Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Category:Libertarian films

- with SPA's discounted, the vote is four to one for deletion of this category. It is clearly seen as too problematic in its boundary definition. BD2412 T 18:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Libertarian films
None of these films are said to be libertarian on Wikipedia, there aren't anarchist conservative or liberal films, so why is there a libertarian films category? Libertarianism in media covers what few specifically libertarian works there are. — CensoredScribe (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Vote closes: 20:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: There are libertarian films and they do exist, and this category is about labelling films that have libertarian themes, or ideology. Just my two cents. Joker of Truth (talk) 20:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: Editor's first edit to Wikiquote, other than to create a User page. BD2412 T 17:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: I agree with Joker of Truth here, his argument seems to make sense, if they are any counterpoints, may change view, but for now, I'm voting Keep. Floating Earth (talk)
 * Note: Editor's first edit to Wikiquote, other than to create a User page. BD2412 T 17:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. "Libertarian films" is not a film genre. Period. Furthermore, this attempt at "labelling films that have libertarian themes" is misguided and misinformed. Anti-authoritarian themes in dystopian films may certainly be of interest from a libertarian perspective, but that does not make them libertarian films. (E.g. George Orwell, author of Nineteen Eighty-Four, was not a libertarian by any stretch of the imagination, he was a democratic socialist.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - I see no reason to keep this category and I would find it difficult to determine criteria for including any film in it. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - after some meaningful discussion at User talk:Allixpeeke, I now do see enough value to keep this category. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - sory for the flip flopping, but now I am convinced the other way. While I do think that there is some merit to Allixpeeke's arguments about libertarian themes in films, I am not so sure that this category is useful for describing films on this site. I return to my original misgivings where I was not sure that one can easily distinguish which films belong where since the themes attributed to libertarianism can also easily be ascribed to other types of films as well. In the end, I am just too unsure of its application to endorse the use of this category. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Meaningless category.--Abramsky (talk) 09:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Wouldn't the existing Category:Dystopian films be more inclusive; also anarchist films would fit the definition of anti stateist just as well. Just because something does have a criteria by which is can be categorized doesn't mean that we should categorize it. How many paintings or painters on Wikipedia are actually categorized by the art movement they are said to belong to? Should fictional characters be listed by definite medical attributes other than gender, like their left handedness, or their disease status? Why are only Star Wars 1-3 libertarian, what about the trade federation and the separatists in 1-3? Libertarianism is as difficult a word to define as feminism. Are all girls with guns movies feminist because they physically powerful women? wouldn't that that make Sucker Punch a feminist film; it does have a lot of similarities to Kill Bill which gets called feminist by a number of critics. What Japanese anime would be libertarian or feminist, there's stateism in Akira and End of Evangelion deals with Japan fighting the U.N. Queens Blade has a lot of physically powerful women wearing hardly any cloths fighting each other, is that feminism? If watching physically powerful half naked women fighting isn't feminist, than why is Wonder Woman widely regarded as feminist but Queens Blade isn't? CensoredScribe (talk) 21:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

"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.4" Although Orwell was not himself a libertarian, 1984 nevertheless 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 for pleasure, 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.5 Yes, the story is libertarian to its core. And there is no conflict in acknowledging both that George Orwell was not a libertarian and that both 1984 and Nineteen Eighty-Four were libertarian. (Should The Moon is a Harsh Mistress6 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.7) If CensoredScribe wishes to start a category for Category:Feminist films, I think that'd be just fine. Neither libertarianism nor feminism are particularly difficult to define. Libertarianism is the ideal that liberty should be maximised, where liberty is defined as freedom from aggression, where aggression is defined as the initiation of force or fraud against the person or justly-acquired property of another, where property is considered justly-acquired only if it has been acquired through either homesteading, gift, or trade. It's extremely straight-forward. Feminism is the ideal that women should have all the same rights as men. Libertarianism feminism, also known as individualist feminism, is the ideal that both women and men should be free from aggression. (Technically, although all libertarians are libertarian feminists, not all feminists are libertarian feminists.) If CensoredScribe wanted to add Sucker Punch to Category:Feminist films, I'd say that that makes sense to me. We will have to wait and see whether or not Wonder Woman (2017 film) turns out to be a feminist film, but I won't be the least bit surprised if it is, and if it is, it should go in that category, too. I cannot comment on Queen's Blade, however, as I know nothing about it, other than to say that I see no reason why nudity should ipso facto invalidate something's or someone's status as a feminist. (Indeed, I'm perfectly willing to regard Belle Knox a libertarian feminist.) In any event, however, the current lack of a Category:Feminist films category is no reason to delete Category:Libertarian films; rather, it seems a reason to create Category:Feminist films and thus have both. But, even if one believes, for some reason, that Category:Feminist films would be too difficult to define, that's still no reason to delete Category:Libertarian films. User:Ningauble also expresses concern about these categories being subcategorised as genres. Understandable, although that is obviously no reason to delete the categories! If we move Category:Political films from Category:Films by genre to Category:Films by theme, this should take care of that issue rather nicely. I hope I have addressed all of the relevant concerns. To summarise my points: (1) Category:Libertarian films is a meaningful category that is very useful to those searching for libertarian quotes in film, unlike Category:Left-handedness films. (2) The absence of Category:Feminist films is no reason Category:Libertarian films should also be absent; and even if Category:Feminist films were too vague to define (which I don't believe they are), that obviously doesn't mean Category:Libertarian films is too vague to define. (3) Orwell's political orientation is not the determining factor in deciding whether any of his works are libertarian, nor is it the determining factor in deciding which films based on his works are libertarian; but, even if Orwell's political orientation were a deciding factor (which it is not), that is no justification for deleting the category as a whole. (4) Regardless of whether or not libertarian films constitutes a genre, that is no justification for deleting the category (especially when moving Category:Political films out of Category:Films by genre is so easy). (5) Although the meaninglessness of a category is just cause for deleting said category, there is nothing "meaningless" about the category herein under discussion. If anyone has any additional concerns, please let me know. Cheers, allixpeeke (talk) 22:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep—Having a category for libertarian films makes just as much sense as having a category for anarchist films and as having a category for socialist films. It makes just as much sense to have these categories as it does to have other political categories.  If one is specifically looking for film quotes that would appeal to libertarians, Category:Libertarian films is the most likely source.  If one is specifically looking for film quotes that would appeal to socialists, Category:Socialist films is the most likely source.  Etc.  Contrary to User:Abramsky's claim, these categories are not meaningless.  Quite the opposite, in fact: they are meaningful categories, and the meaning of these categories is rather unambiguous.  Category:Libertarian films houses films with libertarian themes.  Neither the term libertarian nor the term films is meaningless, nor ambiguous.  Category:Socialist films houses films with socialist themes.  Neither the term socialist nor the term films is meaningless, nor ambiguous.  Category:Anarchist films houses films with anarchistic themes.  Neither the term anarchist nor the term films is meaningless, nor ambiguous. User:CensoredScribe asks, "Should fictional characters be listed by definite medical attributes other than gender, like their left handedness, or their disease status?"  There is a meaningful difference here that this question appears to ignore.  One who is looking for specifically libertarian or specifically socialistic quotes in films are much more likely to find the sorts of quotes for which they're looking in Category:Libertarian films and Category:Socialist films respectively.  Thus, the categories are highly useful to Wikiquote readers.  Contrariwise, with the exception of Ned Flanders, the left-handedness of characters is almost never relevant to plots and is thus almost never discussed enough to generate quotes.  If no one is going to look for quotes on left-handedness in film, that category becomes rather unuseful.  (Quotes about left-handedness, whether from film or elsewhere, will generally be so rare that they could all easily be housed in a left-handedness page.)  It would be much more apt to compare Category:Libertarian films, Category:Anarchist films, and Category:Socialist films to Category:Dancing films than to Category:Left-handedness films. The criteria I've been using to determine which films are to be included in the libertarian category has been: 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. 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 ipso 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.1 I believe sincerely that every film I've added to the category is sufficiently libertarian to merit inclusion, and am prepared to defend each one, if required to do so.  For now, however, I shall simply defend Nineteen Eighty-Four, since User:Ningauble brought that one up specifically. It must be acknowledged that 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.2  (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.3)  So that brings us to George Orwell, the author of 1984, the novel upon which Radford's Nineteen Eighty-Four was based.  Orwell, we must admit, 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,


 * Comment: I think Category:Libertarian films is very problematic. Allixpeeke argues that the criteria for inclusion is 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." (in talk page). However, this criteria is somewhat problematic. If it is right, anti-authoritarianism, anti-collectivistism, anti-war, tolerance are "libertarian" virtues. However, I think many non-libertarians can argue that these things are also "liberal" or "progressive" virtues. Liberty, freedom, peace and so on ... are too universal virtues to be only "libertarian". I think "libertarian" is very misleading. Is Baruch Spinoza's Tractatus Theologico-Politicus a "libertarian" publication? Is Jean-Jacques Rousseau's The Social Contract a "libertarian" publication? Is Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations a "libertarian" publication? Are Immanuel Kant's Critique of Practical Reason and Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch "libertarian" publications? Is John Rawls's A Theory of Justice a "libertarian" publication? They all argues for liberty, tolerance and so on, in their own ways. Is it "libertarian" to argue for liberty, tolerance, and peace? Maybe. However, this is also "liberal", "progressive". Today, there are many non-"libertarian" works about political philosophy arguing for liberty, tolerance and so on. Arts are much more subtle meaning than academic writings. Films are arts. Therefore, I think Category:Libertarian films is problematic. If following criteria of Allixpeeke, virtually almost all of the films using "man against society" conflict narrative are "libertarian". (I want to ask Allixpeeke if Sophocles's Antigone is "libertarian" literature.) However, for those who think it is useful, How about making more specific or non-ideological category, such as Category:Films about anti-war, or Category:Films whose main conflict is individual vs society? --Y-S.Ko (talk) 02:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The term if from the enlightenment in the 1700's and originally means having a belief in free will;which was very non protestant. I don't like the anarchist, socialist or feminist film categories either as it degrades those terms. There's no way you could agree on a film being liberal or conservative; movies specifically stay away from being hyper political because that guarantees half the audience won't come...even though half the possible audience is still millions if not billions of people. CensoredScribe (talk) 04:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Response to User:CensoredScribe to  User:Y-S.Ko  — You write, "However, I think many non-libertarians can argue that these things are also 'liberal' or 'progressive' virtues." Libertarianism is classical liberalism taken to its logical conclusion.  Certainly, the values listed should also be liberal or progressive values.  It's unfortunate that the term liberalism has become so twisted over the past century-plus that many self-described "liberals" today see no problem in supporting giving centralised governments greater powers to tax and regulate; it's disturbing just how many so-called liberals dropped off from the anti-war scene just as soon as Obama (a man who has just as much blood on his hands as Bush) got elected.  But, yes, true liberals do hold those values. You write, "Liberty, freedom, peace and so on ... are too universal virtues to be only 'libertarian'." I think this sentence is misleading.  I never claimed nor implied that these values are "only" libertarian; rather, all I said is that individualism, anti-statism, tolerance, propertarianism, and opposition to war and enslavement are libertarian values.  Indeed, allow me to quote a sentence I wrote above: "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)."  Clearly, I acknowledge that opposition to war (e.g.) can be a value of various ideologies, not just libertarianism.  If there was any ambiguity, allow me to clarify: all libertarian values, not just the value of opposition to war, are values that can be held by those of other political ideologies.  My point was never to claim that these are exclusively libertarian values, only that they are libertarian values. It would be absurd, naturally, for anyone to go into Category:Liberal films or Category:Conservative films (if those categories existed) and to think that only liberals or only conservative would like the films listed in each.  The reason films would be listed under such categories would not be because they're exclusive to those categories, but because they do fit in those categories (regardless of whether or not they fit in other categories as well).  So, it stands to reason that when one goes into Category:Anarchist films or Category:Libertarian films or Category:Socialist films, one is not expecting to find exclusively anarchistic films, or exclusively libertarian films, or exclusively socialistic films, but rather films that are anarchistic, or films that are libertarian, or films that are socialistic.  If there can be overlap in political values—and you yourself have just admitted there can be—then it stands to reason that there can be overlap in the political orientation of films, and therefore these categories ought not be deleted. (Indeed, there already are some films that are categorised under more than a single ideology, indicating quite clearly that categorisation is not exclusive.  Just as Invader Zim can be categorised as both Category:Science fiction TV shows and Category:Comedy TV shows (as these categories are not exclusive), V for Vendetta can be categorised as both Category:Libertarian films and Category:Anarchist films (as these categories are also not exclusive).  Nonexclusivity has never been a legitimate reason for deleting categories.) Sincerely yours, allixpeeke (talk) 21:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * (1) Thanks for responding me, Allixpeeke! (2) Allixpeeke wrote "I never claimed nor implied that these values are 'only' libertarian; rather, all I said is that individualism, anti-statism, tolerance, propertarianism, and opposition to war and enslavement are libertarian values." That is right. However, What I meant is it is possible to be anti-authoritarian, anti-collectivist, individualistic, anti-statistic, tolerant, anti-war, anti-enslavement without being libertarian. Therefore, "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.", as explanation of "Libertarian films" can be good, but as criteria (or definition) of "Libertarian films" is problematic. If Allixpeeke think these values can be shared by "non-libertarian films", this criteria is inadequate. (2-1) I am accustomed to reading books than watching films. So I give examples of "non-libertarian" books which meet the criteria "any books 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.", to show that this criteria is problematic. (2-1-1) John Rawls's A Theory of Justice and Political Liberalism. These books argue for liberty, at least in rhetoric. Friedrich Hayek wrote, "Rawls’ statement … seems to me to show that we agree on what is to me the essential point." Jean-Jacques Rousseau's The Social Contract. This book also argue for liberty. Baruch Spinoza's Tractatus Theologico-Politicus. This book also argue for liberty. (2-1-2) However, Is it appropriate to call Rawls, Rousseau, Spinoza's works "libertarian"? I don't think so. I think "non-libertarian" (including "modern" liberal) works can argue, at least in rhetoric, for liberty and so on. (2-1-3) Rawls, Rousseau, and Spinoza's books are academic writings. Arts, such as films, is much harder to judge, because arts are much more subtle meaning than academic writings. Therefore, it is more problematic to apply this criteria to art category than academic writing category. (2-2) I wrote, "If following criteria of Allixpeeke, virtually almost all of the films using 'man against society' conflict narrative are 'libertarian'." to intend that criteria of Allixpeeke is too large. Even Plato's Apology can be "libertarian literature". Isn't it strange? (2-2-1) Allixpeeke wrote, "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)." How about this sentence, "Farenheit 9/11, by virtue of being antiwar, nevertheless is Buddhist. (becuase antiwar and anti-violence are main Buddhist values!)" I think calling Farenheit 9/11 Buddhist is very strange. I think sharing some values is not adequate for including in some categories, such as "liberarian", or "Buddhist". (2-2-2) Allixpeeke wrote, "If there can be overlap in political values … then it stands to reason that there can be overlap in the political orientation of films, and therefore these categories ought not be deleted." I think sharing some values is not enough to include in some categories. I saw some Christians argue that peace is important Christian value. I saw some Muslims argue that peace is important Islamic value. I saw some Buddhists argue that peace is important Buddhist value. Then, should anti-war films be included in categories such as "Christian films", "Islamic films", and "Buddhist films"? (3) I did vote neither "keep" nor "delete". What I want is a narrow definition (or criteria) of "Libertarian films", in which, "libertarian" enough to exclude Rawls and Rousseau's works. What distinguish "libertarian" from "non-libertarian"? (Modern) liberal, non-libertarians (like John Rawls) argue liberty, freedom, anti-war and so on, so these values cannot distinguish "libertarian" from "non-libertarian". My own answer is a method rather than universal values. Libertarians likes private sectors than (modern) liberals, because they believe that private sectors bring more liberty and other values. Socialists likes public sectors than (modern) liberals, because they believe that public sectors bring more liberty and other values. However, I can be wrong. I'm not sure about this, because I am not accustomed to American politics... (4) I want a specific and narrow criteria of category "Libertarian films".--Y-S.Ko (talk) 00:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Response User:Y-S.Ko— Thank you for your response. You write, "What I meant is it is possible to be anti-authoritarian, anti-collectivist, individualistic, anti-statistic, tolerant, anti-war, anti-enslavement without being libertarian." What? I must disagree.  Please allow me to explain why I disagree.  (Before I begin, however, I must say, I don't know who is 'against statistics', or what being opposed to statistics would have to do with libertarianism.  Do you mean anti-statist?  I will assume you did.)  Apologies in advance for the verbosity of this explanation.  (Note, none of my following explanation is meant to imply that you disagree with any individual part thereof.  Indeed, for all I know, you may agree fully with each and every individual part.  Nor should my provision of any of my following explanation be inferred to mean that I believe you are unfamiliar with the philosophy being examined.  Indeed, for all I know, you may be intimately aware of each and every angle of the philosophy explored below.  Rather, my rationale for inclusion of this level of detail is merely to ensure that I present a complete picture of the philosophical underpinnings of libertarianism.) A libertarian is anyone who aims to maximise liberty, where liberty is defined as freedom from aggression, aggression is defined as the initiation1 of force or fraud against the person or the justly-acquired property of another, and property is considered to have been justly acquired insofar as it is acquired solely through either homesteading, gift, or trade.  This is called the nonaggression axiom, and all of the principles I attributed above to libertarianism are derived from this central axiom. Every human innately owns her or his own body; the abolitionists called this self-ownership and individual sovereignty, and some of the abolitionists (e.g., Frederick Douglass, William Lloyd Garrison) commendably went so far as to call slavemasters "man-stealers" on the grounds that the act of enslaving directly infringed upon the innate right to self-ownership.  In other words, slavery necessarily infringed upon the slave's natural, inalienable rights to own (and thus control) her or his own body.  While not all abolitionists are ipso facto libertarian, all libertarians are ipso facto abolitionists, and opposition to slavery (which the libertarian recognises as a form of aggression against the individual) is a libertarian virtue. If individual humans innately own their own respective bodies, then they also own their own labour, and whenever they use said labour to add value to something found in the state of nature (i.e. to say, to something previously unowned), she or he brings it out of the state of nature and it becomes her or his property, to use and dispose of as she or he wishes.  If you go in the woods and find a plot of unowned land, and you begin clearing the twigs and rubble in order that you may start farming that land, that land you have laboured upon becomes yours.  Now let's say I'm walking along and come across your farm, and I decide maliciously to spread salt all over it.  It doesn't matter if you just started farming the land or if you've been farming it for fifty years—either way, I have infringed upon your property rights.  You mixed your labour with that land, and then I come along and I retroactively steal that labour from you.  In other words, I have retroactively enslaved you.  Property rights in justly-acquired alienable resources is really just an extension of the self.  This applies just as much to bikes as it does to land, for the metal and rubber and leather used in the manufacture of bikes also ultimately are mined from nature using labour, and then transformed through labour into the final product; thus, it is just as unjust to steal a bike as it is to salt some farmer's land without said farmer's consent.  While not all propertarians are ipso facto libertarian, all libertarians are ipso facto propertarian, specifically the sort of propertarian who believes that the right to alienable property is limited to property acquired through homesteading, gift, or trade.  (Thieving is not a legitimate means of acquiring property in the libertarian world-view because it constitutes an act of aggression against the individual.)  Respect for the right to justly-acquired property is a libertarian virtue. Now, let's say that most of the people who live in your town are redheads, and most of the redheads in your town start to become redhead supremacists, believing that redheads are superior to all other people.  This is collectivism.  They take on the view that redheads, irrespective of the differences between different individuals, are ipso facto superior to non-redheads.  Instead of judging each individual individually based on the content of her or his character, they're judging all non-redheads as a group, ascribing to it the collective trait(s) they believe make(s) non-redheads inferior to redheads, whom they are also judging collectively rather than individually.  Let's say these redhead supremacists have particular ire against blondes for some reason, and you happen to be the only blonde in town.  They decide they can no longer tolerate you in "their" town, and they try to drive you out.  They start egging your barn and knocking over your scarecrow.  They even burn a cross they fashioned out of redwood on your front lawn.  What these collectivists don't seem to get is that it's not "their" town, and thus they have no right to drive you out.  You have as much right to be there as they do.  You own your land—it is yours—just as they own their land, not the entire town.  Thus, when they decided they could no longer tolerate you in "their" town, what they were actually doing is trying to drive you off of your land.  They infringed upon your property rights when they egged your barn without your consent, when they knocked over your scarecrow without your consent, and when they burned the cross made of redwood on your lawn without your consent.  This infringement of your property rights is just as much an act of retroactive enslavement as any other act of theft.  It is yet another violation of the nonaggression axiom.  While not all tolerant people are ipso facto libertarian, all libertarians are ipso facto tolerant of anyone who refrains from aggressing against others.2  This is yet another libertarian virtue.  Libertarians are able to maintain this tolerance in part by being individualists, by recognising that every individual must be judged by her or his own character and actions. One day, Jones comes to your door and informs you that he is your new king.  "This guy is a nut," you tell yourself, "but, whatever; it's not like he has any power.  If he wants to call himself 'king' or even 'god,' it's no sweat off my back."  You think this is the last you're going to hear of this King Jones nonsense, but surprisingly, a lot of people in town like the idea of Jones being king, and they join his legions.  Now, Jones and his tax-collectors are telling you that you have to give Jones some percentage of your crop each month, and if you can't pay the tax, they will seize your farm and throw you in debtor's prison.  But this act of forced expropriation is no less an act of theft simply because the entity committing the theft is calling itself a state; those are still your crops, that is still your land.  By stealing the fruits of your labour, the state is retroactively enslaving you.  Taxation violates the nonaggression axiom.  Hell, maybe Jones decrees that you must also begin farming tobacco, even if you don't want to.  Now, the state is enslaving you directly.  This regulation also violates the nonaggression axiom.  It doesn't make things any better if Jones creates a constitution decreeing that there should be an election for king every four years—the state still has no right to do to you what it is doing.  Even if the next king changes his title from king to president, the state remains unjust.  Even if the next president diverts some of his power to a judicial branch and some of his power to a legislative branch, the state remains unjust.  Even if the legislative branch is also elected, the state remains unjust.  Even if the legislature creates a bill of rights, the state remains unjust.  Even if 99% of the community supports the state and its actions, the state remains unjust.  Hell, even if every single person on Earth except for you—even if every single intelligent being in the universe except for you—believes it is okay for the state to take some of your crops, or tell you what crops you may grow, or tells you what you may or may not consume, or what you may or may not nonviolently do, the state remains unjust.  Statism is always and everywhere aggressive, and aggression does not magically become just just because some person or group calls itself a "state" or convinces the masses that aggression is sometimes legitimate.  While not all nonstatists are ipso facto libertarian3, all libertarians ipso facto are nonstatism, and opposition to statism (which the libertarian recognises as systemic aggression against the individual) is a libertarian virtue. If Jones goes to Robinson who lives a few towns over and initiates force by punches Robinson in the face, thereby breaking Robinson's nose, the libertarian will naturally side with the victim, Robinson, and maintain that Jones ought to pay restitution to his victim.  This is a rather small skirmish.  Nobody else was injured or suffered property destruction.  Nobody was caught in crossfire.  Nobody was conscripted (i.e., enslaved) into a battalion.  That doesn't make the situation good, since the situation still involved aggression; but at least this is a matter that can be easily settled by taking the dispute to a neutral arbitrator.  But, if King Jones decides he want to invade King Robinson's town, or if King Robinson decides he wants to invade King Jones's town, now we have a situation much more dire.  Let's say King Robinson is invading King Jones's town because Jones refused to pay Robinson the restitution that the neutral arbitrator said Jones owed to Robinson for the medical care Robinson received as a result of being punched in the face by Jones.  Even though everyone (including libertarians) supports Robinson's desire to obtain the restitution he is owed, the libertarian cannot condone the method he is currently employing.  Let's say Jones's daughter, Sally, gets shot by Robinson or one of his men and dies.  Sally is an innocent child; she is not responsible for the crimes of her father, and certainly did not deserve to die.  Nor did you, an innocent farmer, deserve to have your farm burned by Robinson's troops.  Even though Robinson's cause (seeking restitution) was just, his method (war) was not.  It has simply led to further aggression.  Virtually every war leads to aggression by one means or another,4 and thus, while not all antiwar people are libertarians, libertarians are antiwar.  Being antiwar is a libertarian virtue. If you wish to say that not everyone who opposes slavery is libertarian, I obviously agree.  In your list, you left out propertarianism, but if someone wanted to say that not everyone who believes in property is a libertarian, I would obviously agree.  If you wish to say that not everyone who is an individualist, who supports tolerance, who opposes collectivism is libertarian, I obviously agree.  In your list, you bring up statistics, but I will go ahead and assume you meant to bring up statism so that I can note that, if you wish to say that not everyone who is not a statist is a libertarian, I agree.5  And, if you wish to say that not everyone who opposes war is libertarian, I obviously agree.  But, you list all of these things together, saying that a person can be all these things without being libertarian.  I do not believe it is possible to be an anti-authoritarian and an individualist (a.k.a. "anti-collectivist") and an anti-statist and tolerant and antiwar and an abolitionist and a propertarian without also being a libertarian.  (It's possible to be all these things and not call oneself a libertarian, of course, but to be all these things and yet not be a libertarian is impossible.) We agree that not everyone who is libertarian on the question of slavery is necessarily also libertarian on other issues.  A person who is opposed to slavery could still be a warmonger, for example.  Likewise, not everyone who is libertarian on the question of war is necessarily also libertarian on still other issues.  Eugene V. Debs, e.g., was libertarian on the question of war but unlibertarian on the question of property rights.  Where we seem to disagree is that you believe—unless I am misreading you—that a person can be libertarian on all matters and still not be a libertarian.  No offence, but I don't see how.  If one is a libertarian on all matters, then that person ipso facto wishes to see aggression minimised in human relations.  Anyone who wishes to see aggression minimised in human relations ipso facto wishes to see freedom from aggression (i.e., liberty) maximised.  And, since a libertarian is anyone who wishes to see liberty maximised, it therefore stands to reason that anyone who is a libertarian on all matters is ipso facto a libertarian. You write, "Therefore, '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', as explanation of 'Libertarian films' can be good, but as criteria (or definition) of 'Libertarian films' is problematic. If Allixpeeke think these values can be shared by 'non-libertarian films', this criteria is inadequate." I disagree.  Again, allow me to explain why I disagree. Pump Up the Volume is both a libertarian film and a liberal film.  Why is it a libertarian film? Pump Up the Volume is libertarian on the question of censorship.  But, does that alone make it a libertarian film?  No; a film's libertarian theme must be central to the film; it cannot just be a passing comment.  In the case of Pump Up the Volume, the film's opposition to censorship is central to the film. So far, so good.  But, even if a film has a libertarian theme that is central to its plot, if a film also has anti-libertarian themes, then it could not be described as a libertarian film.  Does Pump Up the Volume have any anti-libertarian themes?  Does it, e.g., promote the view that murder or taxation are good?  No, the film has no anti-libertarian themes. Any film that promotes one or more libertarian themes without promoting any anti-libertarian themes is a libertarian film.  Since Pump Up the Volume promotes one or more libertarian themes without promoting any anti-libertarian themes, it is a libertarian film. Why is Pump Up the Volume also a liberal film?  Because opposition to censorship is also a liberal value, and because the film doesn't promote any antiliberal themes.  Thus, the film is both a libertarian film and a liberal film. To say that the film has to be one or the other would be just as mistaken as saying that being anti-censorship must be either liberal or libertarian.  To say that the film could not be both liberal and libertarian is the same as saying that opposition to censorship cannot be both a liberal and a libertarian theme.  But since it is both a liberal and a libertarian theme, we must conclude that Pump Up the Volume promotes this theme that is both liberal and libertarian.  And, since Pump Up the Volume does promote this theme that is both liberal and libertarian as its central theme without also promoting any themes that are anti-liberal or anti-libertarian, I must conclude that it is both a liberal and a libertarian film, i.e., a film that promotes a world-view shared by liberals and libertarians. For one to say that a film could not be both a libertarian and a liberal film on the grounds that libertarianism and liberalism are not identical would make about as much sense as saying a film cannot be both sci-fi and a comedy.  The problem with maintaining such a position is that the qualities that make a film a comedy are not exclusive to non-sci-fi films and the qualities that makes a film sci-fi are not exclusive to non-comedies.  As such, films that are both sci-fi and comedies can, and do, exist.  Likewise, the values that make a film a libertarian film are not exclusive to non-liberal films (just as the values that make a person a libertarian are not exclusive to libertarianism—which you admit) and the values that make a film a liberal film are not exclusive to non-libertarian films (just as the values that make a person a liberal are not exclusive to liberals).  If a person can be both a liberal and a libertarian on the question of censorship, then a film can be both liberal and libertarian on the question of censorship, and if that theme is the central theme of the film, then the film is both liberal and libertarian (assuming there are no other themes that disqualify the liberalism, libertarianism, or both of the film). Category:Libertarian films is not going to house films that are exclusively-libertarian films any more than Category:Comedy films is going to house films that are exclusively comedies.  If Category:Comedy films contains films that are both comedies and sci-fi, or that are both comedies and romance, or that are both comedies and westerns, we don't suddenly say that the "criteria is inadequate."  There is no reason why Category:Comedy films would need to house exclusively-comedic films (i.e., films that are comedies without also being sci-fi or romance or whatever), and likewise there is no reason why Category:Libertarian films should have to house exclusively-libertarian films (i.e., films that are libertarian without also being liberal or anarchist or whatever).  In short, nonexclusivity is not an inadequacy. You write, "Arts, such as films, is much harder to judge, because arts are much more subtle meaning than academic writings." I disagree.  A more-accurate statement would be that some art is difficult to judge while other art is very easy to judge.  Art is not ipso facto difficult to judge, and films tend to be some of the easiest art to judge.  Now, this doesn't mean that all films are easy to judge, either.  Rather, what is needed is case-by-case analysis (which is what we end up using whenever we categorise anything on the various Wiki projects). Let's say we have a film and that it is not easy to judge.  The director of Starship Troopers, for example, said in the commentary track that the film was anti-fascist.  Perhaps, but I honestly don't understand why he says this.  Although the film takes place in a militaristic society, I personally didn't see the film commenting one way or the other about the desirability of the political system.  Even if that film is anti-fascist, as the director maintains, it's too hard to judge, and thus oughtn't be included in the libertarian films category.  Or, let's take A Scanner Darkly.  Woody Harrelson, one of the stars of the film, said that he saw the film as being opposed to the war on drugs.  While drugs and law enforcement were both central to the plot, I personally didn't see the film commenting on the desirability of the drug war.  Even if the film is anti-war on drugs, as one of its actors maintains, it's too hard to judge, and thus oughtn't be included in the libertarian films category.6 But there are plenty of films that are very easy to judge, e.g., Equilibrium or 2081. You write, "I wrote, 'If following criteria of Allixpeeke, virtually almost all of the films using "man against society" conflict narrative are "libertarian"' to intend that criteria of Allixpeeke is too large.  Even Plato's Apology can be 'libertarian literature'.  Isn't it strange?" I don't see why one would think libertarians would think that man has any conflict with society.  Society is nothing more than the culmination of individuals interacting voluntarily.  It has no mind of its own, nor a "General Will" (regardless of what Rousseau says to the difference).  Individuals can only have conflict with other individuals, whether these other individuals are singular or in groups.  Even stories in which individuals are in conflict with the state are stories in which individuals have conflict with other individuals, since the state is nothing more than a class of individuals who assume for themselves the power to control other individuals.  To quote page 64 of Socialism by Mises,"But the individualist social philosophy of the epoch of enlightenment disposed of the conflict between Individualism and Collectivism. It is called individualistic because its first task was to clear the way for subsequent social philosophy by breaking down the ideas of the ruling Collectivism.  But it has not in any way replaced the shattered idols of Collectivism with a cult of the individual.  By making the doctrine of the harmony of interests the starting point of sociological thought, it founded modern social science and showed that the conflict of purposes upon which the quarrel turned did not exist in reality.  For society is only possible on these terms, that the individual finds therein a strengthening of his own ego and his own will."And to quote Bookchin as he appears in the documentary Anarchism in America,"[T]he state really refers to a professional apparatus of people who are set aside to manage society, to preëmpt the control of society from the people." It's been years since I read "Apology," but as I recall, Socrates says that he cannot be guilty of corrupting the youth into not believing in the gods because he himself does believe in the gods and has acted always in concert with that belief.  Whether or not he actually believed in the gods is not a libertarian concern at all.  The only libertarian concern involved is whether or not the state should have the power to punish people whose only "crime" is convincing other people that there are no gods.  And, unfortunately, Socrates take the anti-libertarian position on this matter, saying that those who have "corrupted the youth" should be arrested and executed.  (I.e., if I am remembering the text correctly.) You write, "Libertarians likes private sectors than (modern) liberals, because they believe that private sectors bring more liberty and other values. Socialists likes public sectors than (modern) liberals, because they believe that public sectors bring more liberty and other values. However, I can be wrong. I'm not sure about this, because I am not accustomed to American politics..." You're right that libertarians likes private sectors than modern, American liberals and that socialists likes public sectors than modern, American liberals.  Modern, American liberals generally recognise the usefulness of having a market economy, and bulk at the notion that the state should seize all capital goods or directly nationalise private industries; but although they believe that most industries should be nominally private, they also support a high level of regulation, thus depriving capitalists the full power of ownership they would enjoy in a libertarian society.  They likewise support, to varying degrees, wealth redistribution. That said, given that nationalisation of private sector industries can only be achieved through the initiation of state force (i.e., aggression), I can only conceive of socialists making that claim insofar as they either define liberty in a radically different way or refrain from even defining what they mean by liberty.  (I have to suspect that the latter approach is the one most frequently employed, since I personally can't think of any other rational way to define liberty other than freedom from aggression.)  But I digress. You write, "I want a specific and narrow criteria of category 'Libertarian films'." I will try to distill everything I've already said on the criteria down to a single paragraph. Libertarian films are films that, whether intentionally or not, promote one or more libertarian themes.  In order for a film to be a libertarian film, it's not enough to merely have a libertarian character or a throwaway libertarian line.  The libertarian theme(s) must be important to the story or to the film's message.  Moreover, the film must not have any antilibertarian theme(s) that are also important to the story or to the film's message.  Such libertarian themes include opposition to an authoritarian or collectivist presence; support for individualism, justly-acquired property, or the market economy; and depiction of the horrors of such things as war, intolerance, slavery, and statism. Do you think that is a better way of phrasing the criteria? Respectfully yours, allixpeeke (talk) 00:23, 8 December 2015, slight alterations made to the text but not to the content at 21:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC) (UTC)  Footnotes       1   Most libertarians only oppose the initiation of force or fraud, not the use of force per se.  If Smith starts punching Johnson, Smith has aggressed against Johnson by initiating force; thus, Smith has acted unjustly.  But must Johnson just stand there and allow Smith to pummel him?  No; Johnson has every right to defend himself, using equal and opposing force.  We would not condemn Johnson as an aggressor for using this equal and opposing force since Johnson did not aggress, did not initiate the force; only Smith is the aggressor in this scenario.  Although most libertarians believe it is not unjust to use defensive force (so long as it is proportional to the initiated force and directed solely at the aggressor), there are a small number of libertarians (e.g., Robert LeFevre) who go all the way, saying that no force is ever legitimate, even in self-defence.  We call these libertarians anarcho-pacifists.  Even though anarcho-pacifists disagree with most libertarians on the justice of defensive force, they nevertheless still are libertarians by virtue of the fact that they do oppose the initiation of force and fraud.  2   The anarcho-pacifists mentioned in the previous footnote would go still farther, saying we ought to tolerate everyone, even aggressors.  3   In the film The Dark Knight, we find an ethical nihilist calling himself the Joker.  Being an ethical nihilist, he clearly doesn't care about individual rights or the nonaggression axiom.  Unlike the libertarian, he wants chaos.  Unlike the libertarian, he wants anomie.  Unlike the libertarian, he is utterly indifferent to the ethical implications of statism and coercive hierarchy.  Some may wish to say that, because he doesn't care whether or not there exists a state, he is technically not a statist; but, even if we grant this to him, we have to realise that his nonstatism is purely aesthetic.  Since he has no desire to maximise liberty (i.e., freedom from aggression), he is obviously not a libertarian by any stretch of the imagination.  C.f. "The Joker is Not an Anarchist" (22 August 2008).  4   Indeed, the only just war I can think of is from a work of fiction titled Avatar.  In Avatar a militaristic state (falsely calling itself a company) invades the land of the Na'vi in an effort to steal their private property.  The Na'vi engage in a strictly-defensive war against the invading military.  They don't conscript anyone, and they don't use force against the person or property of anyone except the aggressors.  No war I know of in human history can make the same claim.  5   Of course, this depends in part on how one wishes to define a state.  If one defines it broadly enough to include any coercive hierarchy, regardless of size, then we would have to conclude that being antistatist does make a person ipso facto libertarian.  C.f. "SLC Punk! and the Finer Points of Anarchism" (28 November 2005;  updated 26 July 2007).  6   In fact, when I saw one editor adding films to this category that are, at best, difficult to judge, I removed them.  Thus, when Iron Man Three got added, I removed it.  And when an editor added Judge Dredd on the grounds that "Judge Dredd enforces Mega City law in the badlands,outside his jurisdiction, libertarianism.  Arguably most movies about police misconduct would count, wouldn't they?" I removed it, noting, "Judge Joseph Dredd is not a libertarian, and his actions do not comport with libertarianism.  The film does not seem to imply that there is anything untoward about the authoritarianism in his society, either.  Removing category."      As I said previously, "I don't want to see movies just thrown into this category. (The category would be useless if that were to occur, and I want it to be useful.)  I want only those films that are actually libertarian films to be in the category.  …  To put it another way, I apply the same standard to the libertarian films category as I do to the art category.  …[A] couple of weeks ago I mentioned…my philosophy that it is prudent to be a tad discerning when categorising things.  That applies just as much to libertarian films as it does to art."


 * allixpeeke, can you respond directly to Y-S.Ko's point "2-2-1"? ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:26, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Certainly. Being antiwar is inherently political, because war itself is inherently political, even when it is religious.  Thus, anyone who is taking an antiwar position is taking a political position, regardless of the reason behind taking said position.  Being antiwar is not, however, inherently religious, because war itself is not inherently religious.  One's opposition to war is only religious when one opposes war on specifically religious grounds.  Or, to state the case more pithily, for a matter to be religious, it is not enough that one merely say what ought to be; the why question becomes fundamental.  Yours, allixpeeke (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Allixpeke, you attribute 2 quotes to me that I have never said; paraphrasing is not quoting and misquoting and is missattributing on wikiquote is misleading and manipulative. Most of your categories are excellent additions that no one disputes, like with haunted house films, angel films, demon films, god films etc; and your templates are also quite well received and your edit count is rising phenomenally fast with few reversions to the inter wikilinks and redirects you've provided. However if liberal and conservative films shouldn't be categories than why should these political film categories? Could you name an example of that you think a conservative or liberal fictional film would be? Also why isn't the Matrix a philosophical film? Is every movie about the a civil war Libertarian, or just the states rights approach of the American South? I presume any film about the American revolution would be libertarian for resisting the statist monarch of Britain? This will be the largest film category on wikiquote. To quote libertarian Trey Parker, Marklar. CensoredScribe (talk) 03:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Response to User:CensoredScribe— You write, "Allixpeke, you attribute 2 quotes to me that I have never said; paraphrasing is not quoting and misquoting and is missattributing on wikiquote is misleading and manipulative." I am very sorry. You're right.  I was responding to User:Y-S.Ko, but I thought I was responding to you.  Your comment was indented to the same degree as User:Y-S.Ko's, and I wasn't paying close-enough attention to realise I was responding to the wrong person.  Please believe me that I had no intention of misattributing, of being misleading, or of manipulating; please believe me that I honestly meant to respond to the person who had written what I quoted; please believe me that addressing my response to you instead of User:Y-S.Ko was an honest mistake. You write, "However if liberal and conservative films shouldn't be categories than why should these political film categories?" I never commented on whether or not "liberal and conservative films shouldn't be categories." You write, "Could you name an example of that you think a conservative or liberal fictional film would be?" Well, I guess the most appropriate way to define a conservative film would be any film which promotes the notion that there is inherent value in tradition or in the status quo.  I really can't think of many that might fall into this category.  Perhaps Red Dawn.  Maybe The Monuments Men since the preservation of art can relate to the preservation of history which, in turn, can loosely be associated with tradition.  But, I worry that that still might be a stretch.  There are two possibilities for my lack of a conservative films list:  (1) Perhaps I'm having difficulty coming up with many because conservative themes don't interest me, and, thus, even if there are many conservative films out there, I've simply not seen them.  (2) Perhaps there just aren't many conservative films.  And, if this is the case, there are two possible explanations for it: it might be that conservative themes don't tend to make for very interesting story-telling, or perhaps there is lack of script writers who find conservative themes compelling.  That said, I think the definition I provided for conservative films is probably the most solid. As for liberal films, the matter becomes much more difficult since different people define liberalism in different ways.  If one defines liberalism in the classical sense, then every film listed as a libertarian film is ipso facto also a liberal film, since libertarianism is classical liberalism taken to its logical conclusion.  Conversely, if one defines it in such a manner that it refers to the so-called modern, American "liberalism," then there would be overlaps with libertarian films but not total overlap.  The issue, clearly, is that this label, more-so than any of the other labels we've hitherto discussed, is vague.  The matter simply isn't clear-cut like it is with the labels libertarian, anarchist, and socialist, or even the label conservative for that matter.  In any event, though, even if I am right that Category:Liberal films might be somewhat problematic, that is no reason for us to delete nonproblematic categories like Category:Libertarian films, Category:Anarchist films, or Category:Socialist films. You write, "Also why isn't the Matrix a philosophical film?" Who says it isn't? You write, "Is every movie about the a civil war Libertarian, or just the states rights approach of the American South?" States/governments cannot possess rights.  There are three types of authority: rights, which is an inherently legitimate form of authority that arise naturally and innately in each individual and which cannot be either granted or revoked; usurpations, which is an inherently illegitimate form of authority; and privileges, which may be granted and revoked and which may be legitimate or illegitimate depending upon whether they are granted by the rights-holder or the usurper.  All state power rests ultimately on usurpation.  I despise the term "states' rights," as it falsely implies that states can have rights.  Even the tenth amendment makes no mention of states' rights; rather, it references states' powers.  As neither the Confederacy nor the Union was libertarian, it would stand to reason that extremely few Civil-War films would be libertarian.  Shenandoah works because Charlie Anderson doesn't support either the Confederacy or the Union.  He thinks the war is senseless, he takes pride in the fact that he and his sons don't utilise slaves on their farm, he refuses to let Virginia draft his sons, and he readily refers to state confiscation of private property as stealing.* You write, "I presume any film about the American revolution would be libertarian for resisting the statist monarch of Britain?" I feel that, in order to best answer this question, I should first quote something I wrote above:"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.)"Films about the American revolution would probably tend to be more libertarian than not, but we can't make a hard-and-fast rule that all American revolution films are ipso facto libertarian films.  Obviously, any film that made the British empire look like the protagonists would almost certainly be unlibertarian.  But, the problem goes deeper, for although there was definitely a libertarian streak amongst the revolutionaries, that doesn't make them all necessarily libertarian; many, for example, owned slaves—one of the most unlibertarian things a person can do.  Thus, the question would necessarily fall back on—as it does with all films—whether the themes actually being explored are in fact libertarian.  For example, if there were an American revolution film which is pro-slavery, that film would obviously be antilibertarian—regardless of whether the film promotes the American revolutionaries or the British empire as the protagonist.  So, there really can't be any hard-and-fast rules with regards to American revolution films, even if American revolution films do tend to be libertarian. You write, "This will be the largest film category on wikiquote." Again, allow me to quote myself:"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."I don't want to see movies just thrown into this category.  (The category would be useless if that were to occur, and I want it to be useful.)  I want only those films that are actually libertarian films to be in the category.  (Just a few hours ago, in fact, I removed a couple films that someone had placed in the category as I did not think they were sufficiently libertarian to merit inclusion.)  To put it another way, I apply the same standard to the libertarian films category as I do to the art category.  As you will recall, a couple of weeks ago I mentioned to you my philosophy that it is prudent to be a tad discerning when categorising things.  That applies just as much to libertarian films as it does to art. Thanks for the questions, and I hope I've answered them satisfactorily. Best regards, allixpeeke (talk) 09:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC) P. S.  Above, I struck out your name and added in its place User:Y-S.Ko's, since it was to her/him that the response was supposed to be directed.  Once again, please forgive me for the error.


 * Delete: The sourcing makes it clear that this category targets "libertarianism" in its present American sense, which is market libertarianism — a movement that did not exist by that name until the 1970s. Yet this category includes films made well before then. For example, it includes Dr. Strangelove, a film that makes some of its sharpest jabs at the rule of money and unthinking reverence for private property. I accept that libertarians will write about films and try to "claim" them, but those claims are not a basis for categorization here. 50.185.134.48 00:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Response to 50.185.134.48— Nineteen seventies? Classical liberals (e.g., Leonard Read) began calling themselves libertarians in the 1940s and 1950s, and individualist anarchists (e.g., Benjamin Tucker) were calling themselves libertarians since the nineteenth century.  (Libertarianism did not suddenly cease being libertarianism simply because the libertarians, upon learning of the subjective theory of value, began rejecting the labour theory of value; they continued being libertarians, because nothing about libertarianism prohibits libertarians from adopting (e.g.) sounder theories of value when confronting sound arguments in their defence, nor from being open to hearing out said arguments in order to weigh their soundness.)  But, even if libertarianism did not exist as a movement prior to the 1970s, why would that disqualify films made before that point?  What ought to matter is whether a film promotes a libertarian world-view, not when a film was made.  If it is discovered tomorrow that some forgotten genius in the sixteenth century invented film, and that a film was made in 1550 that clearly promoted female empowerment, would you say that said film ought not be added to Category:Feminist films on the grounds that no feminist movement existed in 1550?  If that's indeed what you would say, then I would disagree.  But, even if I were not to disagree, that would still be no reason to delete the feminist films category as a whole; (rather, it would merely be reason to remove the 1550 film from the category).  Thus, even if I agreed that the libertarian movement did not begin until the 1970s (which is objectively false) and even if I agreed that films made prior to the emergence of the libertarian movement ought not be included (something with which I do not agree), that is still no reason to delete the category itself. (As an aside, libertarians do not have "unthinking reverence" for private property.  If they did, they would regard all claims to ownership ipso facto legitimate, which in turn would remove from property its social function.  No, libertarians regard property claims legitimate only when they are founded on (A) homesteading (i.e., mixing one's labour with a previously-unowned resource), (B) gift, or (C) voluntary trade.  Most libertarians dismiss all other claims to ownership, even where liberals or conservatives may look upon the claim with actual reverence.) Respectfully yours, allixpeeke (talk) 02:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not going to debate politics or the legitimacy of any other category, and I'm not looking to be schooled on your ideology. (You might be surprised to learn that others have already passed through where you now tread.) However, you've essentially corroborated what I said about the historical development of "libertarianism" in the US. From what I can tell, you have populated this category exclusively from what libertarians themselves have said about this or that film, without the slightest regard for any broader consensus about the films' themes, and that is what makes it illegitimate. 50.185.134.48 02:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Response to 50.185.134.48— You claimed that the libertarian movement began in the United States in the 1970s. I did not "corroborate" this claim.  Libertarianism has been around qua movement in the United States since the nineteenth century.  However, even if I had "corroborated" your claim somehow, your comment ignores my main point, viz., that the question of when the movement itself began is utterly irrelevant to the question of what constitutes a libertarian film. You write, "you have populated this category exclusively from what libertarians themselves have said about this or that film, without the slightest regard for any broader consensus about the films' themes, and that is what makes it illegitimate." To be clear, not every film in that category is a film I added to said category.  Regarding the films I personally added, I personally added them because, upon viewing them, I personally discerned them to be libertarian films.  (I would regard the films I added to constitute libertarian films regardless of whether I were or were not a libertarian.)  Regarding the films added to that category by User:CensoredScribe, she/he added them because, upon viewing them, she/he personally discerned them to be libertarian films.  Et cetera for whomever else may've added films to that category.  I can also say that I have removed films from the category that I did not believe were sufficiently libertarian to merit inclusion.  And this is how categorising ultimately works on the various wiki projects.  If an individual regards a given article as fitting within a given category, she or he adds it.  If other editors tend to agree with the article being so categorised, the categorisation tends to stand.  Conversely, if most other editors think the first editor erred in adding said article to said category, then debate arises, and from that debate we develop consensus.  I have done nothing wrong in adding films that I discern to be libertarian just as I've done nothing wrong in adding films to Category:Feminist films I regard to be feminist nor in adding films to Category:Socialist films that I regard to be socialist; the fact that I have taken this initiative does not demonstrate the claim that I am allegedly ignoring "broader consensus."  (I would regard the films I added to the feminist category to constitute feminist films regardless of whether I were or were not a feminist and I would regard the films I added to the socialist category to constitute socialist films regardless of whether I were or were not a socialist.)  If you wish to demonstrate that I am ignoring "broader consensus," then you must demonstrate first that said "broader consensus" exists and second that I am ignoring it.  For example, I added Dark City because I regard it a libertarian film, and I regard it so because the film's hero, John Murdoch, an individual human, fights against a group of beings called the Strangers who have a collective memory and who are manipulating humans without the humans' consent; I see no way to divorce libertarianism from the individualistic, anti-collectivistic themes it promotes.  Currently, there is no "broader consensus" contending that this is an erroneous categorisation.  But, if a bunch of Wikiquote editors do get together and come to a consensus that Dark City is not a libertarian film, although I will still disagree, I will nevertheless not stop said group of editors from removing said film from said category.  In other words, I would not engage in an edit war simply because I was (hypothetically) unable to get the consensus to agree with my perspective.  So, to say that I am acting "without the slightest regard for any broader consensus" is simply unfair. But you do more than that.  You extrapolate that the category itself is "illegitimate," and you extrapolate this simply on the grounds that I have allegedly acted against the consensus.  Even if I had personally acted against the consensus (which I didn't), I am just one editor, and my solitary actions cannot magically illegitimise the category itself.  The legitimacy of the category qua category must be judged independently of the actions of a single editor, regardless of whether or not the actions of said editor comport with consensus. To put it another way, let's say hypothetically that you take issue with the notion of Dark City being categorised as a libertarian film.  Let's say, hypothetically, that a consensus arises that agrees with you.  Let's say, hypothetically, that I do begin acting "without the slightest regard for any broader consensus" by edit warring, i.e., by readding that film to that category every time someone removed it.  Would that make the notion of having a category for libertarian films somehow itself "illegitimate"?  No.  Would it justify deleting the category as a whole?  No.  What it would do is justify a ban on me for edit warring.  Even if it were true that I had acted "without the slightest regard for any broader consensus" in adding Dark City (or any other individual film I added) to the libertarian category, you have not established that the category itself is somehow intrinsically "illegitimate." You write, "I am not going to debate politics or the legitimacy of any other category." I am not asking you to debate the political questions glossed over.  I spoke on the topic of the libertarian view on property vis-à-vis "unthinking reverence"—not out of any desire to "school" you on the libertarian view on property—but merely in order to demonstrate that one does not disestablish a film's libertarianism simply by claiming that said film lacks said unthinking reverence.  Likewise, I spoke of the evolution amongst libertarians on their view on the nature of value—not to "school" you on the libertarian views on value, old or new—but merely in order to establish that the libertarian movement of today is essentially the same as the libertarian movement over a century ago and that what differentiates the likes of modern libertarians from their brethren of the past is merely certain minor points. Had it been my goal to actually try to "school" someone on either of these two political questions, I certainly wouldn't have glossed over them, but would instead have explained in greater detail why the libertarian believes that property rights limited to that derived from homesteading/gift/trade is socially beneficial and philosophically grounded in the basic right to individual sovereignty.  I didn't.  I would have instead explained in greater detail why the libertarian regards unthinking enforcement of property claims unlimited by the principles of homesteading/gift/trade would be socially destructive and philosophically ungrounded.  I didn't.  I would have instead explained in greater details why libertarians ultimately abandoned the labour theory of value for the subjective theory of value which they came over time to see as the more rational of the two perspectives.  I didn't.  Such political questions are beyond the scope of the topic at hand.  We have no need to "debate" them here. Nor am I asking you to debate the legitimacy of other categories.  I brought up the feminism category—not so that you would debate it itself—but merely because it made for a most-effective analogy.  The point of the analogy was to demonstrate (A) that films can exemplify and promote a theme (e.g., libertarianism, feminism) prior to the advent of a movement to promote said theme and (B) that, even if one, for some reason, holds the opposite view, holds the view that only films made after the advent of a movement can promote the same themes that are promoted by said movement, that is still not an argument for eliminating the film category in question (regardless of whether we're discussing the libertarian category or the feminist category), but is, rather, at most, an argument for trimming the category in question.  Since the rationale you provided is not actually a rationale for deletion of the category as a whole, I urge you to change, or at least rescind, your vote (or, conversely, to come up with a new rationale for said vote). (Finally, you also write, "You might be surprised to learn that others have already passed through where you now tread." I don't understand what this means.  Are you trying to say, figuratively, that others have discussed, e.g., the evolution amongst libertarians on the conception of value in order to demonstrate that the differences between nineteenth century libertarians and twenty-first century libertarians are relatively minor, all in order to demonstrate the broader point that the libertarian movement of today is a continuation of the libertarian movement that began over a century-and-a-half ago?  I'm sure they have.) Respectfully yours, allixpeeke (talk) 11:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You indicated that people already calling themselves libertarians "learned" to be market libertarians at some point in history. That is, the movement developed historically, which was my point (though it didn't happen quite that way). So the category is being slapped on films anachronistically, on the sole authority of libertarian propagandists and the occasional listicle. And if you and some other user are tagging films on personal whims, that isn't any better. 50.185.134.48 16:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Response to 50.185.134.48— I  I never "indicated that people already calling themselves libertarians 'learned' to be market libertarians at some point in history." The individualist anarchists of nineteenth century America (e.g., Benjamin Tucker) were already advocates of freeing markets. What I specifically referenced was a changing view within the libertarian movement on the nature of value.  (I brought up the subjective theory of value as an example, but other examples also exist, such as the time-preference theory of interest.  Suffice it to say, though, that although this evolution in libertarian thought did alter the libertarian movement's rhetoric and in some cases to varying degrees the foci of their argumentation, it never changed the underlying character of the philosophy, which was always in favour of freeing the individual from being controlled by others.)  The libertarians of the nineteenth century were influenced by classical economics.  They had not analysed, however, the nature of value very closely, and thus assumed, with the classical economists and the Marxists alike (who themselves were influenced by classical economics), that things had intrinsic value and that said value was derived from the labour required to produce said things.  Although the Austrian School began rediscovering the subjective theory of value in the late nineteenth century (a theory first promoted by the Scholastics but long forgotten in the aftermath of Adam Smith), this understanding on the nature of value did not spread to these United States until around the 1930s.  When it finally arrived, libertarians had two choices: either bunker down and dogmatically cling to the labour theory of value, despite it no longer seeming to make much sense under close examination, or accept that value is subjective, that a radio (e.g.) does not have intrinsic value but is rather valued more highly by those who enjoy what radio has to offer and valued almost not at all (except for its exchange value) by those who are deaf.  Since dogmatic acceptance of the labour theory of value was never a defining principle of libertarian thought, libertarians naturally and immediately adopted the sounder theory of value.  If, someday, a still-sounder theory of value emerges, libertarians will adopt it, too, abandoning the subjective theory of value just as they abandoned the labour theory of value before it. But although libertarians evolved in their understanding of the nature of value, libertarians have always been free-marketeers.  In 1888, Tucker wrote an essay titled "State Socialism and Anarchism: How Far They Agree, and Wherein They Differ" in which he distinguishes two types of socialism, the one being dictatorial and the other being libertarian.  And, yet, in defending this libertarian form of so-called "socialism," he clearly and unambiguously advocated free-market anarchism.  Here's one the the paragraphs from said essay:"The development of the economic programme which consists in the destruction of these monopolies and the substitution for them of the freest competition led its authors to a perception of the fact that all their thought rested upon a very fundamental principle, the freedom of the individual, his right of sovereignty over himself, his products, and his affairs, and of rebellion against the dictation of external authority. Just as the idea of taking capital away from individuals and giving it to the government started Marx in a path which ends in making the government everything and the individual nothing, so the idea of taking capital away from government-protected monopolies and putting it within easy reach of all individuals started Warren and Proudhon in a path which ends in making the individual everything and the government nothing.  If the individual has a right to govern himself, all external government is tyranny.  Hence the necessity of abolishing the State.  This was the logical conclusion to which Warren and Proudhon were forced, and it became the fundamental article of their political philosophy.  It is the doctrine which Proudhon named An-archism, a word derived from the Greek, and meaning, not necessarily absence of order as is generally supposed, but absence of rule.  The Anarchists are simply unterrified Jeffersonian Democrats.  They believe that 'the best government is that which governs least,' and that that which governs least is no government at all.  Even the simple police function of protecting person and property they deny to governments supported by compulsory taxation.  Protection they look upon as a thing to be secured, as long as it is necessary, by voluntary association and coöperation for self-defence, or as a commodity to be purchased, like any other commodity, of those who offer the best article at the lowest price.  In their view it is in itself an invasion of the individual to compel him to pay for or suffer a protection against invasion that he has not asked for and does not desire.  And they further claim that protection will become a drug in the market, after poverty and consequently crime have disappeared through the realization of their economic programme.  Compulsory taxation is to them the life-principle of all the monopolies, and passive, but organized, resistance to the tax-collector they contemplate, when the proper time comes, as one of the most effective methods of accomplishing their purposes.  (Emphases added.)"Tucker lambasts the state socialists for believing that "[a]ll freedom of trade must disappear", that "[c]ompetition must be utterly wiped out," and that "[a]ll industrial and commercial activity must be centered in one vast, enormous, all-inclusive monopoly."  Of the state socialist programme, he writes, "Individuals not being allowed to own capital, no one can employ another, or even himself.  Every man will be a wage-receiver, and the State the only wage-payer.  He who will not work for the State must starve, or, more likely, go to prison."  This prospect horrified the libertarian movement."For these and other reasons Proudhon and Warren found themselves unable to sanction any such plan as the seizure of capital by society. But, though opposed to socializing the ownership of capital, they aimed nevertheless to socialize its effects by making its use beneficial to all instead of a means of impoverishing the many to enrich the few.  And when the light burst in upon them, they saw that this could be done by subjecting capital to the natural law of competition, thus bringing the price of its own use down to cost,—that is, to nothing beyond the expenses incidental to handling and transferring it.  So they raised the banner of Absolute Free Trade; free trade at home, as well as with foreign countries; the logical carrying -out of the Manchester doctrine; laissez-faire the universal rule.  Under this banner they began their fight upon monopolies, whether the all-inclusive monopoly of the State Socialists, or the various class monopolies that now prevail.  (Emphases added.)"Although Tucker called himself a socialist, there is almost nothing here with which modern anarcho-"capitalists" would disagree, and the few disagreements that do exist are either rhetorical or a result of the modern libertarian's more-developed understanding of value and interest; in either case, the disagreements are not significant enough for anyone to declare that the libertarian movement of today is not the same libertarian movement of a century-and-a-half ago.  (Although the interest rate may very well drop in a libertarian society, Tucker seems to think that competition will "reduce the price of lending money to the labor cost"; modern libertarians, taking into account the time-preference theory of interest, tend to think it won't drop as far as Tucker anticipates.  But, what difference does that make?  None.  The modern libertarian agrees with Tucker that what he calls the "money monopoly" needs to be abolished, so a minor disagreement about the result is inconsequential.  Tucker also predicts that abolition of the money monopoly will allow labour to "be in a position to dictate its wages, and will thus secure its natural wage, its entire product."  Although wage rates may very well increase in a libertarian society, it's unlikely that it will rise to the amount of the entire product.  Back when libertarians thought that the labour theory of value was correct, they thought labourers were being robbed of their rightful property whenever they did not retain the full value intrinsic in their product, but whence they accepted the subjective theory of value, their emphasis shifted and they stopped talking about the full product of labour.  But, again, they never ceased opposing the "money monopoly"; all that changed in this regard was their perception of the results of ascending into a libertarian society.  (Tucker also talks of a "tariff monopoly" and a "patent monopoly," both of which modern libertarians still wish to see abolished, and of a "land monopoly," about which the modern libertarian stance is slightly different from Tucker's but not altogether foreign.)) It may be interesting to note that, in light of Tucker calling himself a socialist despite being a market anarchist and thus a libertarian, some modern libertarians (e.g., Brad Spangler) have actually taken to reviving the tradition of calling themselves socialists.  Spangler, for example, even writes,"I[t] is my contention that Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism is misnamed because it is actually a variety of socialism, in that it offers an alternative understanding of existing capitalism (or any other variety of statism) as systematic theft from the lower classes and envisions a more just society without that oppression. Rather than depending upon the the labor theory of value to understand this systematic theft, Rothbardian market anarchism utilizes natural law theory and Lockean principles of property and self-ownership taken to their logical extreme as an alternative framework for understanding and combating oppression.  I'll say it - although his cultural roots in the Old Right would, if he were still alive, admittedly cause him fits to be characterized as such, Murray Rothbard was a visionary socialist.  …  In conclusion, lack of adherence to the labor theory of value does not mean Rothbardian market anarchists are not socialist.  The labor theory of value served as an attempted illumination of the systematic theft the lower classes have always suffered from under statism.  Rothbard's natural law theory and radically anti-state version of Lockean property rights theory serves the same role."While not many libertarians have taken to referring, as Spangler does, to market anarchism as "a new variety of socialism - a stigmergic socialism" (emphasis in original), this example nevertheless does help to illustrate that the trending rhetorical differences between nineteenth and twenty-first century libertarians is really mainly just that: rhetorical. In summation, to say that I ever "indicated that people already calling themselves libertarians 'learned' to be market libertarians at some point in history" is false. II  You claim that I am "anachronistically" "slapp[ing]" "the category" "on[to] films."  You claim this on the faulty grounds that the modern libertarian movement is, allegedly, not the same libertarian movement as the libertarian movement of the past—this, despite the fact that the libertarian movement of today still "rest[s] upon a very fundamental principle, the freedom of the individual, his right of sovereignty over himself, his products, and his affairs, and of rebellion against the dictation of external authority" (Tucker, emphasis added). (1)  The libertarian movement is still fundamentally the same as it's always been; it retains the same fundamental principles it had when it first began coalescing as a movement back in the nineteenth century—long before any film was ever made. (2) Even if you, for some reason, come to the conclusion that the slight differences between pre-1930s libertarians and post-1930s libertarians (resulting from American libertarians abandoning classical economics upon being exposed to Austrian School economics) is a significant-enough difference that the modern libertarian movement really is somehow totally separate from the libertarian movement of the past, that still doesn't mean that the category is being "slapped on films anachronistically"; there are no pre-1930s films in the category. (3) But, as I've said before, and which you have not bothered to address, is that the date that the movement began is utterly irrelevant.  This is an important point I've stressed repeatedly.  Even if the libertarian movement had not begun until the 1970s, as you maintained above for some reason, that would not change the fact that every film I added to that category was a libertarian film.  Hell, even if the libertarian movement had begun last Tuesday, even that would not change the fact that every film I added to that category was a libertarian film. There is a difference between the libertarian movement and libertarian values.  The libertarian movement began in the nineteenth century, but libertarian values have been expressed here and there for millennia. Unambiguously, just as Category:Feminist films refers to films that promote feminist themes and values, Category:Libertarian films refers to films that promote libertarian themes and values—not film produced necessarily by or in association with any movement. If the category had been titled Category:Libertarian movement films (and if I agreed with you that the libertarian movement began in the 1970s, which I obviously do not), I could see you having a point about the category being "slapped on films anachronistically."  But, since it isn't so titled, the films in it need not have even the remotest thing to do with the libertarian movement (or any other movement for that matter); they only need to promote libertarian themes and values (which are timeless, and thus are not "anachronistically" "slapped on"). (4)  Still, even if libertarian values were not timeless, even if they did not predate film, even if they simply somehow just burst into existence in the 1970s, there is yet another point that I have already made, and which you have not addressed.  This is the vital point I stressed above.  Even if some of the films are being "anachronistically" "slapped" into the category, that is still not an argument for eliminating the category as a whole (regardless of whether we're discussing the libertarian category or the feminist category); it is, rather, at most, an argument for trimming the category in question, removing the films that don't belong and leaving the ones that do.  Since the rationale you provided is not actually a rationale for deletion of the category as a whole, I urge you to change, or at least rescind, your vote (or, conversely, to come up with a new rationale for said vote). III  You write, "And if you and some other user are tagging films on personal whims, that isn't any better." Are you saying that if I (or some other user), after watching Airplane!, determine it to be a comedy and decide to categorise it under Category:Comedy films, I'm doing something wrong?  This is how categorising ultimately works on the various wiki projects.  If an individual regards a given article as fitting within a given category, she or he adds it.  If other editors tend to agree with the article being so categorised, the categorisation tends to stand.  Conversely, if most other editors think the first editor erred in adding said article to said category, then debate arises, and from that debate we develop consensus.  I have done nothing wrong in adding films that I discern to be comedies to Category:Comedy films, and the fact that I take this initiative does not demonstrate the claim that I allegedly ignore "broader consensus."  If one wishes to demonstrate that another is ignoring "broader consensus," then she/he must demonstrate first that said "broader consensus" exists and second that the other is ignoring it.  In the case of Airplane!, there is no "broader consensus" contending that this is an erroneous categorisation.  But, if a bunch of Wikiquote editors do get together and come to a consensus that Airplane! is not a comedy, although I will still disagree, I will nevertheless not stop said group of editors from removing said film from said category.  In other words, I would not engage in an edit war simply because I was (hypothetically) unable to get the consensus to agree with my perspective.  To say that I would be acting "without the slightest regard for any broader consensus" would be simply unfair, especially since the only thing I had done in this hypothetical scenario was that I tagged Airplane! based on my own determination, or what you call "personal whims," prior to the emergence of this "broader consensus."  (This analogy is valid because I did not do anything different in adding Dark City to the libertarian category than I would have done had I added Airplane! to the comedy categiry.  In both cases I am personally making a determination, a determination that I honestly believe would not be opposed by any "broader consensus.") Respectfully yours, allixpeeke (talk) 16:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep This seems like a good category to me, very useful in spotting films that have libertarian themes. Norton II (talk)
 * Note: Editor's first edit to Wikiquote, other than to create a User page.  allixpeeke (talk) 04:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)