User talk:Allixpeeke
File source is not properly indicated: File:Honorable_Salmon_P._Chase.jpg
[edit]
|
| This media was probably deleted. |
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Honorable_Salmon_P._Chase.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file (
[[:File:Honorable_Salmon_P._Chase.jpg]]).
If you created the content yourself, enter If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you! |
dave pape (talk) 13:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- Anything before 1923 is in the public domain in these United States. The man in the photo died in 1873. Obviously, the photo had to be taken before he died, so it had to be taken before 1923. All photos of Salmon P. Chase, including this one, are incontrovertibly in the public domain in these United States. What more information is needed to verify its public-domain status than the year of Chase's death? allixpeeke (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Libertarians
[edit]I suggest that you tighten up your definition of what a "libertarian" is. Harriet Tubman, Sarah Grimke, Angelina Grimke, William Lloyd Garrison and Frederick Douglass definitely were not libertarians, and I have removed them from that category. You added many other people I'm not familiar with, so other editors reading this page might wish to check them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- All five were first-wave libertarians. One does not need to advocate complete statelessness like I do in order to be a libertarian. allixpeeke (talk) 23:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, one does. Please remove any other so-called "first-wave libertarians" from the category. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- No, one does not.
A libertarian can be best-defined as any individual who wishes to maximise human liberty, where liberty is defined as freedom from aggression and where aggression is defined as the initiatory (as opposed to responsive) force or fraud against any person or her justly-acquired property (where property is considered justly owned only when it has been acquired through either homsteading (i.e., mixing one's labour with a previously-unowned resource), gift (from a previous legitimate owner), or trade (with a previous legitimate owner)). Of course, to say we should maximise freedom from aggression is to say we should minimise aggression itself, and thus, we could say that anyone is a libertarian who aims to minimise aggression as much as humanly possible.
Obviously, we anarchists, qua anarchists, are libertarian. Since anarchy is best-defined as an absence of rulership (not to be confused with leadership), we anarchists can be said to be those who advocate rulerlessness (not to be confused with leaderlessness). And since rulership is akin to aggression in that neither can exist without the other (whenever aggression is employed, a ruler–ruled relationship is thereby established between the aggressor and the aggressee, and aggression is always at the root of all rulership as a ruler is not a ruler if her or his rule is not imposed), to say that we anarchists oppose rulership (and thus support, as law, an absolute prohibition on rulership) is akin to saying that we anarchists oppose all aggression (and thus support, as law, an absolute prohibition on initiatory force or fraud). To state the case more pithily, the anarchist is a pure libertarian, believing that no organisation of institutionalised aggression is required (or desirable) in the struggle against aggression. Yes, obviously the anarchist, qua anarchist, is libertarian, but what of the minarchist?
Most libertarians—about ninety percent—are minarchists. In other words, they support the existence of a state, albeit one they aim to severely restrict in power. Since the state is, by definition, an organisation of institutionalised violence (after all, if the state ceased to aggress (i.e., to tax, to regulate, and to prohibit competition in the areas of social life that it monopolises), it would cease to be a "state"), it might seem easy to conclude that minarchists, in condoning a modicum of aggression, are not libertarians. Although this might seem at first to be the case, I think it is important that we don't jump to that conclusion without first analysing exactly why they fail to advocate statelessness. After all, it is not because they applaud aggression and wish to see more of it, nor even can we say that they feel apathetic about it. No, to their credit, minarchists agree with us that it would be ideal to live in a society where no one ever aggressed—something that cannot be said of liberals and conservatives (let alone state socialists, state communists, and fascists). All libertarians see an aggressionless (and thus rulerless) society would be ideal, and virtually all libertarians (including anarchists) recognise that, despite our best wishes, aggression will pop up here and there (exacted by unscrupulous individuals) in any society we could conceivably achieve (given our current technological limits)—in other words, that true utopia is impossible (given current technological limits). What ultimately differentiates minarchists and anarchists, therefore, is a rather simple disagreement on the most effective method of minimising aggression as much as humanly possible.
The minarchist and the anarchist both recognise that, regardless of whether one chooses to condone some level of aggression or not, as long as humans have the power to place guns against the heads of other humans and to say "Your money or your life," aggression will never be fully eradicated, and thus some method must exist by which to minimise aggression if and when it does rear its ugly head. The anarchist advocates a number of methods of attaining this minimisation: self-defence, neighbourhood watches, private protection companies, private arbitration, aggression insurance, mutual aid societies—the list goes on. The anarchist anticipates that these voluntaryist methods will be much more effective (and efficient) than the state—even the best, most classically liberal state. The minarchist, by contrast, fears that these methods would not deter aggression as much as the anarchist anticipates, and that the level of aggression that would persist in an anarchist society (albeit much lower than the level of aggression present in our current, authoritarian situation) would actually be slightly higher than the level of aggression that would exist in a severely limited state. Thus, the minachists advocates the minimal state, not out of some misguided love for aggression, but precisely because the minarchist believes that it is the most effective (indeed, the only) way to minimise aggression as much as humanly possible.
Given that the disagreement between minarchists and anarchists is a disagreement on methodology and not a disagreement on goals, given that both minarchists and anarchists aim to limit aggression as much as humanly possible (and thereby to maximise human liberty), I think it is only fair to conclude that both minarchists and anarchists are libertarians.
Libertarians have existed for as long as humans have existed, but libertarianism—as a movement—did not begin developing until the early nineteenth century. It, along with feminism, was borne out of the broader abolitionist movement. Abolitionists such as Garrison and Douglass, in pursuit of explaining the inherent injustice of slavery, began developing libertarian theory around the notion of self-ownership (also known as individual sovereignty). After all, if every individual legitimately and innately owned her or his own body, then any act of enslavement amounted ultimately to an act of theft. Thus, both Garrison and Douglass trenchantly decried the enslaver as a "man-stealer." This libertarianism lent itself amiably to feminism, for, if every man is the innate and sole legitimate owner of his own body, then so too is every woman the innate and sole legitimate owner of her own body. Not surprisingly, the libertarian movement, along with the broader abolitionist movement, was very open to women, viewing them as equals in the struggle for liberation of all humanity from bondage. Garrison welcomed women who wanted to speak, and thus the Grimké sisters became the first females (at least in modern society) to speak in front of a "mixed" audience (i.e., an audience with both men and women). This was a radical thing at the time, and supposedly ensured—horrors!—that the sisters would never wed. The Grimké sisters made an important contribution to the first wave of libertarianism as well as to the first wave of feminism, illuminating the similarity between the nineteenth-century wife and the slave, showing that neither was truly free. The radicalism did not end there, of course, for Garrison was well known to show open disdain for the government. On speaking tours, he would literally tear to pieces copies of the U. S. Constitution, calling it a pact with the devil and, thereby, showing deliberate contempt toward the alleged legitimacy of the central government, a government he regarded as evil and complicit with the slave power. Douglass, an escaped slave, was a Garrisonian on the Constitution question until he read The Unconstitutionality of Slavery, written in 1845 by another libertarian. Spooner was not just a libertarian, he was a full-blown anarchist as well as a lawyer. His treatise presented a legal argument toward the view that the Constitution could not actually be said to protect slavery, pointing out that the Constitution doesn't even technically mention slavery. Along with feminism and abolitionism, libertarianism (and especially individualist anarchism) also found itself closely aligned with the free-love and freethought movements. Organs sprung up, not just to promote abolitionism, but to promote all of these wings of the radical libertarian thought that was beginning to swell in these united states. Perhaps most famous was Benjamin R. Tucker's Liberty, an individualist anarchist periodical. But, one unfortunate misunderstanding—a holdover from Adam Smith to David Ricardo to Karl Marx—plagued this first libertarian wave: viz., the labour-theory of value. While proto-Austrian, largely subjective theories of value had been understood and promoted by the likes of Richard Cantillon and others before the advent of Smith, Smith instead tried to explain value in terms of the labour put into production, and this erroneous perspective was adopted by subsequent economists. Thus, subjectivism was largely forgotten during the eighteenth century, and completely by the nineteenth century. While the labour theory of value led Marx to conclude that the labour force was being exploited, the question was a bit more complicated for libertarians of the day. While they agreed with the socialists that labour was being exploited by capital, they nevertheless sensed—correctly—that there was something insidious about the suggestion that some authoritarian force should be empowered to prohibit people from freely exchanging their labour for wages. (This internal tug-of-war can probably be best seen in Benjamin Tucker.) Thus, although the libertarianism sprung up with beautiful radicalism in the nineteenth century, having been borne of the broader abolitionist movement, this first wave is marked by its unfortunate misunderstanding of value, a misunderstanding for which we have Smith to thank.
In the late nineteenth century, the subjective theory of value was essentially rediscovered by the Austrian economists. While this was a glorious rediscovery, the newfound understanding on the nature of value was largely confined to Austria until the early twentieth century. When the subjective theory of value finally made its way to the states in the early nineteenth century, libertarians took notice. Libertarians quickly realised that the subjective approach was much more logical than the labour-theory paradigm they had been using previously, and thus began the second wave of libertarianism. Understandably, this second wave of libertarianism was less antagonistic toward capital than the first, since the Marxian concerns about capital only appear to have merit insofar as value is explained in terms of labour input. Likewise, this second wave was not content merely publishing radical journals, but instead felt compelled to engage in organisation building in order to promote its views. Read formed the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), the first libertarian think tank in these united states. It published The Freeman. Rothbard was involved with the Center for Libertarian Studies (CLS) which published the Journal of Libertarian Studies, meanwhile Nolen formed an explicitly libertarian political party (LP) which quickly spread from state to state. Not only were libertarians getting involved in both the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and the Young Americans for Freedom (YAF), but the explicitly-libertarian Students for a Libertarian Society (SIL) had chapters throughout the country. Ayn Rand had a comfortable home at the Nathaniel Branden Institute (NBI). Crane formed the Cato Institute, Rothbard the Ludwig von Mises Institute, Marshall Fritz the Advocates for Self-Government. Jarret Wollstein's Society for Individual Liberty combined with Vincent Miller's Libertarian International to form the International Society for Individual Liberty under the leadership of Vincent Miller. Nearly all of these organisations published journals or books, so likewise publishing was Laissez-Faire Books (LFB), Liberty Fund, and Fox & Wilkes. The second wave not only focused on organisation building, it also focused on systems building, and perhaps no one did more to build systems of libertarian thought than Murray Rothbard. Building on Rothbard, SEK3 developed a theory of revolutionary he called agorism. Meanwhile, others took a more mainstream method of spreading the gospel of liberty; the libertarian investment guru Harry Browne, for example, ran two inspiring presidential campaigns using the Libertarian Party as the vehicle for explaining and promoting libertarianism. The second wave, which began with our earnest desire to not ignore the logical revelations being made by the Austrian School of economics, is marked by an explosion of organisations.
The third, current wave of libertarianism was borne out of the Internet. What constitutes this third wave is a generation of libertarians who interact, collaborate, and build on the structures of the previous generation using technology, especially social media, to both learn and teach. No longer are the days when libertarian outreach material was hard to come by, or when interaction with fellow libertarians was hampered by an a general inability, often, to even find fellow libertarians. Unfortunately, not much more can be said of this wave at this time, as we are in the midst of it, other than to say that it has much vitality.
Respectfully yours,
allixpeeke (talk) 07:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- No, one does not.
Hello!
Thank you for uploading File:Gustavedemolinari.jpg to the Wikimedia Commons. I noticed that when you uploaded from another Wikimedia project, you left out some important information, or copied it incorrectly. In the future, please consider using CommonsHelper, a tool which automates the process of moving files over. Thank you,
Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- I tried that. It didn't work. allixpeeke (talk) 03:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
The crescent shape in your flag idea is unfortunately astronomically quite impossible. Also, the way to get exactness is not to upload a PNG or JPEG with huge pixel dimensions, but to upload an SVG... AnonMoos (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
|
User:Allixpeeke has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this user page, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. |
Achim (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- It can barely even be said that there are any arguments supporting deletion to contradict, but what little there is can easily be sundered and rendered inert.
(1) Voluminousity is subjective. But even if we were to agree that it "objectively" was voluminous, that is no reason to ipso facto delete it. If it were to seem that it was both (A) voluminous and (B) made to be voluminous specifically to in-some-way disrupt the usefulness of Wikimedia Commons, then that would be a valid reason to seek its deletion; but, as anyone who looks at it can see, it was not constructed with any nefarious intent, but rather to be useful to the user in question (viz., me).
(2) It is not an article, voluminous or otherwise. It is a user page, and one I use as a quick and easy way of finding certain media (and, in certain cases, bits of information about said media). It differs from my various contributions to Wikimedia Commons in that said contributions, unlike my personal user page, are aimed at providing media for mass use.
(3) Although it is true that Wikimedia Commons is not Wikipedia, nothing about my user page (A) implies that it is or (B) subverts the purpose or function of Wikimedia Commons. That said, even if my user page did imply that Wikimedia Commons somehow was Wikipedia, that would not be a reason to delete it since it is a user page and not a page for general access to media; in other words, its function qua user page is intrinsically different from all non-user pages here.
I know nothing about the nominator. What nominator-focused arguments could one suppose I might have to give?
I am glad to see that the decision was to keep it. Thank you, Ruthven.
- It can barely even be said that there are any arguments supporting deletion to contradict, but what little there is can easily be sundered and rendered inert.
|
|
File:They're Made Out of Meat.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
A1Cafel (talk) 02:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
|
|
File:Wicksell.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
