User talk:Allixpeeke

From Wikiquote
Jump to: navigation, search
Talk Archive
9 January 2014 – 4 August 2015

Romeo + Juliet[edit]

The page already existed but it was converted into a redirect (bad decision, imo). ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmm.  While I know it's discouraged for people to make pages out of pages that were previously voted to be deleted, I think Romeo + Juliet nevertheless does merit being rebuilt.  The script to Romeo + Juliet isn't identical to the script to Romeo and Juliet, as some characters are changed or even eliminated, and as some names are also changed, which none of the voters for deletion seemed to've taken into account.  But, moreover, a page for the film would have quotes and details that the page for the play necessarily lacks, including a list of taglines, a cast list, a unique introduction, quotes about the film from critics, and possibly even quotes from the film's soundtrack.  But, alas, I have not the time for such an endeavour.  Hopefully someone will.

Thanks for the heads up.  allixpeeke (talk) 12:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

User:DanielTom, if the Wikiquote community should ever come around to the opinion that Romeo + Juliet indeed does merit its own article, I have constructed a pretty good mock-up here.  The only thing it lacks are actual quotes from the film.  allixpeeke (talk) 05:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
See here again—the page had quotes. So you can get them from there. The only problem now is that for the page to be recreated, it would have to go through Deletion review, which can literally take forever. ~ DanielTom (talk) 10:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, but I worry about the preciseness of those quotes.  After all, the introduction on that page makes reference to two separate films, and just as the Romeo + Juliet script is not identical to Shakespeare's original, it's also not identical to Romeo and Juliet (1968 film).  We would need someone who has access to Romeo + Juliet in order to verify each line that is added to the new page, and although I own a copy of the soundtrack, I don't own a copy of the film.

Do you own a copy of the film?  If so, I grant you permission to edit the quotes from the film section of my mockup.  Further, if there is an audio commentary track, I likewise grant you permission to edit the quotes about the film section.

allixpeeke (talk) 01:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The quotes were all from the 1996 film, but, if you care to compare, you will note I made a few corrections (e.g., "'Tis I never saw true beauty 'till this night." → "For I never saw true beauty till this night."; "a pair of star crossed lovers take thier lives." → "a pair of star-cross'd lovers take their life.", &c.). I might add, there's an even better Shakespeare film of 1996: Branagh's Hamlet. Cheers! ~ DanielTom (talk) 10:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
DanielTom, wonderful!  I do have to ask, though, is the line in the film "Romeo.  Oh, Romeo!  Wherefore art thou Romeo?" or "Oh, Romeo.  Romeo!  Wherefore art thou Romeo?"  The page says one thing and IMDb says another.

In any event, I went in and added some more pictures, added some links, added some quotes from the filmmakers, and, with the aid of YouTube, added a couple dialogues.  I also added notation to indicate where the film's script differs from Shakespeare's.

All in all, I think the page is looking good.  I think, given the many features of the article that are applicable to this film but not applicable to the original play (i.e., the introduction, quotes about the film, soundtrack quotes, and notes on the differences between this and the original), we would have a pretty solid case going forward in the deletion review.  Anything else you think should be added or changed before we make it official?

allixpeeke (talk) 11:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there are some slight differences: In the play Juliet says "O Romeo, Romeo! wherefore art thou Romeo?", but in this film she says "Romeo. O Romeo! Wherefore art thou Romeo?" (and "That which we call a rose by any other word would smell as sweet"). I completely agree with your assessment. (If it were up to me, I would would even skip deletion review, and just create/replace the redirect Romeo + Juliet with what you have, but following the formal process is more recommendable.) The only thing I don't like in your current version is the red links, but that's merely an aesthetic concern. ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

William Fergus Martin[edit]

William Fergus Martin has been listed at Votes for deletion after you removed a {{prod}} from it. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/William Fergus Martin. Thank you. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:17, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmm?  The only ones from which I removed {{prod}} were ones to which I added sources.  allixpeeke (talk) 15:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I see.  Your reason was "This writer does not appear to be sufficiently notable for a Wikiquote article."  Although most {{prod}}s concern themselves with lack of appropriate sources, this one was about the notability of the author.  allixpeeke (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Your wise input would be appreciated[edit]

Curious about your thoughts here Talk:Jim Henson ?

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 17:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Two cents delivered.  : )   allixpeeke (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Could you keep an eye on the page Jim Henson, and the deletion discussion page Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Jim Henson ? It seems a method is being used to try to get the page deleted, by removing sourced quotes, from the page, while the page itself is in an ongoing deletion discussion. -- Cirt (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Kamen rider blah blah blah ...[edit]

Hi, thank you for your tagging (and I agree it'd better to be deleted), but a slight disagreement; the topic is not nonsense imo ... it's relevant to a Japan made TV show and perhaps derivative toy's commercial (I haven't watched though, but it's another matter). I suspect it's a whole script of tv commercial, and out of scope of our mission. But what you don't know is not always nonsense. The subject is notable - sort of. My two yen. --Aphaia (talk) 21:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you.  allixpeeke (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Chinese language[edit]

Hello Allixpeeke, I noticed you added the section "external links" to the subj, and introduced the link zh.wikiquote.org/wiki/汉语 which currently leads nowhere (it is also not external but rather internal, if only it led to the page with that name). My question is, are you planning on creating this (currenly missing) page on Chinese wikiquote? -Tar-ba-gan (talk) 10:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah.  I didn't realise the page didn't have quotes.  I replaced it with something more appropriate.  Cheers, allixpeeke (talk) 10:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
This surely is better, thanks! Tar-ba-gan (talk) 10:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

two spaces[edit]

Have you read this? ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


DanielTom,

The piece claims, "Because we've all switched to modern fonts, adding two spaces after a period no longer enhances readability, typographers say.  It diminishes it."  I could not disagree more.  Even if a case can be made that it is not "necessary," I still find it far easier to read texts that include the double-space between sentences than texts that don't.  There's just something…uncomfortable about seeing a new sentence start too close to the end punctuation of the preceding sentence.

For what it's worth, I far prefer this piece, published on the same site on the same day.  To quote the latter piece, "Manjoo's argument about beauty, like all such arguments, is easy enough to dismiss: I disagree.  I find it easier to read paragraphs that are composed of sentences separated by two spaces.  …  But there's also a deeper beauty to the two space rule—a sort of mathematical beauty."

Nevertheless, I thank you for the link.

Yours,
allixpeeke (talk) 00:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that article too. " "Thanks for your reply. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


DanielTom,

The article is factually wrong.  It claims that the double-space was started because of typewriters (and, specifically, mono-spaced typewriters).  According to Wikipedia, the first commercially successful typewriter was invented in 1868, and yet the double-space was popular well before that.  Take for instance this 1845 publication.  Not only does it employ the double-space, its characters are not mono-spaced, to boot.

No, the reason why the double-space began falling out of favour was the commercial pressure to reduce cost in the mid-twentieth century.  By no longer adhering to the tradition of double spacing, the man-hours required to set type was reduced, thus saving the publishers money.  (They also saved a bit of money on paper.)

But now, we are in the age of the Internet.  I've no publisher breathing down my neck telling me I must buck the double-space tradition simply so that she or he needn't pay me as much, nor do I see any reason for concern over the miniscule cost increase associated with using a few more bits of data requisite to double space.

Cheers,
allixpeeke (talk) 09:24, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

may I please talk to you[edit]

regards Me-myself22 (talk) 10:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Commence.  allixpeeke (talk) 15:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I must wonder whether Me-myself22, User:Allah-waliah, and 58.106.168.148 are not the same person.  Yesterday, Me-myself22 (who had only ever made two other edits on all of Wikiquote, both relating to Karan Singh Grover) posts this random request to my talk page.  (Why this editor didn't simply say whatever it was she or he wished to say, instead of first asking permission to say it, is beyond me.)  I respond in the affirmative.  No further communication from Me-myself22.  Today, someone with the IP address 58.106.168.148 edited this section of my talk page to make this request.  (The person has to make five edits within the period of six minutes in order to perfect her or his message, apparently.  See 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.)  The message requests that I check out recent edits to Karan Singh Grover, claiming these edits are "wrong" and specifically calling out two editors, Dharmashdyan and digviijay.  Upon checking the page history, however, I can see that no such editors have made any edits, nor can it be said that any edits been made to vandalise the page.  It appeared that the request may have pertained to the Wikipedia page on Karan Singh Grover—a page, I must note, that I have never edited, nor even read, a page in which I have absolutely zero interest.  Yet, I can see no evidence of any editors by those usernames having edited that page, either.  Thus, this request appears utterly nonsensical.  These five edits are the only edits 58.106.168.148 has made on Wikiquote.  Forty minutes later, Allah-waliah greatly truncated the request, replacing the IP signature with her or his own username signature.  Although truncated, the basic request that I check the Karan Singh Grover for vandalism remained intact—but, of course, there was no vandalism done to that Wikiquote page, as I said above.  One minute after that, Allah-waliah (who also has almost no edits here) eliminates the request altogether, thus leaving the page as it had been yesterday.  I really do not want to deal with this sort of nonsense.  It appears that the only reason I am being involved in this nonsense is because of my keep vote here.  Should I receive any further requests that seem to pertain to the Wikipedia article on Karan Singh Grover, or that are nonsensical requests made by editors that seem to have simply created accounts here in order to promote Karan Singh Grover, I shall remove my keep vote.  allixpeeke (talk) 21:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Templates[edit]

Thanks for your work on the new templates for franchises - just pne note: it does not appear that the templates are working on all the pages. I assume you will eventually go back and fix them, but I wanted to call your attention to them. The templates do not always seems to work on the individual pages for the works in the franchise (see Despicable Me or Child's Play (1988 film) for example). Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


UDScott,

I am not sure what you're talking about.  I checked all three Despicable Me pages, and the template is working on all of them.  Then I checked the five Chucky pages, and, again, the template was working on all five.  Perhaps it's your computer?

Yours,
allixpeeke (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


Hmm, I don;t know - when I look at those pages (and a few others), I see a red-link to the template. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
OK, never mind. When I re-sync the time, they appear. No worries. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Libertarian films[edit]

You might want to slow down with adding this category to so many pages - first, the category is being discussed at VFD (and it looks like it might be deleted). Second, I'm not sure what criteria you are using to select films for the category, but there are many that are not obvious to me why they would be included. In any case, I think the category should not be added to pages while it is under discussion. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


UDScott,

The criteria for my inclusion was the following: any film in which there is an authoritarian or collectivist presence being opposed; or wherein individualism, justly-owned property, or the market economy is promoted; or where war, intolerance, and enslavement are rejected or unmasked as horrors.

For example, Daddy Day Care (which has been in the category since February) is included because it demonstrates how easily the regulatory state is exploited to give established firms a competitive edge over startups; in short, the film promotes free markets over corporatism.  It's heroes also promote individualism, acknowledging that even children are unique individuals.1

For another example, Avatar is a film about defending property rights.  A militaristic, alien government attempts to impose itself upon the native Na'vi in order to steal what is rightfully theirs.  The Na'vi, in turn, engage in self-defence against this invading, imperialistic force.

In Ghostbusters and The Simpsons Movie, the villain is the same: a government agency calling itself the E. P. A.  Both films are chuck full of libertarianism.  Lake Springfield in The Simpsons Movie is an allegory for the tragedy of the commons, while the ineffectual nature of the wall Mayor Quimby builds around the fence is an allegory for similar walls proposed by the political class.2  And Dr. Ray Stantz famously says in Ghostbusters, "Personally, I liked the university.  They gave us money and facilities; we didn't have to produce anything!  You've never been out of college!  You don't know what it's like out there!  I've worked in the private sector—they expect results."3  The trio, as we all know, thereafter become entrepreneurs, starting their own small business, a small business which turns out to be so successful that they have to expand, taking on an additional ghostbuster.  (And, I feel I would be remiss if I did not mention that Lady Liberty walks through New York in the sequel, and even steps on a police car.)

Of course, the fact that Ghostbusters is libertarian should not shock anyone, since director/producer Ivan Reitman has admitted to having libertarian impulses.4  But, even non-libertarians make libertarian films.  Michael Moore, for example, is obviously not a libertarian, and yet his Farenheit 9/11, by virtue of being antiwar, nevertheless is libertarian (which isn't to say that the film can't be other things in addition to being libertarian, of course, only that it is libertarian).  In fact, sometimes statists make films hoping that they will promote a statist message, and fail so utterly that the product is a libertarian classic.  Take for example The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951), produced by the statist Julian Blaustein, a libertarian classic for its subtle yet persistent rejection of xenophobia, its warnings against substituting fear for reason, its examination of the dangers of nuclear war and nuclear weapons generally, and its insistence that there is something socially problematic about any hypermilitaristic society.5  (Much to what I presume would be Blaustein's consternation, Professor Aeon J. Skoble has written on the film's classical liberal and libertarian themes.6)  And, of course, there is also Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984), based on 1984.  George Orwell, the author of that novel, was not a libertarian, but was rather an antiauthoritarian socialist who waffled back and forth during his life between "libertarian" socialism and democratic socialism.  As Jeff Riggenbach put it,

One doesn't have to read far into the works of George Orwell to discover that he had no understanding of economics whatsoever and was not personally a libertarian in the sense we have in mind when we use that word today.  He was a permanently confused but authentically and radically antiauthoritarian democratic socialist.  He was the kind of modern leftist few modern-day libertarians would have any trouble getting along with, making common cause with, collaborating with.  George Orwell presents us with yet another case of a writer who was not himself a libertarian as we understand the term today, but whose last two novels, Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-four, have earned him a place in the libertarian tradition.7

But although Orwell was not himself a libertarian, 1984 was obviously very libertarian, as was Radford's film adaptation.  The libertarian hero of the film, Winston Smith, is a rebel, and his primary act of rebellion is to think independently.  He has sex, he falls in love, he eats foods reserved for a different class of citizens, he reads banned literature, he buys a few pieces of private property without the permission of the state, and most importantly, he quietly questions authority.  For all of this, but particularly for his independence in thought, he is brutally attacked by the state's henchmen.  It's his individuality ("ownlife" in Newspeak) that is most threatening to the political class, and thus it is his individuality that they aim to obliterate.8  Yes, the story is libertarian to its core.  (Should The Moon is a Harsh Mistress9 ever be made into a film, we might have to add it to the list of films made from material written by nonlibertarians, i.e., if we are to take into consideration what Wilson A. Clark, Jr. has to say about Heinlein.10)

I really do have good reason for each film I included.  The political class is the villain in many, including 2081 (the Handicapper General)11, Æon Flux (the power-hungry Oren Goodchild)12, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs (the mayor)13, Enemy of the State (the N. S. A.), Equilibrium (the Tetragrammaton Council and the Grammaton Clerics), 1966's Fahrenheit 451 (the Firemen)14, The Hunger Games (the Capitol), The People vs. Larry Flynt (censors), Pump Up the Volume (the F. C. C.), Rabbit-Proof Fence (the Chief "Protector" of the Aborigine Populace)15, Schindler's List (the Nazis), Short Circuit (the militaristic NOVA), the Star Wars films (the empire)16, THX 1138, The Toxic Avenger (the mayor and the military)17, and V for Vendetta.  Some films focus much more on the questions of individualism v. collectivism and nonconformity v. conformity, including some of the ones already mentioned plus as Antz18, Dark City, Disturbing Behavior, Divergent, The Fountainhead, The Matrix, Pleasantville (which also has the libertarian theme of being anti-xenophobic), and They Live (in which an alien race is clearly infringing upon self-ownership insofar as it alters humans' minds without their consent)19.  There are antiwar films such as The Americanization of Emily20, The Book Thief (which is also anti-Nazi), Dr. Strangelove21, Shenandoah (which is also pro-property and anti-state)23, and South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut (which is also anticensorship).  There are films such as Brazil which focus on the horrors of bureaucracy, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix which demonstrates the burden of having myriad authoritarian rules, I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang which shows the devastating effects of incarceration, Minority Report which examines the dangers of the security state23 and slavery24 and promotes an appreciation for ethics25 and an understanding of free will26, all the while focusing on the injustice of punishing people who have not yet done anything wrong.  The Truman Show is about Truman Burbank's struggle for truth and liberty, which is contrasted with the security of the world created for him by Christof.27  To Kill a Mockingbird is about tolerance and promotes the ideal that courts should not side against someone for purely prejudicial reasons.  In The Pursuit of Happyness, the protagonist struggles against the odds to become a business success, never giving in to defeat.  Then there's Sleeper (1973) in which Woody Allen informs us that "political solutions don't work," that "it doesn't matter who's up there, they're all terrible."28  Similarly, Tammy Metzler in Election (1999) wins a student government election on the promise of doing nothing other than dismantling the student government.29

Yes, I believe each film I added to the category fits the criteria of a libertarian film quite effectively.  I hope you understand my rationale for believing so.

Sincerely yours,
allixpeeke (talk) 23:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


I'll have to consider your words a bit more before providing a fuller response, but my initial feeling is that you are trying to ascribe a bit much into these films. Just because there may be elements of a film that have something to do with a particular theme does not mean that the entire film is about that theme. For example, if a comedy film has a scene or a character who picks pockets, this does not mean that it should be called a crime film. Many of the films that have now been characterized as being Libertarian films, to me, are similar in that there may be parts of the films that express an idea characteristic of libertarianism, but the film itself is not really a libertarian film. To me, to qualify in this category, the film's primary themes should be about a libertarian quality or ideal. I feel that putting all these films in the category is a stretch (and using some of your arguments above, nearly all films have some element of libertarianism in them - but not all should be in this category). ~ UDScott (talk) 14:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


UDScott,

You write, "Just because there may be elements of a film that have something to do with a particular theme does not mean that the entire film is about that theme."

Agreed.  I wouldn't put a single one of these films in a Category:Films about libertarianism.

You also write, "[A]nd using some of your arguments above, nearly all films have some element of libertarianism in them - but not all should be in this category."

Again, agreed.  It's not enough to just have a libertarian character or to just happen to have a scene in which someone happens to say, e.g., "But gun control doesn't work."  The libertarian theme must be important to the story or to the film's message.  Most films in which the state is the villain would automatically fall under the category of libertarian films—but, even that rule isn't absolute.  In most cases, films in which the state is the villain are libertarian films by virtue of the fact that it promotes the message that there can be or is something villainous about statism.  But, should a film exist in which the state is a villain, but in which the "heroes" are also statists, statists who are not opposed to statism per se but rather merely to the form of statism exemplified by their own state, that would not be a libertarian film.  (To state this case with a bit more example, almost every anti-Soviet Union film would be automatically libertarian, unless the film happened to be both anti-Soviet Union and pro-Nazi, in which case it would not.)  I feel the films I've included in the category are sufficiently libertarian to be included.  Take Avatar, for example: the theme of the film is thoroughly libertarian.  The entire film is about the just struggle of the Na'vi in defending their land from the violent, imperialistic fist of an invading military force whose sole objective is to steal said land.  Or take Dark City.  The entire film is about John Murdoch, an individual human, fighting against the Strangers, a group of beings who have a collective memory and who are manipulating humans without the humans' consent.  There's no way to divorce libertarianism from these films.

But, just because these films are libertarian does not mean that all, or nearly all, films are libertarian.  If we had a film in which the collectivistic Strangers were the heroes of the film and in which the individual was the villain, that would be a pretty unlibertarian film, as would a film in which the invading military force is depicted as the heroes and the landowners as the enemy.  While both RoboCop and Fight Club are great films, I don't consider either one to be particularly libertarian.  Some have argued that Fight Club is libertarian on the grounds that the narrator, upon discovering the reality of his situation, attempts to take personal responsibility—but I think that's a stretch, especially when one considers the rather collectivistic nature of Project Mayhem and Tyler Durden's anti-individualistic, anti-comsumeristic, "anarcho"-primitivistic rhetoric—he even makes reference to human life being of no greater value than an egg.  And RoboCop leaves the viewer with the false impression that government-monopoly policing is good, and that without it, there would be choas.  I find Johnny Mnemonic similarly unlibertarian; it's oddly anti-technology.  And as for In Time, the film is so economically confused that that it seems to be almost accidentally antilibertarian.

Then there are films that are neither libertarian nor unlibertarian.  12 Monkeys, for example, doesn't bother to comment on libertarian themes, whether positively or negatively.  The film is completely apolitical, focusing instead on epistemology.  Can James Cole ever be sure he is not insane?  Nor is Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind either libertarian or unlibertarian.  Most horror films are likewise neither libertarian nor unlibertarian.  It's not enough that the villain merely be an evil killer and the victim be innocent, even if libertarians i[so facto side with the innocent characters and against the murderously evil characters.

But, when you have a film like The Truman Show, in which the entire film is about the protagonist's struggle to control his own destiny, to know about and be free from those who are manipulating the world around him, when the audience is shown cheering the fact that Truman chooses the uncertainty of freedom over the security of the show's set, the libertarianism is inescapable.

Respectfully yours,
allixpeeke (talk) 02:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Allixpeeke for your thoughtful responses - I think I have a much better understanding of your view - and I admit, you've convinced me on many of your points. I retract my statement that you were trying to stretch an idea to make films fit into the box of Libertarian films. Thanks! ~ UDScott (talk) 13:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Wage and Exploitation articles[edit]

  • Thank you for your contributions to the wage article. The quotes you added are very interesting. You probably also noticed that questions about wages rely very much on questions about property rights. The quotes that you added seem to have a very optimistic outlook on property rights, and I would like to understand this better. This is a bit off the topic of Wikiquote, but I hope it might lead to some interesting future additions. Based on your work on Wikiquote, I can tell you are an intellectual leader in the libertarian world, and a dialog seems like it could be productive on many levels.
For me the quotes and the sanguine outlook on property rights they presuppose raise at least two questions. (1) If the distribution of wealth is correct and just before a voluntary exchange, will it be correct and just after the exchange? and (2) How do we take history into account in deciding if the distribution of wealth is correct and just?
In regard to question (2), questions like “How long is the statute of limitations for past economic injustice?” become important. I’m interested in what libertarian theory has to say about this. Libertarian theory, at least what I have read, is taut and logical in its derivation of many legal institutions, but when it comes to the statute of limitations, Rothbard and Mises suddenly fail to offer logical arguments, and abruptly change from apodictic rights-based reasoning to a much less logically compelling form of pragmatist reasoning. Suppose the statute of limitations for past economic injustice is four years. Doesn’t this mean that in our research into past economic injustice we have agreed to rule out the study of history beyond four years? What is the justification for this limitation on our study of history? I’m sure you’re familiar with the expression, “Possession is nine-tenths of the law.” If the government is strict in enforcing property rights, and not very particular about ensuring they are correct and just, then in enforcing property rights it may be enforcing injustice. Property rights carry forward in time for many generations. Why do the debts incurred for past crimes not carry forward with them? If the rate of return on capital (r) were less than the growth rate (g) of the economy, past injustice would fade out over time, and we could justify a statute of limitations of something on the order of 1/(g-r). For example if the economy grew at 4% per year and the rate of return on capital was 3%, past injustices would fade out exponentially with a time constant of 1/(0.04-0.03) = 100 years, and we could justify a one century statute of limitations. But Piketty has shown, I think, that in fact r>g. If this is true, then past injustices continue to grow over time, and there is no justification for any statute of limitations. Let’s look at the recent past as an example. If we consider that large corporations have been writing legislation intended to drive out small competitors and consolidate their power through non-market mechanisms, then we can question whether corporate debt and equity, which constitutes a huge fraction of total wealth, is a legitimate property right. Do we need a massive restitution for past injustice (like the Jubilee) to wipe out illegitimate property rights carried forward from our decidedly non-libertarian history before we can begin to found a truly just libertarian society? Or is the justice of a libertarian society entirely independent from the justice of its starting point? ~ Peter1c (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Another concern which is more on topic for Wikiquote, and which I will also include on the article talk pages: I suspect many of the quotations you have added to the wage and exploitation articles have been articulated in a context in which the author is describing his vision of an ideal libertarian society. In such a society, the ownership of resources is the result of just procedures and is therefore just. An employment agreement made between participants of such a society is therefore merely a voluntary trade and can't in any meaningful sense be called exploitation. By taking these quotations out of context, however, you have given Wikiquote readers the impression that these conclusions apply to present-day society, or indeed to any society no matter how the distribution of resources has come into place. To cite just one limiting case as an example: if a dictator confiscates all the land and resources of his subjects and then hires them as laborers, I think we would certainly call this employment contract exploitation.
Ripping a quotation out of context always does it some injustice. But in this case I think the meaning is distorted particularly badly. Since the quotations you added are so long by Wikiquote standards, I get the impression that you felt more had to be included to make the quotation adequately comprehensible. But perhaps so much would have to be included as to make a brief quotation impossible? Or perhaps you could look backward in the texts to a point where the author defines the context in which he makes his later statements, and add that with an ellipsis? I'm not sure what the best approach is, but I'm not really satisfied with the present one. Peter1c (talk) 14:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

hi[edit]

happy new year.to you and your family.--Sonia Sevilla (talk) 00:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Moon in film[edit]

A good addition, but we already have a similar category (Category:Moon-related films) - I would recommend only using one of them. I don;t have a preference which you use, but we shouldn't have this redundancy. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks.  allixpeeke (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Would you be interested in improving the page for Michael Badnarik?[edit]

The page for Michael Badnarik requires a lot of additional citations, I was wondering if you might be interested. CensoredScribe (talk) 20:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Alphabetizing[edit]

I think alphabetizing by the last name of whoever is listed first on IMDB or wikipedia is better than the title; like with all the X-Men quotes on the pain page; the same way multi author works Chicago or MLA style, unless it's a work where the authors aren't known. I'm pretty sure when I was adding dialogue quotes from movies and television someone would have called me out on it if I was wrong that many times in a row like, like how I got called out on my formatting quotes throwing off the typography with two colons instead of a colon and asterix. CensoredScribe (talk) 03:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)