needs a solid definition up at the top. All that stuff about where the term came from should be down in the details.--LanceHaverkamp 16:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lance W. Haverkamp (talk • contribs)

The definition was a bit vague. Does that new addition help? CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Sectioning??

First it's amazing when one looks at something one worked a lot on 4 or 5 years ago, all the WP:OR that one put in - other that others have let slip in. Anyway, cleaned it up according to actual sources at this diff.

I'm not much into sectioning short articles. Thoughts on sectioning? CarolMooreDC 20:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Claims of Ron Paul using "bigoted language"

The final paragraph begins "During Ron Paul's run for United States Congress several sources mentioned 'paleolibertarianism' in relation to the issue of bigoted language in Ron Paul newsletters circa 1989-1994..." (emphasis added) The problem is that the claim that Ron Paul's newsletters used "bigoted language" is in itself potentially libelous unless proven to be true. Since the assertion lacks any primary sources, it would seem that it is not factual, but rather, someone's opinion. Indeed, the only "source" cited in that paragraph is Salon.com, which is widely accepted to be liberal-leaning, and therefore, likely to be among Paul's detractors, rather than an objective source. Consequently, I suggest that the statement be reworded or removed. Bricology (talk) 05:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

BLP applies here too

Removing important info, like Rockwell no longer calling himself a libertarian, really is an incredibly POV move. Do we have yet another article where the Austrian Economics battle continues?? User:Carolmooredc talk 20:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Carolmooredc, please show me where I removed from this article the fact that Rockwell no longer calls himself a paleo-libertarian (as opposed to cutting his ruminations about his ideological journey). This appears to be another one of your many misattributions. Steeletrap (talk) 20:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Flakey monitor distorted results. Back on good one now. Struck above. However, now that I've clarified you removed Rockwell's comments, I think that some of them are important in the vein of keeping the article NPOV:

Unfortunately, the term paleolibertarian became confused because of its association with paleoconservative, so it came to mean some sort of socially conservative libertarian, which wasn't the point at all – though the attempted definition of libertarian as necessarily socially leftist is a problem too.Ref:Do You Consider Yourself a Libertarian?, Kenny Johnsson interviews Lew Rockwell for The Liberal Post, as posted on LewRockwell.Com, May 25, 2007.

Why leave it to people's imaginations - or editor's perhaps negative inferences? User:Carolmooredc talk 20:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

It's superfluous. It contradicts Rockwell's/Rothbard's earlier words explicitly identifying paleo with social conservatism, as well as that of numerous RS. Those remarks also don't repudiate any of the controversial elements of paleo-libertarianism (Read: racial views), so it won't eliminate those "negative inferences" from the minds of readers concerned about that stuff. Please stop accusing me of bias, apologize for your mistake, and AGF. Steeletrap (talk) 21:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The fact that he makes inconsistent statements maybe inconvenient for a certain POV, but it's still relevant. It is an interesting issue - i.e., things people forget 15 years later or whatever. Maybe try to find other sources. Otherwise we can ask for outside uninvolved opinion. User:Carolmooredc talk 02:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Paleolibertarians do not, NO libertarians, support David Duke or Joseph McCarthy.

Someone keeps reverting edits regarding organizational strategies to imply that David Duke and Joseph McCarthy are examples of paleolibertarianism. These absurd claims stem from an article on organizing a movement based on social conservatism and economic libertarianism. As a member of the KKK, David Duke does not support personal freedom, and certainly Joseph McCarthy's era of mass censorship is not valued in any form of libertarianism. This is a ridiculous and slanderous comment and if it is not left alone, it needs to be removed from the article. -185.24.233.211 (talk) 19:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• Deleted the absurd personal attack on paleolibertarians. The source remains intact with an appropriate citation in the reference. -185.24.233.211 (talk) 19:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

They are not examples of paleolibertarianism. However Rothbard suggested they should be used as models, and that's what the text says. In addition to whitewashing the material, you changed the text of a quotation. That's bad editing. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:A140:489C:7FEB:37D5 (talk) 02:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I get the impression that those people (Duke and McCarthy) referred to are not intended to be "models" of paleolibertarians, but rather are examples (models) of people with which libertarians ("paleo") must learn to deal. Implying that they are "models" in the context the article currently does is misleading, even if it purports to quote Rothbard. It is possible to quote people out of context. Here is the quote from the Reason Magazine source.

"The most detailed description of the strategy came in an essay Rothbard wrote for the January 1992 Rothbard-Rockwell Report, titled "Right-Wing Populism: A Strategy for the Paleo Movement." Lamenting that mainstream intellectuals and opinion leaders were too invested in the status quo to be brought around to a libertarian view, Rothbard pointed to David Duke and Joseph McCarthy as models for an "Outreach to the Rednecks," which would fashion a broad libertarian/paleoconservative coalition by targeting the disaffected working and middle classes." 67.5.237.141 (talk) 22:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

My impression is that the listed people are models for outreach to a certain sector of the population, not that they're examples of who to reach or of desirable political models in general. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:D1E0:22A:AF88:F346 (talk) 16:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

"Whitewashing?" So, let's take part of a quote in an article on anti-Semitic sedevacantist groups and throw it in the second paragraph of a Catholicism-related article, that's "good editing?" Accusing libertarians of supporting violence against black people is juvenile and accusing libertarians of supporting McCarthyism is absurd. "Good editing" huh? -185.24.233.211 (talk) 04:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

References

References #1 and #3 are broken and dont take you to Liberty but to Mises. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.201.21.30 (talk) 11:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Reference #1 seems to violate the Wikipedia ethos of not allowing primary sources to define themselves and/or establish their own notability. It links to a piece by Lew Rockwell, one of the two acknowledged founding figures of "paleoconservatism" along with Murray Rothbard. Many non-paleoconservatives disagree that paleoconservatism is a form of libertarianism, seeing it instead as a deviation from, or splinter off of, libertarianism. Thomas L. Knapp (talk) 01:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Race

On removing the "Some critics have accused paleolibertarianism of racism" line: I think this line should be removed from the criticisms since it is overly general and gives an impression of a significant group of critics that is not sourced (one critic can hardly be deemed enough to claim "some"). Tigre200 (talk) 00:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Until March 2021, this article included a claim by political scientist and radical activist feminist Jean Hardisty that paleolibertarianism entails "explicit racism, anti-Semitism, and sexism". I'm not satisfied with this source, but I do wonder if there should be some discussion of how paleolibertarianism interacts with racial issues. I just thought I would note the issue here for future editors. Daask (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I am not certain if there are variations within this political movement. But it was originally intended to attract paleoconservatives, and several of these people were also Neo-Confederates. Can you guess what they thought about race?Dimadick (talk) 01:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Leading Voices

As a relative newcomer to the paleolibertarian scene, I’m unfamiliar with the works of writers such as Justin Raimondo and Karen de Coster, mentioned here (Paleolibertarianism|https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Paleolibertarianism)

However, I’ve read many of Ilana Mercer’s columns and two of her books. I’d like to recommend that her work be featured on Wikipedia’s paleolibertarianism pages.

Ms. Mercer is a familiar voice in this arena. Consequently, for WikiP to remain the go-to source for reliable, complete information on myriad subjects, it should chronicle all world-class paleolibertarian thinkers and writers, especially one as prolific as Ilana Mercer. Mercer’s weekly column is now in its twentieth year, published by numerous outlets as a significant paleolibertarian writer.

Those publishers include WND [WorldNetDaily|https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/WorldNetDaily]; Mercer writes “The Paleolibertarian”: <https://www.wnd.com/author/imercer/>

Junge Freiheit [Junge_Freiheit|https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Junge_Freiheit], a German newspaper of the libertarian right, has published her translated column as The “Paläolibertären Kolumne” <https://jungefreiheit.de/author/ilana-mercer/>

For several years, Russia Today (https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/RT_(TV_network) published an Ilana Mercer feature entitled, “Paleolibertarian Column.” <https://www.rt.com/search?q=ilana+mercer&type=>

Big League Politics (https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Big_League_Politics) has sought Mercer’s perspective on paleolibertarianism <https://bigleaguepolitics.com/interview-writer-ilana-mercer-takes-on-the-cato-institutes-left-libertarianism/>

The Unz Review (https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Ron_Unz#The_Unz_Review_and_other_activities) carries Mercer’s weekly column as the “Paleolibertarian Perspective.” <http://www.unz.com/author/ilana-mercer/>

Dr. Jack Kerwick, a columnist for LewRockwell.com (https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Lew_Rockwell#LewRockwell.com), a leading paleolibertarian site, has argued that “it is imperative that Mercer be included in any discussion about paleolibertarianism:” <https://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/attheintersectionoffaithandculture/2016/04/missing-right-wing-critics-of-american-conservatism.html>

Ms. Mercer has written three books from the paleolibertarian perspective; i.e., a hard-right, anti-state libertarianism. Her latest, “The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed,” was the first libertarian book about now-President Donald J. Trump: <https://townhall.com/columnists/jackkerwick/2016/07/20/the-trump-revolution-the-donalds-creative-destruction-deconstructed-a-review-of-the-first-libertarian-case-for-the-trump-process-n2195251>

Wmbscott (talk) 20:51, 25 July 2019 (UTC)