The Encyclopedia Britannica will now have its first extended stand-alone coverage of libertarianism, in an entry written by David Boaz of the Cato Institute. And you can check it out here .
Reason Magazine
Most Popular Stories
Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey
- Romney Most Electable Candidate, Yet Gingrich in Statistical Tie Among GOP Voters (1.31)
- Explaining Newt’s Second Surge (1.26)
- George Washington Would Beat Out Romney as Richest President; John Kerry Would Have, Too (1.25)
- New Poll: Americans Aren't Ready for Another War (1.20)
- 2012 Election Match Up: Romney Wins, Paul Might (1.13)
advertisements
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsSite comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.
Warren|1.18.07 @ 3:19PM|#
Isn't that special? I'm so tickled, I could transact a little uncoerced commerce. Holy inalienable rights Batman!
|1.18.07 @ 4:14PM|#
Britannica? Didn't Wikipedia put them out of business yet?
|1.18.07 @ 4:30PM|#
Britannia has always been at war with Wikipedia
|1.18.07 @ 5:14PM|#
Gee, Wikipedia has only had a standalone entry on Libertarianism since December 7, 2001
Still, I applaud Britannica for catchin' up.
Eric the .5b|1.18.07 @ 5:18PM|#
And until they started locking down contended articles, it was filled with leftist frothing about how conservatives had stolen their philosophy...
Warren|1.18.07 @ 5:33PM|#
December 7, 2001; a day that will live in inanity.
|1.18.07 @ 5:48PM|#
Warren:
LQTM
|1.18.07 @ 6:45PM|#
Kind of sad that it took over thirty-five years considering this.
|1.18.07 @ 10:29PM|#
David who?
Rhywun|1.18.07 @ 11:02PM|#
Oh brother. I never heard of Rachel Ray until she appeared on a box of Wheat Thins I bought a couple days ago and now she has a word in the freakin' dictionary? WTF?
libertreee|1.18.07 @ 11:03PM|#
Hey everybody! The new phone book is here! The new phone book is here! I am somebody!
The article is written from a libertarian centrist, Cato Institute perspective. It does a good deal of good, but it just isn't as complete as it could be.
Murray Rothbard gets nothing but a bibliographical note.(He was purged from Cato) von Mises fares only slightly better. The LP (which split from Cato c 1983)is also given a bit of a cold shoulder.
Most glaring ommission: anarcho-capitalism. While the history of the meaning of "liberalism" is given much attention, the evolution of the meaning of "libertarian" is ignored. It is my understanding that "libertarian" still means "anarchist" in Europe, and it certainly did come from that basic root meaning. Boaz's article, like Cato, is
devoted entirely to classical liberalism = libertarian. He ducks the issue by simply saying "Most libertarians believe in some government..." Wikopedia enthusiasts would demand his source for that statement.
Skole|1.19.07 @ 12:34PM|#
David who?
Oh Bruce, you silly goose.
Wirkman Virkkala|1.19.07 @ 5:29PM|#
There's a lot wrong with the Britannica article, and the leaving out of anarchocapitalism is just one of many problems. I blogged my thoughts
http://wirkman.net/izens/index.php/izen/2007/01/18/britannica_s_entry_on_libertarianism
yesterday.