Talk:Property and Freedom Society

Capitalization is screwed up

I screwed up the capitalism in the header; obviously, it should be "Property and Freedom Society". Does anyone know how to fix this? Steeletrap (talk) 16:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

2007 PFS conference POV edits (BRD)

In this edit [1] I made changes related to the following: 1. The section heading was too broad and vague. Better described as pertaining to the event rather than the society as a whole. Also, the text was corrected to conform with the source in that it clarified the racist speakers were at the event rather than saying the "PFS was a 'serious academic racist event'.... 2. Wikilinks were added. 3. The material regarding Lynn was clarified. E.g., the source does not say Lynn is a "longtime and regular" PFS speaker and his description of black people is put into the context of what he actually says. 4. The weasel words "many" and "populated" were removed. 5. The SPS did not "condemn" the PFS, but only the fact that the racists were invited to the event. These changes were reverted here [2] with a vague edit summary of "OR". – S. Rich (talk) 03:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining what you did; I just wish you had justified the changes. For example, you took out the "serious racist event" quote, but it's entirely legitimate:

"This looks like a very serious academic racist event," said Heidi Beirich, deputy director of the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Project, a quarterly publication that monitors hate groups.

The other changes were no better. MilesMoney (talk) 03:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. My edit summary said the changes were to conform the section to the source, which it did. You misread my edit about the "serious racist event" quote. I added "very" to the quote in the text because that word was in the source. And are you saying that adding wikilinks, which were then removed, are no better? – S. Rich (talk) 03:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll add this about the factual errors in the present version. The source says "An organization ... has invited four researchers with ties to hate groups...." In the text it says "Noting the racialist and white separatist affiliations of ...Lynn, ... Taylor, ...Weiss, and many other PFS speakers.... [emphasis added]" So how did that fourth unnamed speaker become "many other" PFS speakers? Tell the community – how? – S. Rich (talk) 03:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

How exactly is this POV? An RS (the SPLC) called the event racist. We report, you decide. Steeletrap (talk) 04:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The Lynn information is drawn from other sources in the article. He is a regular attendee of PFS. Steeletrap (talk) 04:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

"Regular attendee" not in article (or supported by RS) SPLC called the event a serious racist one, but it is OR to use this comment to support an overly broad heading about racism. Other POV issues, such as populist, etc. are not resolved. – S. Rich (talk) 04:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Srich, your repeated assertions of POV mean nothing because you have provided no supporting evidence. Instead of sniping, please find additional RS discussion of PFS to broaden the article. SPECIFICO talk 04:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Page protection requested

With the second removal of the POV-section template, I have requested page protection on the article. – S. Rich (talk) 04:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

A more constructive approach would be to stop your edit-warring and explain, with evidence, what you believe constitutes POV. SPECIFICO talk 04:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

He tried that, but there was absolutely nobody who seemed to agree with him. We took the tag out, since it was obsolete, but he's edit-warred to keep it in, reaching 3RR. He's out of options: all he can do now is demand page protection, but the current version has no tag, so this gets him nothing. MilesMoney (talk) 05:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Empiricism, imperialism, let's call the whole thing off!

I'm a bit confused about the sequence of edits that includes this. Their web site does mention anti-imperialism, so that at least fits and is supported. As for empiricism in economics, isn't a rejection of it standard for Austrians? MilesMoney (talk) 20:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The ref doesn't meantion anti-empiricism. For all I know they might be anti-e, but they say they're anti-i, so that seems the obvious thing to put here. If anyone wants to put back anti-e, it needs a reference William M. Connolley (talk) 20:23, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Funny thing about editing Wikipedia is that it forces you to learn things. Turns out that the whole anti-empiricism thing is only true for the LvMI Austrians. The regular ones (Cato, GMU, NYU, etc) aren't like that. I believe I owe some people I know an apology. MilesMoney (talk) 20:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

William, based on what I just learned, Hans-Hermann Hoppe adheres to the LvMI Austrians' anti-empiricism. I think this is really just a matter of finding a reliable source for something whose factuality is not seriously in doubt. MilesMoney (talk) 20:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, http://www.stephankinsella.com/2011/06/hoppe-on-falsificationism-empiricism-and-apriorism-and-protophysics/ shows that Hoppe was an anti-empiricist. MilesMoney (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that anti-empiricist is not controversial regardless of whether its in that particular citation. But now it appears we have RS citation, so I favor Ms. Steele's edit. @Miles -- good example of why it's important not to accept the vMI's many assertions that it is the home of Austrian Economics. Really vMI is the home of vMI, and that's about all we know for sure. Another example of the need for good secondary sourcing to back up the promotional language we find on the websites of many institutions. SPECIFICO talk 20:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Your citation is to Hoppe's views. Unless we take the PFS to be merely his mouthpiece, it needs a citation of the PFS's views, not Hoppe's William M. Connolley (talk) 22:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd use the word "mouthpiece", but yes, it's basically Hoppe all the way. MilesMoney (talk) 22:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Anon changes

Please could the editor of this let me put proper information on PFS up on this and not keep deleting it in favour of clearly derogatory remarks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.252.29.220 (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Please add your comments to the bottom of the page and sign with ~~~~. In any case, I don't believe your changes are neutral. Please read WP:NPOV to see what I mean. In the end, we have to fairly report what our sources say, even if that makes someone look good or bad and we wish it didn't. MilesMoney (talk) 14:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, 176, please review WP:RS and WP:V and cite references for the material you propose to add to the article. SPECIFICO talk 14:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I am confused why this page is being presented from a negative standpoint only and all intelligent edits are being deleted. Please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.252.29.220 (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, respond down here, not up there. And, no, the article isn't negative, the sources are. Blame the sources. MilesMoney (talk) 14:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Very simply, my sources are the 120 attendees who know PFS better than any other source from outside. How can this be ignored?

Also, 176, please review WP:RS and WP:V and cite references for the material you propose to add to the article. SPECIFICO talk 15:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I can provide you with far more information and quote the sources if that would help since this page is a sham at the moment, especially the wording at the top, by this i mean vire e-mail since you will just delete edits on here.

As another of the 120 attendees i attest to the opening paragraph of this page being shambolic and the "allegations of racism" being unreliable and unnecessary — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.174.169.103 (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I have just read the opening paragraph to this article and would have to agree that phrases such as "racialist intellectuals" are inaccurate and extraneous. Further to this, the "allegations of racism" seem more at home as a headlines in The Sun newspaper. I hope this can be rectified with solid information from others who have attended PFS. Unfortunately I was not one of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.230.248 (talk) 15:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

To PFS Attendees - Content on Wikipedia must be cited to a "reliable source." Please review the links I posted above and read the applicable policies. As attendees who are familiar with the PFS, you are in an excellent position to locate such sources. Please do so and add conforming content to the article. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 15:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

So what possible 'reliable source' was used to allege racial claims? Lawrence Mower's existence is to label any meeting racist and that is hardly 'reliable' to any extent. I have read your help pages but do not consider Mower 'reliable' and if it is then a section should be added called 'allegations of non-racism' which surely would be mildly ridiculous! And I am in total agreement that the phrase 'racialist intellectuals' is false and a loaded term.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.252.29.220 (talk • contribs)

User:Curtd59 comments on spamming

I have been asked by other members of PFS to supply specialized knowledge, due to what appears to be an attempt to insert hate speech into this page.

Please put race related propaganda elsewhere. PFS is society predominantly of ECONOMISTS, HISTORIANS,political PHILOSOPHERS, AUTHORS, and journalists who are part of the ANARCHO-CAPITALIST research program - the purpose of which is to define alternatives to the "Democratic, Republican, Bureaucratic, Corporeal State". Dr. Hoppe's intellectual program replaces democracy's MONOPOLY BUREAUCRACY with competing insurance companies, under the argument that the government largely performs the role of insurer of last resort, but that it performs it as a self-satisfying monopoly that engages in external warfare, and empire building at the expense of the people of the country.

RACE enters into the intellectual discussion as a criticism of MAJORITY RULE, which is a form of MONOPOLY, because (1) American policy and culture are still rife with racial conflict; (2) people VOTE as racial blocks, and therefore undermine the argument that democracy is rational (see Bryan Caplan, "The Myth Of The Rational Voter"); and (3) monopoly provides a vehicle for cost effective exploitation of special interests; and (4) economic data, uncomfortable as it is, has shown us that diversity decreases trust and reliance on the absolute nuclear family (ANF). And that diversity encourages political fictionalization based upon race - which we see in America.

Furthermore, because the reasons for western high economic performance relative to other societies in the world are the ANF and the High Trust Society (HTS) and NOT democracy; the basic question is how do we create institutions OTHER THAN MAJORITY RULE that might allow us to have DIFFERENT groups that ACT as political blocks, but who can still cooperate on means despite alternative ends.

You must understand that you cannot argue against this agenda without stating that you are a totalitarian bent on conquest of others in order to extort money, time and effort from them. It is not possible to argue morally against this agenda. This is one component of the moral argument Hoppe puts forth in his ethical treatise.

Part of the reason Hoppe started PFS was so that he could invite the 'Radicals' without endangering the funding sources for other think tanks who were more sensitive to the intellectually the dishonest people - who promote their own agenda by taking advantage of the public's ignorance of economics. Academic freedom requires that we are intellectually open minded even if we find something uncomfortable.

The purpose of inviting racial authors is to see if they have insights into these CAUSES or not. In general, the evidence is accumulating that any group that attains above 10% of the population will seek to assert political power by unifying against the dominant alliances. These authors vary from absolutely ridiculous to incredibly insightful (Such as Lynn).

If you (whomever you are that is spamming this page) have a personal mission in life to promote a hack journalist at a minor newspaper, that is not currently visible except as a web archive, as equivalent to peer reviewed academic journals, published works, including NYT Best Sellers by people such as Dr Tom Woods, or the leading researchers in the field (such as Lynn) then you are simply engaging in some kind of personal political agenda, by spamming an intellectual organization, as a means of cheap self promotion.

I am, myself, a specialist in this field. I probably am in the top single-digits of experts in this field. And I have been at many of the PFS meetings. And I have never seen any contextual use of race OTHER than that related to the problem of solving the problem of conflict in society in order to foster better cooperation both politically and economically.

So please take your hate, and your political propagandism and do something useful with it unless you have some level of intellectual contribution to add to the debate, and please constrain it to some source that has objective merit.

My advice is to the PFS members is to create the following Sections:

Intro:

History: (you can use Hoppe's discussion of why he founded it. I konw it's out there.)

Mission Furthering the anarcho-capitalist research program Building a community and encouraging discourse (include radical investigation)

Common Lecture Topics: (From their web site)

Selected Speakers each year and why they were selected. (From their web site)

Invitation Only (include building an alternative to Bilder etc..)

Include Controversy As Investigation list controversies and why they are examples of why Hoppe created the PFS.

Please ask me for help if you need it on any of the sections. There are others in PFS who will answer questions also.

CAUTION Please use NPV. It is an intellectual organization and the information here should be factual based on quotes from their web site, and Hoppe himself. This is not a forum for journalism or marketing any more than it is a forum for political propagandizing.

Thanks

Curtd59 (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

This is an excellent piece and as another attendee I would completely agree. Moderator, Curt is happy for you to quote HIM as the source since he is important in the PFS world. Also, maybe you might want to get most of the info on this from the PFS website rather than adding a rather out-of-place (and lie) of a racial question which puts PFS in a bad light. The name of CurtD59 is Curt Doolittle (look him up if you want), please quote him. What has been written above is pretty much what should be the page for PFS, I am asking if you could please add quite a lot of it in and refernce Curt. Also, I am sure more people would be more than willing to contribute if you were willing to add their quotes or information. After all, Curt and the other and I did go to PFS! Thank you. S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.219.143 (talk) 01:00, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to politely suggest that you read WP:COI, WP:RS and WP:NPOV. When you do that, you'll understand why it's going to take more than your suggestion to change the article. MilesMoney (talk) 01:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

How many people is enough? I have read these things, all you need to do is reference it from this page. It is clear now that this is a fraud and you are a fraudster. This will become known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.219.143 (talk) 03:52, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

This is not a productive comment. MilesMoney (talk) 03:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, let's make it productive: please put some information showing that PFS is in fact not in ant way a racist organisation as per all 120 guests who were the only ones who attended. The names of the talks were hand-picked to show this feature which is clearly bias. So again to be productive, please use Curt Doolittle as a spokesman for us (as you user Mower as a random comment slandering PFS) and quote him from above and reference it to here. Please. I will get the other 110-115 people who have not written yet here to explain that this is true if it will help. I am trying to be constructive! How else does good information 'from the horses mouth' enter wikipedia? Please take this as advice. If you do not see that this event is slanted toward a negative spin then I would be surprised. I hope you can quote Curt, if not as I said more attendees are happy to give their names and write quotable quotes. Again, what better source is there than people who went there? Surely they are the Only good sources. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.219.143 (talk) 10:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

You really must read WP:COI and WP:RS, because it turns out that you're completely wrong regarding sourcing. MilesMoney (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

For the benefit of balance, please could you quote this article (below) from Jared Taylor himself (on his website) under the section of 'Annual Conferences' for two reasons. Firstly, it is an accurate description of these annual meetings (as all who attended would attest I am sure), and secondly, unfortunately I have not learnt the computer code to reference this as accurately as your editors. Many people viewing this page will appreciate the honest expression of the annual meetings from someone who attended. I would suggest the comments surrounding his description and praise of the event, especially as it may serve to balance the severe negatives purported as unbiased reporting (per Mower). Thank you and here is the article: http://www.amren.com/news/2013/09/property-and-freedom/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.219.143 (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I am very much in agreement with the above comment. COuld this be looked into by the moderators in such a way as they see fit please as it is a primary souce? Much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.252.29.220 (talk) 16:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

What do you want the article to say? "Jared Taylor, president of the New Century Foundation, an organization which according to the Encyclopedia of Right-Wing Extremism in Modern American History has had "some of the most notorious white supremacists in the United States" on its board, praised the meeting." TFD (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I would more suggest maybe quoting Taylor as having had an excellent time and viewing it as an amazing experience (as he suggests many times). There seems no mention of the experience (under 'annual meetings') of what the experience contained outside the lectures and how it was viewed by even one person who attended. As a side point, (which is not relevant to my above point), no-one who went to PFS was a 'white supremacist', 'racialist' or 'racist'. There were 5 or 6 'race realists' including Lynn and Taylor although they state explicitly that they do not deem any one race 'better' than another and simply aim to investigate and tabulate the differences as historically and empirically accurately as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.252.29.220 (talk) 22:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Jared Taylor would describe "having had an excellent time and viewing it as an amazing experience" if he took part in the savage beating death of Emmett Till. 98.179.186.167 (talk) 12:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Undue Tagging.

It's undue to assume that there is other missing content which must be added to "balance" RS content when we have no knowledge whether it exists. It appears that the tag is motivated by POV rather than sourced references. SPECIFICO talk 20:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Please note that a section on POV was opened above a few days ago. (IOW, this was not a drive-by tag.) Other editors have added their concerns (although their thoughts are expressed a bit awkwardly.) Template documentation for {{POV}} says "The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight." Your argument flies in the face of WP policy which is to achieve WP:BALANCE. We further the aims of the policy by attracting other editors who may have access to "other missing content". – S. Rich (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Srich, In my edit summary, I stated why I undid your edit-war reinsertion of the POV Template. To wit: You are misusing this template contrary to policy. Please review documentation on POV template page. There is no ongoing dispute. Your attempt to muster the PFS attendee IP vandals as if they were policy-based dissent is disruptive.) SPECIFICO talk

The topic of this article lacks notability. There is only one external source, a 2007 article in a Las Vegas paper about Hoppe's upcoming conference in Turkey. Unless anyone can present any rs for the article I recommend it be deleted or merged into the main Hoppe article. TFD (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

As already recommended, please consider quoting this since it seems the only thing available at the moment from an actual attendee: http://www.amren.com/news/2013/09/property-and-freedom/ Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.219.143 (talk) 11:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Curtd59

Why is the actual, recorded, STATED PURPOSE and publicly available LIST OF ACTIVITIES that the PFS engages in less important than the SPLC's use of Wikipedia for FUNDRAISING purposes? The fact that the PFS people, who are investigating the impact of race relations on democratic polities (which is absolutely not a matter of contention in the US intellectual circles) is not more important than the fact that it investigates the impact of the Austrian theory of the trade cycle, the impact of bureaucracy, or the history of the corporeal state. Certainly it's more important than using the PFS organization as a means of propagandizing, advertising and fund raising. I mean, is Wikipedia supposed to be a vehicle for left wing agendas? FACTS PLEASE.

I edited this page to correct violations of NPOV standards and to disclose the exact purpose and history of the organization. THE NPS HOLDS A CONFERENCE. That is what it DOES. It meets once per year. It has speakers. The mission is to be controversial. That is the purpose of the organization.

THE NPOV is NOT supported by throwing in spam from an organization that does so for the purpose of promoting its agenda. Are we supposed to go to all Wikipedia pages and promote the fact that empirically speaking, diversity, particularly of family structures promotes competing moral codes that are not open to resolution by compromise? I mean. That's not correct. If you quote one organization' hyperbolic opinion (SPLC) it's proper policy to quote a refuting organization's statements by describing the SPLC's incentives for doing so.

Please take your agenda elsewhere. --Curtd59 (talk) 19:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

See WP:WEIGHT: the emphasis on articles tends to be on mainstream views or as you call it left-wing propaganda. TFD (talk) 19:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

As much as I appreciate Rich's attempt to integrate Curt's changes, they were unsuccessful so I rolled the article back to pre-Curt condition. MilesMoney (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

So basically anything added from here which is useful, unbiased and factual is going to be deleted. Hmm... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.219.143 (talk) 11:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

NPOV description of freedom of association views

First let me state so we don't hear certain insinuations, I was quite unhappy to see who was invited to the 2013 conference since those who promote very tacky segregationist and usually hidden supremacist views do try to glom on to libertarians, just like the pedophiles used to do til we shooed them away too. A little too much tolerance for me who promotes quotas in government hiring, voluntary affirmative action and everybody marrying everybody, sans state sanction. Nevertheless, we can't allow our own prejudices to deter us from following NPOV policy.

At this diff, my edit the freedom of association and the right to discriminate, was changed back to the right to discriminate, with the edit summary it was a "misrepresentation".

The website ref actually reads: freedom of contract, freedom of association—which logically implies the right to not associate with, or to discriminate against—anyone in one’s personal and business relations. Obviously freedom of association is the main point, with discrimination a disclaimer. (After all, we should be allowed to discriminate against, say, incompetent physicians even if we are getting subsidies under Affordable Care Act.) And using Freedom of association#Libertarian doesn't really correct the mis-impression. Thoughts? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

There's not too much to discuss here. Carol is in the right because freedom of association is in the cited source. Steeletrap (talk) 22:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Allegations of racism section has zero citations

"In contrast, attendees of PFS specifically reject the term 'racist' as attached to their views" "They express" Can anyone provide citations here Seems pretty inaccurate if the private views of one person are listed as the views of the entire society... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonycat (talk • contribs) 03:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)