Jump to content

Talk:Libertarianism/Archive 39

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42

classification of political philosophies

"classification of political philosophies" sounds like a bad translation. Why is this awful phrase in the lead? Surely libertarianism is a political philosophy. Bhny (talk) 13:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, not just one. The political philosophy of Charles Koch is not the same political philosophy of Peter Kropotkin. There was a whole lot of back and forth on how to tip-toe around this issue that "libertarian" describes wholly contradictory and opposing schools of thought. Eventually, it was agreed "libertarian" classifies several political philosophies that want liberty and have quite different ideas on what it means or how to achieve it. There may be a better to word that, but calling it one singular political philosophy is just incorrect. fi (talk) 13:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Then it is a political philosophy that wants liberty and there are several versions of libertarianism. OK? There are many versions of everything. Bhny (talk) 14:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
No, it's not just multiple versions of the same overall political philosophy, like abolition of capital and state, the way Dejacque had a problem with Proudhon. They are very different philosophies with practically opposite assumptions, opposite conclusions, opposite concrete goals. One is concerned with liberty as destroying capitalism and the nation-state, the other concerned with liberty as maximizing the role of capitalism and removing as many impediments in its way as possible, while preserving the nation-state -- well, except ancaps who just advocate handing it all over to capital. fi (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
The same could be said of anarchism, but the article starts "Anarchism is a political philosophy....". Also communism- "Communism ... is a socioeconomic system". It is pretty standard to start an article with a broad definition and then explain the variations. ALSO "a classification of political philosophies" is just terrible English. Bhny (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I think both phrasings can portray, at the same time, the coherence of libertarianism and the disagreement between libertarian schools of thought. I prefer Bhny's suggestion, though, per his/her most recent comment. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Alright. So,
  1. There is absolutely nothing grammatically wrong with that statement. It is completely correct and perfectly legible, acceptable English. If you think it sounds ugly, that's another thing, but that opening sentence is in no way different from other Wikipedia articles, like blood type, O visa, salmonella, SITC, administrative detention — I can go on.
  2. Anarchism does not include anti-anarchism as one of its core tenets and neither does communism include anti-communism. Libertarianism is a special case, where, due to recuperation, both left-wing radical and far-right reactionary ideologies now use the same label.
  3. I'm not married to this particular wording, but if we phrase it differently, let's do it so that we do not deliberately mislead readers. There's no common philosophy to be found — just a few shared threads and some very nebulous common aims. Saying they both want freedom and justice is like saying they both like cuddles and kisses. It's not a political philosophy. It's opposing political philosophies knowingly grappling over the same label. Failing to recognize this is dishonest. fi (talk) 22:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
It would seem to me that the last line in the lead does a good job of explaining that "libertarianism has been applied as an umbrella term to a wide range of sometimes discordant political ideas through modern history." I see no reason for the first sentence to be clumsy—even if grammatically correct—in light of this context. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be clumsy, it just has to be true. And the proposed change is not. fi (talk) 20:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Bullshit. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Let's invent a new word: freedomism. Now, let's say freedomism was coined by Maoists and then Senator McCarthy decided he liked the way it sounded, so he called his brand of anticommunism freedomism. Now, freedomism can be called a range, spectrum, group, collection, array, hodgepodge, clusterf- ... a whole lot of qualifiers basically meaning variety followed by "of political philosophies." It is not, however, in itself, any kind of singular political philosophy. Labels that have any meaning can carry lots of incompatible interpretations. They do, however, on some basic level, have to be coherent. The basic, defining features of a political philosophy cannot define it as this, that, and also its polar opposite. fi (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Or maybe, just maybe, we can stop pretending that one of the pillars of Wikipedia is "just make shit up!" — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Verifiability would imply that you can't just make up ideologies and movements where none exist. There is no deify-and-abolish-capitalism movement. There is no carnivorous-vegan movement. It's just silly. I don't understand why the first sentence should say something contradicted by all the ones after it. fi (talk) 21:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

fi, your analogy is not the way things happened. Wendy McElroy wrote an article called "THE SCHISM BETWEEN INDIVIDUALIST AND COMMUNIST ANARCHISM IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY" which helps show that the connection between what you see as two unconnected ideologies. And Rothbard, Hess and Nolan noted the connection and drew on various types of libertarians. I think it would be helpful to provide sources not just make sweeping judgments. Incidentally there are wide variations in other political families too. The Blair administration in the UK and the Kim administration in North Korea for example differed on how equality could best be achieved in their respective countries. TFD (talk) 01:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they did, but nobody has so far described the Kim administration as "social democratic" like the UK Labour Party, so I don't see your point. I'm well aware of the connection between Stirner, Tucker, etc and the "new right" but if I actually have to argue the point that Kropotkin and Rothbard belong to different political philosophies, I shouldn't even bother. Proudhon and Dejacque and all the individualist anarchists, for all their differences, shared anti-state socialism. What is the common thread here to call it a political philosophy? A homonym? fi (talk) 11:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Both are included under the article Socialism. One could argue that either has departed so much from the founding principles of the First International of the 19th century that they are separate philosophies and indeed they have their own articles. But the two parties still come under the umbrella of socialism, hence are both mentioned in that article. Similarly the fact that some U.S. libertarians took the philosophy far from its roots means that it deserves its own article not that libertarians who did not make the same changes should be excluded.
The common thread is contained in reliable sources. Why do you think Rothbard used the term libertarian or anarcho for that matter? Do you think he picked those terms unaware that they had been used before? Don't forget too he picked up the anarchist black flag. Coicidence? TFD (talk) 20:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Juche is listed as a branch of socialism? That's news to me. And Tony Blair, having declared his categorical opposition to socialism, is now also listed as a socialist? Could you point me to the revision where this is true? Do you know who else picked up the anarchist red-and-black flag? Francoist fascists named the Falange. Maybe they're also part of this same political philosophy? In case it isn't clear, my position is that it all belongs here, but without editors conflating bitter ideological enemies and cramming their nonsense unified interpretations down readers' throats. fi (talk) 21:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Blair never declared opposition to socialism, he called himself a socialist and Juche is also known as "Socialism of Our Style." It may be that we should redefine socialism to exclude both but that is something reliable sources must decide not Wikipedia editors. The anarchist flag btw is black, not black and red. And reliable sources say that Anarcho-capitalist symbolism drew heavily on anarchism, including the black flag (later modified) and the letter "A" for anarchism. TFD (talk) 22:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia's own article "Blair declared opposition to the traditional conception of socialism, and declared support for a new conception that he referred to as 'social-ism'" (sic); Juche means "self-reliance" (whereas the few words of lip-service to socialism you quoted come from a 1990 speech by Kim Jong-il); the red and black flag is a longtime anarchist symbol; if you watch the documentary "Spanish Civil War" you'll hear actual Falangists explaining how they decided to appropriate anarchist rhetoric, style and symbolism for their own political purposes (much the same way as ancaps); and (if you'll forgive all the mixed metaphors) not every squeaky recuperative fart of some fringe lunatic deserves to be taken at face value, when weighed against the deafening silence of whomever he's trying to imitate. fi (talk) 00:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

This article is making an original research at merging different ideologies in a same article. First at all, libertarianism is not a synonymous of anarchism, I'm not talking about the term "libertarian" that had had a wider use, but the name of a political thought school "libertarianism". You can talk about the different forms of anarchism (I will say that anarchism isn't a ideology but a collection of ideologies even if they haven't strong connections or no one, e.g. Spencer, Tolstoi, Tolkien, Bakunin, Rothbard), but that talk is not a proper argument because libertarianism is not an article about the umbrella term anarchism, is not the same case. --Sageo (talk) 18:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

It is not OR because reliable sources make the connection. So btw did Rothbard and the other founders of the U.S. Libertarian Party. Spencer was not a libertarian but expressed views that were adopted by libertarians. TFD (talk) 20:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
No, reliable sources don't make the connections in the way this article is written. This article confuse the uses of libertarian (that at least refers to the followers of three ideas: libertarian socialism, anarchism as a whole, and libertarianism) with libertarianism. The two ones groups uses libertarian as an alternative name, and the last one as a principal name. Maybe could be some conections but this artible makes an original research to expose them as a part of a same philosophy, tradition or family. In other words: there are libertarian of libertarian socialism, libertarians of anarchism, and libertarians of libertarianism. This article should be about the last one. For the other uses of libertarian as a different meaning of libertarisnism, I make my proposal bellow. --Sageo (talk) 23:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

I think what should be done is to create an article about the uses of the term "libertarian", a leave this article libertarianism to the free market philosophy that mainly uses that name. --Sageo (talk) 18:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose for same reasons as the last 35 times, which can be found in the archives. fi (talk) 21:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
TFD, I don't say that Libertarianism article should eliminate all references about other uses of the word "libertarian", I agree this article should explain other uses of the word libertarian that could associeted in wrong way with the word libertarianism -what I say is to focus in the main use of libertarianism in this article and to leave the No true Scotsman talk about the term "libertarian" in another one. I say we should follow the real use and not to follow the subjective genealogies or semantics of Wikipedia's editors. Eduen, Libertarianism in Mexico, Canada, Brasil, Spain, UK, Romania, Switzerland, Nigeria, etc means the same that Libertarianism in the USA - You understand very well that the uses of words are not your interpretation of the uses, and the commons political use in World - if you take realiable or notable references - of libertarianism is the free market philosophy. I'm not talking about the use of the word libertarian, the word that we can talk about different uses in times or places. To make libertarian a synonymous of libertarianism is only an interpretation of some editors from Wikipedia (making the usual asociation of names, sustantives and adjectcives), but the practical use of that two words in political theories not follows that logic. Its because sintagmatics and semantics are social practices. --Sageo (talk) 23:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Jesus, you're just making things up. Libertarianism has ALWAYS referred to the ideology of Libertarians... That's just kinda how words work. "Libertarian" and "Libertarianism" have never meant separate things, and I dare you to provide ONE SINGLE source saying so.
Old discussion. I have to send user Sageo to archives. But in fact User Sageo himself has already participated in these in this same article as anyone can see here.--Eduen (talk) 02:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • support as per wp:COMMONNAME. a google news search of libertarian returns several recent articles, all referring to what this article currently describes as right-libertarian, a term so obscure it does not return a single result in the same search. i repeated the search in books, top 3: David Boaz, Jan Narveson, and Rothbard. Terms change in usage over time, like liberal, and wp must reflect the current common usage. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • support. The article's subject matter should be the same subject matter identified as libertarianism in all major reliable encyclopedic (tertiary) sources worldwide. Why even have language otherwise? And using self-identification by certain groups as criteria, given that the rest of the world doesn't use the term that way, is obviously untenable. Some socialists certainly do self-identify as libertarian, and have in the past, but the real test is whether others (non-socialists) are referring to them when they use the term (they're not, based on the encyclopedic sources noted above and cited in this article). And even if other uses of the term are considered significant, that's what disambiguation is for. How about "This article is about X, for other uses of the term, see the disambig page"? Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Change "classification" to "set" for readability

If the (grammatically correct) opening sentence reads poorly then let's use more plain language. I think classification makes sense, because it's used as a qualifier, but really there's no need for polysyllabic words. That's my suggestion, anyway. fi (talk) 22:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

That's a non-solution to a problem you don't believe exists. Not worth another breath. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Nobody has so far explained to me what the problem is, except that it doesn't roll off the tongue smoothly. I mean, you say you want to portray the coherence of libertarianism, and my only response is "what coherence?" fi (talk) 22:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Then you need to learn to read. Bhny stated the problem well in his first post in this section. Libertarianism is a political philosophy, not a classification or set or any other synonym you concoct. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
In exact same way as "peace and justice" is a political philosophy: i.e. not at all. fi (talk) 22:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Or so say the sources—oh, wait! — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
All of the sources I provided, most of which you ripped out of the lead, confirm exactly what I'm saying. Should I put them back? fi (talk) 22:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I happily wait for you to produce a single source that categorizes libertarianism as a classification/set/group/etc. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay.

  • Spinello, Richard A. (2002). Regulating cyberspace : the policies and technologies of control (1. publ. ed.). Westport, Conn.: Quorum Books. p. 34. ISBN 1567204457. Libertarianim is not a monolithic movement with a common value system or coherent philosophy.
  • Tuttle, James (April 19th, 2014). "What Are Libertarianism, Anyway?". Center for a Stateless Society. Libertarianism is not a single, unified philosophy. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  • Mankiller, Jean Hardisty ; foreword by Wilma (1999). Mobilizing resentment : conservative resurgence from the John Birch Society to the Promise Keepers. Boston: Beacon Press. p. 164. ISBN 0807043176. To add to the confusion, there is a distinct difference between right-wing libertarianism and leftist libertarianism, and right-wing libertarianism itself has two distinct ideological sectors.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • chief, Joan Shelley Rubin, Scott E. Casper, editors in (2013). The Oxford encyclopedia of American cultural and intellectual history. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 635. ISBN 0199764352. The word libertarian derives from the French libertaire and was used to circumvent France's ban on anarchist publications during the mid-nineteenth century by renaming them "libertarian." ... In post-World War II America, "libertarian" came to be used differently {{cite book}}: |first1= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Porton, Richard (1999). Film and the anarchist imagination (1. publ. ed.). New York: Verso. p. 34. ISBN 1859842615. Contrary to popular misconceptions, it would be mistaken to caricature American nineteenth-centure individualist anarchists as incipient right-wing libertarians, benighted precursors of Ayn Rand and Ludwig von Mises.
  • McKay, Iain (2013). An anarchist FAQ. Edinburgh: AK. ISBN 9781849351225. Looking at Rothbard's definition of "liberty" quoted above, we can see that freedom is actually no longer considered to be a fundamental, independent concept. ... This suggests an alternative name for the right Libertarian, namely "Propertarian." And, needless to say, if we do not accept the right-libertarians' view of what constitutes "legitimate rights," then their claim to be defenders of liberty is weak. ... Overall, we can see that the logic of the right-"libertarian" definition of "freedom" ends up negating itself because it results in the creation and encouragement of authority, which is an opposite of freedom.

In summary, sources say it cannot be one philosophy, the connections between right and left are tenuous at best, and the actual philosophies using the label reject each other's tenets absolutely. But, hey, my providing actual references has never mattered before, so why should it now, when everyone just wants to play a game of Calvinball for their pet interpretation of what this word ought to mean? fi (talk) 23:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for those two sources, Finx. Unfortunately, they seem to be quote-mined (do you actually have physical access to these sources or did you just perform a Google search to support your assertion?). The first source talks about "cyberspace libertarianism" and states immediately afterward that "We can, however, point out some of the general characteristics of this ideology that has become so entrenched among some influential segments of the online community." The second source also states that "Each of these... libertarians have only one point in common: opposition to an expanded sphere of activity by the government. They identify the focus of harm in society with the government. All of the different schools within libertarian thought interface in one area: opposition to the government (although not necessarily total rejection of government, which would be anarchism–one subset of the wider umbrella concept of libertarianism) and a demand for the limitation of state activity."
As TFD stated, these sources detail real differences (no one is denying that), but differences among political theorists is not a show-stopper; it happens all the time. Every comprehensive work about libertarianism refers to it as a political philosophy, even when discussing both traditional anarchism and modern American libertarianism (e.g. The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism, the "Libertarianism" entry in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the "Libertarianism" article in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism, Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction). It seems clear that the current phrasing is being defended on ideological grounds rather than basis in reliable sources. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
There is absolutely no sense in arguing this further. You've already got your narrative picked out and no amount of evidence to the contrary will make a difference. As I've said, make whatever changes you like. I won't revert. Nor will I come back to say anything when the editors here are writing the tale of how two anarcho-capitalists by the names of Tucker and Spooner, who just happened to be member of the First International, laid down Rothbard's bold libertarian foundation. This is recuperation in action and I'm tired of fighting it. Sooner or later, this article will be what it was always meant to be: a hagiography to the real and fictional saints of the far right wing of American neoliberalism. fi (talk) 21:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Humorous accusation, given that I am a social ecologist and personally dislike propertarians. Nor have I claimed—nor would I—that Tucker and Spooner were anarcho-capitalists. Please try to remain within a reasoned discourse. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 13:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
If you're going for "better grammar" when rewriting a grammatically correct sentence, at least use a possessive determiner so that it doesn't sound so broken and awkward. The fact that it's provably wrong aside, you've actually made it less legible, now that the direct object is both determinate and apparently belongs to nobody. fi (talk) 05:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Easy enough. Done. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 13:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
All your sources show is that modern U.S. style libertarianism has deviated from traditional libertarianism. But every ideology has changed. English Conservatives no longer support absolute rule. BTW are you going to take the individualist anarchists out too? TFD (talk) 00:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Individualist anarchists were libertarian socialists and part of the movement to abolish capitalism. I give up. Just do whatever the hell you want. Lie, distort, make shit up. I don't care; I have things to do. fi (talk) 00:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
It seems to me that the lack of "coherence" that you are finding here within libertarianism is due to the fact that the US right libertarians basically come from highly provincialist and non-cosmopolitan form of doing politics linked to issues that have been pointed out before as a part of american exceptionalism. I think that the current state of the intro deals with this well and does point to american exceptionalism when dealing with the particular rejection of the "liberal" label of US economic liberals. I don´t see any major problems here and its current state doesn{t even say that libertarianism is a single philosophy so the issue of the highly irreconciliable positions of laissez faire capitalism and libertarian socialism both using terms like libertarian is well dealt with.----Eduen (talk) 01:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)200.41.82.24 (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
fi, according to the Encyclopedia of Nineteenth-century Thought, Taylor & Francis, 2005, p. 13, "[Lysander] Spooner...is of particular importance in that he developed a theory of anarcho-capitalism, which is arguably the chief US contribution to anarchist theory.... Spooner and other anarcho-capitalists believed that only capitalism fits with anarchism, that any collective system...undermines personal freedom.... [Benjamin] Tucker's writings were close in spirit to Spooner."[1] That does not sound like "socialists and part of the movement to abolish capitalism" to me. Do you have any sources that describe them differently? TFD (talk) 03:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
For Lysander Spooner, liberty meant that the worker was entitled to “all the fruits of his own labour” and argued that this “might be feasible” only when “every man [was] own employer or work for himself in a direct way, since working for another resulted in a portion being diverted to the employer.” [Martin, Op. Cit., p. 153 and p. 172]
every man, woman, and child... could ... go into business for himself, or herself — either singly, or in partnerships — and be under no necessity to act as a servant, or sell his or her labour to others. All the great establishments, of every kind, now in the hands of a few proprietors, but employing a great number of wage labourers, would be broken up; for few, or no persons, who could hire capital, and do business for themselves, would consent to labour for wages for another. -- Spooner, Lysander. A Letter to Grover Cleveland. p. 41.
The two principles referred to are Authority and Liberty, and the names of the two schools of Socialistic thought which fully and unreservedly represent one or the other of them are, respectively, State Socialism and Anarchism. Whoso knows what these two schools want and how they propose to get it understands the Socialistic movement. For, just as it has been said that there is no half-way house between Rome and Reason, so it may be said that there is no half-way house between State Socialism and Anarchism. -- Benjamin Tucker, Woodcock, edited by George (1986). The Anarchist reader. [London]: Fontana. p. 150. ISBN 0006861067. {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help)

They were socialists, they were called socialists, they called themselves socialist, they considered themselves part of the workers' socialist movement -- and no, not in your Tony Blair "social-ism" kind of way. Their works were about how to dismantle capitalism. Five minutes of biographical research will confirm this. fi (talk) 04:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any secondary sources beyond your interpretation of original sources? Because all you show is that anarcho-capitalism developed out of anarchism. But Spooner made changes, including the right to owned unlimited amounts of land, abolition of controls on interest rates, the end of the government monopoly to control the currency, the right of individuals to compete with the post office, the right of professionals to practice without government regulation, "every man, woman, and child... could ... go into business for himself, or herself", in fact pretty much the modern U.S. libertarian platform.
The LvMI seem to think highly of Spooner[2] and the Future of Freedom Foundation admires Tucker.[3] Are they socialist too? TFD (talk) 06:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I just gave five secondary sources, explaining that your reference above was sheer, brazen fraud — six with the one already provided. I mean, really, how could I have the gall to suggest that a member of the socialist First International was a socialist; obviously, he was one of those capitalist-socialists. Does anyone here read or do anything except just inch the goal posts back every time someone answers a challenge? I'm not playing this game anymore. Play your Calvinball without me. Like I said, I'm done. fi (talk) 07:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Your long quotes from Spooner are primary not secondary sources. I don't know what your secondary sources are supposed to prove. Men Against the State, p. 173, for example explains why Spooner supports "free competition" among banks, with no state regulation.[4]
Modern U.S. libertarians drew on the individualistic anarchist tradition as well as anarchism in general. You can of course argue that when Spooner supported bank and post office deregulation, that he envisioned it would weaken monopoly capitalism, while when modern anarcho-capitalists advocate the same thing it is in order to strengthen the power of U.S. plutocrats. But surely the conclusion would be that that would mean that the modern anarcho-capitalists were not true libertarians rather than that the individualist anarchists were not. And the same thing could be said about liberalism. Jeffersonian democracy was meant to expand the power of individuals. But the program was closer to what modern U.S. conservatives advocate than modern liberals.
TFD (talk) 19:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Off-topic, personal criticism
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


U.S. Libertarianism----

I have found that the U.S. Libertarian Party have five Tenets: Everyone for Themselves; Extreme Fiscal Conservatism; Radical Social Liberalism; Assumption of Risk; Delusions of Grandeur. When Libertarians read those five Tenets that describe their philosophies perfectly, they launch into logical fallacies to try and prove me wrong. It is said, half-derisively, that Libertarians are "Republicans with bongs". Considering that the GOP agree with four of the five Tenets (all except "radical social liberalism"), it is correct to use that term. In reading up on Libertarianism, I came across a screed which listed Libertarian philosophies. I won't go into all of them, but, I will concentrate on the one philosophy that makes the least sense, as it doesn't take into account human nature: "spontaneous order"... Libertarians sadly and wrongly believe that, if a Libertarian form of government were established, that "spontaneous order" would occur, meaning that people would form groups and "leave each other alone". The former part of that is true...people would form into groups. But, the "leave each other alone" part is patently ridiculous. That's one of the reasons why I correctly call Libertarians "Fascism-suborning sociopaths". Libertarians are definitely sociopaths. The "Fascism-suborning" part is easy to explain....if groups do, in fact, form up after a Libertarian form of government is established, those groups who are Fascists would simply overthrow the government (if there is one) and install a Fascist regime. If there's no government, the Fascists would simply create a Fascist regime. Libertarians can't clearly explain their philosophies. When you debate a Libertarian, you'll find that they "talk in circles" and you can get them to contradict themselves. A joke going around on social media says that, if Libertarians want to live in a country that has their political philosophies, they should renounce their US citizenships and move to Somalia. Somalia has a small and weak government, no taxation and plenty of "freedom", especially from government. It's the perfect Libertarian paradise. The problem, though, is that the warlords and pirates, who are Fascists, truly run the country, not the small and weak government. If Libertarians moved to Somalia, they'd find out in a New York minute how ridiculous their political philosophies are. Finally, when you ask one question of the Libertarians, "what government, current or past, has installed Libertarian philosophies?", they have no answer. They can't think of one past or current government that employs Libertarian philosophies. And, as I correctly point out, the US actually tried something fairly close to a Libertarian form of government in its infancy. You see, despite popular opinion, the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution did not come "hand-in-hand". The Declaration was written and released in 1776; the US Constitution went into effect in 1789 after two years of work from the Constitutional Convention. The question most people ask at that point is, "well, what were our set of laws from 1776 to 1789?" The answer: the Articles of Confederation (AOC). If I were to use one word to describe the AOC, it'd be "chaos". The AOC established a weak central (ie, federal) government and gave nearly limitless power to the states. States could write their own laws, coin their own money, establish their own taxation systems, etc. I've made the correct statement that, were it not for the Revolutionary War going from 1776-1783, this country under the AOC would have ceased to exist. Some historians believe that the AOC are the reason for Shay's Rebellion. While that's debatable, what's NOT debatable was how much of a disaster the AOC were. Many of the men who are considered this country's "Founding Fathers" knew that the AOC were a disaster and that was the reason for the Constitutional Convention being called and convened in 1787. Libertarians stray from logic on this point...think about it...if the AOC were successful, the Convention never would have been called and convened and the Constitution would have never been written. There were 56 delegates to the Convention....40 of those delegates signed it. Thirteen of the sixteen that didn't left the Convention before it ended and the other three refused to sign it. The 40 who signed were known as "Federalists", who believed that a strong federal government was needed to restore order; the rest were considered "anti-Federalists". The anti-Federalists believed that things were just fine under the AOC. I think it's safe to conclude that the "anti-Federalists" were the "Libertarians" of their time. Ironic that most Libertarians in the US now call themselves "Federalists". 2601:7:1C80:28:11C1:1ABD:A206:B10C (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

It's laughable to talk about "U.S. libertarianism" (national libertarianism?) without mentioning the Haymarket massacre, or any other number of Libertarian Socialists in U.S. history.98.245.14.95 (talk) 23:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism as "Center-north"

David Nolan, the founder of the Libertarian party, properly broke down the defective line scale of political ideology into personal and property issues. The line scale attempts to measure two dimensions on the same scale - which is mathematically impossible. The Nolan chart correctly identifies the two principle factors that distinguish the "right" from the "left" on a two-dimensional scale. The left favors personhood and is weak on property issues, while the right favors property but is weak on personal issues. Combining these two factors on a single scale demonstrates why it is impossible to place libertarians (who favor liberty in both person and property) and totalitarians (who reject liberty in both person and property) on a linear scale. In this light, anarcho-capitalism can be clearly identified at the "northernmost" apex of the graph as the purest form of libertarianism. JLMadrigal ... 13:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

All well and good... but irrelevant. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
It demonstrates that ancap is not "right wing", MisterDub, so is highly relevant. JLMadrigal ... 04:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
But that term has no relation to the Nolan chart. If you'd like to add information to the anarcho-capitalist section stating their disagreement with the placement, I support that, but there are a ton of sources that identify anarcho-capitalism as a right-wing libertarianism; we shouldn't remove this accurate label. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
MisterDub, the Nolan chart proves your "reliable sources" wrong. This happens a lot in history. JLMadrigal ... 14:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh, that's right! I forgot about the Wikipedia policy that states "Don't worry about reliable sources; they're not important. Go ahead and just make stuff up!" — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
It is original research and therefore not useful. It is also circular reasoning. Political scientists have observed that attitudes toward property and personal issues are the two most important predictors of where one is on the left-right scale. Race, income, gender, and education are also predictors. But none of these define the left or right. TFD (talk) 03:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. They are the two most important predictors of where one resides politically. That's why the Nolan chart is such a huge step forward in dislodging the two - and can't be ignored. A multi-dimensional scale that includes other factors would help even more. The chart is well-known and accepted by most modern libertarians. JLMadrigal ... 04:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
The term right-libertarianism, again, has nothing to do with the Nolan chart. The term is in several reliable sources and is nowhere near OR. What is OR is using a chart made by a right-libertarian to promote his own philosophy in absolute contradiction to the reliable sources. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
MisterDub, check the Libertarian quadrant of the chart and you will find a range of libertarian ideologies. Do your homework. The chart is widely known and used in the modern libertarian movement. JLMadrigal ... 14:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I know about and understand the chart. The issue is that Wikipedia articles are built on reliable secondary sources. The Nolan chart is not this. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Show me where Wikipedia considers graphs to be unreliable indicators, and where outside opinions are more reliable than objective descriptions. JLMadrigal ... 16:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Your (mis)characterization of the situation is humorous. When you find your way to an "objective description," please let us know. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Again, show me where Wikipedia considers graphs to be unreliable indicators, and where outside opinions are more reliable than objective descriptions. A graph is about as objective as one can get. JLMadrigal ... 16:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Except when it's a self-serving graph created by people to promote their philosophy. That makes it a non-neutral, primary source, which can only be used to describe their own beliefs. As I said before, if you'd like to add information about the Nolan chart to the "Anarcho-capitalism" section, I'd support that. But your self-serving primary source does not overrule the many secondary sources upon which this article is based. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Shouldn't Wikipedia merely report that some socialists refer to themselves as "libertarians", instead of Wikipedia itself calling them libertarians, since the sources used are non-neutral primary sources (or biased secondary sources using them)? Especially since reliable tertiary sources (respected encyclopedias) seem to use the tern "libertarian" exclusively to refer to classical liberals? Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 22:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Excellent point. The article would be greatly improved if it followed the standards of objectivity found in Britannica, &c. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/339321/libertarianism JLMadrigal ... 02:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
While this popular graph does help the case for libertarianism, it is also an objective and realistic way to plot a variety of political ideologies much more accurately than the defective and inaccurate line scale. It also demonstrates why placing anarcho-capitalists to the right is inaccurate. JLMadrigal ... 05:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
JLMadrigal, the argument is not even logical. The more right-wing one is the more likely one supports economic freedom, while the Left supports personal freedom does not determine who is or who is not left or right. Some left-wingers think the government should enforce puritanical morality, while others have opposed the bourgeois state's interference in the economy. These are just issues of the day, and Left and Right alternate on them. So right-libertarianism is considered part of the "New Right." And not surprisingly, many of the leaders of the New Right, such as Mises, Hayek and the editors of the National Review, started on the Left. TFD (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
So, in your view, attempting to chart political ideology is a worthless endeavor, and placement is solely determined by the considerations of the authorities of the day (as if they don't have enough wiggle room already). JLMadrigal ... 05:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Not at all. You are forgetting that the original research pre-supposes that parties are already placed along a left-right spectrum. For example, Hans Eysenck, writing in 1954, pre-supposed that communists, socilialists, liberals, conservatives and fascists were aligned from left to right. He then came up with two axes that could predict which party one was likely to support. (Other writers, such as Nolan, used different axes.) His supposition was based on how these parties are perceived by the public, by themselves and by one another. However, the relationship is never 100% because there are qualitative differences between them. As Hayek said in "Why I am not a conservative", liberalism (as he defined it) is not the "mushy middle" between conservatism and socialism, it has specific values. So using axes to determine who is left or right is circular.
Since Eysenck, right-wing parties have emerged, such as the Libertarian Party in the U.S. They appear on the far right of most 2-dimensional spectra, although in the Nolan Chart they appear in the center, as does fascism. But the reason they are right-wing is that that is how they are perceived, and where they align themselves. None of these parties for example try to form coalitions with socialists, they seek to form alliances with other right-wing parties.
TFD (talk) 00:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Since your Eysenck scale leaves no room for either left or right libertarians (much less anarchists and totalitarians) it is defective (since they do in fact exist). JLMadrigal @ 13:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The following article from The Harvard Crimson illustrates why anarcho-capitalism cannot be placed on the "right" Here are a couple of exerpts:

David Friedman is not a left-wing radical and he could hardly be called a right-wing radical, if such a thing exists. Rather he is a radical at a right angle to the entire political spectrum...Friedman applies these ideas to specific problems shows why he is definitely radical, but defies left-right labels.

...and here is the article: http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1974/12/13/dont-tread-on-me-pbhbaving-a/ JLMadrigal ... 13:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

That is a typical view of people in radical right-wing movements. They see themselves as outside the political spectrum. To them, the traditional left, right and center parties are basically variations on the same theme and they seek a new type of politics. But the mainstream places them to the right of themselves. And when push comes to shove, Peter Ferrara aligned with George W. Bush, not the Democrats, wanted Bush to go further right on social security, and writes primary for a right-wing audience (National Review, Washington Times, etc., not The Nation, Mother Jones, etc.) TFD (talk) 13:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
So, by your interpretation, those who favor liberty in both person and property are on the right. If that were the case, what horrific breed of libertarians would reside on the left? JLMadrigal @ 13:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
That is not my opinion at all. Americans support liberty in both person and property - it's in the Bill of Rights, and existed under common law. The fact is that the mainstream and anarcho-capitalists themselves saw them as being on the right. See for example Rothbard's "Confessions of a Right-Wing Liberal ". TFD (talk) 15:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Although some present-day libertarians advocate laissez-faire capitalism and strong private property rights

i suggest we strike this and use the spirit of the text found in Britannica, individuals should be free to behave and to dispose of their property as they see fit, provided that their actions do not infringe on the equal freedom of others. some editors here and the minority libertarians socialists believe property can not include natural resources such as land or water. britannica defines property as , strong connotations of individual ownership. The things may be tangible, such as land... the above passage employs the weasel word Some, as if the pro property crowd were the minority. main stream English speaking news media EXCLUSIVELY refers to libertarians as pro-property. per common name, we should align the article to such standards as the result of a google news search. the top 3 as of now: [5], [6], and [7]. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Disagree. Wikipedia articles should be based primarily on secondary not tertiary sources. TFD (talk) 06:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
For discussion of details, yes, but not for evaluating due weight or inclusion. The evaluation of due weight should be based on tertiary sources. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 07:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the common usage in English speaking countries is propertarianism, and that this article is currently skewed in the left-libertarian direction. I also agree with TFD that we can do better than the tertiary sources by compiling secondary sources and providing a wider view. The information about modern American libertarianism in this article needs improvement, and we ought to seriously scale down the libertarian socialism section in the "History"; I was always under the impression that consensus was to minimize anarchism/libertarian socialism because it can be more comprehensively described under its common name. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 13:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Libertarianism is often thought of as “right-wing” doctrine. This, however, is mistaken for at least two reasons.

i would like to add the above text, possibly worded better, to balance the right-wing POV currently in the article. i do not plan to source the material and only seek to add if there be no objection. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Text in articles should be based on reliable sources, not Darkstar1st's opinions. TFD (talk) 06:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I think you'd have to reword it to avoid plagiarizing, or at least put it in quotes with attribution to the source. That's word for word of a source already cited in the article (#6). In addition, those two reasons would need to be provided, which would contradict this article's current narrative on right- and left-libertarianism, since that source describes them solely as different versions of economic liberalism. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 08:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
We may also want to add what the terms right-wing and left-wing mean in different regions. From Darkstar1st's most recent post, it seems like we're talking about modern American libertarianism in the context of US politics, which is notoriously right-wing in comparison to other countries. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Or notoriously left-wing, depending on which region the terms are being used. Your point is a good one, but it might be better to leave those worms in the can. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 15:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Can you provide a reliable source that characterizes the US as left-wing in relation to other nations? — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Oops, I misread you. I thought you were referring to modern American libertarianism, not the U.S. itself, being notoriously right-wing. I agree that the U.S. is "right-wing" relative to most countries, assuming that "right-wing" is used to refer to economic liberalism. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 04:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
It's not being used to refer just to economic liberalism, but to the overall picture including justice policy, foreign policy, environment. And the fact that you may think it left-wing because there is greater freedom to own guns, print pornography, publish hate speech, own brothels, casinos and marijuana shops, it is not seen as leftism. TFD (talk) 05:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Really? If they are not seen as leftism by many, why did you falsely assume I saw them as leftism? And why would it be relevant, since this article isn't about me? Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 00:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I meant. Sorry for the ambiguity. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Might also want to explain what Americans mean by "social issues" which is different. But it is just an opinion. No one says that Mao was "right-wing" on opium addiction and therefore may not have been left-wing at all. TFD (talk) 00:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
More precisely, the principle factors that dictate placement to the left or right of center concern the position taken in regard to individualization of person and property respectively. JLMadrigal @ 13:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
They do not dictate, they predict. Socialists were not called left-wing because they supported socialization of the means of production and longer pub hours. Ultra-royalists were not called right-wing because they supported free enterprise. Liberals were not considered centrists because they supported more individualization of person and property. TFD (talk) 14:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • more from existing sources: ...agents initially have the power to appropriate (acquire rights over) natural resources without anyone's consent. ...natural resources are not protected by a property rule (requiring consent for permissible use or appropriation). Darkstar1st (talk) 11:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree that should be included in the article, but along with the Lockean proviso that that right to appropriate natural resources only fully exists as long as "enough and as good is left for others". Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 00:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Why are there enough sources that talk about a right-libertarianism? Mainly because it defends laissez fair capitalism and all around the world that is associated with right wing politics while the left wing is associated with socialism, an almost synonym of anti-capitalism. This is as simple as that and so i don´t understand the controversy here. But it also happens that in western nations most socialist, communist and green parties tend to advocate civil libertarianism alongside their criticism of capitalism and so this reinforces their left wing perspective in a more crucial form than that of economic liberals. This means that left wing parties in western nations tend to be the ones supportive of drug decriminalization, free access to abortion and birth control, they tend to be secularist and anti-clerical and they tend to support gays rights as far as gay marriage while economic liberals don´t make their civil libertarian positions visible due to the fact that they emphasize their defense of laissez faire capitalism and so tend to ally themselves, if they don´t participate directly inside, conservative parties. This is even true in the US where i know that within the Republican party there exist many of these right libertarians who don´t mind coexisting within that party with christian fundamentalists and cuasi-imperialist neoconservatives who-alongside fascists-are the ones who will logically will tend to be associated as the opposite of the left wing and libertarianism. I should be easy to accumulate the sources that talk about right libertarianism and this dispute should be over.

But also lets remember that liberalism itself has been said to have both right wing and left wing tendencies. So economic liberalism will tend to be associated with positions such as liberal conservatism who´s main characteristics is the will to ally themselves with conservatism and its defense of laissez faire capitalism and so i have also heard about "right wing liberalism". On the other hand there are left wing kinds of liberalism such as "social liberalism", Radicalism (historical), keynesianism (let´s remember that John Maynard Keynes called himself a liberal and belonged to the British Liberal party) and liberal socialism. This is why economic liberalism or defense of laissez faire capitalism can only be translated here as right libertarianism.--Eduen (talk) 08:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Eduen, do you object to my addition of the material proposed in this section, if so, plz state policy/reason? you said, economic liberals don´t make their civil libertarian positions visible due
from lp.org[8]:
  • Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Respected encyclopedias do not use the term "right libertarianism" that way, they use the term "libertarian" with no prefix to refer to economic liberals. They use it to mean advocates of liberty (freedom of action), obviously including those human actions that constitute laissez faire capitalism, wage labor, etc. They don't use the term libertarian self-contradictorily to refer to those who seek to "abolish" those actions performed by others, and neither should Wikipedia.
Wikipedia should report (in articles on socialism) that some socialists do and historically have called themselves libertarians, Wikipedia should not adopt the position itself that those socialists are libertarians, based on biased primary sources, in contradiction to respected tertiary sources. Wikipedia policy allows biased primary sources only as sources for stating a group's own positions. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 02:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
This is an old discussion already. Blue Eyes Cryin please go back to archives to see how that was discussed extensively already. Anyway the use of the term "right libertarianism" is so widespread as to differentiate it from anarchism and other forms of left libertarianism and libertarian socialism that we should only account for that here. Also, the users here who want to deny that there exists a "right libertarianism" i really don´t think that they can deny the many books and sources that talk about a "left libertarianism". So that is one more reason why we should speak here of right libertarianism and how it means mainly what in the rest of the world-besides the US-is known as economic liberalism. I have to remind everyone here again that we are not writing a provincialist US wikipedia but english language wikipedia.--Eduen (talk) 11:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Really? So Encyclopedia Britannica is a provincialist US encyclopedia, then? Since it uses the term libertarianism to refer exclusively to (classical) liberalism? You haven't offered any reason to reject the mainstream sources use of right- and left- libertarianism in favor of your preferred use based on biased sources. The Stanford source used in this article, for example, uses left libertarianism (logically) to refer to left leaning varieties of economic liberalism. Even this article itself uses the term left libertarianism to refer to (and misrepresent) left leaning varieties of economic liberalism. But it then creates confusion by using the same term (from biased sources) to refer to a variety of socialism, a mutually exclusive ideology. Why defend such a mess of incoherence and misrepresentation instead of trying to correct it? Is there some reason to insist on conflating economic liberalism with socialism, misrepresenting them both in the process? Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 15:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Eduen do you oppose the addition of material in this section from existing sources, if so, plz reference a specific policy? Darkstar1st (talk) 11:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Darkstar1ar, use of the LPUSA website which describes its own positions as a source for libertarianism is a misuse of sources, both OR and RS. Blue Eyes Cryin, could you please read about Nolan, Rothbard, Hess and the origins of the LPUSA. They drew on the traditions of 19th century (socialist) libertarian writers, adopting their name and even symbolism. Their closest forerunners were individualist anarchists. Whether the LPUSA can be considered part of the libertarian tradition is debatable but to say the only connection is that they for some reason both decided to use the same name does not fly. TFD (talk) 13:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

i added the lp.org info for Eduen, not as a source for the site. the text in bold is from a long standing, existing source. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
TFD, thank you for your interest in my personal academic endeavors, but since this article isn't about me, this talk page isn't the place to discuss such matters, IMO. I'd prefer to discuss this article's content, which currently refers to a variety of socialism as libertarianism based on biased sources, which should only be used as sources for a group's own positions. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Biased sources? Please give us specific examples because it is hard to understand what you refer to. May i remind you that outside the US it is very common for anarchists to refer to themselves and get called "libertarians" without hyphens and there have been many anarchist (and as such libertarian socialist) publications called themselves "the libertarian" in languages such as french, spanish and italian since the 19th century. Anyway this is an old discussion but user Blue Eyes Cryin apparently wants to bring back to life old discussions without taking the time check archives where all this is answered and dealt with. Even by reading this article this user can check how there have existed organizations such as Libertarian Youth in Spain since the early 20th century aligning itself with libertarian socialism through anarchism. And also how in the rest of the world right libertarians which support laissez faire capitalism tend to be known as economic liberals. Hopefully we will get something new from this user. Otherwise i don´t see how we can follow him here. May i suggest him/her to start by pointing out to these "biased" sources.--Eduen (talk) 00:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
The discussions are "old" because the article hasn't been corrected, it still contains the same "old" silly nonsense. This article inappropriately adopts the terminology of biased primary sources while rejecting the terminology used by all major reputable encyclopedic sources. You may continue to equate my disagreement with ignorance on my part, if that is preferable to addressing my point. And you may continue to assume I haven't reviewed the archives. Perhaps others will address my point about this article. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 11:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
All sources are biased. But when we use them for facts, what is important is are they reliable. When a paper on libertarianism is submitted to a journal, the peer-reviewers accept that the author may have an opinion that he or she wishes to argue (which is usually the reason one submits a paper in the first place), but insist that the facts are accurate. While in talk shows, the distinction between facts and opinions is blurred, in editing articles we need to draw a clear distinction. Facts are not biased or unbiased, they are true or false. TFD (talk) 07:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
My point is that this article inappropriately adopts the terminology of those sources, while rejecting the terminology used in all major reputable encyclopedic sources. Perhaps others will address it. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 11:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
No specific examples given again and we only get repetitions of the same arguments plus statements such as "silly nonsense". It is hard to follow user Blue Eyes Cryin. Again i suggest him to provide examples of what he/she is talking about. Otherwise this discussion will not go anywhere.--Eduen (talk) 06:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
If it really is hard for you to follow me, and you really don't comprehend what I'm talking about (despite it being such an "old" discussion about the exact same elephant in the room), then there is no reason for you to respond to my posts here. May peace be with you. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 18:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I've already done so several times, despite the fact that the sources are already cited in the article and easy to identify, but I will do so again assuming you missed it. A couple of reliable tertiary sources are Encyclopedia Britannica and Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Both use the term libertarianism exclusively to refer to economic liberalism, as one example of standard terminology. This article rejects standard terminology in favor of inappropriately (and misleadingly) adopting the non-standard terminology used by biased unreliable sources cited in the article (that contradicts every dictionary on the planet as well). Such sources should only be used for detailed discussion of a particular group's positions, not as a basis for the article adopting them. The article itself should use the same standard terminology used by reliable tertiary sources (standard English per Wikipedia policy), unless specified otherwise within a discussion of a particular group. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
The terms "left libertarianism", "libertarian socialism", and "right libertarianism" are widely used in reliable sources. Anarchists and anarchism have used the names "libertarians" and "libertarianism" since the 19th century for themselves and are called by that name everywhere except in the US where at some point in the mid 20th century a very specific phenomenon happened where economic liberals started to call themselves "libertarians". The struggles over the word "libertarian" between anarchists and economic liberals in the US have happened since then and they have not ended. That is what this article asumes as a neutral point of view between different views. What you refer as the "standard" is the US centric use of libertarianism which refers to what in the rest of the world is called "economic liberalism" and even that can be questioned since anarchists have continued to use the words "libertarianism" there for themselves after the mid 20th century (ex: Libertarian Labor Review, Libertarian League and Common Struggle – Libertarian Communist Federation). I suggest user Blue Eyes Cryin to go back to archives where all these discussions took place but by now it is clear he is not gaining any consensus here for a change.--Eduen (talk) 03:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
All of those assertions have been addressed already on this page, and many, many times in the archives. I'm not sure why you're repeating them again without bothering to read the previous responses, but it's clear that you won't be changing your position. Message received, and may peace be with you. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 09:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Please restate or clarify opposition to the above text in bold.

I plan to add the text in Bold, reworded, if there be no further opposition. the material is from the same chapter and page of an existing source. there was concern the meaning is different in countries, languages, and eras, this same source discusses such later in the text. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Why are there enough sources that talk about a right-libertarianism? , Eduen is this your opposition to the edit? if so, could you clarify which wikipedia policy?
  • Text in articles should be based on reliable sources, not Darkstar1st's opinions., TFD This text is from a long-standing existing source, please review the current sources. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Darkstar1st, perhaps you can actually post your reworded statement instead of having everyone guess at what you will write. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 23:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I do plan to make an edit soon, just waiting on the editors who commented above to clarify their opposition. MisterDub, how would you word the edit? Darkstar1st (talk) 06:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
How about "individuals have the right to appropriate natural resources without anyone else's consent, as long as enough and as good is left for others (Lockean Proviso)". The Lockean Proviso should definitely be mentioned in this context, with a link to further explanation at a minimum. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 00:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Darkstar1st, I've mentioned previously that we should "add what the terms right-wing and left-wing mean in different regions" for context, but I don't have any suggestions beyond that. My primary concern at this time is editorialized text (e.g. "This, however, is mistaken..."). — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
scroll up, it is all in bold in this section. if rewording is a problem, perhaps we could simply quote/credit the source? Darkstar1st (talk) 17:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
There are a few things in bold, including something about sexual orientation. Please state below EXACTLY what you want to add and to what section. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Please do not remove the POV tag until this issue is resolved. JLMadrigal @ 15:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The issue will not be resolved by editing the article so that it contradicts the sources; anarcho-capitalism is a subset of right-libertarianism. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what edit you're referring to (looking only at recent edits), but the neutrality dispute won't just disappear by merely removing the POV tag. It will only be resolved with a consensus for intellectual honesty. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 22:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Blue Eyes Cryin, are you addressing me? I ask because I didn't remove the POV tag; I actually think we do have a POV problem that could be solved by reducing the amount of libertarian socialist content in the article. The edits to which I was referring were performed by JLMadrigal and set anarcho-capitalism apart from right-libertarianism despite the fact that sources clearly illustrate that anarcho-capitalism is a subset of right-libertarianism. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I was replying to your post, but I didn't mean to imply you had removed the POV tag. Aside from that, JLMadrigal's recent posts don't seem to contradict any source, and using terms like minarchist and anarcho-capitalist is much clearer than using terms with dual, disputed, or ambiguous meanings, like right-libertarian. The fact is that the sources used in the article contradict each other on the right/left distinction, just like they contradict each other on the meaning of the term "libertarian" itself. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 20:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
That is the etymological fallacy. Because the term "right" may not be clear does not mean the term "right libertarian" is equally unclear. TFD (talk) 22:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Are you implying that I engaged in that fallacy? Did you mean to respond to someone else? Misinterpret my post? Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 04:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
The term right-libertarian is nowhere near ambiguous; if anything, the ambiguity lies with the term left-libertarian. JLMadrigal's edit did indeed conflict with reliable secondary sources (see Peter Marshall's Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism, Colin Ward's Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction, and David Goodway's Anarchist Seeds Beneath the Snow: Left-libertarian thought and British writers from William Morris to Colin Ward for a small sampling), especially since he didn't avoid the term right-libertarian, but instead created a false distinction. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
The definition of right-libertarian in the FAQ above conflicts with the definition in the article, and the sources used conflict with both. I'd call that somewhere near ambiguous. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 04:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Right Libertarianism

Why has the section on anarcho-capitalism been removed and the section on classical liberalism been retitled minarchism? It seems to me that over time more and more content relating to right libertarianism is being removed and replaced with more information on left libertarianism. I also think the introduction is quite biased towards the latter. The focus really needs to be balanced so an equal amount of information is provided on each. To be honest, if anything, the focus should be more towards the right considering this is what libertarianism usually refers to in the English language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.53.163 (talk) 23:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I would agree that the article is currently biased toward left-libertarianism, but it would be inaccurate to fall into the trap of characterizing modern libertarianism - and the American brand of libertarianism in particular - as right of center. I have already moved references to anarcho-capitalism out of sections that described the philosophy as right-libertarian. Libertarians on the right would more accurately describe those of the "tea party" variety, who sympathize with the religious right, interventionists, and those who would tend to support the regulation of non-intrusive personal affairs. JLMadrigal @ 03:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Not only that, but the article is biased toward using the term "left-libertarianism" to refer to socialism instead of how the term is used in reliable tertiary sources cited in the article (economic liberalism that taxes the use of natural resources). And it lumps them in the same section, calling them the same name (left-libertarianism), despite the fact that they are about as different as the opposing ideologies lumped together in the article as a whole. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 08:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Blue Eyes Cryin, I have tried to account for both views, that left-libertarianism is a term, like libertarian socialism, which distinguishes the propertarian camp from the non-propertarian camp, and that it identifies those who support private property on the condition that "enough and as good" is available or a tax is paid to the community: "[Left-libertarianism] often includes libertarian socialists who reject private property in favor of usufruct and workers' self-management, but is sometimes defined as a narrower ideology." If you can think of a better way to account for both of these meanings, please improve the article. I think it's important to note that the term left-libertarianism is used as a synonym for anarchism more generally, as Kevin Carson of C4SS states in "What is Left-Libertarianism?" that "[t]he oldest and broadest usage of 'left-libertarian,' and perhaps most familiar to those in the anarchist movement at large, dates back to the late nineteenth century, and includes pretty much the whole non-statist, horizontalist or decentralist Left — everybody but Social Democrats and Leninists, basically."
As to the IP, I agree. We should be improving the right-libertarian content and minimizing the libertarian socialism. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
The term "left-libertarianism" as used by reliable tertiary sources does not distinguish between what you call "propertarian" and "non-propertarian" camps (silly terms, since the difference is not whether property does or should exist, but rather who owns it). It distinguishes between two types of so called "propertarians". Both right- and left-libetarians, as the terms are used in those sources, refer to economic liberals who believe in strong property rights for the products of labor. They should not be lumped with "libertarian socialists" based solely on the fact that they refer to themselves by the same term. The idea of trying to discuss Lockean libertarianism and Marxist ideology together is pretty preposterous, given that adherents don't even speak a common language. They use words and language so differently that the only possible way to discuss them coherently is separately, so that definitions of terms can be clarified for each. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 10:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't think the terms are used quite in the way you describe them here. Ronald Hamowy's Encyclopedia of Libertarianism, for example, says that left-libertarians "differ from what we generally understand by the term libertarian in denying the right to private property. We own ourselves, but we do not own nature, at least not as individuals. ... In effect, left libertarians, although prepared to recognized [sic] private property in oneself, are socialists with respect to all other resources." In any case, it won't be too hard to segregate left-libertarianism from libertarian socialism in the article, if that is an acceptable solution. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't referring to Harroway, since his work is not an encyclopedia in the normal sense. Harroway uses the term in the same way I was referring to it being used by socialists. But the real solution to the incoherence in this article is to separate socialism from economic liberalism completely (separate articles). The meanings of the major terms as used by each are far too different and contradictory to coherently discuss them together. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 15:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
There's no such thing as "Right Libertarianism". Like there is no such thing as "Anarcho-Capitalism". Libertarianism is Anarchism. The so called "Libertarian Party" of the U.S.A. is a minarchist sham.JanderVK (talk) 15:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

POV tag removed a 5th time by the same user

Several editors have restored the tag, yet one user continues to remove tag. much of the pov dispute involves material the editor supports. i suggest we add further protection to the article to prevent the tag from being removed again. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree with Eduen on this: if there's no discussion occurring to try and correct the issue, then the tag should be removed. WP:DT states:

[Dispute templates] should normally not be used without a clear description from the applying editor of the rationale, preferably presented in a numbered list form on the article's talk page, in a section which includes the name of the template that was applied. As these items are dealt with, it is suggested each line be struck through. Some guidance should be given by the posting editor as to what action will resolve the matter when using section and article (page) tagging templates. ... If [a banner template] must be used, please make a thorough note listing deficiencies or items being disputed in bulleted or numbered paragraph format under a clear notice section heading on the article's talk page.

I would support leaving the template if folks are willing to discuss and resolve the issue, but that hasn't been the case thus far. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Writing this in New Year´s eve already, we are dealing here with a dispute from october and if nothing came out of it, there was simply no consensus for the suggestions other users proposed. In most articles that will only be noted as no consensus for changes.--Eduen (talk) 20:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Eduen, let me reiterate what Blue Eyes Crying stated: "The discussions are 'old' because the article hasn't been corrected." Multiple people, including myself, have restored the tag after you have removed it. This indicates that the dispute has clearly not been resolved. Furthermore, I agree with Blue Eyes Crying statement that "the neutrality dispute won't just disappear by merely removing the POV tag." You feel as if the dispute is too old, but only two months has passed. I have no dog is this fight, but I think there is a clear need for further discussion on the neutrality in this article. Abierma3 (talk) 22:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Should an unwillingness to legitimately discuss the article's neutrality result in the template being removed? The previous objections are clear, and still effectively unaddressed. Should we continue to repeat them over and over? Personally, I think the article is currently so full of bias, misinformation, and self-contradiction that it's too obvious to mislead any reasonably intelligent person, anyway. The NPOV tag is just grossly understating the obvious. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 06:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I have improved the "History" section of this article in a way that I think will sate POV concerns, and have thus removed the tag. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The users who say there is a "bias" here have not said anything since october. They have only reverted taking out the neutrality banner. As such they have almost reduced the dispute here to an edit war while not bringing new arguments after failing to achieve a consensus for their positions in october. I don´t know if their goal is to keep that banner forever while there is no discussion since october. Hopefully not. And finally user Blue Eyes Crying says in his last interevention here that "I think the article is currently so full of bias, misinformation, and self-contradiction that it's too obvious to mislead any reasonably intelligent person, anyway". I can suggest that user to relax a little bit, and try to explain to us what specifically within the article is he talking about ih this angry comment of his.--Eduen (talk) 04:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
First, it wasn't angry. Second, I wasn't referring to anything that hasn't already been explained to you and other editors here. If there is enough interest from editors who are not already familiar, I might take the time and trouble to repeat it all again in a summary. May peace be with you. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 08:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Blue Eyes Cryin, it would be nice if someone would present a "a clear description" of the problem(s), "preferably presented in a numbered list form." I think that would be a step in the right direction. For my part, I think there is too much information in this article about anarchism (i.e., libertarian socialism). I think Wikipedia policy demands that we summarize that topic here and present a more comprehensive account of modern American libertarianism (i.e., right-libertarianism, propertarianism) than we presently do. I would suggest something similar to the change I recently attempted:
  1. Remove the "Libertarian socialism" section from "History": this section and the one immediately preceding it ("Rise of anarchism") deal with the same subject. There is no reason so much content ought to be included here when detailed accounts are available under articles with common names (Libertarian socialism, Anarchism). We should either condense and consolidate these two sections, or delete the second one entirely.
  2. Expand the "Resurgence of economic liberalism" section: this section is currently brief and uninformative.
  3. Add a section that illustrates the native individualism in the US: some modern American libertarians (notably, Murray Rothbard and Karl Hess) were explicitly influenced by the American individualist anarchists, but others were a "rather automatic product of the American environment." We ought to show this as well.
These are my suggestions; maybe if others present their views for improving the article, we can actually have a fruitful discussion. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I will agree with user Misterdub with the suggestion to user Blue Eyes Cryin to state his argument on what is wrong with this article. To user Misterdub i have to remind that libertarian socialism does not only include anarchism but also libertarian marxism. As such we have to talk in this article about all of that and not just about anarchism. In the end, if there is that much information on anarchism is just due to its having existed since the 19th century and used the self description of "libertarian" since then while being an international global movement. On the other hand right wing libertarianism only did it from the mid 20th century onwards and mainly only in the US. Economic liberals in countries outside the US are mostly active in liberal and conservative parties (see liberal conservatism and neoliberalism).--Eduen (talk) 10:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
We both know that anarchism is the bulk of libertarian socialism and that other political stances such as libertarian Marxism, DeLeonism, and council communism are extremely minor currents that don't differ significantly from the antistatist position of anarchists. As such, due weight will demand that we minimize not only libertarian socialism (because the most common meaning of libertarianism in the English-speaking world is modern American libertarianism), but also these fringe elements within that wider tradition. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Individualist anarchism: not only a US phenomenon and one belonging to anarchism

I reverted the changes in history by user MisterDub because of the following reasons. First, only touching on "individualism in the US" will be an enormous case of Wikipedia:Systemic bias which will almost suggest readers that individualism has only existed in the US or that the individualism of other places outside the US does not matter. Second, all the individualists which are being dealt with by the suggestions of user MisterDub are individualist anarchists and because of that, individualist anarchism can be said to be an international tendency which even had supporters in Latin America and Asia. US individualist anarchists were not only talking and debating with themselves only but in fact had exchanges with european individualist anarchists. European individualist anarchism is almost as old if not older than american anarchism as one can see that the english individualist anarchist William Godwin published his main works already in the 18th century. As such, Benjamin Tucker had correspondence with french individualist anarchist Emile Armand. Benjamin Tucker´s political philosophy was also highly influenced by the french Pierre Joseph Proudhon and the german Max Stirner. English individualist anarchist James L. Walker emigrated from the UK to the US. Both italian individualist anarchist Renzo Novatore and spanish collectivist anarchist Ricardo Mella mention Tucker in their writings. But also US individualists William B. Greene and Lysander Spooner were members of the First Workers international which held assemblies in Europe in which the main debate was between Bakunin and Karl Marx. Tucker himself lived his last years of his life in France. For more on all of that go to the individualist anarchism article. Third, individualist anarchism has always been a tendency of libertarian socialism because it has always been and continues to be an anti-capitalist tendency. As such it has to be dealt within Left libertarianism and libertarian socialism. For a contemporary reference on this check the compilation Markets Not Capitalism: Individualist Anarchism Against Bosses, Inequality, Corporate Power, and Structural Poverty. Fourth, this affirmation which is both unsourced and can well be said to be false, at least for the early 20th century. "While social anarchism enjoyed greater popularity in Europe and espoused communist and syndicalist economic policies, individualist anarchism was more prominent in the USA." US Individualist anarchism was in general sympathetic to organized labour in the US and with individualist anarchists such as Joseph Labadie and Dyer Lum, it might have even had an important role in the organization of the late 19th century us labour movement. The lines of delimitation between individualist and so called "social" anarchism are not too clear with crucial american anarchists such as Emma Goldman and Voltairine De cleyre. Goldman identified with anarchocommunism yet also was a strong supporter of the philosophy of the german individualists Max Stirner and Friedrich Nietzsche. De Cleyre on the other hand changed her views form an early identification with individualism to a later defense of communist anarchism and a more general view of "anarchism without adjectives". Also we must take into account the US insurrectionist illegalist anarchists such as the followers of Luigi Galleani. It was not uncommon for them to identify as individualists following Max Stirner and also adhere in economics to anarchocommunism. In order to affirm that individualist anarchists were more numerous in the US than anarchocommunists and anarchosyndicalists, we will need some sort of statistics which i dont think we have. Nevertheless i can say that the mass national organization International Workers of the World had a strong anarchist component and which was not really made up much of self described individualist anarchists while Tucker´s publication Liberty had already dissapeared and it was never composed of a few intellectuals from the New England area. So one can suspect with good reasons that anarcho-communism was bigger and more hegemonic than individualist anarchism by the early 20th century. Fifth, MisterDub has deleted the historical section on libertarian socialism while he decided to enlarge the sections on the US. That will be a huge case of both Wikipedia:Systemic bias and it will give a serious imbalance between right and left versions of libertarianism within the article. I remind him that the article Libertarianism in the United States also exists if he wants to give more information of US right wing libertarianism within wikipedia.--Eduen (talk) 03:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Eduen, you do not need to rehash the history of everything to make a simple point; I am well-versed in anarchism and agree with many of the statements you've made. The edit I made was intended first and foremost to describe the transition in the US of a native individualism into the modern capitalist ideology popular today: "only a few individuals like Murray Rothbard, in Power and Market, and some article writers were influenced by [past anarchists like Spooner and Tucker]. Most had not evolved consciously from this tradition; they had been a rather automatic product of the American environment." (DeLeon, The American as Anarchist: Reflections on Indigenous Radicalism.) There was never any intention of pretending that individualist anarchism only existed in the USA, or that only individualist anarchism existed there; and in fact, I don't think it was presented in such a way.
My edit was intended to improve the section currently titled "Resurgence of economic liberalism," which has had a cleanup tag since April 2014. I find it interesting that there are so many capitalist libertarians here arguing for balance, but cannot manage to improve the article in such a simple way. My edit was also made to help balance the article by removing a large section which ought to be summarized here because a more comprehensive treatment of it already exists in the article with its common name (Libertarian socialism). I honestly didn't figure the edit would escape reversion because someone here must always take offense, whether it's the capitalists who demand a complete eradication of socialist libertarianism or the left-libertarians who want this article to be little more than a copy of Libertarian socialism. I attempted a compromise; I was bold. And, now that it's been reverted, we can return to the incessant and ineffectual arguing. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
i suspect Eduen would support some of your edit without further debate, if so, would it be possible to add those now? Darkstar1st (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I would think so. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
My view is that one cannot force lines of continuity where there are not too many or real ones. "I find it interesting that there are so many capitalist libertarians here arguing for balance, but cannot manage to improve the article in such a simple way." The fact is that US economic liberals only started to call themselves "libertarians" somewhere in the mid 20th century. As such the history of right libertarianism is mostly US centered and it starts only from the mid 20th century. That is the crude fact and that is why they can´t add anything else in the article and what you pretend to add is forced and WK:original research while also breaking a clear and well sourced line of continuity within anarchism. The common source of both libertarian socialism and right wing liberalism, XVIII Liberalism, is already covered anyway so that is in keeping with real history and not with the wishes of any user. Anarchists started to call themselves "libertarians" already from the mid 19th century onwards and so that is why the libertarian socialism section has to start in the 19th century. Afterwards they were naming many organizations in Europe, LAtin American and even within the US "libertarian" (see the Libertarian League in the US).--Eduen (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Those facts were included in my edit, so it's difficult to determine what valid reason you had for reverting. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Just to repeat from past discussions, a large part of the dispute is the insistence that this article should define terms IAW how certain political activists have used them (obviously for deception in many cases), instead of using standard English per Wikipedia policy. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
The fact is that libertarianism as denoting a libertarian socialist position has also been used in other anglo countries. Check Sydney Libertarians and the classic general book on anarchism by the canadian british author George Woodcock [Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements. I has also been used as such within the US itself (check Libertarian League). What is "standard english"?. I don´t think it is fair to call "standard english" US english. And now as far as ¿use for deception?. If user Blue Eyes Crying could be more specific, we could examine his argument having clearer information as to what specifically he is dealing with. If we decide to talk about Canada for example, there they have a Liberal party. That is why one can understand why the canadian author George Woodcock named his book "a history of libertarian movements" without expecting to raise confusions with views supporting economic liberalism. He was clear with the fact that people will understand he was dealing with anarchism-libertarian socialism and nowhere in his book is a single pro capitalist author included, except as a political enemy of the subject he is dealing with.--Eduen (talk) 08:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Standard English, for a specific example, is what the term libertarian means as used by Encyclopedia Britannica, not as used by a political activist such as George Woodcock. It's interesting that you responded to my post by referencing political activists, instead of respected encyclopedic (tertiary) sources using standard English. Thank you for helping to illustrate my point, and may peace be with you. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
So standard english is what the Enciclopedia Britanica says according to user Blue eyes crying. Very strange affirmation and view. Where can i get this definition of standard english being what the enciclopedia Britannica says? Anyway, the uses of libertarianism as synonym of anarchism, both in academic soureces and by self identification of activists and their organizations and books, have been presented to you and others interested many times and it is in archives. But also one will have to consider the non-english language literature which also does that. So that does not help an argument to change the contents here towards pro capitalism as it seems is your goal or that we only talk here about the particular US experience.--Eduen (talk) 05:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I can see that your mind is made up, but just to answer your question, standard English can be found in any respectable dictionary. May peace be with you. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 19:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
In order to respond user MisterDub, i suggest you read the article on the US "Old right" in order to find the lines of continuity towards US right libertarianism. The wikipedia article on Murray Rothbard even manifests that "Rothbard wrote of having grown up as a "right-winger" (adherent of the "Old Right")...To Rothbard "all socialism seemed to me monstrously coercive and abhorrent."[9]. As such they are clearly not in people like Benjamin Tucker and this origin of US right libertarianism in an "old right" just clarifies the right wing nature of US pro capitalist libertarianism. Tucker called himself a socialist. He said that "The economic principles of Modern Socialism are a logical deduction from the principle laid down by Adam Smith in the early chapters of his “Wealth of Nations,” – namely, that labor is the true measure of price...Half a century or more after Smith enunciated the principle above stated, Socialism picked it up where he had dropped it, and in following it to its logical conclusions, made it the basis of a new economic philosophy...This seems to have been done independently by three different men, of three different nationalities, in three different languages: Josiah Warren, an American; Pierre J. Proudhon, a Frenchman; Karl Marx, a German Jew...That the work of this interesting trio should have been done so nearly simultaneously would seem to indicate that Socialism was in the air, and that the time was ripe and the conditions favorable for the appearance of this new school of thought...So far as priority of time is concerned, the credit seems to belong to Warren, the American, – a fact which should be noted by the stump orators who are so fond of declaiming against Socialism as an imported article." (Benjamin Tucker. Individual Liberty). The other important source of US right libertarianism is the austrian school of liberal economics of von Misses and Friedrich Hayek. As such a line of continuity very far from the one of individualist anarchism.--Eduen (talk) 09:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion, but I'd like to turn your attention to just about any comprehensive secondary source on the subject of libertarianism. Peter Marshall writes in Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism:
In the nineteenth century, the indigenous anarchist tradition in the United States took a mainly individualist direction. Inspired by the libertarian ideals of Jefferson and Paine and Protestant Dissent, they rejected the State and wanted to turn American society into an association of voluntary agencies. But they did not question the market economy and saw like Proudhon that private property was a guarantee of personal independence. As such most American individualist anarchists might be called 'right-libertarians' since they felt capitalism would encourage anarchy. ...
The new European immigrants in the 1880s brought in a new wave of communitarian anarchism. Unlike the native American individualists, who despised the State because it hindered the liberty of the individual and his property, the new left-libertarians attacked the State because it was the mainstay of property and privilege. ...
The seventies and eighties in the United States saw a resurgence of right-libertarianism, with 'anarcho-capitalists' like Murray Rothbard drawing inspiration from Spooner and Tucker.
He goes on to say:
The phenomenon of anarcho-capitalism is not however new. With the demise of Benjamin Tucker's journal Liberty in 1907, American individualist anarchism lost its principal voice; but its strain of libertarianism continued to re-emerge occasionally in the offering of isolated thinkers. The young essayist Randolph Bourne... Franz Oppenheimer's view of the State... [t]he Jeffersonian liberal Albert Jay Nock...
Amongst anarcho-capitalist apologists, the economist Murray Rothbard is probably most aware of the anarchist tradition. He was originally regarded as an extreme right-wing Republican, but went on to edit la Boétie's libertarian classic Of Voluntary Servitude and now calls himself an anarchist. ...
Nozick's work State, Anarchy, and Utopa (1974) is widely regarded as one of the most important works in contemporary political philosophy. Inspired in part by individualist anarchist arguments, especially those of Spooner and Tucker, and replying to the libertarian views of Rothbard and Rand, he calls for a minimal State to oversee private protection agencies to ensure contracts are kept by property-owning individuals.
Brian Doherty in Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement:
The American individualist anarchists represented a small and by the late 1940s almost forgotten sidestream in nineteenth-century American radicalism. ...
The modern libertarian movement is the only political tendency that honors these individualist anarchists, keeping their ideas alive and in some cases (like Lysander Spooner) openly embracing them. ...
In his strategic focus on how an anarchist could achieve social change, Tucker presaged Rothbard and through him modern populist libertarianism; much of his rhetoric reads exactly like Rothbard's (or vice versa). From Tucker, Rothbard (and through him the libertarian movement) got arguments about how most of the ills of society, rather than requiring a state solution, are caused by the state itself.
...
Tucker's greatest contribution to the individualist anarchist tradition was publishing in Liberty and befriending the nineteenth-century individualist anarchist most revered by modern libertarians: Lysander Spooner.
... More than any of his nineteenth-century individualist anarchist brethren, Spooner is still an active influence on the libertarian movement—reprinted, quoted, honored, and relied on.
He continues:
Journalist, biographer, and belle lettrist Albert Jay Nock is frequently cited in attempts to establish a prewar pedigree for modern libertarian thought, and he is a hero to many of the modern movement's founders. ...
Nock was already devoted to Henry George, a political and economic philosopher, author of Progress and Poverty (1879), who came into vogue in the late nineteenth century. George combined a basic libertarianism with a belief that government should be funded by a "single tax" on the unimproved value of land.
Gary Chartier and Charles W. Johnson write in Markets Not Capitalism: Individualist Anarchism Against Bosses, Inequality, Corporate Power, and Structural Poverty:
Drawing on Warren's and Proudhon's use of contract and exchange for models of social mutuality, distinctive strands of market anarchism have emerged repeatedly within the broad anarchist tradition, punctuated by crises, collapses, interregnums and resurgences. The history is complex but it can be roughly divided into three major periods represented in this text—(i) a "first wave," represented mainly by "individualist anarchists" and "mutualists" such as Benjamin Tucker, Voltairine de Cleyre, and Dyer Lum, and occupying roughly the period from the American Civil War to 1917; (ii) a "second wave" coinciding with the radicalization of formerly pro-capitalist American libertarians and the resurgence of anarchism as a family of social movements during the radicalism of the 1960s and 1970s; and (iii) a "third wave," developing as a dissident strand within the anarchist milieu of the 1990s and the post-Seattle movement of the new millennium.
In spite of discontinuities and differences, each wave has typically revived the literature of the earlier waves and drawn explicitly on its themes; what has, in general, united them is their defense of market relationships and their particular emphasis on the revolutionary possibilities inherent in the market form, when it is—to the extent that it is—liberated from legal and social institutions of privilege.
...
By the beginning of twenty-first century, anticapitalist descendants of the individualists had grown in number, influence, and visibility. They shared the early individualists' conviction that markets need not in principle be exploitative. At the same time, they elaborated and defended a distinctively libertarian version of class analysis that extended Tucker's list of monopolies and highlighted the intersection of state-secured privilege with systematic past and ongoing dispossession and with a range of issues of ecology, culture, and interpersonal power relations.
Here are three sources from three vastly different traditions (Marshall writes primarily about libertarian socialism, Doherty is a capitalist libertarian, and Chartier and Johnson are left-wing market anarchists), and as you can see, they all discuss capitalist libertarianism (what Doherty refers to as "modern American libertarianism") as influenced, to some degree, by the individualist anarchists who represented the "native" individualism of early United States citizens. Through Rothbard and Nozick, the modern American libertarian movement gained familiarity with Tucker and Spooner; through Nock, Henry George. Left-wing market anarchists (i.e., left-Rothbardians and Konkinites) are especially influenced by the anticapitalist, free market arguments of the 19th century American anarchists. That isn't to say that there aren't other, even more important influences on modern American libertarianism, but your personal distaste of the movement shouldn't be grounds for excluding reliable sources. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Not one, incluiding me, has denied here that the US procapitalist libertarians have claimed influence from Tucker and the other 19th century individualists. But Tucker also influenced european anarchists such as Ricardo Mella, Emile Armand and Lev Chernyi. And he was also influenced by the french Proudhon and the german Max Stirner. Tucker mainly called himself "anarchist" even publishing Bakunin god and the State in the US and went to spend his last days in France. So the main ideological position where he belongs and where he is dealt with from a global perspective is anarchism, a part of libertarian socialism. For example John Stuart Mill has also written favourly of socialism yet he mainly has influenced and he belongs to the liberal tradition. Also Lenin influenced both Mussolini and Hitler in the one party state model yet Lenin is mainly associated with socialism and marxism while the other two with fascism and the far right. And the contemporary economist who goes as far as to put Tucker in the cover of his main theorectical book, Kevin Carson´s Studies in Mutualist Political Economy, is a mutualist and as such also a follower of Proudhon´s economics-another anarchist. All of these-Carson, Tucker and Proudhon-are critics of capitalism and more specifically of wage labour relationships and of a society based on that. As such they are all libertarian socialists. The main influences of US right libertarians are these old US right and in economics the austrian school of economics. Going deeper on this issue Tucker, Carson and Proudhon all adhere to the labour theory of value (just like Marx) while Rothbard, Milton Friedman and the austrian school of economics and US right libertarianism in general all reject it. This means that they belong mostly to different ideological and theorectical traditions and positions. But even Carson refers to himself as a "left-libertarian" and so he clearly wants to take distance with right libertarianism. Carson has also used for himself (see "Socialism: A Perfectly Good Word Rehabilitated", as well as Gary Chartier, the word "socialist". As such they belong to libertarian socialism. I also suggest to check the article Market socialism in which one will also find some marxists supporting that.--Eduen (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
So, you just like writing irrelevant diatribes then? Since I never claimed that 19th-century individualist anarchists weren't part of the greater anarchist (i.e., libertarian socialist) tradition, it's difficult to understand what prompted your frantic walls of text. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Don´t be afraid to read and perhaps calm yourself.--Eduen (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Mention of left libertarianism in "Modern american libertarianism"

I added the mention of the emrgence of a self described left libertarian section within US libertarianism that traces its lineages to individualist anarchism and which has aligned with libertarian socialism while rejecting capitalism. This fixes one of my main complaints that the US historical section, in the previous state, should have been better named "US right libertarianism".--Eduen (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

To the recent edition by user MisterDub i can only say that it is clearly a recent historical development. I guess one could reduce it a little but it clearly reports on recent developments which is clearly the subject of this section. What i added also traces th antecedents of that which are clearly 19th century US individualist anarchists. I will be waiting for responses to this addition by other users here.--Eduen (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
As I stated in the edit summary, you added a section with no historical information to the "History" section of the article. The information you added is already in the article, in appropriate places, no less. I have no problem with adding information about left-wing market anarchism, but it should at least be relevant. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry but as i run a search of mentions of "US left libertarianism" in this article, i don´t get anything. If you could point to me where that is i will be grateful. Otherwise, the most logical place where a mention of "US left libertarianism" should go is in the "Modern american libertarianism" section. On the other hand no one complaints here that Rothbard´s or Nozscik´s name is repeated also within the article and i don´t do that either.--Eduen (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
"The genealogy of contemporary market-oriented left-libertarianism—sometimes labeled 'left-wing market anarchism'—overlaps to a significant degree with that of Steiner–Vallentyne left-libertarianism as the roots of that tradition are sketched in the book The Origins of Left-Libertarianism." That is, this current derives mainly from the "second wave" of market anarchists as detailed in Markets Not Capitalism, primarily from Rothbard and Hess and the right-libertarian tradition (which I recently added). Which (again) isn't to say that we couldn't use more information about this current, but that the information in the "History" section should be historical. Your edit was not.
And there is no prohibition against using a name twice; it's just absurd to have the exact same thing written multiple times in the same article. Please stop pretending to be so obtuse. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Alright then. I think what i added just might have to be reduced a little in its "philosophical" qualities but clearly US left libertarianism has to be mentioned in the section "Modern american libertarianism". And from a chronological point of view, it has to go after the last sentence in that section which stops in the 1970s since US left libertarianism, as you just have mentioned, "That is, this current derives mainly from the "second wave" of market anarchists as detailed in Markets Not Capitalism, primarily from Rothbard and Hess and the right-libertarian tradition (which I recently added)."--Eduen (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
As i run another search in the article, "left wing market anarchism" is not mentioned anywhere else in the article. Now it is only mentioned here and just to add more reasons for that, it is wholly a US development so it is only logical that it should be mentioned in this section befor adding it anywhere else. User MisterDub anyway is not opposed to mentioning it again anyway but it was not mentioned at all before.--Eduen (talk) 23:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I have made a change to avoid all the pointedness of the addition and give it due weight. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I only added a paragraph which consisted of about 10 percent of the whole section. That was already in due weight.--Eduen (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

suggest we restore the last bold edit

it appears only one editor had a problem with the last bold edit, and only with some of the edit. i suggest we restore edit and allow the editor to remove the specific passages deemed problematic. or, if the editor will simply affirm the revert was meant in it's entirety, we can discuss the parts most important to MDub for reinsertion. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I have restored most of my previous edit: I have added the two sections "Individualism in the United States" and "Modern American libertarianism" back to the article, this time without removing the "Libertarian socialism" section (which I still contend ought to be severely reduced or deleted). I have also provided reliable secondary sources to support this new material in the section above, in response to Eduen. I think this new material can use some serious copy editing, but it at least provides a solid foundation for improvement. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
As i check your recent edition i am glad that you did not delete the mentions of Tucker and other US individualist anarchists such as William Greene, Josiah Warren and Stephen Pearl Andrews from the Libertarian socialist section where they belong. As far as that i am allright with this edit. But as far as deleting things from libertarian socialism from the historical section you will be deleting information of organizations who actually called themselves "libertarian" in the early 20th century such as the Libertarian Youth from Spain and the Federacion Libertaria Argentina (both which still exist) as well as the first recorded publication which called itself "Libertarian" (Joseph Dejacque) or the mention of the "Sydney Libertarians" so it is clearly that cannot be taken out just as one cannot take out from this article the mention of the US Libertarian Party. --Eduen (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Our content here isn't only driven by verifiability, but due weight and summary style as well: "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion." "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." Please note that these other Wikipedia policies, in light of the undeniable fact that libertarianism in the English language overwhelming refers to modern American libertarianism, demand that we minimize coverage of libertarian socialism here. Because I didn't delete that section, we now have several figures and facts repeated, in addition to the obscene amount of detail that ought to be reserved for the child articles Libertarian socialism and Anarchism. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
The use of a word and a concept also has to be analysed from the territorial extension of use and this does not specify whehter something is only used in english speaking places. Otherwise you will have to ask english language wikipedia to delete things from it from non english speaking places. After all we are not writing "english speaking wikipedia for subjects according to the language uses of english speaking readers" but english language wikipedia which deals about what exists in the universe. But i also advise you to not mistake US language uses of something and english language uses of something. After all the english language article reports users and speakers of the english language above the 1 billion persons and the US population only amounts to about 300 millions of them.--Eduen (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Again, wholly irrelevant; we can explain global phenomena and still adhere to Wikipedia policy. Do you think these arguments would persuade anyone at the WP:NPOVN? — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
So we agree on the fact of this not being the US libertarianism wikipedia article. That is good. The information in the libertarian socialism section in history deals mostly with social phenomena in which people called themselves "libertarians". Also if individualist anarchism is not libertarian then nothing is libertarian. Anyway ¿Is there something more relevant to the article "libertarianism" than organizations and political positions which call themselves "libertarian"? In fact from this point of view one will have to take out all the information on classical liberalism since none of those people called themselves libertarian while libertarian socialists were calling themselves that already in the 19th century. US right wing libertarians only from the 20th century. Due weight will have to take all of this into account and so that is why the historical sections is the way it is now.--Eduen (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
As i check again the historical section of the article, i will agree with getting rid of the section called "Rise of anarchism" by inserting a few of what it is said there inside the libertarian socialism section. Anyway, that section mostly describes William Godwin´s philosophy so this action would be only logical. Perhaps we could call this single new section "Rise of anarchism and libertarian socialism".--Eduen (talk) 23:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Just to answer the question "is there something more relevant to the article "libertarianism" than organizations and political positions which call themselves "libertarian"?": the obvious answer is yes: the political philosophy that the general population (on both sides of the pond) calls libertarianism because they use standard English.
The fact that socialists have called themselves libertarians very often only demonstrates that their suggested use of the term has been rejected by the general population very often. The greater the number of examples you give only demonstrates a greater amount of rejection of that use in standard English. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry but if you talk about the views of "the general population" we will have to see some surveys or something. Anywya, you are not even specifiying the population of what place or country. Go to spain and talk about "libertarians" and they will think of anarcho-punks and hippies in squats as well as anarchosyndicalists. At some point the anarchosyndicalist trade union CNT was actually the largest trade union in the country with a membership around 1 million which was even able to take over the whole city of Barcelona.--Eduen (talk) 00:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I said nothing about the "views of the general population". I was obviously referring to standard English, ie the way words are used by the general population (which can be found in respected encyclopedias/dictionaries). And for the record, I hereby acknowledge that socialists have often called themselves libertarians. I'd even say incessantly. At the top of their lungs. Repeatedly overwhelming this talk page with demonstrations of things that nobody disputes, and demanding answers to questions already answered repeatedly, serves only to derail legitimate discussion. Although I assume that's completely unintentional on your part, it's clear that discussing this with you is not constructive. May peace be with you. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 03:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
¿But what specific "general population" are you talking about?. You know that in the US they call "soccer" what in the UK and the rest of the world is called football. In the US they call garbage what in the UK they call rubbish and so on, and so on. In the UK and australia no one plays american football while in the US rugby is a very minoritarian sport who almost no one plays. There i am talking about english speaking countries only. And so what in the US they call "libertarianism" in the rest of the world tends to be called liberalism and economic liberalism. But i also touched upon the issue of american exceptionalism which is a huge debate in sociology and politology.--Eduen (talk) 03:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Examples of respected legitimate encyclopedias using standard English:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/339321/libertarianism
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/libertarianism/
http://www.iep.utm.edu/libertar/
Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 10:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Eduen, please stay on topic. Everyone here understands that the US is not the only English-speaking nation in the world; that is totally irrelevant to what we are saying.
At this point, I think we ought to start a RfC or take this to NPOVN to more concretely determine the prominent meaning of libertarian in the English language, and therefore the due weight to be accorded in the article. Continuing this discussion appears fruitless. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
We are reporting here on actual existing world uses of the word within both academia and political activism and i hope you are not trying to deny the existence of the use of of that word from the 19th century until today while trying to force a provincial US view of things.--Eduen (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
As has been pointed out to you repeatedly, Encyclopedia Britannica is not "provincial US". May peace be with you. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

RFC

I agree we should do something and will support an rfc. before we proceed, are there any better venues for resolution as it appears to be only one editor resisting the solutions discussed? Darkstar1st (talk) 22:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I guess I kinda jumped the gun. I would certainly love to achieve a resolution without a RfC, but considering Eduen's arguments, I'm not hopeful that further discussion will be efficacious. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
i agree and was steering toward a venue more focused on the user rather than the term as it appears only one editor is opposed to the definition understood by several. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
User MisterDub and the opinion of blue Eyes crying are different. The second user more or less wants this article to be the same article as "right libertarianism" while user Misterdub is proposing that we keep here the content of libertarian socialism. Just to clarify that to you user Darkstar1st.--Eduen (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Please refrain from making false statements about other editors. Thank you and may peace be with you. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 07:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Not a false statement, user Blue Eyes Crying, if you actually take the time to analyse each one of their positions which can also be seen below this section. I think i can ask you to explain to us how i am making "false statements" by analysing each one of their positions and comparing them. And may peace be with me, hahahaha. It is funny how fast you can go from almost accusing me of lying and then wishing peace for me.--Eduen (talk) 08:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I'll explain anything that any other editor asks me to explain to them regarding this, if they can't figure it out themselves. Even if you honestly but mistakenly thought your statement was true earlier, you now know it to be false, because I have informed you that it's false. May peace be with you. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 09:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
There are also relevant policies not cited in the RFC, such as the use of reliable tertiary sources to establish due weight, and consulting reliable general reference sources for the usage of terms. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 11:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Anyway. The discussion is not here anymore. May peace be with me.--Eduen (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Freedom_of_movement

Freedom of movement should be mentioned more in the article. This, as a person in any country can only be considered to agree fully with all regulations the country he resides in imposes on him, if he also has the option of leaving the country indefinitely if he does not agree with these regulations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.130.191.133 (talk) 09:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Too long?

User Bill Hicks Jr. has added a "very long" template to the article. I decided to run Dr_pda's prosesize utility to determine exactly how long the article is:

Document statistics:

  • File size: 572 kB
  • Prose size (including all HTML code): 138 kB
  • References (including all HTML code): 26 kB
  • Wiki text: 197 kB
  • Prose size (text only): 74 kB (11341 words) "readable prose size"
  • References (text only): 1935 B

The readable prose size (emboldened above) is 74kB, which according to the size guideline means the article "[p]robably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)". Given that this is a top-level article for an extensive topic, I don't see this as too much of a problem. That said, I think we could make some improvements that would reduce the readable prose to a more appropriate size. I would suggest that we condense the "Prominent currents" section into a few paragraphs explaining the difference between 1) libertarian socialists and modern American libertarians, and 2) the difference among the latter group between minarchists (Objectivists and minimal-state liberals) and anarcho-capitalists. I also suggest that we reduce the "Philosophy" subsections to those which most characterize libertarianism, i.e., personal autonomy, voluntary association, and skepticism/rejection of state authority. Other, more detailed accounts of libertarian values (e.g. economics, property, and wage labor) ought to be moved to relevant content forks. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this is any more relevant than the "quantity of LibSoc coverage" issue. This article is a basket case because of biased, misleading, and self-contradictory material, not merely too much material. Of course, Eduen has apparently decided that the elephant in the room doesn't need a sign to point it out. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I propose deleting the section "libertarian theorists". Most of the people mentioned there are already mentioned within the article and so this section is redundant.--Eduen (talk) 02:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd support that, though I'd still like to see improvements akin to those I described above. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should this article minimize, but not remove, libertarian socialism?

No consensus for this proposal, nor for removing it completely. Number 57 16:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should this article minimize, but not remove, libertarian socialism? — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Relevant policies:

  • "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." (WP:DUE)
  • "The presence of articles written from a United States or European Anglophone perspective is simply a reflection of the fact that there are many U.S. and European Anglophone people working on the project. This is an ongoing problem that should be corrected by active collaboration between Anglo-Americans and people from other countries. But rather than introducing their own cultural bias, they should seek to improve articles by removing any examples of cultural bias that they encounter, or making readers aware of them." (WP:NPOVFAQ#Anglo-American focus)
  • "Where an article is long, and has lots of subtopics with their own articles, try to balance parts of the main page. Do not put undue weight into one part of an article at the cost of other parts." (WP:SUMMARY#Avoidance of POV forks)
  • "The idea is to summarize and distribute information across related articles in a way that can serve readers who want varying amounts of details, thus giving readers the ability to zoom to the level of details they need and not exhausting those who need a primer on a whole topic. Breakout methods should anticipate the various details levels that typical readers will look for." (WP:SUMMARY#Rationale)
  • "The parent article should have general summary information and the more detailed summaries of each subtopic should be in child articles and in articles on specific subjects." (WP:DETAIL)
  • "Sometimes, English usage is divided. For example, US newspapers generally referred to the Olympics in Torino, following official handouts. However, newspapers in other parts of the English speaking world referred to it taking place in Turin. In this case we cannot determine which is "most common". Use what would be the least surprising to a user finding the article. Whichever is chosen, one should place a redirect at the other title and mention both forms in the lead." (WP:DIVIDEDUSE)
  • "Search-engine hits are generally considered unreliable for testing whether one term is more common than another..." (WP:DIVIDEDUSE)
  • "Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other." (WP:TERTIARY)

Yes. Given that a Google search for libertarianism or libertarian produces nothing but results about modern American libertarianism, that should receive the most attention and detail in this top-level article. I understand that WP:DIVIDEDUSE states that search engines are "generally considered unreliable," but I'm at a loss as to how else one would establish this. My understanding is that, because libertarian socialism and anarchism have articles under their common names, intricate details about these subjects belong in those articles, and only summary-level detail is justified in this parent article. WP:DUE WEIGHT then—assuming that the vast majority of English-speaking sources refer to libertarianism as a modern capitalist development in the tradition of classical liberalism—compels us to minimize libertarian socialism without removing it entirely. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Update: the subject of reliable secondary and tertiary sources on libertarianism should direct us. These include David Boaz's Libertarianism: A Primer (1998) and The Libertarian Reader: Classic and Contemporary Writings from Lao-Tzu to Milton Friedman (2010), Jason Brennan's Libertarianism: What Everyone Needs to Know (2012), Brian Doherty's Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement (2009), John Hospers's Libertarianism: A Political Philosophy for Tomorrow (1971), Charles Murray's What It Means to Be a Libertarian (2010), Murray Rothbard's For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto (1973), and Jacob Huebert's Libertarianism Today (2010). Tertiary sources include David Boaz's entry in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, Daniel Attas's entry in the Encyclopedia of Political Theory (2010), Peter Vallentyne and Bas van der Vossen's entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, David Gordon's entry in The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Political Thought (1991), Matt Zwolinski's entry in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Daniel B. Klein's entry in the Encyclopedia.com, and the Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia. All of the previously mentioned sources discuss libertarianism as a political philosophy that began in the 20th century in the United States and which values laissez-faire capitalism. Only one tertiary source of which I know—Jennifer D. Carlson's "Libertarianism" entry in The Social History of Crime and Punishment in America (2012)—identifies libertarianism as a broader political philosophy that includes both modern American libertarianism and anarchism. The following sources all describe libertarian socialism under its common name, anarchism: David Goodway's Anarchist Seeds Beneath the Snow: Left-libertarian thought and British writers from William Morris to Colin Ward (2006), Daniel Guerin's Anarchism: From Theory to Practice (1970), Peter Marshall's Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism (2010), Colin Ward's Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction (2004), and George Woodcock's Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements (1962). — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Should be removed leaving a "for other uses see" section, since we are talking about an alternate definition of the term itself, not merely a subset, and that's what disambiguation pages are for. "Libertarian Socialism" should be discussed thoroughly and separately since it's a different philosophy rather than "minimized" within this article like it's some less important subset of the same philosophy. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

No. the current version is balanced This is english language wikipedia. As such we have to deal here with real world uses of something and phenomena which is dealt with in academic sources and we should not cover only uses which appear in the US. "Libertarian" has been used by libertarian socialists since the mid 19th century (see Joseph Dejacque who even published a newspaper called "Le libertaire" in New York City in the mid 19th century) while the US centered meaning of pro capitalist economics only exists from the mid 20th century. There are and there have been many libertarian socialist organizations which name themselves libertarian even today and some have existed even in the US (ex: Argentine Libertarian Federation, Libertarian Labor Review, Libertarian League, Radio Libertaire, Alternative libertaire, Common Struggle – Libertarian Communist Federation) and a long history of the use of that word in libertarian socialist history and within academic publications. As far as google searches if we search for words such as "libertario" or "libertaire" one will get as many right wing pro capitalist articles as libertarian socialist ones. Erasing libertarian socialism from this article will make this article deserve attention for lack of neutrality and systemic bias. Even in the suggestion by user MisterDub before me we don´t see him calling for the deletion of all mentions of libertarian socialism in this article. This means he is recognizing this reality which i have just described. And just as there is a "libertarian socialism" and a "left libertarianism", there is a "right libertarianism" (a synonym of economic liberalism) so saying here that "libertarianism" is synonymous with saying "right libertarianism" will be falsifying reality. It will be almost like saying Catholicism is synonymous with christianity--Eduen (talk) 00:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

No per WP:WORLDVIEW; a Google search for troll produces nothing but internet memes, which tells us absolutely nothing interesting, except that maybe a tiny, generally affluent subset of the world's English-speaking population is more focused on image macros than Scandinavian folklore. fi (talk) 01:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

  • No by which I mean leave as is. In order to understand libertarianism it is important to examine all its influences and varieties. The reality is that Rothbard, Hess and Nolan, the founders of modern U.S. libertarianism, adopted the name and symbols of earlier libertarian writers, as well as their basic assumptions. But they took their movement in a different direction. That is not unusual in political philosophies. TFD (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • leave as is ' - Wikipedia is not US Wikipedia. This is a global project. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • No. Libertarian socialism is on-topic for this article. Google is a terrible judge of popularity, as it indexes forum posts, blogs, and other unreliable sources. Even Google News indexes many unreliable blogs. If you're going to use search results, it should be from Google Scholar, Google News Archive, Highbeam Research, or JSTOR. Beyond that, the fact that the Libertarian Party in the U.S. has usurped the term to mean "libertarian right" does not mean that it has the same meaning in a global context. Or in an academic context, for that matter. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
NinjaRobotPirate, how about the preponderance of reliable sources in English then? — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

No - Leave it alone as is. Libertarianism is a term used in many countries and has meanings in each. As there is a Wiki article on Libertarianism in the United States and one for U.K., one for socialism, etc, this article can stand as the varied global emanations of the term and movement elsewhere and all over. Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 14:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment Called by a bot to comment. WP:WEIGHT is the primary policy involved, part of the NPOV page. Viewpoints should be represented in proportion to the reliable sources on the subject. If sources are available to represent this viewpoint, and it appears there are for the size of the section on Libertarian socialism, it should remain as it is. AlbinoFerret 01:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes The reliable sources seem to talk about the Right-libertarianism/Anarcho-capitalism far more then Left-libertarianism. That should be reflected in our article. --Obsidi (talk) 19:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merger Proposal

I propose merging Criticism of Libertarianism with Libertarianism to create a single NPOV article addressing the topic. The Criticism page has only 8 sections that can easily be merged into the main article, I propose a merger as follows:

  • Section 1 - ethical criticisms - this has 3 subsections
    • Aggression - this can go in the philosophy section
    • Property - this can go in the property section
    • Standards of well being - this can go in economic section
  • Section 2 - Economic criticisms - this can go into the "economics" section of the libertarian article.
  • Section 3 - Enviromental criticisms - this can be moved to the article Libertarian perspectives on natural resources where it would fit best
  • Section 4 - Pragmatic criticism - this section can easily be moved into the section about the "state" since the content here is criticisms regarding the decentralization of government some editing will be needed but nothing too extensive.
  • Section 5 - See also - This section acts more as a justification of the existence of the article, showing other "Criticism of" articles. not very benneficial to reader with the exception of "debates within libertarianism" which could benefit the reader
  • section 6 - references - can simply be added to this reference page
  • Section 7 - Further reading - could be merged in or used as refferences
  • Section 8 - External Links - easy enough to merge these in

This merger will leave us with a better article with a stronger NPOV. any help with these moves, or suggestions or feedback are both welcome and appreciated. Bryce Carmony (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

So you believe its ok to have 2 seperate articles for the same topic? doesn't that defeat the entire purpose of NPOV? Bryce Carmony (talk) 07:15, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't for me. It's a side-topic that's best explored separately. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 07:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I would disagree that it is a topic since criticism is not the topic. Libertarian ism is.if we write an article about the History of Libertarianism we could say "Libertarianism history" or "History of libetarianism" becuase the subject is history, and libetarianism is the adjective modifying it. but it doesn't work the same way with Criticism of Libertarianism, if we say "Libetarianism Criticism" we agree that doesn't work. that's because Criticism IS NOT the topic, the topic is STILL Libertarianism. 2 topics = 2 articles 1 topic = 1 article. Bryce Carmony (talk) 08:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
You are not seeing the nuance presented. You have my opinion. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 08:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Your opinion is that NPOV should go out the window when it is hard to write articles NPOV. I want to appologize in advance if any of this comes off as heated, if anyone has been offended by my boldness I sincerely express my apologies. Bryce Carmony (talk) 09:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per comments by Somedifferentstuff. It is not a fundamental tenet of wikipedia that all material pertaining to a given subject should be concentrated in as few articles as possible. Quite the contrary - see for example WP:SUMMARYSTYLE: "A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own." And I have absolutely no idea why having a breakout article automatically risks POV. andy (talk) 10:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Please explain what the difference int he subjects is. what is the subject of "Criticism of Libertarianism" that is different from the subject of "Libertarianism" you're claiming that 2 subjects exist here. can you tell me what they are. Bryce Carmony (talk) 12:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Eh? The subject of the one article is libertarianism and the subject of the other is criticism (specifically, criticism of libertarianism). In general, the subject of a wikipedia article is given by its title. andy (talk)
so you're going to say that the subject of "Criticism of Liberalism" is "criticism" so if I were to go to Criticism of Liberalism and add
Main article: Criticism
you would support that? since the main article is criticism, libertarianism is just the adjective and not the subject. Bryce Carmony (talk) 14:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Andy , you said that the subject is Criticism, then you say " the subject is libertarianism" which is it? either they are 2 separate topics or 1 topic. Bryce Carmony (talk) 12:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Libertarianism/Archive_39&oldid=1065778796"