Talk:Libertarianism/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

Shouldn't there be a section on "Critiques of Libertarianism"?

Shouldn't there be a section on "Critiques of Libertarianism"? There are books and articles devoted to opposing libertarian ideas. It makes sense to at least summarize and link to them here. ThinkerFeeler (talk) 04:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

There was one that was not inline sourced and not always clear in long long list of notes as formerly organized what were the references. After no one sourced it for a month it was deleted. Previously discussed in talk/archive if you want to find details. Unsourced info can be removed. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

"Synonymous with anarchism"

Yes it is, for some people, but as I have said in edit summaries:

  • Just having a lot of refs with no quotes to show they actually say that is WP:UNDUE. Quote the two you think are best to make your case firmer; I'm just going to delete last few extras; you decide which you want to keep.
  • Pro-property libertarians also have this debate, with some considering it synomous, and one of those refs should be in there. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Strange Cato-derived lead

Just reinstated the earlier long-standing more accurate version of the lead over the new-minted inaccurate one, a sudden offspring of the factional (however laudable) Cato Institute homepage.

Which major US political party would not say it "combines an appreciation for entrepreneurship, the market process, and lower taxes with strict respect for civil liberties"? This is recruit-seeking talk, not a definition. Even the final part of the sentence - "skepticism about the benefits of both the welfare state and foreign military adventurism" - would not find legions of dissenters among politicians, if pressed, of both main parties of government. These are words primarily calculated - understandably perhaps on an institutional homepage - to achieve maximum support rather than minimal government.

In every possible way, this capricious substitution for what must be hundreds of hours of collaborative effort over months by numerous editors is . . . inadequate. Not to mention somewhat at odds with the libertarian spirit, however you care to define it. Wingspeed (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion of the lead is simply to point out that there are two main ways that the term "libetarianism" is used. Sometimes it refers to philosophy that seeks to minimize the state, while other times it refers to anarchism. Costho (talk) 18:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Point very much taken. The lead needs to do that: the two broad categories, and emphasize the sheer diversity overall. Seems to me that's the great uplifting thing about libertarianism: the sheer diversity and the consequent openness to change. Nature is diverse; advanced societies less so. Political parties are inherently, for all sorts of reasons, constantly pulled towards rigidity. The lead would be misleading if it gave the impression (much more a lexical hazard in the US than elsewhere) that libertarianism is primarily some kind of political party. It is legion. The lead needs to reflect this. Wingspeed (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
A new group is putting in some pro-capitalist stuff. Frankly, I don't think the most recent sentence is bad, but who the heck are those references? At least come up with some links. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Most recent version seems like good and balanced. Have been reading WP:lead lately and other should too :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Please pass lead changes by talk page??

IN case anyone getting ready to change the lead bothers to read the talk page, could you propose changes here for discussion? There are people with a variety of views trying to change it a variety of ways and we'd like to keep something that's quasi consensus. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Is this quote in the lead useful?

After reading the source, I agree the following is probably a fair assessment:

"There is no single theory that can be reliably identified as the libertarian theory, and no single principle or set of principles on which all libertarians would agree."

However, if you replace "libertarian" and "libertarians" with the name of just about any other political-economic philosophy and its adherents, I suspect the statement will remain true, yet I doubt you will find such a statement quoted in the lead about any other such philosophy. For example, consider:

"There is no single theory that can be reliably identified as the socialist theory, and no single principle or set of principles on which all socialists would agree."

True also, no? So what? So why is it relevant to point this out here? To the contrary, what differentiates libertarianism from other political philosophies, is what the same source states a sentence later:

"Although there is much disagreement about the details, libertarians are generally united by a rough agreement on a cluster of normative principles, empirical generalizations, and policy recommendations."

So what makes libertarianism distinctive is that the above is true for libertarianism, and not really about any other philosophy. Again, let's try it with socialism:

"Although there is much disagreement about the details, socialists are generally united by a rough agreement on a cluster of normative principles, empirical generalizations, and policy recommendations."

Really? I don't think so. Try to find a few socialists who can even state a few socialist principles, much less state the same ones. Good luck.

So, shouldn't an article on libertarianism use the quote that distinguishes libertarianism from other political-economic philosophies, rather than one that stresses something that is basically true of all of them? --Born2cycle (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I myself had a problem with mentioning the issue twice, but now I can see that mentioning it at all is problematic. The current "spectrum" or replacing it with "diversity" probably would be sufficient. I don't think the reasons for keeping all that, except that it was info showing their were different views sourced by a WP:RS, have been made clear by those who support. Thoughts from those who want to keep one or both relevant sentences, i.e. "What it means to be a libertarian in a political sense is a contentious issue, especially among libertarians themselves. There is no single theory that can be reliably identified as the libertarian theory, and no single principle or set of principles on which all libertarians would agree."REF:Zwolinski, Matt, "Libertarianism", [[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]], retrieved 2008-08-09 {{citation}}: URL–wikilink conflict (help)CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree the sentence should be removed. Socialism and other ideological labels may be more vague, but as far as I know there is a single general principle on which all libertarians would agree: the sovereignty of the individual. IIRC, someone put something to this effect in the lead a while back but it was reverted. The first sentence of the 'Principles' section says it in so many words (below). It should also be in the lead.

Libertarians are committed to the belief that individuals, and not states or groups of any other kind, are both ontologically and normatively primary

The disagreement comes and the variations arise over the question of how best to achieve it. But if two libertarians cannot agree that the sovereignty of the individual is their common principle, one of them is not a libertarian. Future2008 (talk)
What is Ironic is that the same source that makes the statement "no single theory that can be safely identified as the libertarian theory" then goes on to make statements which are used as the core of "libertarian principles" in that section and no one has quarreled with it! Actually, the lead itself is pretty much cobbled together, for example "classical liberalism" not even mentioned as one of the libertarian viewpoints!! Something that actually reflects what the article says might be better like:
Libertarianism is a term used by a broad spectrum[1] of political philosophies which seek to maximize individual liberty[2] and minimize or abolish the state.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9] The two main issues of debate among various viewpoint are the role of private property and whether or not there should be a state in any given territory. The word libertarian is an antonym of authoritarian.[15]
Note that while there probably is a ref somewhere on "the two main issues" the point becomes an obvious summary point when you look at the rest of the text. (Your partial sentence above too abstruse for most readers.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

<backdent
Given that no one has disagreed that it is absurd to have the source that says in the lead that libertarians don't agree with anything then be used as the main source for a detailed account of what libertarians believe in, I am going to delete: ""There is no single theory that can be safely identified as the libertarian theory, and probably no single principle or set of principles on which all libertarians can agree."[10]" Also summarized actual structure of article rather than haphazard listing of just two varieties, per earlier comments. Might need tweaking. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Any objections?

While we're mulling over the above, any objections to expanding this statement in the lead:

Some versions of libertarianism are synonymous with classical liberalism.

to:

Some meanings of libertarianism, including what is usually meant by the term in the United States today, are synonymous with classical liberalism.

I think it's misleading to talk about versions of libertarianism, because that implies clearly distinct versions, instead of the highly related variations that actually exist. I also think most common usage of the term in America today, in newspapers, magazines, college courses, even blogs, is essentially synonymous with classical liberalism. In fact, the reason that the term libertarianism was adopted in America instead of liberalism is because liberalism already had a well-established common meaning in America that no longer had much in common with classical liberalism.

By the way, I appreciate the request to discuss changes to the lead on the talk page first, but, if someone does make a bold change to the lead, if you revert it is important to provide a reason for reverting it other than simply "not discussed on talk page". That is, you should only revert an edit, including a bold edit, if you have a substantive reason to object to that edit ("not discussed on talk page" is not a substantive reason), in which case you should specify that reason. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Liberal or classical liberal often is used in Europe/Latin America and not just US so I object to specifying US. Meanings is good replacement. And it should have relevant refs.
Saying something goes against past consensus, discuss on talk, often necessary for the various POV changes that get stuck in the lead. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
While liberal and classical liberal are often used outside of U.S., is libertarianism used outside of the U.S. synonymously with classical liberalism as exclusively as it is in the U.S.? Specifying the reason for the revert on the talk page is fine, again, as long as the reason is not merely that the edit in question was not discussed. --Born2cycle (talk) 09:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't know but this just shows why there needs to be a good source clarifying all these issues; preferably not in the lead if it is that complicated. 01:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Why was "Neolibertarianism" deleted?

??????????????????????? King of Corsairs (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Haven't seen that. How long has it been missing? Whose term is it? Is it the same as Right-libertarianism? Cheers Bjenks (talk) 02:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I talked to RHaworth about bringing it back. He said to first start a section about in the main libertarianism aticle. If survives for awhile, he'll make it a redirect. Then we can start talking about amking it its own article again. If you want anybody wants to help me with it, that would be great. But please source your info, that why the last was deleted. ApocalypseNow115 (talk) 04:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
The recently inserted section on "Neolibertarianism" clouds the issues (if any) very badly and seems to lacks any authoritative justification. ApocalypseNow115, I have a mind to remove the entire section soon unless you can (a) write it in more succinct and intelligible language, and (b) provide proper citations (of which the POV 'libertarian wiki' specifically CANNOT be one for WP purposes). And you must improve the following purported "definitions" as well as providing reliable third-party sources for them.
  • Pragmatic domestic libertarian; Hawk strong on defense
  • Hobbesian libertarian
  • Big-Tent libertarian
--Bjenks (talk) 01:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Well this was the same reason the first one was deleted, correct? Can I first ask, what exactly counts as "reliable third-party sources"? Most of the ones I listed were the main voices of the neolibertarian camp. And the ones who defined it were the same people who coined and first started using the term. I will take off the Libertarian Wiki one though. I know I need to summarize it down more. But I'm having a bit of trouble getting down to the ammount of words the other summaries have. Give me some time though.ApocalypseNow115 (talk) 03:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok, now I have down sized the description to make it in line with the sections of the article. I think I sumarized it up pretty well. I removed all the lengthy things and non-important things. ApocalypseNow115 (talk) 04:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
The WP policy on 'reliable third-party sources' is spelt out here and is really quite straightforward. If your 'main voices' are the subject of reputable unbiassed publications, that's fine. If not, you are probably going into WP:OR which is not OK under strict policies. Imho, the Quando blog site is a sectional online opinion forum which is not independent of 'neolibertarian' exponents. The same seems to apply to other sources you cite. In support of my criticism, I quote the section of policy which states

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.

I welcome your sincerity in trying to upgrade this, but I would also point out that (a) you have hastily published a section which deserves to be removed, at least temporarily, on the strength of its very poor grammar, spelling, etc; (b) You use citations which don't support the reference (eg, the Libertarian Defense Caucus does not describe itself as 'neolibertarian', nor did the first of your wikilinked names mention the word; (c) I get the feeling that this is about American politics and probably belongs in a different article. I reckon you need to do a lot of sandbox work on it, and decide where to place the result. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 16:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, Neolibertarianism deserves only a sentence under conservativsm, mentioning only the relevant publications and their links. The article was eliminated as being basically a non-noteworthy fansite. This entry is basically the same thing, with serious BLP violations since no refences prove these people or any WP:RS call these people neolibertarians. I'll remove all that immediately. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I note above that User ApocalypseNow115 seems not to be familiar with wikipedia policies on Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Please read those links and you'll understand why the original article was deleted and why I an others do not think this topic deserves its own section. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I am fimiliar with wikipedia policies. But I am not understanding your logic here, simply a sentence under conservatism? Why so? Also, I feel these are reliable sources, the people on these sources call themselves neolibertarians and have explanations to what the term means. Also, I did not appreciate you trying to claim that I had something to do with the blog posting about you on the Libertarian Defense Caucus website. Also, should the libertarian socialism article be removed and simply made into a sentence under the main socialism article? What about geolibertarianism? Should it simply be a foot note in the anarchism article? ApocalypseNow115 (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
If you are familiar with policies then you know that:
  • Wikipedia:RS#Self-published_sources "Self-published sources may be used only in limited circumstances, with caution. Keep in mind that if the information is worth reporting, an independent source is likely to have done so."
  • By the way that also would apply to the Geolibertarianism article and section and it's probably time to get rid of them too.
  • Merely asking people on their talk pages if they are connected to certain relevant blogs or websites or articles published is perfectly appropriate under WP:COI. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Well apparently Lew Rockwell takes enough time out of his day to argue against neolibertairanism, meaning he must see it as an actual ideology with actual believers. Link. Also, why do you feel a need to delete all these geolibertarian, libertarian socialist, etc. articles/sections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ApocalypseNow115 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Rockwell articles usually are WP:RS though I have never seen one mentioned in relevant articles.
You are referring to my comment on my talk page: Over last year I have helped delete or redirect about a dozen libertarian-related articles that were written either as self-promotion and/or with no or few WP:RS references. Part of general cleanup of the topic per WP:policy. which is self-explanatory. I have not mentioned libertarian socialist and am pretty sure I'd come up with WP:RS on geolibertarians and will take a look at that soon. Why not put your energy into finding some WP:RS on Neolib rather than asking about my motives?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Well I was just asking why, I wasn't really asking about motives. Listen I think I have a solution to the problem here. Let's merge libertarian conservatism, Libertarian Republican, south park republican, paleolibertarianism, and the neolibertarian section all into the main article Right-libertarianism and label each one a faction of right-libertarianism. Same thing should apply with left-libertarianism and everything relating to it. What do you think? ApocalypseNow115 (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The new edits seem pretty good. This is probably the best format. But may I ask which reference links were under question on the neolibertarian section in particular? ApocalypseNow115 (talk) 03:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

As explained numerous times, including in the deletion of the article, it helps to have some third party sources that talk about the subject. So actually the tags for Geolib and Neolib should be {Primarysources|date= March 2009} which I just replaced them with. IE third party sources that note that these phenomena actually exist and are notable. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Cold War Mentality Paragraph; correcting text per original sources

I didn't go far enough back to find the actual text, but the following was NOT in sources I used when first wrote this last summer here.

  • "traditional class hierarchies"
  • "neoconservative libertarian organizations like the Society for Individual Liberty,"

It's WP:original research to stick in words not in sources. You can't just make stuff up under NPOV. Also I failed to correct draft dodger (which unfortunately is the name of the article) to draft resistanced. If you want to write about left wing libertarianism that belongs in the anti-property paragraph above this one. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Libertarian Party

Shouldn't there be a separate section for (US) Libertarian Party? Its effect upon US politics is certainly notable:

  • Electoral vote for Hospers & Nathan in 1972.
  • Presidential candidates on ballot in all 50 states, in several elections.
  • Hundreds of people elected to public office on this party line.
  • Several state legislators elected.
  • Claims to be the third largest political party, by several measures.

Tripodics (talk) 07:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It could be put under the U.S. movement section with brief facts you mention, but otherwise link probably sufficient since all the info there. Any section would have to be on all parties world wide, many of which already listed or could be under "Current libertarian movements" section. Otherwise we end up back at last years arguments about US/LP POV of article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Geolibertarianism problems

I brought up issues of Geolibertarianism - like neolibertarianism - having few good sources and there's a discussion on whether it deserves an article on its talk page. Includes a few more refs. It's really a matter of deciding once you join wikipedia if your goal is to promote libertarianism (or your own little corner of it) or to be a good editor, even if it means keeping the fringes of libertarianism in perspective in articles. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Restructuring viewpoints

An alphabetical listing of views can just confuse people not familiar with libertarianism. Also the earlier section differentiated between the two.

First, anarchism vs minarchism exists as an issue in both types of libertarianism, since left libs like Bookchin want small government largely independent municipalities so that might be mentioned under an earlier section as well as below

Assuming that.. I suggest something like this (more as bullet points than subsections per below):

Anti-property libertarianism

  • Anarchism: etc.
  • Left-libertarianism: etc.
  • Libertarian socialism: etc.
  • Mutualism: etc.
  • Geolibertarianism: attempt to merge with Georgism, though I'm not sure if technically pro or anti-property! etc.

Pro-property libertarianism

  • Anarcho-capitalism: etc. including "left-libertarian" duo Konkin/Long here (not notable enough for own section)??
  • Minarchsim: (noting differences between centralist and decentralist minarchism I've been meaning to put in when line up WP:RS)
  • Libertarian conservatism: etc. including Neolibertarianism self-published sources
  • Objectivism: etc
  • Libertarian Transhumanism: which I assume is pro-property

Thoughts? CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that we have to restructure the list of variants, Carol. However, I don't see a need to give them prominence and a duplicated presence, since they all seem to have their own articles. I see, too, that some of them (eg, Libertarian transhumanism, are virtually the exclusive work of one editor. I suggest that we keep your section headings and (a) use an intro paragraph with wikilinks to point to the variant sub-ideologies; then (b) proceed to treat 'Viewpoints' and 'Principles' as subsets of each category (instead of having them as full sections as at present). This will, of course, involve a much-needed revamp of the entire article. Incidentally, I would question whether Georgism belongs here at all, since it is more an economic doctrine than an ideology of freedom. (Indicative treatment below) Bjenks (talk) 14:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Non-property libertarianism

The broad category of libertarians whose ideology derives from opposition to authoritarian forces (state, church, family, mores, etc) rather than material property rights includes so-called anarchists, 'left' libertarians, libertarian socialists, mutualists, and geolibertarians

Shared principles and viewpoints

etc, etc, etc
Your proposal above not entirely clear to me and might involve too much WP:original research in compare and contrast of principles. Or it might cut too much since it shouldn't be necessary to go to a separate (and sometimes lower quality) article to get a brief definition of each of different views. Lib. transhumanism may be by one editor but has some relatively good WP:RS (assuming they are specifically about LIB brand and not in general) and certainly has/had a lot of adherents in its day. Geolibertariasm was promoted by a bunch of former pro-property libertarians for a while, though like Neolibertarianism is semi-extinct. A brief section or sentence to prevent others from re-inserting a lot more later a good idea. After I work on it a little I'll have a better idea of what I'm proposing :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Serious error. Some social anarchists still support some form of personal property, while holding their opposition to "private property" (meaning the private ownership of the means of production). Your proposal, therefore, grossly generalizes the anarchist schools.
I, therefore, suggest an alternative categorization, perhaps, non-propertarian anarchism (which consists of anarcho-communism/syndicalism/collectivism, social ecology, autonomism, geoanarchism, mutualism, and other types of social anarchism) and propertarian anarchism (embracing Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism, voluntaryism, agorism, Lysander Spooner's natural law anarchism, and all other types of propertarian market anarchism).
In addition, the genre market anarchism has two distinct branches. One branch consists of non-propertarian market anarchism, the types of market anarchism which opposes the private ownership of land. Examples:
The other genre, called propertarian market anarchism, consists of all of those who support a market, while additionally advocate private land ownership. Such systems consist of:
This summaries the branches of anarchism accurately: the (pro/anti)-propertarian anarchism and the (pro/anti)-market anarchism. Some anarchists support both propertarianism and markets, termed as propertarian market anarchism; while some others support markets but oppose propertarianism (non-propertarian market anarchism). 71.175.41.166 (talk) 20:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Now let us list some non-anarchist libertarian schools of thought.

The non-anarchist propertarian libertarianism schools:

There only exists two major non-anarchist non-propertarian libertarian (but pro-market) schools:

Glad to see people are playing with this, though my mind too boggled from other editing issues to opine on current changes above. One of these days. :-) 12:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Newly suggested organization

We should use propertarian instead of property because it gives a more accurate picture, since propertarianism explicitly excludes mutualism and geolibertarianism.

Misrepresenting Carol Moore's views in the article

Still haven't read all the changes above, but noticed someone stuck me in there and misrepresented my view as ONLY supporting small government community options when I support both anarchist and small government ones. And there isn't even a reference, like to my web site http://secession.net or the several articles at Carol Moore that might accurately make that point. I'm on my best behavior by not editing stuff about me anymore (except where fact date clarification needed) so someone else feel free to delete reference to me or properly/accurately source it. Thanks :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI I later stomped out a couple names not properly ref'd so did myself too. I'm not stomping on lead because it is a very good restating of a more general point, unlike a lot of the stompable WP:OR, POV stuff that has gone in there before. And of course people can stomp on anything I do that is against policy too, esp. if there's been a tag on it and no one else has stomped on it. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Didn't mean to be cheeky. Thank you so much for the compliment, Carol; I regard it as an honour. (Was a little fearful my tweak might suffer the same fate as my feeble effort a while back to throw some light on the otherwise shrouded William Belsham.) Have since found out (in a recent BBC Radio 3 talk by the excellent philosopher Jonathan Rée) that Belsham was the headmaster of the great William Hazlitt. Shall attempt to find out more when I eventually manage to retrieve my copy of the DNB, currently in storage, buried in a damp (I hope not too damp) garage on the other side of London. Regards. Wingspeed (talk) 02:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Why no link or section dedicated to "criticism of libertarianism"

Interestingly, with this page (as with "feminism" and a large number of other articles pertaining to a small and dedicated minority), it seems a small number of editors have hijacked the discussion. I'm sure most philosophers, political scientists and social theoriests who know what libertarianism is are enormously critical of it. Why then, in the article, is there is not even a LINK to the wikipedia page Criticism of libertarianism? Nor is there mention that such criticism might exist, in an article over 10 pages in length!BFBbrown (talk) 02:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed a couple times in talk before. See archives. In short, there was a section with no inline references. After several months of a tag requesting that and warnings the section would be eliminated without it, it was eliminated. If you want to do the work to put it back together using WP:RS go for it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Communitarianism

That was a good call by User:Carolmooredc here. There may be more than a few correspondences between the views of libertarians and "communitarians". However, the rhetorical notion of "community" is essentially solidaristic and thus authoritarian. A libertarian view which is uncompromisingly anti-authoritarian will reject value-based terms capable of misleading use. (Cf. "the international community", "the shooters' community", etc.) A less authoritarian view is that society exhibits a plurality of conflicting interests all being equally valid and capable of separate consideration. A similar criticism has been applied to the term politics which inherently begs the question of a body politic with implied authoritarian status. A less authoritarian term might be social theory, etc, etc. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 04:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually as long as it is voluntary, I don't think it's necessarily authoritarian, however, there is no doubt some versions are authoritarian. The larger problem is it is not sourced to apply to all the types of libertarianism discussed in article and I don't think a credible, no partisan, source can be found to do so. If there was one it would belong in the relevant section below. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


Anarchism series sidebar

An editor recently added the anarchism "part of a series" sidebar to the article. I removed it, stating my reasons in the edit summary, but he dissented and reverted, so I thought it best to bring it here for discussion. Here are why I don't think it belongs:

Currently, there is a libertarian sidebar. I believe two are unnecessary and don't look particularly good together. If the libertarian sidebar doesn't adequately cover the anarchist dimensions of the philosophy, it should be edited to include those, but a separate sidebar added to this article is unnecessary and unwieldy.

Libertarianism (like most political philosophies) is a broad and somewhat vague topic, encompassing belief systems from numerous ideologies/philosophies and many people have different interpretations of what its definition is, even among self-identified libertarians. Similar articles on political philosophies/ideologies follow the same principle, only displaying the navbox of that discrete philosophy, despite the fact that they doubtlessly share traits with similar philosophies. This is the case in liberalism, conservatism, communism, socialism, fascism, Marxism, Trotskyism, nationalism, green politics, and even anarchism itself.

No doubt there are some shared traits or principles between anarchism and libertarianism (just as there are between any number of the above), but identifying the two together is not helpful and can in fact be deceptive. I do not believe the large majority of self-identified libertarians would also self-identify as anarchists. Nor do most libertarians prescribe to a truly anarchist (i.e. no government or no "rulers") school of thought. Therefore, I think including a prominent anarchist sidebar is inadvertently deceptive to readers who might be coming to the article to learn what libertarianism is in the first place. Strikehold (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent myself. What percentage of libertarians call themselves anarchists? What percentage of anarchists call themselves libertarians? I doubt there are surveys and we might all make different guesstimates. My bias is against it just because it might confuse people. Others' thoughts? CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Your points are all valid, and I have to agree with your conclusion. It is my personal opinion that most libertarians don't self-identify as anarchists, but of course have no proof of that assertion. However, if many or if even most did, the fact that a large group most likely do not would have me against the inclusion. This is for the same reason that I don't think socialism article should have the communism sidebar (or vice versa). It could create confusion, and in my opinion, unnecessarily simplifies the true relationship between the schools of thought. Strikehold (talk) 18:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
The Communism/Socialism example makes the problem clearer. The fact that both categories include the specific groups which have different views (anarchist has anarchist capitalist; libertarian has various left libertarian views) makes it even less necessary. So I'll support and delete it when necessary. But it would be helpful if proponents commented. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

This article needs a serious restructuring

This is just a humble suggestions, since I don't have the time to do the needed work.

I think the taxonomy of pro-property and anti-property is not that great. Some 'anti-property' libertarians (anarchists), such as mutualists do in fact support forms of property. A historical approach would work better. Perhaps something that shows how these different meanings of the word 'libertarian' (and associated prefixes) came out from the interaction between the Enlightenment ideas of Locke, John Stuart Mill, Ricardo, etc. and the historical current of communist/communitarian ideas (Diggers, early industrial workers movements, Marx, French utopian socialists). The first set of ideas is better defined and is clearly in favor of property rights. The second set is a bit all over the place, mostly anti-property, but in places it come in contact with the first set (especially with utopian socialists) and some mixing occurs. And it goes the other way, with stuff like anarcho-capitalism. The fact that 'libertarian' is a label for both pro-capitalist and anti-capitalists is a result of this mixing. It took a different forms in different countries, which explains why in USA it has the first meaning, but in Europe the second one is more common. This is still happening and the same label is still being used for two different currents. So to summarize, instead of the ill-fitting taxonomy of anti- and pro- property libertarianisms, we should have an exposition how the different trends formed and interacted across history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.53.155 (talk) 23:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a major job and somebody's got to do the work. The lefties have a section to do their part but have not. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Dubious Tag in Lead; sources only support their own POV?

User:Introman - whose user page says My name is Introman, and I only do intros. Working on bodies of articles is beneath me. - chooses to distort an introduction that outlines the current version of the article. He really mocks the process of cooperative editing and the consensus built over time of what the intro will say.

Instead User:Introman dumps sources in the article which he says support: Common usage of the term "libertarianism" varies according to geography - in the United States it most often refers to a free market capitalist viewpoint, whereas in some other parts of the world it usually refers to a socialist anarchist philosophy. Please just give us quotes from the three or four most authoritative sources which support this statement. Meanwhile we can find sources showing the word is used in a variety of ways worldwide, and not in such either or terms. If no evidence is provided, it's reason for reversion. Also make sure you specify what phrases these sources use for what you call "free market capitalism" and "socialist anarchism." I'm pretty sure that is original research. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Just curious. What POV would that be? I'm curious to know what POV I'm pushing, myself. Introman (talk) 03:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


  • Interviewer: "What's the difference between "libertarian" and "anarchist," exactly?"

Chomsky: "There's no difference, really. I think they're the same thing. But you see, "libertarian" has a special meaning in the United States. The United States is off the spectrum of the main tradition in this respect: what's called "libertarianism" here is unbridled capitalism. Now, that's always been opposed in the European libertarian tradition, where every anarchist has been a socialist—because the point is, if you have unbridled capitalism, you have all kinds of authority: you have extreme authority..." UNDERSTANDING POWER THE INDISPENSABLE CHOMSKY Edited by Peter R. Mitchell and John Schoeffel

  • "Throughout the text the author uses the term "libertarian" in its original sense: as a synonym for "anarchist." Indeed, it was used almost exclusively in this sense until the 1970's when, in the United States, it was appropriated by the grossly misnamed Libertarian Party. This party has almost nothing to do with the anarchist concepts of liberty, especially the concepts of equal freedom and positive freedom - the access to resources necessary to the freedom to act..Thus, in the United States, the once exceedingly useful term "libertarian" has been hijacked by egotists who are in fact enemies of liberty in the full sense of the word. Fortunately, in the rest of the world, especially in the Spanish-speaking countries, "libertarian" ("libertario") remains a synonym for "anarchist." It is used in that sense in this book" Fernandez, Frank. Cuban Anarchism. The History of a Movement. See Sharp Press, 2001, page 9

The others are examples of texts explaining that there are two different uses of the term, one to mean anarchist, which is associated with American philosophers, and the other using the term to refer to anarchism and differentiating it from capitalist philosophy. Introman (talk) 03:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You must not be in the U.S. Everybody here knows that those who call themselves "libertarians" are capitalists. Introman (talk) 03:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Both those sources could be used but being themselves POV should be identified, just like if you had a capitalist libertarian claiming that libertarian mostly meant capitalist all over the world (which could also be true) you would name them. In fact a paragraph later in the article with opinions on both sides might be relevant.
However, I think this material belongs in the anti-property section. Feel free to put it there and even quote it, since that section is now shorter (though not ad nauseum and Undue Weight-wise.
Do any of those other sources represent anything besides personal opinion?
I don't know if there's been an independent survey to show what percentage of people who use or are aware of the word world wide - and on a country by country basis - think it means anti-property as opposed to pro-property. HOwever, if one were to line up WP:RS among mainstream media world wide, which really has not been done in this article - and especially in English speaking countries, I think the prop-property definition most definitely would be the major one. Therefore putting a more neutral introduction like the one you replaced may actually be doing you a favor since WP:RS probably would have a sentence saying something like: Common usage of the term "libertarianism" refers to a free market viewpoint, though some groups may refer to a socialist or communist anarchist philosophy. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
A survey isn't necessary. All that's necessary is that there's a reliable source. Chomsky, for example, is certainly a reliable source on how the term "libertarianism" is usually used in the U.S. Are there any sources who would dispute it? I can't imagine there being. This is well known information. In fact that reason that we use the term "libertarian socialism" in the U.S. is because "libertarian" by itself is nearly always taken to refer to someone whose views support unregulated capitalism, so "libertarian socialist" has to be used to distinguish. In Europe, anarchist socialism is just called libertarianism so they don't have to call it "libertarian socialism." Introman (talk) 00:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
  • You still have too many sources so please pick the most relevant ones and quote what they say; unquoted ones will be removed soon otherwise since you don't have verification upon request.
  • The quotes from chomsky and fernandez do not mention "free market" nor do they say "socialist anarchist" so you have to remove the first and say "socialist or anarchist" or "socialist and anarchist" or you are engaging in WP:OR.
  • Because much of the world's mainstream media has adopted the free market definition of libertarianism, obviously lefties have had to fight back with quotes reclaiming the word. But there still should be sufficient quotes saying what it means in most mainstream circles. Will find soon. In the US of course there are small socialist factions calling themselves libertarian, just like elsewhere. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Chomsky said "unbridled capitalism." What do you think that means? It means unregulated capitalism. What does unregulated capitalism mean? It means free market capitalism. A free market is an unregulated market. Use his term "unbridled capitalism," if you want. I don't care. It means the same thing. And Chomsky says "Now, that's always been opposed in the European libertarian tradition, where every anarchist has been a socialist." It seems like you're looking for the terms "socialist" and "anarchist" to be adjacent? That's ridiculous. Introman (talk) 18:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Of course there may be some "small socialist factions calling themselves libertarian." But it's not claiming that only capitalists use that label. It says "most often." Introman (talk) 18:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
In wikipedia we quote sources and the only two sources you have verified use their own terminology. And "most often" is still one or two person's opinions, since you haven't quoted what these other sources allegedly say. Plus whole debate over who uses it most does not belong in the lead where you have mistakenly put it. That is not the way you write a good lead. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
In the lead is exactly where this belongs. If someone in the U.S. looks up libertarianism on Wikipedia because they saw someone mention it in the news, they should be able to know straight off whether it's most likely referring to capitalism or anarcho-socialism. Introman (talk) 02:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I've been deleting your reference - most found through books.google - that do not support the statement they are used as references for. The edit summaries explain each. Most generally note there are differences between anarchism and libertarianism, though sometimes not with sufficient detail to know which brands of anarchism or libertarianism they are talking about. Two actually only ref the previous sentence that there are a lot of types of libertarianism. I don't see that you used the Chomsky quote at all. And given that only one of your many other references that I found supported your statement, I must doubt Ward (the only one I could not find) does also, unless you do other editors a favor and quote what he said.
I am currently accumulating other relevant references to show this is a debate that belongs elsewhere, not in the lead and the original sentence should be put back.
Please be more careful that your reference actually supports what you say instead of making people go through and find a bunch of references that in fact do NOT do so. We are all volunteers here and not paid by the hour so you are wasting our valuable labor by making us go through these efforts to correct your referencing errors. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
You misunderstand the sources. They are not saying there's differences between anarchism and libertarianism. They are saying that the word has two different meanings. American writers use the term "libertarianism" to refer to a capitalist philosophy. Other writers use it as a synonym for anarchism, specifically the socialists forms of anarchism. The word has two different definitions. Do you understand? The sources do indeed backup what I put in the article. Introman (talk) 17:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
The Ward source says "For a century, anarchists have used the word 'libertarian' as a synonym for 'anarchist', both as a noun and an adjective. The celebrated anarchist journal Le Libertaire was founded in 1896. However, much more recently the word has been appropriated by various American free-market philosophers..." Introman (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
OK, so you do have 3 sources (Chomsky, Ward, Cuban) now that support what that sentence says, i.e., explicit mention of use in world vs. US. The rest were much more general and don't belong referencing that sentence. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources related to worldwide use of libertarianism as pro-property

I don't have a specific sentence I would want to use these for, but I think these references, including from some relatively neutral sources, prove the point that that your lead sentence claiming libertarianism is mostly used in US as pro-property is contentious and belongs in some later discussion section which I will move it too soon and replace original sentence:

  • Public relations theory II Worldwide, libertarianism has been as much the hallmark of media struggles for political and economic independence as it has been for nonmedia enterprising seeking liberalized investment policies.
  • Real World Politics and Radical Libertarianism: Worldwide, there have also been huge advances that should not be understated. Stalinism is dead. China is moving toward freer markets with Constitutional guarantees of private property rights – not airtight guarantees, of course, but still a definitive mark of improvement since Mao. Much of the world has followed the classical-liberal trend toward freer trade. Central planning is not as popular as it was in the interwar years. Looking at the situation over the last several centuries, slavery in the purest sense is not as officially and openly defended as it once was universally worldwide.
  • Preface for the Japanese Edition of Libertarianism: A Primer: The publication of a primer on libertarianism in Japan is another sign of two heartening developments: the continuing process of the world's people being drawn closer together, and the worldwide spread of the ideas of peace and freedom at the end of a century of war and statism.
  • Brian Doherty’s comprehensive guide to American libertarianism (Book review): The main focus, however, is on the movement’s leading twentieth-century figures. For Doherty, there is a Big Five: the Austrian economists Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek, who provided highly influential theoretical defenses of free-market economics as well as devastating critiques of socialism; Milton Friedman, whose work has had the most direct and visible influence on public policy, from abolishing the draft to exchange rates; Ayn Rand, the most pervasive libertarian cultural influence through the millions of novels she has sold worldwide; and Murray Rothbard, by far the least well known of the group, advocate of anarcho-capitalism and, for Doherty, “the most uniquely and characteristically libertarian of libertarians.
  • Radicals for Capitalism (Book Review): Libertarians have helped bring about policy changes such as deregulation, tax cuts, privatization and an end to the military draft and have encouraged market-oriented reforms throughout the world.
  • 'Free staters' pick New Hampshire to liberate for sex, guns and drugs guardian.co.uk: A libertarian movement promoting "minimalist government", the free market, drugs, prostitution and gun ownership plans to infiltrate New Hampshire to create a breakaway American regime, its leaders will announce today. The Free State Project, which has supporters in the UK and worldwide, will reveal today at a meeting in New York that its members have voted for the small but highly-symbolic north-eastern state as its target to win power.
  • Economic freedom still rising worldwide - UPI: Despite the continuing drumbeat of short-term bad news about the U.S. economy, its prospects are actually better than ever because economic freedom continues to flourish around the world, according to an influential Washington think tank. The libertarian Cato Institute, in conjunction with Canada's Fraser Institute, has released these findings in the sixth annual "Economic Freedom of the World" report. Edwards, reflecting Cato's libertarian philosophy, said that nations certainly require some amount of government to maintain prosperity and order. However, he said, they should limit their tax take to an amount equivalent to 10 percent to 15 percent of gross domestic product.

I'm sure I could find lots more if I took another 1/2 hour. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources in end supported Libertarianism as pro-property worldwide

Since someone removed what I found that sources said after doing the work indicated above, I thought I'd include the paragraph and encourage editors to find other mainstream WP:RS sources (as opposed to obviously more biased sources) that say that it is mostly in US that libertarianism is seen as pro-property.

Socialist anarchists like Noam Chomsky, Colin Ward and others indicate that most of the world uses the term libertarianism as a synonym for socialist anarchism; it is in the United States that it now refers predominately to the "free market" position.[1][2][3] However, pro-property and free market libertarians have been spreading their ideas worldwide through think tanks and political parties since the 1970s[4][5] and around the world libertarianism is often thought to refer to those ideas.[6][7][8]

If no such sources can be found the paragraph should reflect sources, not what editors would like it to say. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

In fact since Introman is back with a tag, it occurs to me that this whole paragraph does now belong in the lead with a couple sentences on principles and indication that a list of different views follows. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Not that this helps with the sourcing problem, but of course libertarianism is pro-property. How can there be liberty without property? How are you free to eat an apple if it is not yours? How are you free to close and lock the door to a home that is not property owned or rented by you? Liberty in the absence of property rights is like breathing in the absence of air. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
That's a point of view; holding it requires ignoring most anarchist literature, including (as most available in English) News From Nowhere and The Dispossessed. Wikipedia's voice should not, of course, reflect that point of view. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's slightly strange to begin the article with this claim by Chomsky and others, instead of having a link to a disambiguation page that directs readers to either this 'Libertarianism' article, which discusses libertarianism in the normal sense of a minimal state, or to whichever article discusses what Chomsky and a few others call libertarianism ('Socialist anarchism', I suppose).

In Denmark at least, 'liberal' refers to classical liberalism, in the sense of minimal state interference (e.g. Thatcher's economic policies were liberal), not to social liberalism as in the USA (and sometimes UK). However, I've never heard 'libertarian' used as anything other than a synonym for economic liberalism (sometimes called neoliberalism), which is somewhat redundant since 'liberal' retains its traditional meaning.

Maybe 'libertarian' meant something else in the past, but that would be an archaic usage. The modern usage is probably a result of the need for liberals to find a new word for classical liberalism in the USA, after the social liberals appropriated the term 'liberal'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.116.106 (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree it doesn't belong there myself. If you read this whole thread you'll see the history.
  • Intro man puts in Chomsky and a couple others (plsu 5-6 refs that not even relevant) say most of the world says libertarian is anti-property.
  • I prove it's just the opposite and move to a lower section.
  • Intro man puts on a tag that the lead needs more info.
  • I move that paragraph up to lead and remove tag
Glad to see someone noticed that's a silly way to do things and I'll be glad to move that paragraph down. Do you think there needs to be a better summary of overall contents in lead? If so, feel free to write. I'm into short leads myself so not motivated. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't know the current connotation or denotation in most of the rest of the world, but I do know the French word for libertarian is synonymous with anarchist: libertaire. I think, though, that most English-speaking nations nowadays acknowledge "libertarian" as the "socially liberal/fiscally conservative" meaning (classical liberal) it has taken in the last 50 years in the United States. (This may be a case of appropriation similar, as 130.225.116.106 points out, to what center-leftists—or their opponents—have done with the word "liberal" in the last half-century.) Since this is the English-language Wikipedia, that is what is paramount. Other uses can be disambiguated at the top, but the focus of the article should be on the English meanings and implications of the word. Strikehold (talk) 18:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Mis-stated or unsourced generalization

Not to nitpick or anything :-) but.... this sentence does not comply with sources: Libertarian socialists like Noam Chomsky, Colin Ward and others hold that most of the world uses the term libertarianism as a synonym for anarchism, while those in the United States usually use the term to refer to a free market ideology.[9][10][11] None of them identify themselves as such in sources cited, and two only talk about anarchism, inferring they mean left wing. Here are all three in one place, as opposed to separated as above:

  • Interviewer: "What's the difference between "libertarian" and "anarchist," exactly?" Chomsky replies: "There's no difference, really. I think they're the same thing. But you see, "libertarian" has a special meaning in the United States. The United States is off the spectrum of the main tradition in this respect: what's called "libertarianism" here is unbridled capitalism. Now, that's always been opposed in the European libertarian tradition, where every anarchist has been a socialist—because the point is, if you have unbridled capitalism, you have all kinds of authority: you have extreme authority..." UNDERSTANDING POWER THE INDISPENSABLE CHOMSKY Edited by Peter R. Mitchell and John Schoeffel
  • "Throughout the text the author uses the term "libertarian" in its original sense: as a synonym for "anarchist." Indeed, it was used almost exclusively in this sense until the 1970's when, in the United States, it was appropriated by the grossly misnamed Libertarian Party. This party has almost nothing to do with the anarchist concepts of liberty, especially the concepts of equal freedom and positive freedom - the access to resources necessary to the freedom to act..Thus, in the United States, the once exceedingly useful term "libertarian" has been hijacked by egotists who are in fact enemies of liberty in the full sense of the word. Fortunately, in the rest of the world, especially in the Spanish-speaking countries, "libertarian" ("libertario") remains a synonym for "anarchist." It is used in that sense in this book" Fernandez, Frank. Cuban Anarchism. The History of a Movement. See Sharp Press, 2001, page 9
  • The Ward source says "For a century, anarchists have used the word 'libertarian' as a synonym for 'anarchist', both as a noun and an adjective. The celebrated anarchist journal Le Libertaire was founded in 1896. However, much more recently the word has been appropriated by various American free-market philosophers..."

Make of that what you will. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Good points. Chomsky, for example, seems to equate non-American libertarianism with anarchism, but anarchism to him seems to mean "no authority" rather than "no government" (and especially no "free market authority"). Because "no authority" (including no boss/manager/president/CEO, and no gang leaders) cannot be enforced without an autocratic government is why every such effort (see Communism) is bound to fail. So, to say that Chomsky equates libertarianism with anarchism - implying "no government" - is misleading, because what he's talking about requires a very strong autocratic government - the exact opposite of anarchism. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Sheer nonsense. What it actually requires is an active and ethical citizenry participating in a vital democracy. There is nothing autocratic about grass-roots democracy. And nothing about the history of communism has disproved the idea, especially if you happen to be engaging in the intellectually careless habit of equating communism with bolshevism.70.53.192.74 (talk) 00:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Intro too short

The intro should be a summary of the contents of the article. It's way too short and basic. That's why I put the intro too short template there. Introman (talk) 18:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Some of us like short intros, so you or someone who likes them longer should write one that summarizes all contents. But if others agree it's fine, then tag should be taken down. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
It falls far short of the guidelines in the Wikipedia manual of style. Introman (talk) 03:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Good; I'm glad this article has some merits. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
What's that supposed to mean? When you write a paper for college, do you just write a couple sentences for the introduction? This is bad writing. It's not encyclopedic. Introman (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
SO do you think I should put back the paragraph about who uses the word how that someone else deleted? That seemed sufficient to you earlier. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Putting that in is fine but I don't think that would be sufficient for a good intro. It still wouldn't be enough to summarize the article. The opening sentences are good. But then it should go on to some elaboration on those sentences. For example, see the Fascism article. It says the Fascism is a authoritarian political, and corporatist economic philosophy. Then it goes on and elaborates a bit on this, in order to cover what the article talks about. Introman (talk) 03:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • This is not a term paper; this is an article. They are different forms, with different requirements. For comparison, the Britannica's article on libertarianism begins with a single paragraph, a definition of libertarianism, somewhat longer than ours. (As a matter of content, their definition is much narrower than ours, which is why it can be longer; but it's the form that's at issue here.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


Here's a longer intro for consideration:

Libertarianism is a term used to describe a broad spectrum[9] of political philosophies which seek to maximize individual liberty.[10] Thus libertarians believe that individuals may do whatever they wish so long as they do not violate another individual's person or property. This is known as the non-aggression principle.

Older forms of libertarianism, and some modern variants of libertarianism, compromise on this principle for various reasons. The most common reason is to justify the inherent aggressive violence of the state. Thus the greatest distinction between schools of modern libertarian thought is whether they advocate anarchism or minarchism. [11][12]

Libertarians also vary on what justification they have for defending liberty. The concepts of natural law, self-ownership, rational morality, as well as utilitarian empiricism have all formed the basis of libertarian theories. [9][13][14][15] The word libertarian is an antonym of authoritarian.[16] Kborer (talk) 00:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Problems/questions:
  • Non-agression principle not recognized by left libertarians who believe in using aggression vs. private property
  • It also doens't have a a reference
  • You write: "Thus the greatest distinction between schools of modern libertarian thought is whether they advocate anarchism or minarchism." What is your ref? Looks like WP:OR using existing refs.
  • You write: "The concepts of natural law, self-ownership, rational morality, as well as utilitarian empiricism have all formed the basis of libertarian theories." What do lefty anti-property people have as their main concept? What is your ref? Looks like WP:OR using existing refs.
You just can't write stuff you think is true and stick it in. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Desire to include: Example of Libertarian support of hands on government

I would like to put this paragraph in the libertarian article, but I wanted to post it on the talk page first for review, discussion, change, and choosing where it fits. I'm not sure how the title of the section should be, any suggesions? I'm relatively new to wikipedia so feel free to let me know what I might not know. Also, is my reference right, as it stands, for submission to the greater wikipedia community to work on this contribution? Thanks, Eric Pointblankstare (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Those who seek to find holes in libertarian philosophies might try what could be categorized as a common reductio ad absurdum argument. "But you're a libertarian, how could you ever argue that you oppose, 'hands on government',? For example the government deregulation that is argued to be a cause of the [financial crisis of 2007–2009]? Wouldn't a libertarian always be against regulation? Shouldn't the market handle it's own risk?"

However, for libertarians, externalitites is the one place where there is a very legitimate place for government to step in and establish rules and boundaries. This argument could likely be credited to free market economist Milton Friedman. To quote part of an interview between Peter Robinson and Richard Epstein of the [Hoover Institute] on this topic:

"With regard to this financial crisis, the SEC was "approached by a coalition in 2004 that roughly said 'with regard to regulation of risk, i.e. minimum capital or margin requirements with various kinds of hedge fund swaps, etc., counterparty security will handle this entire problem'. Or in ordinary English, if Goldman is dealing with Bear Stearns, each of them knows enough about what's going on that we can trust them to make sure the deals are stable. And so they relaxed the margin requirement." [17]

What happens when you engage in these kinds of situations is that the counterparties are not just the two parties to the transaction. There is a serious kind of externality that if any one of these parties should miscalculate it's losses will be on it's balance sheet, but the losses it creates to the third party down the road will not. One factor for this outcome is probably that there is 'seemingly' more potential profit with regulation structured for flexibly in this way. However, considering the late 2000 crisis, many would probably argue that the 'profit' was short term or short sighted.

First,not clear what you want to include, one or two or three paragraphs. Please indent relevant paragraphs.
But one comment I would make is you can't use one interview from one individual to establish what "libertarians" think. Most libertarians would look at the three paragraphs and say: The fact that the govt was involved at all led people to believe they were being protected, when in fact this was a typical case of the regulated having undue influence over the regulators, of them "capturing" the regulatory agency and therefore being able to defraud people who though the government had their backs. Let people know that they are on their own and they'll be a lot more careful where they invest. Likewise too big to fail companies won't assume they'll be bailed out if the do foolish things, as many thought they would be and indeed were in the end.
So the whole concept is pretty dubious and belongs in libertarian conservatism if anywhere at all. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Replacing Inaccurate Material from "Political Usage" section

Recent attempted changes made me re-visit that section and I carefully check sources and low and behold they didn't say everything that it was claimed they said or summaries were less than accurate. I've corrected those errors with reasons noted in the edit summaries. If you can find a reliable source that Kropotkin wrote the 1911 article, fine. But in this case anarchist organization or individual self-published web sites don't count. Need a published book, or strictly WP:RS site. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

hey Carol why don't you just get off your libertarian butt and google Kropotkin and Encyclopedia Britannica.70.55.140.251 (talk) 01:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Far too wide a search term to be productive. It's up to the person who puts in the material to prove it is true, on or off their butt. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence states: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[nb 1] The source cited must unambiguously support the information as it is presented in the article.[nb 2] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
In other words you are playing petty political games. Yawn. In any case it took a matter of 4 measly minutes in google to find this from A Cambridge University Press edition...(click on the chapter heading " 'Anarchism' from Encyclopedia Britannica"... http://books.google.ca/books?id=LmJqoX1gGzUC&dq=Peter+Kropotkin+the+Conquest+of+Bread+and+other+writing&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=WLpzSs-mFejBtweR5tyWCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#v=onepage&q=&f=false 70.55.140.251 (talk) 04:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Please read WP:civility. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't know about you but as a libertarian I cannot bring myself to obsequiously defer to just any laws, regulations, or norms, especially those authored by a minority group, and in which I did not not participate in authoring. Hence in this instance I tend to place more credence on my own moral assessments in a given situation about what form of civility is appropriate rather than an external and fictionalized imposition of "the rules".:)70.55.142.19 (talk) 23:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Listen, it's very simple, follow Wikipedia's guidelines for behavior or get the hell lost. If you do not want to follow our rules, that's fine, but you cannot be allowed to edit if you do not. It really is that simple. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 01:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Not to mention libertarians honor their contractual obligations - which in wikipedia's case means you can work to change policy but you don't violate widely held ones. Meanwhile, I have no problem with putting in the new Kropotkin reference since he mentions all sorts of non-lefties in his list of good guys :-) Just forgot. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Vallantyne opinion in lead POV

"The best known version of libertarianism supports private ownership of the means of production" is obviously a leftist opinion and POV and belongs where I put it. More NPOV would be "The best known version of libertarianism supports private ownership." with Vallentyne ref plus the others that make similar points. Steven Teles and Daniel A. Kenney, Anthony Gregory, Carl H. Botan, Vincent Hazleton, David Boaz, Brian Doherty, with both paragraphs on the Debate eliminated. You can't have it both ways - a POV guy defining debate and then later being quoted on the debate. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you're saying about a "leftist opinion." If you mean it's a biased opinion then I would think a leftist would say the opposite, that right libertarianism is more obscure. Also not sure what you think that "private ownership of the means of production" would be biased and simply "private ownership" would not. Left libertarians do not oppose private ownership of all things, such as televisions, cars, homes, and so on, but only private ownership of the means of production. Introman (talk) 18:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
First, you don't just make some comment that barely addresses my concerns and stick back in your comment. This is edit warring WP:3rr.
Second, you do NOT address my first concern, that if you want to talk about "best known version of libertarianism" you should also mention the other references that talk about private ownership and free market libertarianism being better known, per the discussion of that issue. (And deleting rest of discussion as irrelevant.)
Third, if you addressed that it would be clear that "Means of production" not the phrase all those sources would use. It is a heavily charged socialist/communist term, as you yourself admit above.
To engage in truly cooperative editing you should revert yourself and address my concerns above. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I can't address your concerns unless I understand what they are. I don't understand which is why I was asking what you mean. I can't fathom "means of production" being a heavily charged term at all. It's a very mainstream term. Do you have any evidence that it's a "heavily charged term"? And I still don't understand your concerns spoken of above. For you to engage in cooperative editing, you should work with me by answering my questions. Introman (talk) 19:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Again, you have not addressed my main concern per the above: Second, you do NOT address my first concern, that if you want to talk about "best known version of libertarianism" you should also mention the other references that talk about private ownership and free market libertarianism being better known, per the discussion of that issue... The other references whose verbiage would have to be taken into consideration being: Steven Teles and Daniel A. Kenney, Anthony Gregory, Carl H. Botan, Vincent Hazleton, David Boaz, Brian Doherty. "Means of production" is not a term used by those other sources.
Also you and Vallentyne obviously don't know very many left libertarians. Lots of them are against any private ownership of land or buildings or major equipment, autos, etc. So they want to own a lot more than "means of production" and I could come up with left libs who'd say so. But that debate doesn't belong in the lead either.
Finally, you put up a tag that says lead too short, but all you keep adding is POV stuff. Why not summarize the contents of whole article if you are going to add something. Otherwise lets get rid of the tag.
I'm starting to look around for third opinions and do intend soon to put a neutral sentence in there referenced by Steven Teles and Daniel A. Kenney, Anthony Gregory, Carl H. Botan, Vincent Hazleton, David Boaz, Brian Doherty, as well as Vallentyne, as expressed in my concern which you have not addressed. CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if it's your writing or what but I find it difficult to understand you. What do you mean I should "also mention the other references that talk about private ownership and free market libertarianism being better known, per the discussion of that issue"? The sentence just doesn't make sense to me. Also "The verbiage would have to to be taken into consideration being..." ??? I don't know what that means either. Then you say I and Vallentyne don't know left libertarians because many of them are against private ownership of land buildings and major equipment instead of just the means of produciton. Well, what do you think the "means of production" refers to? It refers to those things. The means of production is simply things which are used to produce others things, as opposed to consumer goods. I find your objections strange and difficult to decipher. Introman (talk) 16:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Well then I'll just make the NPOV per ALL the sources change and you can see. Meanwhile, I was reminded that free marketeers do use the phrase "means of production" and in fact that needs to be inserted into that article, as when Mises held: Socialism, however, promised to eliminate the structural basis of the market economy—private property in the means of production. Without private property in the means of production, Mises argued, there could be no market for the means of production. Without a market for the means of production, there could be no relative money prices for the means of production. Without money prices reflecting the relative scarcities of capital goods, rational calculation of alternative uses of scarce resources could not be accomplished. Socialism, Mises pointed out, was logically flawed and could not achieve the humanitarian ends claimed with the socialist means employed. Economic chaos and political oppression would be the unintended results of trying to implement socialism. So something good can come of debate :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Actual misrepresentation of sources/other POV issues

First, looking at sources and your "interpretation" more carefully, I don't find either source (Vallyntyne or Stanford Encyclopedia) using anything like the phrases or even concepts "unrestricted private ownership of the means of production, as distinguished from left libertarianism which seeks to abolish or place limitations on it." So this is your own opinion and WP:original research. One talks about "material equality," the other about "powers agents have to appropriate unappropriated natural resources."

They also both say that "right-libertarianism" is best known, but this is the libertarianism article, NOT the right libertarianism article. It might be appropriate in the libertarian conservatism section. Or we could use it in a section on the silly imposition of left v. right on libertarianism. (Esp absurd since originally the freedom lovers were the left wing and the royalist/feudalist the right wing.) Or it could be used generally with other sources that make it clear which is the more popular libertarianism.

Except, just like before, which is more popular and what their positions belong in the lead only if done accurately. Though both of you entries make me feel you are using the tag excuse to stick in your POV. I'm going to get other opinions on these edits and if necessary this editing behavior after I put in my NPOV - according to sources alternative.

PLEASE run your suggestions by talk before putting them up. So will I. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Accurate to sources/NPOV lead sentence

This is how one would look and actually now that you forced me to write it I don't mind it as much:

The best known[18][9] and most world wide implemented version of libertarianism supports private ownership in the means of production,[19] property rights, markets, the rule of law, tax cuts and deregulation.[20][21][22] This is in contrast to left-libertarianism which is concerned with material equality and appropriation of unappropriated natural resources.[18][9]

Just have to fix up some redundant refs, formatting if use it. Thoughts? CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. My goal was simply to point out which was the most known form of libertarianism, i.e. what people are usually referring to when they use the term. That it's most likely not referring to the socialist version. I think that's important for people to be able to see straight off in the intro know who are looking up "libertarianism" on Wikipedia when they see it in television or a magazine, and wonder what it is. Introman (talk) 23:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Could have fooled me, because as Talk sections above show originally you were trying to show that the lefty viewpoint was more prominent. You mean you just wanted to put something about prominence in there and were going with whatever WP:RS you found? Given that there is always such a tug of war on the issue, it is good to make clear right off the bat if you don't have a POV. While I think pro-property is best known, as sources prove, I don't mind mentioning lefty type in proportion to prominence. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Huh? What?! I was trying to show that the left view was more prominent? Why on Earth would I put something in the article that says right libertarianism was more prominent if I was trying to show that left libertarianism were more prominent? Please quote anything I said anywhere trying to show that "the left viewpoint was more prominent." You can't do it. Unbelievable. Introman (talk) 16:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Can someone please explain what the phrase "appropriation of unappropriated resources" is supposed to mean? and also definitively establish that the phrase is used in the reference given. As a summary of left libertarianism the relevant sentence seems poor to me and has the flavour of being written by someone who is perhaps only pretending to know what the core left-libertarian principles are. BernardL (talk) 03:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
If you look at thread above actual phrase from the source the editor chose to use is "powers agents have to appropriate unappropriated natural resources." So I could quote whole thing or put those words in quotes. I am just trying to make sure content reflects what sources actually say and make sure things actually have a source and aren't just someone's unsourced WP:Original research. It's up to others to find the "best" quotes on that topic since frankly it's not my area of expertise so I wouldn't presume to do so. However, it also should fit into the previous hashed out context, if possible. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I've made a few edits to the lead. Not meant to disrupt any consensus; they're mostly non-substantive, seeking to improve word choice, readability, etc. Future2008 (talk) 23:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Article where sticking to sources, having refs matters

In case no one has noticed, this is one of those articles where one is expected to only included referenced info and information that is in strict accordance with sources. One is not supposed to throw in one's personal spin, using existing refs which may not really say what one is saying. That is a particularly annoying form of WP:Original research since it makes people chase down and read the original source over and over and over again. I just tagged things for tonight to give anyone who may have been doing so a chance to mend their wicked ways :-) Unsourced, misrepresented, poorly sourced info can be removed. Once that's done we can talk about POVs, if any should exist. 00:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

No discussion? I'll take a look at what may be vs. policy tomorrow. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ The Week Online Interviews Chomsky, Z Magazine, February, 23 2002.
  2. ^ Colin Ward, Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, 2004, p. 62.
  3. ^ Fernandez, Frank. Cuban Anarchism. The History of a Movement, Sharp Press, 2001, p. 9.
  4. ^ Steven Teles and Daniel A. Kenney, “Spreading the Word: The diffusion of American Conservativsm in Europe and beyond,” in Growing apart?: America and Europe in the twenty-first century by Sven Steinmo, Cambridge University Press, p. 136-169, 2008, ISBN 0521879310, 9780521879316
  5. ^ Anthony Gregory, Real World Politics and Radical Libertarianism, LewRockwell.com, April 24, 2007.
  6. ^ Carl H. Botan, Vincent Hazleton, Public relations theory II, p. 262, 2006 ISBN 0805833854, 9780805833850
  7. ^ David Boaz, Preface for the Japanese Edition of Libertarianism: A Primer, reprinted at Cato.org, November 21, 1998.
  8. ^ Radicals for Capitalism (Book Review), New York Post, February 4, 2007.
  9. ^ a b c d Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Libertarianism, Stanford University, July 24, 2006 version.
  10. ^ "libertarian", [[Merriam-Webster Dictionary]], Merriam-Webster {{citation}}: URL–wikilink conflict (help)
  11. ^ Professor Brian Martin, Eliminating state crime by abolishing the state; Murray Rothbard, Do You Hate the State?, The Libertarian Forum, Vol. 10, No. 7, July 1977; Libertarian Does Not Equal Libertine; What Libertarianism Isn't; A Libertarian Cheat Sheet by Wilton D. Alston; Myth and Truth About Libertarianism Murrary Rothbard; Do You Consider Yourself a Libertarian?
  12. ^ Sciabarra, Chris Mathew. Total Freedom: Toward a Dialectical Libertarianism. Penn State Press, 2000, p. 193
  13. ^ Zwolinski, Matt, "Libertarianism", [[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]], retrieved 2008-08-09 {{citation}}: URL–wikilink conflict (help)
  14. ^ Woodcock, George, Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements, Broadview Press, 2004.
  15. ^ Hans-Hermann Hoppe's Anarcho-Capitalism: An Annotated Bibliography presents a long list of individuals who use both terms.
  16. ^ "Authoritarian", Student Britannica
  17. ^ Interview between Peter Robinson and Richard Epstein of the [Hoover Institute] on Fora.tv. Timestamp 9:35, http://fora.tv/2009/03/23/Uncommon_Knowledge_Richard_Epstein
  18. ^ a b Vallentyne, Peter. "Liberalism and the State." Liberalism: Old and New. Eds. Jeffrey Paul and Fred D. Miller. Cambridge University Press, 2007. p. 187
  19. ^ Allen E. Buchanan, Ethics, efficiency, and the market, Rowman & Littlefield, p. 65, 1985 ISBN 0847673960 “In libertarian theories generally, a very broad right to private property, including private property in the means of production, is morally fundamental and determines both the most basic principles of individual conduct and the legitimate role of the state.”
  20. ^ Carl H. Botan, Vincent Hazleton, Public relations theory II, p. 262, 2006 ISBN 0805833854, 9780805833850 “Worldwide, libertarianism has been as much the hallmark of media struggles for political and economic independence as it has been for nonmedia enterprises seeking liberalized investment policies; it has also been a rationale for establishing privately owned media.”
  21. ^ David Boaz, Preface for the Japanese Edition of Libertarianism: A Primer, reprinted at Cato.org, November 21, 1998.”The largest trends in the world reflect libertarian values. Communism is virtually gone, and few people still defend state socialism. Eastern Europe is struggling to achieve societies based on property rights, markets, and the rule of law.”
  22. ^ Radicals for Capitalism (Book Review), New York Post, February 4, 2007. “Libertarians have helped bring about policy changes such as deregulation, tax cuts, privatization and an end to the military draft and have encouraged market-oriented reforms throughout the world.”
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Libertarianism/Archive_12&oldid=1136905473"