Talk:Libertarianism/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20

Liberalism as a Template

In order to help resolve some of the conflict I think it might be helpful to use Liberalism as a template. For example...

We should have...

The problem is not lack of reliable sources supporting our various viewpoints...the problem is structural. Much of the debate on this page centers on either worldwide interpretations or the classical interpretations of Libertarianism. Your interpretations, based on numerous sources, are completely valid and deserving of their own page. So if you...

  • think Libertarianism is synonymous with Anarchism or
  • support abolishing the state or
  • are against capitalism or
  • are against property rights

...then please either direct your energies to working on the page for Classical libertarianism or Libertarianism worldwide. Right now progress is stalled because our efforts are wasted in constant conflict. --Xerographica (talk) 20:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Counter-proposal. If you...

  • think Libertarianism is synonymous with Anarchism or
  • support abolishing the state or
  • are against capitalism or
  • are against property rights

...then feel free to direct your energies to working on the page for Libertarianism, using acceptable RS's. Do this under the premise that the stalling of efforts to achieve a POV that run counter to huge swaths of RS, is not the same as progress being stalled. BigK HeX (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

According to your reliable source..."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." Is that true or false? Compare the lead of your reliable source and the current lead for this article. Both leads discuss Libertarianism but they say completely different things. Which lead is right? We can never achieve consensus because we all have reliable sources supporting mutually exclusive ideologies. The only solution is structural. --Xerographica (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
When someone Google's in from searching "libertarianism" we are obligated to inform them of the many varied understandings of the term prominent in WP:RS's. It is NOT our job to promote only a narrow POV of the term as if that were the exclusive use (in spite of hundreds of RS's that discuss the subject differently). BigK HeX (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
It's NOT your job to turn this page into one needlessly redundant giant disambiguation page. What I don't get is how you can say a source is so reliable but then ignore it when what it states is clearly contrary to this page. Yes, Libertarians do disagree on some things but there are many issues that we are generally united on...private property, limited government and capitalism. That's what YOUR reliable source says...but it's certainly not what this page says. Again, we can go back and forth but the solution is not more or better reliable sources. The solution is to split this page up into three logical pages...
Classical libertarianism
Libertarianism
Libertarianism worldwide
...and then worry about which sources are relevant to which pages. --Xerographica (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
agree split into 3. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
No ... taking your proposal for a POV WP:COATRACK, and then taking it to the extreme of actually substituting your coatrack as the main page is absurd. BigK HeX (talk) 23:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
bigk, please explain why you think this is coatrack. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
"A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject". This article is supposed to talk about Libertarianism but in actuality it's a cover for Anarcho-Capitalism and Libertarian socialism...tangentially related biased subjects. Those ideologies have their own names and are easily distinguishable from Libertarianism. Discussing Anarcho-Capitalism should not be the same thing as discussing Libertarianism. Again, your own reliable source indicates that Libertarians are generally united in supporting capitalism, private property and limited government. People who want to get rid of government or are against private property or are anti-capitalists are on the fringe of Libertarianism yet they are given undue weight in this article. This article should discuss the nominal subject...Libertarianism...rather than cover marginal views that already have their own main pages. Xerographica (talk) 00:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
@Xerographica, Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Libertarianism/Archive_16#The_Blackwell_Encyclopaedia_of_Political_Thought.
@Darkstar1st, would you kindly read the page WP:IDONTLIKEIT? N6n (talk) 03:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
ok, i read it, what is your point? Darkstar1st (talk) 06:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe the two primary encyclopedic sources (IEP and SEP) indicate that pro-capitalist libertarianism is the primary type, and that the left-wing and socialist flavors are less predominant. The article should be properly weighted to reflect that. Why not post some potential changes to this talk page first, and see if we can get this article better organized? —Torchiest talk/contribs 12:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

See Eytmology section which includes this material which used to be in the lead and still belongs there: Academics as well as proponents of the free market perspectives note that free market libertarianism has been successfully propagated beyond the US since the 1970s via think tanks and political parties [24][25] and that libertarianism is increasingly viewed worldwide as a free market position.[26][27] However Libertarian socialists Noam Chomsky, Colin Ward and others state that the term is still considered a synonym of anarchism in countries other than the US. [28][29][30] CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it's proper to use the implicit suggestions of those sources, because of known US-centric issues. In order to get a more accurate idea, what we really need are sources that have reviewed the political landscape including regions outside of the US, and report what they say are prominent among the strains of libertarian thought. Alternatively, since there seem to be lingering questions about Europe, then it wouldn't hurt to compile some of the understandings from European-centric sources to stand next to the abundance of US-based sources we have. BigK HeX (talk) 17:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
It is common for any political philosophy (e.g., liberalism, socialism, and conservatism) to have a wide range of adherents, but who share a history and a common set of beliefs. TFD (talk) 18:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
A Venn diagram would clearly demonstrate that "mainstream" Libertarianism has more in common with liberalism and conservatism than it does with Libertarian socialism. An Anarcho-capitalist can tell somebody to look up Anarcho-capitalism on Wikipedia for more info. A Libertarian socialist can tell somebody to look up Libertarian socialism on Wikipedia for more info. However, what happens when the large majority of people who call themselves Libertarians tell people to look up Libertarianism on Wikipedia for more info? Ambiguation. 99% of the time when the term "Libertarianism" is used in popular media it refers to social freedoms, property rights, economic freedoms (capitalism) and minimal government. This article should discuss the "main" ideology of Libertarianism...not various tangentially related ideologies that are already mentioned on the disambiguation page and effectively described on their own main pages. --Xerographica (talk) 22:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh ... is that how the Venn diagrams would turn out? You post a bunch of silly WP:OR like this, and you wonder why your comments are removed as soapbox rants? BigK HeX (talk) 23:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Not silly. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Archiving as Subtle Censorship?

In the little box on the right it says "This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Sections with no replies in 21 days are automatically moved here." However, if you look at the sections that were recently archived...it's clear that many were not candidates for archiving. Would whoever archived those sections please explain why they did so? If no reasonable explanation is provided then I will restart some of the sections that I started. --Xerographica (talk) 20:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

agree the reason given was the talk page was full of soapboxing and personal attacks. my fear is some material was achieved by mistake. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation vs Forms vs See Also

  • Disambiguation = Are you looking for this or that?
  • See Also = Might be of some interest

I move that we delete all the Forms of Libertarianism from the Libertarianism page. Each form should either be...

  1. listed on the Libertarianism_(disambiguation) page or
  2. mentioned organically within the article or
  3. listed in the See Also section.

For example...

  1. Libertarian socialism has nothing in common with mainstream Libertarianism other than the name...which would make it impossible to discuss organically within this article. A Venn diagram would show no overlap between the two ideologies. Therefore, it should only be listed on the disambiguation page.
  2. Minarchism only has one or two minor differences from mainstream Libertarianism. A Venn diagram would show significant overlap between the two ideologies. Therefore, it should be mentioned organically within the mainstream Libertarianism article.
  3. Anarcho-capitalism embraces capitalism like mainstream Libertarianism but wants to get rid of the state like Anarchism. A Venn diagram would show some overlap between the two forms. Therefore, it should be listed in the See Also section.

Once all the "forms" have been removed then...

  1. we won't have to say "mainstream Libertarianism" or "modern Libertarianism" because we'll all be on the same page
  2. we can compare this article to the article on Anarcho-capitalism. That should give us a good idea of how much work needs to be done on this page. --Xerographica (talk) 14:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

agree only one of the forms actually has a party, candidates, and millions of people who classified themselves as libertarian. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

lol ... "mainstream" libertarianism. Unless you're enamored with provincial POV .... no such thing. BigK HeX (talk) 19:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

People are perfectly capable of looking on the disambiguation page and deciding for themselves whether they want to read about "mainstream" Libertarianism or "anti-capitalism" Libertarianism. You're trying to make the decision for them...which is decidedly "anti-Libertarianism". --Xerographica (talk) 01:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
People are also capable of looking at this article and learning about what reliable sources say about libertarianism, instead of relying on your personal opinion on what constitutes "mainstream libertarianism". Reliable sources say things like:

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 safely identified as the libertarian theory, and probably no single principle or set of principles on which all libertarians can agree.

The guys who keep trying to push this POV about some sort of One True Libertarianism or, alternatively, the outraged My brand of minimal government theory is not the same as Libertarianism, no matter what the WP:RS's say can give that a rest. BigK HeX (talk) 02:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
If you continue reading your reliable source it says..."Libertarians are committed to the belief [...] that robust property rights and the economic liberty that follows from their consistent recognition are of central importance in respecting individual liberty; [...] that the only proper use of coercion is defensive or to rectify an error; that governments are bound by essentially the same moral principles as individuals;". Yet this Wikipedia article says some Libertarians are fundamentally against property rights, capitalism and the existence of the state. So basically you're saying only a portion of your reliable source is reliable? --Xerographica (talk) 03:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I guess you didn't bother to read the part of that same source detailing left-libertarian criticisms of some property theories. Bottom line is that, if you have some narrow POV (based on the idea that your preferred ideology is more "special"), it's very likely not going to be allowed to fly as if the host of RS's covering the variations of libertarianism don't exist. Cheers! BigK HeX (talk) 04:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Left-Libertarianism was mentioned...but it certainly wasn't mentioned in the lead like it is in this article. This article will always be in constant flux if we don't narrow the scope of the article. Why narrow the scope to "mainstream" Libertarianism? Two reasons...1. because each of the other "forms" have entire articles dedicated to their ideology and 2. because "mainstream" Libertarianism is the most relevant. For example, yesterday on TV there was a senate hearing on online privacy and a representative from the Cato Institute was included on the witness panel...along with reps from Google, Apple, Facebook, AT&T and the University of Pennsylvania. --Xerographica (talk) 06:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Libertarianism/Archive_16#The_Blackwell_Encyclopaedia_of_Political_Thought Please produce WP:RS, and nothing else. N6n (talk) 09:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
This is a factor of the US-centric approach which the tab at the top of the page has highlighted. It's only in the US that right-wing Libertarianism is considered mainstream. Elsewhere it is usually associated with the left (and in fact was first used in that context). Forgive the machine translation, but in the French language section of Wikipedia the article for Le Monde Libertaire points it out as the first known publication to coin the term. The paper was published by French social anarchists in 1850s USA, significantly predating pretty much the entire gamut of right libertarian thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.35.108.96 (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
@217.35.108.96: What you say is mentioned quite clearly in the Etymology section of the current article. However, suggestions for improvement of the article to embrace a worldwide-view are welcome. A better article should have more references to anarchism. N6n (talk) 04:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
The world view perspective certainly has enough supporting sources to warrant its own article...Libertarianism worldview. --Xerographica (talk) 23:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
It is not "only in the US that right-wing Libertarianism is considered mainstream." Here in New Zealand, there is no question that "right-wing Libertarianism" is the mainstream approach. This is largely due to the activism of the Libertarianz political party. Any political commentator who suggested that the Libertarianz Party,1 or Libertarianism, were left wing would immediately be laughed out of all credible discourse. BlueRobe (talk) 03:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Reliable vs Relevant Sources

Any editor can find reliable sources. It seems that the challenge here is discerning which articles the reliable sources are most relevant to. With that in mind here's a basic checklist.

If the source...

  • discusses what Libertarianism meant in the past
......see Classical libertarianism
  • discusses what Libertarianism means in other parts of the world
......see Libertarianism worldview
  • is anti-private property, anti-state and anti-capitalism
......see Libertarian socialism
  • frequently mentions or refers to Noam Chomsky
......see Noam Chomsky or Libertarian socialism or Left-libertarianism
  • is against capitalism and supports abolishing the state
......see Anarchism
  • promotes capitalism and supports abolishing the state
......see Anarcho-capitalism
  • frequently mentions or refers to Rothbard
......see Murray Rothbard or Anarcho-capitalism
  • discusses similarities and differences between Anarchism and Anarcho-capitalism
......see Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism
  • discusses similarities and differences between Anarcho-capitalism and Libertarianism
......see Anarcho-capitalism and minarchism
  • discusses similarities and differences between Libertarianism and Objectivism
......see Libertarianism and Objectivism
  • promotes social liberties, economic freedoms (capitalism), private property and downsizing (but not eliminating) government
......see Libertarianism


The problem with this article is not lack of reliable sources. The problem is that most of the reliable sources are more relevant to other articles. Hopefully this checklist will help editors discern which sources are relevant to which articles. --Xerographica (talk) 02:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The last one in your list is special. Let me correct the mistake.
  • talks about downsizing the government or limited government
..... see Minarchism. N6n (talk) 03:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


Oooh! Then we can add this to the bottom of the list!

  • All of the above
......see Libertarianism

Works for me. BigK HeX (talk) 10:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Huh. Checklists work from top to bottom so if somebody made it to the bottom then none of the above would be left. Sorry, thought it was self-explanatory. In any case...trying to stuff every single ideology even remotely associated with Libertarianism into one article is clearly not working. The problem is not a lack of reliable sources...the problem is a lack of editors who are capable of distinguishing whether a source is more relevant to another article.
Seriously...it's like back in high-school when our teachers had to tell us to narrow the scope of our first papers. You don't want to narrow the scope...rather...you want to write a paper on all the topics that all your other classmates have already written excellent papers on. Even though you keep getting F's on the same paper for the past several years you think the solution is finding the one magic reliable source that's going to tie it all together in a completely objective perspective. Even if such a source did exist it would inherently be more appropriate for Libertarianism worldview. --Xerographica (talk) 22:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Libertarian socialism terminology explained

The "libertarian" in "libertarian socialism" is a synonym for "anarchism." So, "libertarian socialism" means "anarchist socialism." People who prefer to use the original meaning of "libertarianism" (which meant "anarchism" originally) use the term, and append "socialist" to it to make sure you know they're not anarchist individualists. Noam Chomsky for example. So "libertarian socialism" is only a type of "libertarianism" when "libertarianism" is taken to mean "anarchism." You may be able to find Chomsky explaining this in one of his books or interviews. Seven days seven nights (talk) 11:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, can you please provide sources. And Chomsky's writings about libertarian socialism are primary sources, so not helpful. TFD (talk) 15:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Chomsky's analyses would not be primary sources. BigK HeX (talk) 17:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
not primary source Darkstar1st (talk) 00:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Even if they are primary sources, they probably aren't only ones in here. And they can be used in some circumstances where no secondary source available and definitely in conjunction supporting secondary sources. And Chomsky is hardly the only source defining this term, which itself has several meanings, which anarchism alone does not explain. For example libertarian socialist Murray Bookchin envisioned Libertarian municipalism which I think many anarchists would think was a tad too statist (even if Bookchin thought it was anarchist), involving as it does community direct democracy for essentially governmental type structures. In fact given all the mentions I found in books google and scholar google, it is yet another variety deserving its section here. Unless some WP:RS labels it a subsection of Libertarian decentralism, an article and section which I haven't even gotten around to writing yet. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
That would mean "anarchist municipalism." Seven days seven nights (talk) 05:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Don't have time right now. I'm just putting this out there so people can get an idea of what direction to start looking. Seven days seven nights (talk) 03:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
There's plenty of sources for "libertarianism" and "libertarian" being a synonym for "anarchism" and "anarchist." See the Anarchism article. Seven days seven nights (talk) 06:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
"Anarchism" and "Libertarianism" are not synonyms.
Anarchism is not the absence of government. Anarchism is the absence of non-consensual government. In theory, an Anarchist society would be made up of an array of geographically-determinate political entities, each with their own distinct political systems and laws, among which each person could find one to join by their explicit consent. Some of those political entities may represent Socialist ideologies and some may represent Libertarian ideologies. All manner of ideology could be represented by the various political entities. The only common denominator shared by the political entities is the Anarchist axiom that their authority over a citizen is legitimate only if it has that citizen's explicit consent.
In stark contrast to Anarchism, Libertarianism advocates a minimalist State that enforces private property rights (including contract law, land law, etc.) and the enforcement of criminal laws that embody the Harm Principle. The core Libertarian principles are inalienable in a Libertarian society.
Any sources that suggest that Anarchism and Libertarianism are synonymous are simply WRONG. BlueRobe (talk) 04:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Not for you to say the sources are wrong. They say what they say and that's what we have to go on. Seven days seven nights (talk) 06:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
BlueRobe, check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Libertarianism/Archive_16#The_Blackwell_Encyclopaedia_of_Political_Thought N6n (talk) 09:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Seven days seven nights, for "Anarchism" and "Libertarianism" to be synonyms, Anarchism would have to tautologically imply all the features of Libertarianism, and Libertarianism would have to tautologically imply all the features of Anarchism. That is clearly not the case.
N6n, kudos on referring to yourself as authority for the counter-argument ;-) BlueRobe (talk) 22:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
The claims you make are contradictory to the encyclopedia article linked. Therefore you must produce a 'counter-encyclopedic-article' to support your claims. N6n (talk) 02:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
N6n, I believe the Molotov cocktails thrown by the Anarchists outside the WTO negotiations, at the Libertarians inside the WTO negotiations, provide all the counter-examples we need to show that the two ideologies are not equivalent ;-) BlueRobe (talk) 10:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not saying "libertarian" is a always a synonym for anarchism. I'm saying there is the same word that refers to two different things. Like, sometimes "book" means something that we read and sometimes "book" means to like book a flight. So when "libertarian" is used as a synonym for anarchism, that should go in the Anarchism article. Seven days seven nights (talk) 03:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Seven days seven nights, that is an excellent semantic point that applies to many situations. But, I do not think it applies in this case. The use of "Libertarianism" in the Anarchism=A-version-of-Libertarianism sense is simply erroneous. Aside from their shared advocacy of individual autonomy, the core principles of Libertarianism and Libertarianism have little in common. Under Anarchism, individual consent to any political authority is everything. Under Libertarianism, individual rights and freedoms (necessarily including private property rights), enforced under the authority of a minimalist State, are everything.
The confusion between Anarchism and Libertarianism is caused by people who, driven by their own ideological, academic and political agendas, have striven to fudge the definitions of Anarchism and Libertarianism so that they may squeeze their agendas into the labels they find attractive. The sad consequence of such ideological gerrymandering is that some people have invented versions of Anarchism and Libertarianism that almost entirely contradict the core principles of those ideologies - such as the absurdly oxymoronic "ideology" of Socialist Anarchism. And God knows, the overwhelming majority of Anarchists would balk when confronted with the core principles of Libertarianism, (especially those principles regarding private property rights). BlueRobe (talk) 10:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


WTF. If libertarianism is prominently understood as a synonym for anarchism, that is absoulutely no argument for stripping it from the article on LIBERTARIANISM. BigK HeX (talk) 11:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Libertarianism is not prominently (predominantly?) understood as a synonym for Anarchism. That's the point. BlueRobe (talk) 12:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Reliable sources seem to argue contrary to that notion. Sources indicate a notable enough relationship between Libertarianism and Anarchism to cover it in the Wiki article. BigK HeX (talk) 16:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't care if the Patron Saint of Definitions comes down herself to disagree with me personally, "Anarchism" is not synonymous with "Libertarianism", as is the point being argued. Do you even know what this discussion is about?
The current discussion is the result of a post by User: Seven days seven nights, who said, "There's plenty of sources for 'libertarianism' and 'libertarian' being a synonym for 'anarchism' and 'anarchist.'" (See above)BlueRobe (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
That's really not constructive. If you have points to make, you'll need sources. Clearly, the sources we have available indicate some type of relationship between anarchism and libertarianism. —Torchiest talk/contribs 21:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Sources? To show that "Anarchism" is not synonymous with "Libertarianism"? While we're at it, let's provide a few sources to show that "Apple" is not synonymous with "Orange" after it has been demonstrated that they share the common feature of roundness. BlueRobe (talk) 21:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
So, you rankle at the idea of discussing sources? I wonder how that edit would look.

Despite notable coverage of the topic to the contrary, libertarianism actually has absolutely no relationship to anarchism.<ref>Robe, Blue. WP Talk page, Wikimedia Foundation, 2010</ref>[unreliable source?]

Everyone cool with this edit??! BigK HeX (talk) 23:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
BigK HeX, the issue is not whether Anarchism has a "relationship" with Libertarianism. The issue is whether "Anarchism" is synonymous with "Libertarianism". Clearly, they are not. You're attacking your own straw man. Indeed, I can't help but assume that I am being trolled. BlueRobe (talk) 23:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
You are the butt of a few jokes, but that's only because the real issue here is that you keep proposing a bunch of WP:OR that you suggest should be our guide. BigK HeX (talk) 23:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
BigK HeX, on the contrary, I have made no proposals for the main article, (WP:OR or otherwise). I have addressed an issue raised by User: Seven days seven nights (who is probably going to freak when he sees what happened to this discussion, lol). BlueRobe (talk) 00:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
What's not constructive is saying we need more sources. What is constructive is being able to discern whether those sources are more appropriate for the article on Anarcho-capitalism and minarchism or Anarcho-capitalism or Anarchism or Libertarianism worldview or Classical libertarianism. It's a matter of context. Feel free to utilize the Libertarianism Source Checklist to select the most appropriate article for each source. --Xerographica (talk) 23:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
What's not constructive is to propose your own WP:OR as our checklist. Even less productive is to think that [[Libertarianism worldwide]] is supposed to be some sort of subordinate article to [[Libertarianism]]. That doesn't make a lick of sense. [Correction: It makes perfect sense, if the strategy you're shooting for is to have a POV coatrack take over as the main article for the topic.] BigK HeX (talk) 23:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
And you wonder why real Libertarians are frustrated with the politics going on behind the scenes of the Libertarianism page? BlueRobe (talk) 00:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
"Libertarianism" is SOMETIMES used as a synonym for "anarchism." When it is, then it should go to the Anarchism article. When it's not it should go in this article. And don't misconstrue what I'm saying to be that I am saying that no type of anarchism be in this article. I'm saying types of forms of anarchism should only be in this article if there are sources for them saying they are a type of "libertarianism" with the source not using libertarianism as a synonym for anarchism. Seven days seven nights (talk) 02:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Seven days seven nights, the word "Libertarian" is sometimes used inappropriately. Therein lies the root of all this confusion. To use your original example, the word "Libertarian" is used in Libertarian Socialism. However, not only is the label "Libertarian Socialism" ridiculously oxymoronic, but, the group of political philosophies identified as exemplifying Libertarian Socialism appear to have virtually nothing in common with Libertarianism or Socialism. Indeed, Libertarian Socialism appears to be defined in terms of a deliberate and conscious opposition to Socialism and Libertarianism. Whoever came up with this ideological label should be shipped off to Siberia for an exercise in "counting trees".
In your defence, you originally pointed out that the word "Libertarian", as used in the label "Libertarian Socialism", is more akin to Anarchism. And you were right. But, far from showing that "Libertarianism" is synonymous with "Anarchism", the example merely shows how grossly inappropriate (nigh utterly absurd) it was to use the word "Libertarian" in such a context in the first place. BlueRobe (talk) 04:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I think you're missing the point. There are two words: "libertarianism" and "libertarianism." In other words, there are is the same word for two different concepts. Just as "box" may refer to either a thing you can put stuff in or to fight. The ORIGINAL meaning of libertarian was anarchist. Anarchists used the term "libertarian" because "anarchist" had negative connotations. The word "libertarianism" for that still exists. People still use it, especially outside the U.S. Alongside with that the other term "libertarianism" exists for what you're talking about, which is simply belief in liberty. Neither one is an improper use of the word. This is proved simply by consulting sources. Go to the anarchism article and see the sources in the "terminology" section saying that "libertarianism" is a synonym for anarchism. Neither use of the term is incorrect. They're just two different words. What's confusing things as the same term has two different definitions. You can't say the term is being used incorrectly when there are two different definitions. Seven days seven nights (talk) 04:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
With all due respect BlueRobe, I think your recent statements are pushing the border on assuming good faith. From "the label 'Libertarian Socialism' ridiculously oxymoronic" to "the example merely shows how grossly inappropriate (nigh utterly absurd) it was to use the word 'Libertarian' in such a context in the first place" it seems that you have adopted a stance that this article is already in dispute for; the adoption of an American-only perspective and the belief of some that Libertarianism is exclusively Right-Wing and thusly incompatible with Socialism.
On the political compass, the inverse of Authoritarianism is Libertarianism. While Anarchism and Libertarian Socialism may not have anything in common with the Propertarian Libertarianism of the Right, that does not change the fact that both movements are opposed to Authoritarianism and the inherent absense of freedom in thereof. In this sense the phrase "Libertarian Socialism" makes perfect sense.
Furthermore the fact that Libertarian Marxist and Anarchist philosophies have taken a reactionary tone to more popular Authoritarian strains of Socialism does not change the fact that they all share a common, intertwined history stemming from fairly similar long term goals. Libertarian Socialism, as an inclusive term, was not popularized for the purpose of opposing anything but rather as a means of highlighting the philosophical and historical commonalities of some derivatives of Socialist thought. Anarchism is a form of Socialism, Anarchism is opposed to Authoritarianism, therefore Anarchism is a form of Libertarian Socialism. Furthermore if the entire argument for removing Libertarian Socialism from the Libertarian article is that Anarchism advocates the removal of the state, you still have to contend with the other Libertarian Socialist strands which do not.
All of these terms have not evolved because someone sat down and definitively arranged them in a logical and mutually exclusive manner. They are a product of history and developments on political thought. They will not perfectly mesh into clean, clear categories. Using subjective ideological beliefs as a means to ignore broad, historical trends is simply not honest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.170.208.102 (talk) 22:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Everything is connected somehow. You're connecting mainstream Libertarianism with Libertarian socialism because both ideologies are against authoritarianism. Who is for authoritarianism? Certainly not modern liberalism nor conservatism...yet you're not arguing to include either or those ideologies in this article. Libertarian socialism is anti-private property, anti-capitalism and anti-state...while mainstream Libertarianism is pro-private property, prop-capitalism and pro-state. The only thing that separates mainstream Libertarianism from modern liberalism is the size of the state...and the only thing that separates mainstream Libertarianism from Anarcho-capitalism is the existence of the state...and the only thing that separates Anarco-capitalism from Anarchism is capitalism...and the only thing that separates Anarchism from Tribalism is uhhhh...and the only thing that separates Tribalism from Authoritarianism is hmmmm...
Each ideology is notable enough to warrant an entire article dedicated solely to describing its tenets. People can compare any ideologies that they wish to compare. That being said...if somebody wants to describe the similarities and differences between two related ideologies then that is perfectly ok...assuming that there are enough reliable sources to support the article. For example...Libertarianism and objectivism. So by all means feel free to write an article describing the connection between Libertarianism and libertarian socialism. Personally though...I'd prefer to read an article comparing Anarchism and tribalism. --Xerographica (talk) 01:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
User 207.170.208.10, you suggest that, "Anarchism is a form of Socialism". That suggestion is erroneous.
Socialism entails the centralised control of the factors of production and the distribution of goods and services. Socialism facilitates Fascism, totalitarianism, authoritarianism and all other forms of Orwellian Big Brother. Socialism coerces the individual, and violates that individual's autonomy, regardless of that individual's consent.
In stark contrast, Anarchism declares that individual autonomy is the highest political ideal. Anarchism facilitates all manner of ideologies. However, under Anarchism, the legitimacy of a political authority over an individual is contingent upon each person's consent.
Thus, by no stretch of the imagination is Anarchism "a form of Socialism". BlueRobe (talk) 11:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I am 207.170.208.102 and I decided to make an account. Let me begin by responding to Xerographica. Really, it would be beneficial if you looked at the Political Compass. One location on the Libertarian/Authoritarian axis is not determined by coming out and saying "I am for Authoritarianism" but rather by the extent to which they would use authority as a means to mandate action. While American Conservatism/Liberalism may not be as authoritarian as something like Fascism, they do intend to use the power of government more extensively than a Libertarian (Left or Right) would approve of. Its not black or white but rather a matter of degree. That being said, I think you have presented an oversimplification of the differences between different political persuasions. American Liberalism and Right-Libertarianism may find common ground in the issue of civil liberties, but when one takes it to other matters (like whether or not the market should be regulated) there is significant disagreement which underlines differing intents. And that is what this is about - intent. It is not just a matter of commonalities but rather the philosophical aims of Libertarianism. I believe that the chief concern of Right-Libertarians is not the protection of Capitalism or the structure of the State but rather that maximization of Liberty. They defend Capitalism and Representative Democracy because they believe these things are the best possible means by which Liberty can be maximized. Libertarian Socialists disagree - but their differing means of achieving the most free society does not change the fact that their underlying goal is essentially the same as those on the Right. In truth this entry already reflects that reality when it says:
"Libertarians are difficult to place in the conventional left/right political spectrum as they may show strong support for traditionally left-wing issues, such as broad freedom from search and seizure, freedom of the press, and other civil liberties.[9] Consequently some libertarians reject being described as "left" or "right""
BlueRobe, no my statement was not incorrect. If you look at the long history of Socialism you will find that although the movement has been dominated by Authoritarian Leninism, there are plenty examples of decentralized, non-bureaucratic, non-authoritarian socialism. A wonderful contemporary example of this would be EZLN. Your characterization of Socialism, while understandable, is unaware of precisely the strands of Socialist thought that rightfully belong in this article. As an editor of Wikipedia, you are entrusted to understand the topic matter before editing the entry in a manner that will shape the understanding of countless readers. I sincerely hope that you will research the history of Libertarian Socialism more closely and with an open-mind and in turn change your stance on this matter.
As for the issue of Anarchism, I sincerely doubt my words will change your opinion. Instead I will point you to the Anarchist FAQ section on this topic matter (http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Anarchist_FAQ/What_is_Anarchism%3F/1.4) and the citations and quotes within its contents that demonstrate Anarchists are indeed Socialists. Historically a great many Anarchists have called themselves Socialists, have fought along side Socialists, and advocate the principles of Socialism. That Socialism, that Libertarian Socialism, cannot be rationally denied a place in this article. Anatoly-Rex (talk) 20:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Anatoly-Rex, the primary reason that most self-declared "Anarchists" fight alongside Socialists, (usually outside a meeting of the WTO) is that most self-declared "Anarchists" are Socialists and don't realise it. When I speak with them, they almost invariably reveal that their protests are against this government, (generally a right-wing neo-liberal government), or against that political authority (i.e. the WTO), rather than against coercive government per se. They invariably call for government to do more, such as, do more ensure a more egalitarian society, or do more to address the needs of those living in poverty, (Marxism). Thus, these so-called "Anarchists" have no problem with big (and bigger) government. They're just protesting that their big governments aren't doing more to meet the political goals that they consider desirable. Indeed, the only real differences between most self-declared "Anarchists" and the Socialists are the Molotov cocktails being thrown by the Anarchists.
Anarchism is not a form of Socialism. Aside from the obvious potential for Socialist political entities (communities, communes) forming within an Anarchist society, the ideologies of Anarchism and Socialism are mutually exclusive. Socialism is all about control. Even the Wiki page makes this fact clear, (despite the rampant sabotage and revisionism that goes on behind the scenes in Wiki's political pages.) A Socialist State might be organised for the purpose of serving needs-based distributive justice, or egalitarianism, or Nationalist Socialism (Nazism) or any of a number of public agendas. But, they all entail the coercion of the autonomous individual against their will. In stark contrast, Anarchism constitutes a direct challenge to coercive control by government and allows each autonomous individual the freedom to participate in that political entity - within the Anarchist society - which best appeals to their political desires.
I really wish Socialists would stop fudging the language political discourse by calling themselves "Anarchists". Contrary to poplar believe, Anarchism is not "Socialism with an adrenaline rush." BlueRobe (talk) 22:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
BlueRobe, your entire response was based on personal opinion, personal experience. While I respect the strength of your convictions, I believe its clear for all to see that you are not assuming a neutral point of view. At this point I think all parties involved should consider pursuing, at the very least, informal mediation. 71.193.200.85 (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
User 71.193.200.85 funniest troll all week :-) BlueRobe (talk) 03:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Your comments are far closer to trolling than anything in IP 71xxxx's post. You've already blatantly said: "I don't care if the Patron Saint of Definitions comes down herself to disagree with me personally" and that "Any sources that suggest that Anarchism and Libertarianism are synonymous are simply WRONG.".
You've made it clear that discussion with you is useless. BigK HeX (talk) 04:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
BigK HeX, I see you still don't know what "synonymous" means. BlueRobe (talk) 06:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm well-aware of what synonymous means. The failure of understanding is all yours, as pointed out to you by multiple editors already. But, I'll leave you to cling to your POV. Cheers. BigK HeX (talk) 06:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Found a source right for what I've been saying right here in the article: "The term libertarian as used in the US means something quite different from what it meant historically and still means in the rest of the world. Historically, the libertarian movement has been the anti-statist wing of the socialist movement. Socialist anarchism was libertarian socialism." http://www.zcommunications.org/the-week-online-interviews-chomsky-by-noam-chomsky Seven days seven nights (talk) 08:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Three sides to this debate (short review)

'aka' here means 'more-or-less'. All sides have literature supporting them. (I think the solution lies along the lines: what we really need are sources that have reviewed the political landscape including regions outside of the US {BigK Hex}) N6n (talk) 03:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not see that. Liberals from George Washington to Margaret Thatcher have opposed feudal property rights and deprived feudal lords of their property (This also occured during the French Revolution). Libertarians do not support feudalism. TFD (talk) 05:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

"Libertarian socialism" is not known by the term "libertarianism." So it doesn't belong in this article at all. That is, unless you can find a source saying that it is a form of "libertarianism" IF AND ONLY IF "libertarianism" is not being used as a synonym for anarchism in the source. Some people use the term "libertarianism" by it's original meaning, a synonym for anarchism. Anyone understand what I'm saying? Seven days seven nights (talk) 07:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Err.. what? Did you just basically say that "Libertarian socialism isn't known by the term 'libertarianism' except when it often is, but in that case, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, so you can't include it?" BigK HeX (talk) 09:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
No. I am saying no one has given a source for "libertarian socialism" for being a form of "libertarianism." And if they CAN find one, then if the term "libertarianism" in that source is using the term "libertarianism" to mean "anarchism," then it's not acceptable. The source would have to be using the term "libertarianism" under the broader definition, which is philosophy of liberty. If someone can find a source for that, then libertarian socialism can properly be included. The background knowledge that you have to be aware of here is that the term "libertarianism" is sometimes used as a synonym for "anarchism," especially outside the United States. See the anarchism article for plenty of sources for that. Make sense yet? Seven days seven nights (talk) 23:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

My understanding. The "sides" that I've seen here seem to involve:

  1. People who think left-libertarianism shouldn't be included at all (and some who may believe that the phrase "strong property rights" would necessarily exclude left-libertarianism); there are also those willing to exclude definitions of libertarianism that they don't like, apparently.
  2. People who think their precious anarcho-capitalism is so special that it should not be included as a variant of libertarianism, no matter how many RS's include it in such lists.
  3. Then the folks who would just like to see right-libertarianism get more weight in the text.
  4. I guess I'm in a camp where minarchism, left-libertarianism, and (to some extent) anarcho-capitalism are notable enough to get a fair amount of weight. Hell, I personally think that reliable sources are strong enough for Objectivism to be included in the list, but I'm guessing that battle has been fought already with the Randians able to strip it out.

According to the bulk of RS running contrary to their preferred viewpoint, IMO, we can safely ignore groups #1 and #2 as POV pushing loons. Those in group #3 might have a valid point, but I'm concerned about indications that right-libertarianism has been a largely US-centric understanding of the term libertarianism, so US-based sources that are not clearly including surveys of European politics are not helping to avoid that bias, and get to the larger picture. BigK HeX (talk) 09:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that what this article lacks is some type of geographic division in popular and scholarly understanding of libertarianism. I would think sections describing its generally accepted meaning in the United States as opposed to Europe would be a good place to start, and might help to calm down some of the disagreements, which may be caused by ignorance of how libertarianism is viewed in foreign lands. —Torchiest talk/contribs 14:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree. I believe CarolMooreDC is also interested in such a rewrite, and may have the appropriate sourcing to do so. BigK HeX (talk) 14:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This is an outline I'm working on for a more organized libertarianism article. I don't think organizing it is that difficult if you're really familiar with the terms and concepts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Seven_days_seven_nights/Libertarianism-Outline#Libertarian_socialism Seven days seven nights (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

@seven days and nights, Is this correct:
(My opinions on this are withheld!) N6n (talk) 06:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

My view on this

I have merged Libertarian socialism and Left-Libertarianism and deleted mutualism. At first glance, this article gives way too much weight to the "left-libertarian" perspective (although it should be included). Mutualism is a concept completely different from libertarianism and should be deleted, while overall the entire article should express the mainstream view of the term "libertarianism"- an ideology similar to classical liberalism in that it stresses absolute property and individual rights and a free market. 99% of sources refer to it that way.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

agree the disambiguation page is where co-opted terms belong. i am a libertarian-deadhead, but a section about fans of the grateful dead who also consider themselves libertarian belongs on the disambiguation page, not here. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind having a small section on left libertarianism, but this is too much. I think the current arrangement could be good. If the editors reach consensus we can move the remaining left libertarianism content into disambiguation.Teeninvestor (talk) 00:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
As it stands, not one editor complaining about the weight of the left-libertarian material has provided anything except WP:OR that right-libertarianism is vastly more prominent even outside of the US. BigK HeX (talk) 05:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


Bigk what evidence do you have libertarianism is even practiced outside of the usa today? those small pockets of followers outside the usa are aligned with what you call "right". is legalizing drugs and lowering taxes left or right? Darkstar1st (talk) 05:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Your ability to ask only the wrong questions is pretty impressive. But, no, those "pockets" that I am referring to are most certainly classified as left-libertarians. BigK HeX (talk) 07:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
which pockets specifically? please cite a politician or a group outside the usa you consider left-libertarian Darkstar1st (talk) 07:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
There are plenty, but .... why are you asking? This seems like yet another "wrong" question that you are asking. (Your question seems pointless, but see: Centre Party (Sweden)) BigK HeX (talk) 07:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
libertarian in a "a green social liberal party" way? "During the 1930s, the party pursued the strongest and most notable pro-Nazi agenda, with its 1933 programme calling for "preservation of the Swedish people from any interference of foreign inferior racial elements [and] opposition of immigration to Sweden by unwanted strangers". Can you find any libertarians who consider themselves left outside the usa? Darkstar1st (talk) 08:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Already did and listed a group for you. I guess you think you made a point with the text you've quoted, but the argument you appear to be making is nonsensical, as usual. BigK HeX (talk) 08:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
the centre party of sweden is not libertarian. the one source linking to libertarian has been deleted on WP. the party's own website makes no mention of libertarian. any others you know of? if not take a minute to research, ill wait here. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
lol. It's nice for you to bold your WP:OR, but how many fallacious arguments are you going to propose? Even if I did believe that you could read Swedish, it'd be ignorant to suggest that the lack of the word "libertarian" supposedly means the group isn't considered left-libertarian, just as it'd be ignorant to claim that a group that was self-described as "minarchists" and had webpages preaching Nozick wasn't libertarian based on an argument that their webpage didn't mention the word.
And, yes, I know of many others left-lib groups; unless you skip this tedious banter and be clear about what point you are trying to make, I'm fine with you doing your own research for other groups. BigK HeX (talk) 08:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
my point was clear, no left-libertarian movement outside the usa. centre party members are self described social liberals. "lack of the word "libertarian" supposedly means the group isn't considered left-libertarian" considered left-libertarian by who, the blogger, yourself? "I know of many others left-lib groups", only need 1. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Re: "no left-libertarian movement outside the usa"
I'm all ears as to how you propose this as fact. BigK HeX (talk) 08:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
not a fact, speculation. you are who could prove me wrong, yet unwilling, or unable. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
You are correct -- I am unwilling. Your uninformed speculation has zero bearing on this article, and shouldn't be cluttering up this talk page. BigK HeX (talk) 08:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Since this mess has to clutter up the talk page, if you want a more solid group to contain left-libs, see: Socialist_People's_Party_(Denmark). BigK HeX (talk) 09:16, 7 August
no mention of libertarian anything on the socialist peoples party. i decided to un-collapse the material to give other a chance to read the discuss and comment. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
"There's a long tradition of Anarchism — libertarian thought outside the United States, which is diametrically opposed to the positions of the Libertarian Party — but it's unknown here. That's the dominant position of what's always been considered Socialist Anarchism.... I do disagree with them very sharply, and I think that they are not … understanding the fundamental doctrine, that you should be free from domination and control, including the control of the manager and the owner." Noam Chomsky, in an appearance on Donahue/Pozner (14 February 1992) Ref. is from WikiQuote,[1]. Carol may have references for libertarian socialism. She wrote earlier, Karl Hess' quote is cherry picked and does not reflect the fact he identified very much with libertarian socialists. ([2]) N6n (talk) 06:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

What Happened to all the Dialogue?

Was there some round-table meeting dismissing the last couple months' discussions? What happened here? And the page is locked up. That having been said, it has been slowly changing since its lock-up date. This meaning that is being slowly changed without review by some privileged few? 67.212.32.249 (talk) 03:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

several of the debates were archived premature in an effort to hide the consensus which had formed here. most here agree this page should be about libertarianism as it is understood and practiced by the majority of people today. the vast majority of these people, about 12 million, live in the usa, are socially liberal (could care less if 2 men want to marry), and fiscally conservative. the other forms of libertarianism, including the past use of the term, belong on the disambiguation page. Darkstar1st (talk) 11:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
There was never any such consensus. The "dialogues" that were archived were -- in actuality -- generally monologue rants and blatant personal attacks. BigK HeX (talk) 20:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
It seemed to me to be simply a dispute between statist libertarians and anti-statist anarchists. Libertarianism is a political theory, anarchism says "no politics, no government". There is no rant here, its a simple logical proposition. Meant to be discussed in a formal context.67.212.32.249 (talk) 02:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
we could use your help editing, but 1st get a user name. this page is restricted. Darkstar1st (talk) 03:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Forms vs Ideologies

At the top of the article it says..."This article is about the various political philosophies, ideologies, and social movements. For other uses, see Libertarianism (disambiguation)." Yet in the article it says "Forms of Libertarianism". Which is it? Which reliable sources refer to those "forms" as "forms" of Libertarianism? I visited each "form" and not a single one stated that it was a "form" of Libertarianism. If there was sufficient evidence to refer to them as "forms" of Libertarians wouldn't each "form" say so on its main page? Here's the deal...feel free to edit each lead of each "form's" main page to say "Such and such is a form of Libertarianism"...if the edit goes unchallenged then we can refer to that "form" as a "form" of Libertarianism on this page. Until then they should be referred to respectively as philosophies, ideologies, and social movements. --Xerographica (talk) 01:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You're basing an argument on the ... disambiguation text??? You really expect to be taken seriously? BigK HeX (talk) 01:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
It's pretty simple...just provide the evidence you use to justify calling those various ideologies "forms of Libertarianism". On each of their main pages they are referred to either as a "philosophy" or "ideology" or "movement"...none of them are referred to as a "form of Libertarianism". --Xerographica (talk) 07:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
You've had more than ample time to provide any evidence to support referring to the related ideologies as "forms" of Libertarianism. The List of political ideologies uses the terminology "related ideologies" which is sufficient evidence to make the change. --Xerographica (talk) 22:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, nothing should be included in this article unless there are sources saying they are forms of "libertarianism." And, you have to be careful looking at the source because the source may be using the term as a synonym for "anarchism." There is already an anarchism article. So you have to make sure they're using the term "libertarianism" to means simply a philosophy of liberty. That is not to say some forms of anarchism can't be in this article, but only that they must be sourced as being a form of libertarianism with libertarianism being used in the source as philosophy of liberty rather than as a synonym for anarchism. (What I'm saying only makes sense if you're aware that "libertarianism" is sometimes a synonym for anarchism, especially outside the U.S.) Seven days seven nights (talk) 02:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Anarcho-capitalism, Minarchism, Mutualist, Geolibertarianism, Libertarian conservatism, Libertarian socialism are all listed as Schools of libertarianism on their respective pages. N6n (talk) 07:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't matter whether another article says they're a form of libertarianism. An article can say anything. What matters is whether it's sourced. Seven days seven nights (talk) 08:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Thats right. N6n (talk) 08:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I've found sources for libertarian socialism being a form of anarchism rather than a form of libertarianism as is defined in the U.S. Libertarian socialism only a form of libertarianism when you're using the term libertarianism as a synonym for anarchism. I just put it in the article. This is really screwed up because "libertarianism" has two meanings. That's why there should be a disambiguation, one going to anarchism and the other to here. Or take libertarian socialism out. To have libertarian socialism and libertarianism in the U.S. sense of the term, which does not mean "anarchism" (though it INCLUDES some types of anarchism) in the same article is incoherent. Seven days seven nights (talk) 08:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Weight given to libertarianism/left-libertarianism outside the USA is undo. The scant few that do exist, are aligned with the LP USA

Unless evidence of libertarianism outside the USA is presented, I suggest it regulated to the disambiguation page, and the tag "worldwide view" be removed. Libertarians have formed chapters in every wide spot in the road from Sangamon County IL, to Spenard Alaska, yet not one chapter in all of Europe, except those aligned with what some consider minarchist. The one example presented so far is the the "Centre Party of Sweden, a green social liberal party with a dubious history. During the 1930s, the party pursued the strongest and most notable pro-Nazi agenda, with its 1933 programme calling for "preservation of the Swedish people from any interference of foreign inferior racial elements [and] opposition of immigration to Sweden by unwanted strangers. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

A) You've been given more than "one example."
B) Your opinion on a "dubious history" is wholly irrelevant.
C) You have already-admitted that this idea of supposed "non-existence" of libertarian groups outside of the US is speculation, and it's pretty clear it's born purely of ignorance. If you bothered to educate yourself in even the least, you'd find that groups classified as left-libertarian have had political success that dwarfs the Libertarian Party of the US that you've mentioned. This talk page isn't a forum to educate you when you're arguing against reliable sources.
D) Given the above, editing based upon ignorant speculation is disruptive, at best. BigK HeX (talk) 21:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
a. no mention of libertarian anything on the socialist peoples party of denmark, the other example you gave.
b. please strike the word "dubious" from my claim, nazi could be making a comeback for all i know.
c. cite examples of left-libertarian organizations, people, or parties outside the usa.
d. if i had a nickel for every time you have accused me of ignorance, i could buy myself a clue. lol @ you're grammar error whilst calling me ignorant. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Darkstar1st says, "lol @ you're grammar error whilst calling me ignorant."
Such delicious irony to keep reinforcing my point.... This guy has got to be trolling.BigK HeX (talk) 00:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
More seriously, expect that you will get absolutely nowhere trying to delete the material based on reliable sources when all you have to propose is your own admitted wild speculation. Even minimal efforts to educate yourself on topics where you know you have nothing but speculation could do wonders for your editing here. So, my final word to you is: Go Educate Yourself. BigK HeX (talk) 00:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
ironic indeed! i am ignorant, and you not, yet your post suffer. my words are: who in europe calls themselves a libertarian? you have 1 week to cite sources, or i am moving the material to the disambiguation page. the last source i deleted you accused me of pov editing was a self published blog in a different language, the 2nd of such you have translated and submitted as fact, yet the party website does not mention the term libertarian in english, swedish, or dane. Darkstar1st (talk) 01:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Big Hex, please cite a significant "left-libertarian" movement, seriously. The view exists but its very very itkentlirare and self-contradictory. And regarding your comment on the lack of success of Libertarianism, please see Classical liberalism; I'm sure that was a pretty successful movement.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
As I don't really care to dignify his nonsensical rants, following up by asking me questions that merely repeat Darkstar1st's rants would be pointless. However, if you care to ask a question that is sensibly related to improving the article,I'd be interested to hear it. BigK HeX (talk) 02:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I've had it myself with the rants, sock puppets, left-right POV pushing and just taking a break and occassionally checking in for a laugh. Until that day I find myself bored and reorganize the whole article in an NPOV WP:RS fashion that will be difficult to contest. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
wp:idontlikeit you have become what you sought to correct. Darkstar1st (talk) 02:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
It's a shame too, CarolMooreDC. Being maybe the only one I've seen here who both seems to have a deep interest in right-libertarianism and is still willing to make reasonable RS-based arguments on why something is possibly out-of-balance, the article is probably less than it could be if editing here was less frustrating (...and less based on idiotic personal WP:OR). BigK HeX (talk) 02:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


User:Darkstar1st's edit comment says, "no mainstream examples of left libertarian have been produced". I won't even bother to detail how it is entirely irrelevant whether any "mainstream examples" of a notable topic have or have not been produced. For the ignorant, Wikipedia even has some examples so that people actually interested in educating themselves would not have had to look very hard (though WP:RS describing examples throughout Europe aren't hard to find either). If examples will end the disruption, then go here -- Libertarian_socialism#Within_the_political_mainstream -- and then actually try to focus on improving the article, instead of constant soapboxing, POV pushing, and disruption. BigK HeX (talk) 01:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX, you can argue all you want, but you're giving WP:UNDUE to a small view. No reliable source can be cited that links "Libertarian socialism" with the mainstream meaning of the word "libertarianism". The soviet union called itself a people's democracy, but we don't put that as the form of government in the article Soviet Union. Wanna know why? Cause we give the topic to the mainstream view. And the mainstream view is that libertarianism=classical liberalism or "right-libertarianism". Anything else is WP:UNDUE and belongs at disambiguation (now I actually think left libertarianism (as in Roderick Long-style ancaps who dont use the word capitalism) should be included, just not "Libertarian socialism". Right now we have me, darkstar and several other editors all disputing you. I think that's a consensus.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
My view on this:

1. Keep left-libertarianism. This is notable and a part of libertarianism (the georgists/others, etc). Include a paragraph on alternate uses of the term libertarianism (e.g. libertarian socialism). 2. Remove the part about libertarian socialism except noting the alternate use of the term. Teeninvestor (talk) 01:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

  • I have several times referred to the whole section on libertarianism around the world that was in this article as of January 1, 2010. A smaller section still should be included.
  • Re: WP:RS on libertarian socialism or left libertarianism, around the world and US. They are copious on books/scholar and even news(Archives) google. See all the stuff in the news archives from mainstream sources. Scads of them. BigK HeX should just list a bunch he thinks he can use and end the debate for good :-) Then he can take his time finding best ones to use. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Here ya go CarolMoore: Libertarianism#cite_note-L.2FR-1. I didn't use any of the news sources yet ... just stuck to encyclopedias, books, and journals. BigK HeX (talk) 04:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


Blatant Anarchocapitalist POV pushing

It's pretty clear that there are editors here who seem to dislike anti-capitalist viewpoints, and are willing to disruptively delete cited information in order to promote that POV. I ask that we base our edits on policy and not decide what remains in the article based on it being a POV that we agree with. Erasing any trace of the highly prominent anti-capitalist tendencies of a prominent faction of libertarianism should have a pretty significant justification, and I hope to see that shown here. BigK HeX (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is undue weight. Libertarianism is used in the mainstream sense to refer to the philosophy of classical liberalism more or less. The socialists who use libertarianism to describe their philosophy deserve a mention in that "Libertarianism can also refer to libertarian socialism"; geolibertarianism can be considered a faction and included under "left-libertarianism", along with Roderick et al. Right now the way the article is constituted so that if a reader goes through it he will think libertarianism is used to refer to Chomsky-style socialism/syndicalism; hardly what it actually means!Teeninvestor (talk) 02:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Quite contrary to your assertion that the article somehow has a heavy focus on left-libertarianism, anyone reading the article will realize that "libertarianism" is a term with numerous prominent viewpoints. Being that the article clearly details minarchist and anarchocapitalist ideals, the article most certainly does NOT leave the impression that Chomsky-style libertarianism is "the only libertarianism," and your solution of censoring any of the info on Chomsky-style libertarianism amounts to blatant POV pushing with a complete disregard to the citations of the material. BigK HeX (talk) 02:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
The article definitely gives huge weight to Chomsky-style "libertarian socialism" in direct contrast to what the actual meaning is. Ever heard of WP:UNDUE? At most, "libertarian socialism" merits a paragraph at the bottom saying that "in other countries, libertarianism is used as a synonym for anarchist socialism; here are some examples (Chomsky, spanish civil war, etc). Now we have the article blatantly declaring: "Libertarians can be anti-property or pro-property. They are anarcho-socialists, syndicalists or anarcho-capitalists (note how the left wing point comes ahead every time even though its a very small minority view). This does not reflect the topic at all.Teeninvestor (talk) 13:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Blatant Minarchist POV pushing

FYI. Darkstar1st and all the sockpuppets and meat puppets and AnonIPs who have supported him don't just want to eliminate left libertarianism but all mention of anarchism, including anarcho-capitalism. If those attacks were stopped it would make it easier to concentrate on getting the article right, with the right amount of emphasis, per WP:RS - of which there still is very little discussion on this page. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think accusations of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry are appropriate. He's been accused and cleared of that in the past. Also, I know Teeninvestor has been around for a while in his own right. Finally, Darkstar1st has a very distinctive writing style, and I don't see that mirrored in any of the other comments. Still, I think the massive edit warring that has been going on lately is getting a bit out of hand. —Torchiest talk/contribs 13:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I didn't say he himself engaged in it. I'm saying that obviously someone who supported his views did. (Probably the infamous User:Karmaisking.) Now hopefully with banning of Anon IPs this will stop, though we have to be careful of brand new accounts. Again, the resolution among all real editors remains mediation. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Incoherent topic maintenance tag

I've added the {{incoherent-topic}} maintenance tag to this article to bring attention to the root problem - the attempt to cover all (some widely disparate) topics referred to by the term "libertarianism", rather than just one, leading to the incoherent topic problem.

My personal view is that Libertarianism should be a dab page, but I'm open to having it devoted to just one definition of libertarianism, or several closely related definitions. But this problem needs to be addressed before the tag is removed. This has been going on for years, and there is no end in sight, as long as we continue to try to cover all meanings of libertarianism in this one article. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

agree anti-property and pro-property are polar opposites. to include both on the same page is confusing. example: "some Catholics are pro-life, but others are pro-choice." while this statement is true, wouldn't it sound better to say, traditional catholics are pro-life, and non-traditional/whateverapplieshere are pro-choice. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
As I put in the note when I deleted the tag the problem is edit warring, POV pushing, sockpuppetry, incivility, etc. NOT the content of the article itself. The solution is banning edit warring editors, which may yet happen if people don't stop WP:SOAPBOX, personal attacks, and other behavior meant to disrupt cooperative editing. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
indeed carol, therefore i replaced the tag. please discuss before removing,. if there be a sockpuppet, please use the appropriate page to address/ban, if you know of a warring editor, address it in the appropriate forum, when you see soapbox, same. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Certainly there are editor behavior problems such as those listed by Carol associated with this page (e.g., dismissive removal of maintenance tags), but I daresay that topic incoherency in this article may well be the cause of much of that too. Behavior problems aside, there have been countless legitimate queries and attempts to resolve the problems caused by the topic incoherency here for years, and it seems to be getting worse. It's certainly not getting better. Until the topic incoherency issue is resolved one way or another, the tag should stay. It appears that there are at least two others who agree with me at least about the tag, and only one who does not. If I had been the only one who thought the tag should stay, I would have removed it myself.
Moving on... I would like to know how others think the incoherency problem could or should best be resolved. I have in mind a poll with a number of choices, but I think an open discussion about the issue might be best for now. After some time (a week? a month?), we can take the suggestions made and use them as choices in a poll. So, how do you think the topic incoherency problem would best be resolved? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
By POV pushing editors coming to grips with the simple fact that reliable sources don't make the same narrow distinctions of "libertarianism"....? BigK HeX (talk) 22:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Can you please explain how, for example, this description of libertarianism from the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, encompasses any philosophy that rejects property rights? I guess that's my biggest objection - to include both pro and anti property uses of the term libertarianism in one article - they are entirely different topics that have little more in common than the name, much like Orange (colour) and Orange (fruit). --Born2cycle (talk) 23:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
If a multitude of reliable sources detail both Orange (colour) and Orange (fruit) as facets of a single topic of discourse, we won't disambiguate those either. BigK HeX (talk) 23:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Can you point to a list of such supposed sources? Specifically, I'm looking for uses of the term libertarianism that simultaneously refer to pro and anti property rights political philosophies. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Or better yet, you're more than welcome to pick a source from the article and explain your objection to it. BigK HeX (talk) 00:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
You seem to be dodging my questions. You did not provide the explanation I requested with respect to the Standford definition, nor did you provide a list, not even one example, of the sources to which you inferred existed that refer to both pro and anti property political philosophies as libertarianism.

I haven't checked all the sources in the article, but of the ones I have, I see no problems. Not sure what your'e getting at. For example, one of the sources is the entry for libertarianism at the internet encyclopedia of philosophy. Despite noting that defining libertarianism is contentious and that there is no single theory, it never-the-less lists that robust property rights and the economic liberty that follows from their consistent recognition are of central importance in respecting individual liberty as a belief to which libertarians are committed, which obviously excludes any anti-property philosophy.

I've answered all your questions. Mine stand, unanswered. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Any questions not relevant to the presentation of reliable sources will continue to stand unanswered because this isn't a forum for vague philosophizing. This talk page is for improvement of the article. I can only assume you're objecting to some source or another, so feel free to actually explain what your specific objection is. If you cannot point out a specific deficiency with reliable sourcing, then there's not a whole lot to say other than to ramble about personal WP:OR (like the Orange (colour) vs Orange (fruit) thing ... as if our personal declaration can make it more valid than a grouping like Orange_(fruit)#Navel_orange vs Orange_(fruit)#Valencia_orange).
So, you are invited to detail your specific objections based on the various WP policies. BigK HeX (talk) 00:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Also, I have no opinion on the Stanford Encyclopedia, but -- whether it is right or wrong -- we are not limited to pigeonholing entire articles to conform to a single source. BigK HeX (talk) 00:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought the standard tag for "lack a single coherent topic" (what this section is about) was clear enough. See WP:TOPIC, specifically: "While writing an article, you might find yourself digressing into a side subject. If you find yourself wandering off-topic, consider placing the additional information into a different article, where it will fit more closely with the topic." I suggest that anything having to do with anti-property political philosophy is "digressing into a side subject", and should be placed into a different article. This is a serious matter in this particular case because of all the confusion and other problems the inclusion of the anti-property philosophical material in this article has caused for years, and only appears to be getting worse. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

<backdent>Sorry if I saw Born2cycle's tag as just another edit warring attempt to delete WP:RS content. The problem is not content, it is editor behavior. It is a simple fact supported by many WP:RS that there are pro and anti-property (also called left and right) libertarians and that the pro-property ones are better know worldwide, with minarchists best known. The latter fact is not an excuse to expunge WP:RS evidence that the others exist, including through constant sabotage by editors who do not want the other types mentioned (including the AnonIP, sockpuppet, personal attack, etc behavior mentioned previously). Disruption and sabotage are the real problem. Please check all the Four WP:ANI complaints against Darkstar1st for edit warring on this an other articles by various editors. I personally think the solution is to ban Darkstar1st from this article so more cooperative editors can deal with the legitimate issues without constant harassment. However, since the last time a ban was asked for on Darkstar1st, it was asked whether we had done dispute resolution, and the lack of sufficient attempts was a hindrance. In any case, seeking and getting mediation would help us sort out who are the real cooperative editors and who are not and definitely cool things down and allow progress. Any takers?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing

Carol, you seem to be thinking that as long as material is well-sourced it belongs in the article. There is well sourced material about the fruit orange that would not belong in the article Orange if the topic of that article was the color. Of course, that's not the case because editors recognized that there are two major uses of the term orange, and created separate articles for each. Both have WP:RS material, but the material in one does not belong in the other.

The same rationale applies here. It's not that there are no reliable sources for anti-property libertarianism, it's that that use of the term is entirely different. Sure, it's a political philosophy too, but it is a fundamentally different philosophy.

I grant that reasonable people can disagree, at least theoretically, on whether the pro and anti property topics are sufficiently closely related to warrant separate articles. However, practically speaking, the level of confusion, consternation and debate caused by the combining of these topics in one article is indisputable. It has been going on for years, and there is no end in sight. Yes, some of it is blatant misbehavior, but much of it is not. And it is certainly not limited to any one user... countless numbers have been confused and have complained about the inclusion of anti property libertarianism here, and understandably so. If you still disagree, please at least reply to the substance of what I'm saying. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 14:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It's nice that you think your personal opinion that "they are different, I say!!" is so important. The rest of us are quite fine with writing about libertarianism (such as left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism) article, to cover the views made prominent by a zillion WP:RS's. BigK HeX (talk) 15:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I think Born2cycle should look back over the last couple months of this talk page. If s/he does sh/e will find that several sources have been mentioned - and some have been in the article and deleted - mentioning that all flavors of libertarianism exist - which is the point you are contesting. (Unfortunately none of them do a good spectrum analysis of support for from more to less state and from more to less property.) More can be found. I have a whole bunch was half way finished collecting off line but then the stupid personal attacks and demands that all anarchism left and right be removed from the article started again, and I got disgusted. Other more NPOV editors also have gotten disgusted and left. If mediation or something else will ensure a more cooperative editing environment, I'll put these up. And hopefully BigK HeX will come up with his own list too. It's all about the sources. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Carol, this does not address what I said. I don't disagree with anything you said here.

I'm not talking about what happened in the last few months. I'm talking about a problem that has persisted here for years. The last few months is just the latest round, and is particularly bad.

BigK, personally I think an article about both right and left libertarianism would be fine. My objection to it is based on the confusion and consternation the combining obviously causes, and has caused, for so many readers, for years. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

And I am saying in Wikipedia it's what the sources say that count and no one has tried hard enough to find/start article off with three or four sources just settling the issue that "libertarianism" includes a variety of views - including myself. The latest discussion has clarified the need for that. I'm off my own computer today because of the heat, but in next few days I'll review all those sources I put aside, assuming things remain copacetic. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I'd agree that the integration of the concepts seems pretty shoddy (although that may well be from the blatant censorship that I'm seeing). The POV pushing has annoyed me, so I'll probably do an overhaul of the article tonight. BigK HeX (talk) 16:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Why not create a new subsection here with your draft?  :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Normally, that would be useful, but -- here -- you and I both know that there are a few bad apples who have no interest in collaboration, and are willing to drive editors away for disturbing their precious POV. BigK HeX (talk) 17:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Carol, above you wrote, "no one has tried hard enough to find/start article off with three or four sources just settling the issue that 'libertarianism' includes a variety of views". What exactly do you mean by "libertarianism" here in this statement? Are there any sources that use "libertarian" in a context in which it has as broad a meaning as your use in this sentence seems to have? A meaning that includes left as well as right libertarianism? I suggest there is no such source.

Now, we do have sources that use the term libertarianism to include multiple of views of right libertarianism (ranging from anarchism to minarchism), but I really don't think (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that there are any uses of the term that also include left libertarianism (anti property), unless they are using the term to refer to left libertarianism exclusively, and not right libertarianism at all.

That, in a nutshell, is the problem. There are no sources for use of the term libertarianism in the way we are trying to describe it this article, to be inclusive of all meanings of libertarianism used in all sources. That's what makes this topic incoherent. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Redundant Texts

If you look at the Staying on Topic section in the Wikipedia better writing guide here's what it says...

The most readable articles contain no irrelevant (nor only loosely relevant) information. While writing an article, you might find yourself digressing into a side subject. If you find yourself wandering off-topic, consider placing the additional information into a different article, where it will fit more closely with the topic. If you provide a link to the other article, readers who are interested in the side topic have the option of digging into it, but readers who are not interested will not be distracted by it. Due to the way in which Wikipedia has grown, many articles contain such redundant texts. Please be bold in deleting them.

So I deleted the redundant section on Anarcho-capitalism contained in this article and added a link to it in the See Also section. Then BigK HeX undid my deletion of the Anarcho-capitalism section and then recently Torchiest deleted the link to Anarcho-capitalism in the See Also section. Torchiest deleted the link because it was "redundant". Half of this entire article is redundant. Remove all the redundant text and it will become abundantly apparent how little work has actually gone into writing this article.

This topic of this article is the political ideology of "Libertarianism". If I have to add something to that word or change that word completely then that is either a side topic, or a loosely relevant topic or a completely different topic. If you want to create a new article that adds something to the word "Libertarianism" like "overview" or "worldview" or "Classical" please by all means do so. Otherwise, it's easy to tell if a section should be deleted by if it starts off with "main article: pseudo-libertarianism". See also...

Thanks for adding the tag to make it official. --Xerographica (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Recent changes by BigK HeX

The common theme that seems to run through the talk page debates is that the article seems to lack a justification for the information presented, and that there's no apparent unifying framework. With my recent changes, I've tried to present the opinions given in reliable sources, which may help provide a rationale for what some seem to describe here as a haphazard "mishmash" of philosophies. Different sources make different distinctions, but a fairly common theme seems to be the left/right libertarinism breakdown. Perhaps, this is a strong enough starting point to overcome many of the impasses that have built up frustration here.

I've tried to stick to the most scholarly sources [encyclopedias and journal articles], so hopefully, editors here will be able to build from these sources or discover related ones. I'd ask that interested editors retain and review the sources, even if you feel some (or all?!) of my text must go. BigK HeX (talk) 06:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The common theme here is that there are reliable sources for everybody's viewpoint because we're all talking about different topics. If you want to talk about all the topics remotely related to Libertarianism then create a new article and call it Libertarianism (overview). Also, you have failed to provide any evidence that justifies referring to those remotely related ideologies as "Forms of Libertarianism". --Xerographica (talk) 13:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Comment on Xerographica: The organized NPOV mind finds the commonalities and the differences and multiple WP:RS support these, ones ideologues with overpowering POVs may not see. Some have been mentioned above, some not yet. Libertarianism (overview) would be a WP:POV fork- as I pointed out a while back when AnonIPs were busy saying the same thing over and over and over again.
Comments not just on what BigKHex wrote in the lead but in general, which I think is supported by WP:RS I've already found, many have not gotten around to sharing as I will show again in lead which will be improved from last one which was quickly gutted and I didn't correct/add to for various reasons:
  • Lead should start with more of a definition from wp:rs, especially liberty of thought and action should be in there.
  • WP:RS that say there are a wide variety of forms of libertarianism and what they are should come next.
  • Minimal state vs. anarchist should logically be next because the main issue in most peoples's mind is the power and the existence of a state as being against liberty.
  • Then teased out can be the difference between left anarchism and anarcho-capitalism/market anarchism.
  • Issues there should, but may not always have, WP:RS are: is libertarian municipalism really bottom up local statism? would libertarian socialists actually operate a free market, whatever the status of property was? can anarcho-capitalists have voluntary socialist/communal enterprises? how do libertarian socialists get rid of all property without using organized violence known as criminal gangs or the state? libertarian decentralism as alternative to minarchism/anarchism, since it allows both in different communities. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I would agree that more elaboration on the minachism/anarchism groupings would be useful. I actually didn't see much in the sources that I could use to support such material though. It's good if you have the needed sourcing. A lot of sources just seem to presume a connection between libertarianism and minarchism, without directly addressing the details. BigK HeX (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Citation for broad usage

I'm still not sure that the sources support the use of the term "libertarianism" to encompass both right and left libertarianism. In this section we will examine each of the sources claimed to do so in the following reference from the introduction.

For examples of philosophical literature describing the left/right variations of libertarianism, see:

  • Bevir, Mark. Encyclopedia of Political Theory. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications, 2010. page 811;
  • Vallentyne, Peter (September 5, 2002). "Libertarianism". In Edward N. Zalta (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2009 ed.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Retrieved March 5, 2010. in addition to the better-known version of libertarianism—right-libertarianism—there is also a version known as 'left-libertarianism' {{cite encyclopedia}}: Check date values in: |year= / |date= mismatch (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help);
  • Christiano, Thomas, and John P. Christman. Contemporary Debates in Political Philosophy. Contemporary debates in philosophy, 11. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. page 121;
  • Lawrence C. Becker, Charlotte B. Becker. Encyclopedia of ethics, Volume 3 Encyclopedia of Ethics, Charlotte B. Becker, ISBN , page 1562;
  • Paul, Ellen F. Liberalism: Old and New. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007. page 187; and
  • Sapon, Vladimir; Robino, Sam (2010). "Right and Left Wings in Libertarianism". Canadian Social Science. 5 (6).

To be continued. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

And excellent start and better sourcing on this concept than you'll find on most. And more can be found. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

darkstar1st's latest edit

Edit [3]. User:Darkstar1st changed Some writers believe most libertarians share an opposition to equality, solidarity, and social responsibility.[1] to Most libertarians oppose equality, solidarity, and social responsibility.[1] and wrote "removed wordy redundant text" as the edit summary.

I've reported the incident at WP:WQA, [4]. N6n (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

the source used the word "most" Darkstar1st (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Just one writer is required to make the first statement valid.N6n (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
ok, so it should read, "libertarians oppose equality,..."? Darkstar1st (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Frankly anyway you put it the information is not notable enough in either content or sourcing to be ANYWHERE in the article, not to mention the lead. They don't have an sources for a throw away opinion. They are hardly experts on libertarianism. And they aren't even a very good source for the Factoid that many libertarians are anarchists. At some point I will overcome my disgust with the way things have gone here and clean it up. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm curious. Exactly which part of the text do you find to be objectionable? ...equality? ...solidarity? ...social responsibility? BigK HeX (talk)
understood, i will remove all material from this source, apologies. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
The writers appear to be discussing neoliberalism, not libertarianism, which is descriptive of all Western governments since the mid-1970s. TFD (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Seems neoliberalism and (Chicago School) libertarianism are not exactly unrelated topics. BigK HeX (talk) 17:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Broke down and found couple better sources. Plus removing excess verbiage. More to come. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:PROVEIT#cite_note-0 if you only have a page number but no direct link you must quote from the source if challenged, preferably in the footnote. Therefore I challenge everything in the lead that does not have such a link. Please provide text supporting references say what allegedly say or they will be removed. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I cleaned up the first paragraphs into a leaner, better referenced one. Paragraphs two and three are needlessly wordy and redundant and some of that material belongs further down. But that's what I'm doing for today. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
"According to Wikipedia:PROVEIT#cite_note-0 if you only have a page number but no direct link you must quote from the source if challenged" ... (somewhat ironically) I'd like to see a copy-and-paste quote of this policy that you're invoking here, if you don't mind please. BigK HeX (talk) 20:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Didn't you click the link? It's all there. —Torchiest talk/contribs 21:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
There's nothing in that link mentioning anything an editor "must" do "or else". BigK HeX (talk) 05:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Your leaner version looks pretty nice, Carol. Thanks. BigK HeX (talk) 20:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. The current lead would have the reader believe that Libertarians are evenly divided among the various mutually exclusive ideologies. However, according to a reliable source..."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." The reliable source offers...
* robust property rights
* limited government
* economic liberty (aka capitalism)
...as examples of what unites us. --Xerographica (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
This is just the beginning. And I think the WP:RS info that has been deleted but hopefully exists further down in article about free market libertarianism being the better known world wide does have to be reinserted, but there's only so much one can do in one day if one is actually editing. Of course, this is like the fourth time I've had to do it, mostly because some people came in wanting to kick out all lefties and anarchists and they responded by kicking out free market stuff in the lead. POV editing leads to POV editing as I've been warning but I'm about to let you guys just have at it cause I'm fed up~ CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
@Carol: "Free-market libertarianism better known" and "libertarian socialism ('anarchism') better known" worldwide, are both mentioned in the Etymology section. The last edit there is mine, [5]. N6n (talk) 04:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st's 7 reverts today

Per WP:Edit warring. He should be reported because this is an extension of problems he had earlier. I'm reporting it here because I can't remember if it was a WP:ANI or what against him before and maybe someone else does and can take care of it. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

carol, my edits are from your source, same paragraph. if you report me, at least remove the source. line 10 page 401 of your source A companion to American thought By Richard Wightman Fox, James T. Kloppenberg reads: "definition of libertarian..., political meaning is not distinguished from liberalism generally" line 10, page 401, the very same material you added earlier today. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
While I mistakenly counted a couple of (annoying) additions of material as reverts, I just counted in the twenty four hours since your last edit and found FIVE reverts at: 19:17, August 3, 2010 - 18:54, August 3, 2010 - 18:54, August 3, 2010 - 9:57, August 3, 2010 - 12:40, August 3, 2010. This is your last warning. Getting these diffs together will easy now that we've established which ones are which. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Carol did you confuse the history and user from another page? i have made no edits, reverts, or anything during the times you listed not only have i not made any, but no one has during the times you listed? concerning my "annoying additions", if they do not belong why don't you revert them? i fail to see how using material from your source, same paragraph would annoy you? Darkstar1st (talk) 20:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Carol, would you consider a retraction of this section and your accusation here? none of the times on that day, or any day here have an edit by anyone, much less 7, or 5 by me? Darkstar1st (talk) 05:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


Retract what? You were certainly edit warring.

  1. (cur | prev) 23:17, 3 August 2010 Darkstar1st (talk | contribs) (68,030 bytes) (Undid revision 377023973 by Lawrencekhoo (talk)please discuss before removing wp:rs. this is from the same paragraph.) (undo)
  2. (cur | prev) 22:54, 3 August 2010 Darkstar1st (talk | contribs) (68,030 bytes) (Undid revision 377020432 by BigK HeX (talk)vague, au contrare, rather direct imho. unattributed? i gave you the page and line) (undo)
  3. (cur | prev) 22:28, 3 August 2010 Darkstar1st (talk | contribs) (68,030 bytes) (more from same source/page/paragraph. line 10) (undo)
  4. (cur | prev) 22:08, 3 August 2010 Darkstar1st (talk | contribs) (67,985 bytes) (adding more from same source, same paragraph) (undo)
  5. (cur | prev) 22:04, 3 August 2010 Darkstar1st (talk | contribs) (67,936 bytes) (adding anarchist socialist from the same sentence of source) (undo)
  6. (cur | prev) 19:16, 3 August 2010 Darkstar1st (talk | contribs) (67,021 bytes) (opinion of writer) (undo)
  7. (cur | prev) 17:24, 3 August 2010 Darkstar1st (talk | contribs) (66,878 bytes) (undo)
  8. (cur | prev) 17:22, 3 August 2010 Darkstar1st (talk | contribs) (66,870 bytes) (removing "Neoliberalism: A Very Short Introduction" as a source per discussion, "they aren't even a very good source for the Factoid that many libertarians are anarchists.") (undo)
  9. (cur | prev) 16:55, 3 August 2010 BigK HeX (talk | contribs) (67,271 bytes) (Undid revision 376962913 by Darkstar1st (talk) rv POV pushing, WP:POINT edit) (undo)
  10. (cur | prev) 16:40, 3 August 2010 Darkstar1st (talk | contribs) (67,302 bytes) (some writers believe) (undo)
  11. (cur | prev) 13:57, 3 August 2010 Darkstar1st (talk | contribs) m (67,234 bytes) (removed wordy redundant text) (undo)

You were just lucky you didn't get blocked. BigK HeX (talk) 06:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

notice how none of the times she mentioned contained an edit/revert by me, simply inaccurate. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Edits to A companion to American thought material

The three latest edits ([6], [7], [8]) can be taken as 'good faith', imho. @Darkstar1st: the two statements: "some libertarians are Christian fundamentalists" and "all Libertarians are Liberal" belong to different classes. When you say some you only need to show one to prove your case (and go to sleep); when you say all even one can invalidate it. Saying "all Libertarians are Liberal" is simply outrageous. At most, you should have said: "Some writers claim that all Libertarians are Liberal."
I can show at least one 'Libertarian' who is not a 'Liberal', check the comment titled "Irrelevant comment:" on [9] (archived WP page).
However, even though it be good-faith, your edits are wasting everyone's time. (or at least my time) N6n (talk) 06:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
i apologize for wasting your and everyone's time n6n. my intent is to add material from the same source. i have said what the source said, which was clear about all, not some, libertarians are liberal. if you feel the source is dubious, i am willing to remove the passage, as well as other passages from the same source, same paragraph. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Apparently, you fail to understand that oftentimes when people are complaining that it is not necessarily the source that's the problem. Rather it has often been your use of the source that has been objectionable. BigK HeX (talk) 06:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
ok, is there a way a can "use" the material from the same paragraph/source used previously in the article? i copied the exact text above, which i changed to avoid past complaints. how would you word it, or is the material unfit for this article? Darkstar1st (talk) 06:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I can assume what the source means by "liberal", but I'd have to read it to be sure. If it does mean what I think, I'd guess it can be used somewhere in the article. Though, whatever it means, I don't think I'd put it in the lede. BigK HeX (talk) 07:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
the source is linked, perhaps you would read it and undo the delete you made? if it does not belong in the lede, does other material from the same paragraph belong in the lede? Darkstar1st (talk) 07:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I didn't find the statement "all Libertarians are Liberal" in the quoted source, [10]. Can you quote the exact statement (and its line number)? Thanks. N6n (talk) 11:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
The term 'liberal' doesn't occur on the page. The term 'liberalism' in relation to Libertarianism occurs thrice. The first use says that Liberalism and Anarchism are closely related to Libertarianism. Second that Libertarianism's "political meaning is not distinguished from Liberalism generally." Third that "Libertarianism is best understood as extreme Liberalism."
Darkstar1st wrote "All Libertarians are Liberals, politically." Perhaps this too is good-faith. Darkstar1st doesn't know how sharply political terms are delineated. (I learnt it first when I read that "Marx was not Marxist enough.")N6n (talk) 12:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

<backdent> I was hoping we could use the more obviously true material and ignore the more opinionated questionable material, plus every nuance of what they said, but that was a pipe dream. They definitely don't say "all libertarians are liberals." They do say: "Even more than its close relations, liberalism and anarchism, libertarianism defies tidy analysis." And then somewhat contradict themselves when they say "the secondary political meaning is not distinquished from liberalism generally." And "It remains in fact obscure where the boundaries lie that distinquish libertarian thought from its nearest competitors." I bold the 'S' because this shows that twice anarchism and liberalism are compared, where only once liberalism is. So IF people want to summarize what they say, and obviously more summary is wanted, it MUST include their comparing libertarianism to BOTH anarchism and liberalism. If no one else comes up with satisfactory two sentence summary, I'll try later. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Self correction on reading N5N above. Extreme liberalism is mentioned. So it still means their comparing to both anarchism and liberalism must be in summary, plus the property rights anti-property reference. (And I should do new search on those terms and libertarians to see if some other source pops up linking use of the prperty-related phrases and libertarianism.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Would it be better to word it, "Libertarianism is indistinguishable fro anarchy and liberalism"? Or simply "Most libertarians are practicing liberalism"? however it is worded, does not matter to me. concerning good faith, please show me an edit of mine which a is not currently part of top page of the article, or made in bad faith.(besides the current a libertarians are liberals) Darkstar1st (talk) 17:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think it's necessary to take every assertion we perceive from entire books to stuff them into the lede. It seems CarolMooreDC and N6n are looking into it and I'm sure they'll help clarify the material. BigK HeX (talk) 17:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
iHave you read the book? the paragraph in which the "assertion" i found was in the sentence before the other material in the lede. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
If a person thinks the proximity of the assertions in a source is a great reason to make sure they are all in the lede ... a person could take that sort of thinking as yet another indication of that person's problematic approach to Wikipedia editing and a hint of why Ban Requests have been made. BigK HeX (talk) 00:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
a person could take that sort of thinking as yet another indication of that person's problematic approach to Wikipedia editing and a hint of why Ban Requests have been made.so you have not read the book? Darkstar1st (talk) 04:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
"Some Libertarians are Christian fundamentalists" also makes little sense. It is like saying "some Libertarians are gays". The correct relationship would be, "some Christian fundamentalists claim that their creed is Libertarian". The sentence in the source reads: "Among contemporary libertarians we find ... Christian fundamentalists". My two cents. N6n (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
very little of what is in the source makes sense to anyone besides the part about anarchist, which is the lone passage from the source that has been allow to stay. i have tried, unsuccessfully, to add material several other passages from the same paragraph. If you do not think the source is qualified to designate some libertarians as religious fundamentalist, or liberals, why are we keeping the part about anarchist. if you do not like the way i word something, please rewrite it instead of deleting it without citing a legitimate reason. if you feel the source is not wp:rs, then let's remove it entirely. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

"Forms of libertarianism" section

  • Forms/types of libertarianism is a standard summary technique on wikipedia. It's more ambiguous to say "related ideologies." That might mean, related like any other political ideology is related; related to but not part of libertarianism (like liberalism); related in being a subsection of libertarianism. Just not clear. It's new material like this that must be explained.
  • As for Libertarian views vary in respect to how much state will survive in a libertarian society and how much private property should be held by individuals and groups. This is merely a summary of material all through the article and has been there for a number of months without controversy. (The newer sentence I left deleted was a little more detailed and debatable than necessary for the intro, so I agreed with other editor to leave it out.) Your edit summaries "private property is not owned by an individual? the statement contradicts itself." and "all private property is owned by individuals or groups, redistribution is authoritarian" are just POV ideological statements. I won't bother to revert it since the general intro good enough for now. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
    I did a slight touch up on that sentence. I think it's clearer now. —Torchiest talk/contribs 17:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I think the current wording from CarolMoore and Torchiest is a clean summary of the contents. I also agree that comments like "redistribution is authoritarian" are rather telling. BigK HeX (talk) 19:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
How can redistribution of wealth not be authoritarian? That is, if not an authority, what causes the redistribution? Voluntary transfer of wealth is not redistribution, by definition. The transfer of wealth has to be forced by an authority in order to be redistribution - otherwise it's not redistribution. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
There is no law that says "redistribution of wealth" is always coercive. Did those 40 millionaire who just agreed to give half of theirs to charity after their deaths do it because they were forced to? Of course not. Stop thinking in such simplistic, rigid terms. It leads to rigid editing which tends to be non-cooperative. THanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
. What reliable source where uses the the term "redistribution of wealth" to include transfers of wealth made voluntarily? --Born2cycle (talk) 15:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Before asking such questions, one should always check Books.Google for their results or Scholar.Google for their results. You'll find lots. I'm not saying that concept necessarily has to be in the article, but the concept of voluntary as being inherent to libertarianism does. Yet another search that needs to be done when I get around to turning on my own computer after deal with aftermath of flood in basement. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Carol, you're making my point. I'm saying "voluntary distribution of wealth" is to "distribution of wealth" like "dry ice" is to "ice". Yes, like "dry ice", "voluntary distribution of wealth" is a valid concept, but "ice" (without qualifier "dry") is generally not used to refer to "dry ice", just like "distribution of wealth" is generally not used to refer to "voluntary distribution of wealth". Without "dry", "ice" refers to frozen water; without "involuntary", "distribution of wealth" refers to wealth that is distributed involuntarily.

What I'm asking for is a use of "distribution of wealth" (not '"voluntary distribution of wealth") in a context that means, or at least includes, voluntary distribution of wealth. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

<backdent> The problem is we are getting into generalities when we should talk about the two uses of the term in the article. Neither specifies whether we are talking about governmental or voluntary "redistribution" and at least one doesn't have a link so we can check. Do you want to do it? SHould I. Any other takers to clarify the points? CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the detailed exposition of the redistributive concepts of left-libertarianism are best left for the Left libertarianism wiki article.... although that article seems to consist of very little of the major concepts of left-libertarianism at the moment. BigK HeX (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
correction, i meant to say forced redistribution is authoritarian, but wasn't that what we were talking about in respect to "left"? Darkstar1st (talk) 16:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
We're supposed to tell you what you mean? You were the one complaining about redistribution in left-libertarianism. Whether you're complaining about it because it is "forced" ... that'd be for you to say. BigK HeX (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
i meant to point out redistribution is authoritarian, which is opposite of libertarian. my question is which redistribution of the last 50, 25, or even 5 years did you support, in action or thought? Darkstar1st (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Soapbox section

I explained the logic here...Talk:Libertarianism#Forms_vs_Ideologies. Obviously you didn't read it or you wouldn't have created a redundant section. Then again, creating redundant sections does seems to be your favorite thing. If the ideologies aren't related then what's the logic in talking about them on the same page? The point is that they aren't related. You want to keep the phrase "Forms of Libertarianism" as your justification for talking about them on this page. However, there is absolutely no evidence that supports referring to them as such...or else you would have provided it.
This article is on the political ideology of Libertarianism. If it was on Left-Libertarianism it would have the word "LEFT" in front of it. If the article was on "Anarcho-capitalism" then the title of this article would be "Anarcho-capitalism". If it barks it's not a cat and if it meows it's not a dog. If it's half cat and half dog then it's something completely different. People who want to get rid of the state but support capitalism are Anarcho-capitalists...not Anarchists... and definitely not Libertarians. People who want to get rid of everything are either Anarchists or Left-Libertarians...not Libertarians. Each of those ideologies already has a unique word that effectively communicates their goals and methods.
Libertarianism is the word that is commonly used to communicate a support of free-market principles, individual freedoms, private property and downsizing government. If that's not the ideology that somebody had in mind then they can see the disambiguation page.
The distinction between the various ideologies is very clear yet because you are unable to differentiate between Tribalism and Libertarianism you wish to blur the lines so that neither can anybody else. You've gotten away with this nonsense for far too long now. As I've said before, what you're doing is the worst kind of vandalizing because it's not immediately recognizable as vandalization. --Xerographica (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Xero, have you looked at the citations listed in the section above this one? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Articles on ideologies should be divided by their goals and methods. A broad usage of Libertarianism is as useless as a broad usage of Liberalism. According to a broad usage of Liberalism we are all liberals...yet none of us refer to ourselves as liberals. Why not? Well...because the term liberalism has been appropriated by the Democrats in much the same way that the term Libertarianism has been appropriated by the Libertarian Party.
You can't look through academic sources and say...oh look, here is the word "liberalism", the author must be talking about what the Democratic Party believes in. It's all about context. My Chinese is terrible but when I'm at a Chinese restaurant and I order "qiezi" the waiter knows I'm ordering eggplant and not shoes. Any waiter who can't tell based on context whether somebody is ordering eggplants or shoes should be fired just like any editor should be fired if they can't tell based on context whether the word "Libertarianism" is referring to Libertarianism or Anarcho-capitalism...or Left-Libertarianism...or Anarchism. Especially since I provided this super simple source cheat sheet... Talk:Libertarianism#Reliable_vs_Relevant_Sources. --Xerographica (talk) 23:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Anyone else notice how User:Xerographica conspicuously avoided talking about how reliable sources are using the term? Or did anyone notice how he pleads for editors to accept his WP:OR? BigK HeX (talk) 01:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Anyone else notice how User:BigK HeX conspicuously avoids grasping the obvious? Is it intentional or was he one of those kids that thought if he pounded hard enough he would be able to fit the square block into the circle space? The issue is not reliable sources...the issue is relevant sources. Libertarianism is a distinct political ideology that does not contradict itself. If somebody says Libertarianism does not support capitalism or private property then they are not talking about Libertarianism...they are talking about a distinctly different political ideology called Left-libertarianism. If somebody says that Libertarianism wants to abolish the state then they are not talking about Libertarianism...they are talking about a distinctly different political ideology called Anarcho-capitalism.
Just like with that block game...Wikipedia articles should be on a single topic. The topic of this article is Libertarianism...not Left-Libertarianism or Anarcho-capitalism. Those notable political ideologies already have their own dedicated articles. --Xerographica (talk) 21:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for lecturing us on The WP:TRUTH. I feel the smarterness sinking in! Please do write one more long-winded bit of WP:OR that fails to address even a citation given, so that my Enlightenment may be complete! What would Wikipedia do without such a valiant Defender of Truth such as yourself. Indeed

Obviously, The Truth needs defenders. These noble souls, who fly in the face of "consensus" and "verifiability", refuse to kneel to the power of disagreement, knowing that in the end The Truth will prevail. The best Defenders of The Truth will repeatedly make the same argument that The Truth is correct, hoping some will come to find the error of their ways and repent to support The Truth. After a couple days of doing this, enough people should have converted to The Truth that there is no question it will stay. This is the ideal situation for The Truth.

If only everyone were so committed to righting this Great Wrong! BigK HeX (talk) 03:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
left-libertarian sources are valid, but belong in the left-libertarian article, not here. ex socialism does not include Libertarian socialism despite the vast wealth of wk:rs on the topic, both co-op the term socialism, yet not welcome in both articles. several wp:rs could explain the difference between communism and socialism, thus communism is not welcome there either. being both left and right. pro and anti, state and non state, is the definition of ambiguity, not libertarian, socialist, anarchy, or any of the other terms that happen to appear in the same book as libertarian. the focus should be the current understanding of the term by the most people, not an effort to redefine, or reclaim older understandings of the term. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations! By invoking the Socialism article, you've successfully managed to pick an example that pretty clearly accepts inclusion of text regarding "libertarian socialism" (and even includes text about "libertarian socialism" in versions of the article as far back as Jan 2004.. lol grrrreat example!)
But thanks for providing even more evidence for inclusion for this Libertarianism article. BigK HeX (talk) 06:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
actually there are no sourced references to libertarianism on that page. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Which is wholly irrelevant to the fact that you've put your foot in your mouth. The bottom line is that editors accept text of "libertarian socialism" in the Socialism article, quite contrary to the ignorant claim that you made about the Socialism article. BigK HeX (talk) 17:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
legitimate editors on any article in wp require sources. It will be deleted unless verification is provided. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
lol ... that's fine. That won't change a single thing about the sourced "Libertarian Socialism" text remaining in this Libertarianism article. BigK HeX (talk) 19:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Individualism vs. Collectivism

There are alot of references on this libertarianism page that associate libertarianism with socialism or some other such -ism. If I'm not mistaken, libertarianism is based on individual freedom first, right? The anarchists have a better argument than the socialists---however, libertarianism doesn't seem to advocate the destruction of the government...but anyway. I'm not encouraging action, just pointing out some curious anomalies in the theory here.68.59.4.188 (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

agree even thought some sources exist co-oping seemingly opposite terms, it belongs on the disambiguation page if at all, not here. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I thought anonIps were banned from talk, but I guess not. Given all the nonsense that has gone one here from them, I don't think we should take them too seriously. However, in general this does remind us that we need to include the concept of VOLUNTARY in the definition of libertarianism and it won't be hard to find sources that do. This is the main reason some of us don't worry too much about concepts like individualism and collectivism, because different personalities prefer different lifestyles, and as long as no one is forcing them to choose and they voluntarily enter into the community of their choice, it's all libertarian. Got it Anon Ips and others?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
We must be guided by sources not individual editors' views of the subject. A political philosophy may have different variants but will have core beliefs, in this case the main one being individual freedom. Where they disagree is over what constitutes freedom. TFD (talk) 22:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
but all political philosophy differs over what constitutes freedom, this page has only incorporated about half of known political philosophy. all of the editors here think left-libertarian, socialism, geo, anarcho, transhuman are valid, useful philosophy. are argument is over how much should be included here vrs the disambiguation page, where similar terms are welcome. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Of the movements that call themselves "libertarian" today, I'm unaware of any that are collectivist as opposed to individualist. Left-libertarianism is broadly overlapping with individualist anarchism, while right-libertarianism draws in the anarcho-capitalist, minarchist or Jeffersonian, and libertarian-populist sectors.

For one analysis of the various factions under the libertarian rubric, see Roderick Long's "Toward a Libertarian Theory of Class". Long discusses capitalist, anti-capitalist, and populist factions all of which have some agreement and some differences with one another. (The best exemplar of the populist faction today might be the anti-statist tendencies of the Tea Party.) Long attempts to find common ground among these, discusses their criticisms of one another, and identifies steps toward political alliance.

One of the major discrepancies between left and right is the meaning of the word "capitalism". When a left-libertarian calls herself anti-capitalist, she does not mean opposition to the free market, but rather to actually-existing capitalism, with its entanglement of business and the state (or Plutocracy and Stateocracy, in Long's terminology). Similarly, when a right-libertarian calls herself capitalist, she does not mean that she supports corporations running rampant over individual rights. But those misconceptions are common among the other group. --FOo (talk) 06:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd guess left-libertarians do also oppose corporatism [your "Stateocracy"], but I'm fairly sure many of them also oppose idealized capitalism.Chomsky, Noam; Peregrín Otero, Carlos (Sep 2003). "Introduction to Chomskys Social Theory by Carlos Peregrin Otero". Radical priorities. AK Press You seem to conflate "capitalism" with a "free market", which is probably very justifiable in a great many number of cases, but I think left-libs would see important distinctions in those two concepts. BigK HeX (talk) 06:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Darkstar1st, while different political philsosphies may differ over what constitutes freedom, only liberals and libertarians see freedom as the primary belief. TFD (talk) 13:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
@tfd, good point. what philosophy would you say freedom is not the primary belief? communism, socialism, authoritarianism? Darkstar1st (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
The primary goal of socialism (and communism) is equality. Authoritarianism is not a philosophy. TFD (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
ok, i think are closer in thought than i realized. socialist are most concerned with every one being equal, libertarians are most concerned with the freedom, agreed. perhaps being equal and free at the same time is impossible? Darkstar1st (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
That is a major problem in political science. It is possible however to have neither freedom nor equality. TFD (talk) 15:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference neolib was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Libertarianism/Archive_17&oldid=777313188"