Talk:Bureaucrash

This article was nominated for deletion on 17 December 2006 (UTC). The result of the discussion was delete.

This article was nominated for deletion on 16 March 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Libertarianism portal This article is supported by WikiProject Libertarianism (assessed as Low-importance).

Organizations

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

United States

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

2008 comments

Why is so much attention paid to the connection with the CEI? It seems like a by-note more than something that should be the introduction paragraph. Why was the group described as minarchist? I can't find any mention of minarchism on the website. WhoIsJohnGalt? 22:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

So much attention is paid to the connection with CEI because much of this article originated here at Sourcewatch (another GFDL wiki project) which is more concerned with such things. By the way, should we acknowledge this origin on the article page?--Joel7687 (talk) 21:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The proper thing is to import the page history from the other site. EVCM (talk) 23:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ambivalence about the need for government

It seems to me that the "terms and conditions of use"[1] reflect a certain ambivalence between minarchism and anarchism: "if governments are to exist they should be small and only have the power to protect us from force and fraud." Yet the T-shift they sell says "anarcho-capitalist" which seems to suggest they are trying to appeal to both groups within libertarianism. What's the deal – is there significant disagreement among its leaders as to whether government is needed? This group seems pretty moderate in its stance on reducing statist influence in our lives, since a government limited to such functions still has the power to charge the people up the wazoo for its police, defense, and court services – e.g. we pay $1,450 per person for the U.S. Department of Defense. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 14:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Odd Language

It seems odd that Bureaucrash is objectively (remember this is Wikipedia, an objective source) "pro-freedom." Nearly EVERY group claims to be "pro-freedom." Not only is objectively using the word "pro-freedom" biased, but it's extremely vague and tells the reader nothing. Can we maybe put "pro-freedom" in quotes, or say that the group's founders claim to be "pro-freedom"? I've removed the word before, but someone restored it. Jcrav2k6 (talk) 22:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. As best I can tell (i.e. what i'm about to say is original research), "pro freedom" is a libertarian/conservative/republican code word for "anti-regulation." At any rate, it should be removed, or at least encased in quotation marks to draw attention to the fact that this is how the group describes itself, rather than how wikipedia describes it. Yilloslime (t) 23:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Phrases like "increase individual freedom" in this context are very biased; this article has a clearly favorable slant toward its subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by • contribs) 04:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not odd at all, if you to take "pro-freedom" to mean negative liberty, though "increase individual freedom" is good enough to me.Cnadolski (talk) 02:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank goodness someone clarified that whole "pro freedom" thing because we wouldn't want Wikipedia to be inundated with "libertarian/conservative/republican code word[s]".

Where is Lee Doren?

I know that the people who populate Bureaucrash don't like the current manager of the site, but he needs to be mentioned here. PokeHomsar (talk) 07:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucrash Shut Down

Bureaucrash recently shut down so I noted in the article that it is now defunct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.85.51 (talk) 05:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bureaucrash. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081007095309/http://www.cei.org/people/pete-eyre to http://cei.org/people/pete-eyre

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Bureaucrash. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]