Libertarianism in the Britannica
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 .
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Isn't that special? I'm so tickled, I could transact a little uncoerced commerce. Holy inalienable rights Batman!
Britannica? Didn't Wikipedia put them out of business yet?
Britannia has always been at war with Wikipedia
Gee, Wikipedia has only had a standalone entry on Libertarianism since December 7, 2001
Still, I applaud Britannica for catchin' up.
And until they started locking down contended articles, it was filled with leftist frothing about how conservatives had stolen their philosophy...
December 7, 2001; a day that will live in inanity.
Warren:
LQTM
Kind of sad that it took over thirty-five years considering this.
David who?
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?
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.
David who?
Oh Bruce, you silly goose.
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.