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 .

Comments

Warren | January 18, 2007, 3:19pm | #

Isn't that special? I'm so tickled, I could transact a little uncoerced commerce. Holy inalienable rights Batman!

fishfry | January 18, 2007, 4:14pm | #

Britannica? Didn't Wikipedia put them out of business yet?

mk | January 18, 2007, 4:30pm | #

Britannia has always been at war with Wikipedia

mediageek | January 18, 2007, 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 | January 18, 2007, 5:18pm | #

Gee, Wikipedia has only had a standalone entry on Libertarianism since December 7, 2001

And until they started locking down contended articles, it was filled with leftist frothing about how conservatives had stolen their philosophy...

Warren | January 18, 2007, 5:33pm | #

December 7, 2001; a day that will live in inanity.

mediageek | January 18, 2007, 5:48pm | #

Warren:

LQTM

Anonopotomous | January 18, 2007, 6:45pm | #

Kind of sad that it took over thirty-five years considering this.

Bruce | January 18, 2007, 10:29pm | #

David who?

Rhywun | January 18, 2007, 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 | January 18, 2007, 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 | January 19, 2007, 12:34pm | #

David who?

Oh Bruce, you silly goose.

Wirkman Virkkala | January 19, 2007, 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.