Talk:Liberal People's Party (Norway)
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
confusing intro edit
I find the intro very confusing. What party did "some of Fremskrittspartiet's members" perceive to have become less liberal? Who is Tor Ingar Østerud? What's with the "cup of coffee"? What court made what judgement in favour of the liberalists? heqs 10:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Objektivism edit
It should be mentioned in the article that the party seems to be an objectivist party, although they probably also have members who do not subscribe to this current. A look at their web forum will confirm their close connection to the variety of objectivist theory and politics that is promoted by the American Ayn Rand Institute.
Above all, the Liberal People's Party should not be referred to as libertarian, since their leading members are very critical towards this ideology.--213.236.196.39 (talk) 18:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- We do not cite web forums in an encyclopedia. Obviously, the party should be referred to as libertarian, owing to its many libertarian stances, such as the abolition of immigration control, welfare state, drug prohibition, etc. --Eisfbnore talk 18:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- What is your opinion on the difference between classical liberalism and libertarianism, and why can we not just classify the Liberal People's Party as classical liberals (as they themselves do) in order to mark a clear distinction between them and the murky umbrella term libertarianism (in which they find many ideological opponents)? --cun 15:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- See this edit summary. Classical liberalism is a much wider definition, and an even more murky umbrella term than 'libertarianism'. Also, the term 'libertarianism' is very rarely used in Norway, and when it is used, it is normally associated with Rothbardian anarcho-capitalists and advocates of the non-agression principle. In the English-speaking world, the term can house both minarchists and anarchists. The term is ambiguous, though 'classical liberalism' is even more ambiguous, which ranges from proponents of the Nozickian minimal state to proponents of a limited welfare state. Putting 'classical liberalism' in the infobox may give readers very wrong impressions of the party. I think 'libertarianism' is definitely the best solution, though it is not perfect. --Eisfbnore • talk 19:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)