Talk:Libertarianism/Archive 34

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30 ← Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 → Archive 40

Fixed WP:OR lumped in refs

At this diff I separated what individuals actually said as opposed to this blanket statement which is really WP:OR that sounds like a lot of people say it. (Which they may but no one says that.) Should have done it a long time ago, but have been having a re-education in WP:OR lately. Will soon do same with what others say about libertarianism that doesn't use adjectives :-). CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 00:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Addition of two top level tags

Someone added and re-added two top level tags. I think that their complaint is opposite to the tags. This article covers all strands of libertarianism, and they want it to focus on their preferred stands and declare others (e.g. US strands) as not being libertarianism. North8000 (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Tags and all, this is a repeat of what has happened before. Someone from one or the other end of the spectrum feels that the article should focus on their preferred strands, and consider it to be a problem (and tag it) with the article if it doesn't. North8000 (talk) 14:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

It's anonymous IP who put talk page section in wrong place - no it's another one. There are two today!!!
Obviously needs to study past archives linked above. Maybe we need a summary statement in a box on top of article saying something like:

This article is a work on progress. It covers all strands of libertarianism. Feel free to suggest new information referenced by WP:Reliable sources. Before starting new threads detailing problems with the focus of the article, please see the many different long discussions of this topic we have conducted in the Archives listed below.

Thoughts? And maybe add an FAQ which we request they read listing all the arguments from left and right (and even libertarians.) CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 15:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, both good ideas. North8000 (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I think we ought to get away from telling people to read through the archives. The point of consensus is to allow the evolution of the article; we don't want to be made impotent by the decisions of past editors, nor do we want to hold future editors hostage to the decisions of current editors. I think the FAQ is a great idea though. All we need to do is inform editors that the current consensus is to minimize anarchism because it already has an article under its common name, as well as present all views that have been characterized as libertarian by reliable sources. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Good points. Especially when taken as a whole. There are some legitimate reasons to say "look at the archives" more to say to recognize the work, debates and consensus that has has occurred, but not to lock it in stone. North8000 (talk) 23:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Actually, the removal of all the anarchism material happened more because when I went through every ref, I found so many had nothing about "libertarianism" at all and only mentioned various forms of anarchism. And of course there are all sorts of anarchisms, so it's not a matter of keeping them out as much as making sure they belong in (WP:undue allowing). Maybe something like ... (adding FAQ if someone creates one) 23:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)(By CarolMooreeDC)

Through a long evolution editors have agreed that this article will cover all strands of libertarianism identified by reliable sources. This article is a work-in-progress, so feel free to improve it by adding sourced information directly related to libertarianism. Feel free to search the archives below for specific topics or see the FAQ.

(By CarolMooreeDC)

My personal preference would be to make it more explicit. I think we ought to state that libertarianism is not only the traditional philosophy synonymous with anarchism, but the modern philosophy which has been referred to as classical liberalism as well, and that this article is to cover both of these meanings. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 05:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Technically, an excellent summary of the situation. (Except I don't have the expertise to know if the traditional philosophy = anarchism) Maybe in FAQ, but in article space I think that that presumes knowledge that we have yet to impart. For USA readers this means learning that liberalism doesn't mean liberalism and anarchism doesn't mean anarchism before they even start reading the article. [User:North8000] 10:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I must admit, I'm not sure what you mean when you say "liberalism doesn't mean liberalism and anarchism doesn't mean anarchism." Can you elaborate on this please? And, to expand on CarolMooreDC's proposed text (additions underlined):

Through a long evolution, editors have agreed that this article will cover all strands of libertarianism identified as such by reliable sources. This includes libertarianism as a synonym for anarchism, as well as the modern libertarianism popular in Western cultures. This article is a work-in-progress, so feel free to improve it by adding sourced information directly related to libertarianism. Feel free to search the archives below for specific topics or see the FAQ.

The FAQ can then ask whether anarchism and modern libertarianism are indeed libertarian, with affirming answers and the supporting sources. I'm not sure what else ought to be included in the FAQ at this time. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't mind the addition.However, since many people won't get the fact that first section is somewhat of a historical reference (I didn't first time around) might help to tweak it to say "various forms of anarchism" since that is the case. Plus it avoids people assuming we're talking only about the kind they like or the kind they do not like. What Icon should we use?? See Category:Icons. (I have html to make it light tan if one knows how to make usual darker tan). CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 18:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
CarolMooreDC, that sounds like an excellent idea. As for icon, I was looking at the Help icons and kinda like the "Help-browser.svg" icon and any color of the "Emblem-question" icons. I guess I don't really care which icon we choose, so if anyone has a strong preference that's fine by me. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Answering Mr. Dub's question, to a typical American, an anarchist is someone who throws firebombs and advocates chaos, disruption, rioting, turbulence; disorganization, disintegration. Also when a motorcycle gang takes over a town. And a liberal is someone who advocates expansion of government and a more activist role for government. So a typical US reader who comes here will get educated on the international meanings of those terms. So I was advocating not trying to accomplish all of that in the hatnote. :-) North8000 (talk) 01:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

This notice is more for potential editors or commentators. If we put it at bottom under "American English" they probably won't even notice it - not to mention the general reader. However when the complaints start, we can just recommend they look at that. And the main complaint I've see is that there's too much anarchism of any kind or that there's not enough left anarchism. If it cuts the amount of debate in half, it's worth it! CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 04:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Any of the the above ideas would be OK with me. I was just trying to add thoughts. North8000 (talk) 09:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Thoughts! That's what get us humans in so much trouble. :-)
Icon-wise, standard help icons good. Even better, something denoting diversity: Four people icons in four subdued colors (also have some brighter ones); this one is colored lines like LGBT flag; this one is Five pens pointing towards center. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 04:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
The first two seem too associated with the organized labor and LGBT movements, respectively. I'm largely indifferent to the third one, so if you choose to run with that one, I have no real objections. However, if we could find something that was more indicative of liberty than diversity, I think that would be best, as the foremost principle of liberty is what makes us all libertarians in the first place. --Adam9389 (talk) 21:32, 15 June 2013
I do agree on LGBT; Coop one is more flexible since all libertarians for cooperation as opposed to coercion :-) (Though they often disagree on whether voluntary competition is a form of coercion or not.)
Commons Liberty icon search only brought up statues of liberty (too American) and other unrelated stuff. Searching liberty ends only with a Category:Lady Liberty, which looks like it's been manipulated some how, so I'm going to go to Village pump about it.
Actually we may have to make a Liberty one, but will look some more through the big listing. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 14:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

FAQ section

Before you folks get too involved with locating a suitable icon, it appears the FAQ template I just added already includes a question mark icon. Also, I've added some very basic questions with less-than-satisfactory answers on the FAQ page. I figured I'd get it started, and you lovely peoples can add to it. I'm not sure if references ought to be included, but I have done so at this time. I will expand on them further as I get time. Thanks! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that. North8000 (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm, I was thinking of a FAQ as a separate page to send people too. I think you may be opening too many cans of worms that editors will end up spending a lot of time debating. But whatever... (I did think a bird flying free might be a good icon by the way but won't look for one now.) CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 19:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
MisterDub said that it needs work. Maybe that includes paring or shorter answers (I think so) Feel free. I'm just happy that someone got it started. North8000 (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
OK, re-reading I do see he's more flexible (that others who have been driving me crazy lately ;-(. But I would cut it 50-75% because there's too much stuff likely to start debate than end it... I'll look at tomorrow... CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽

I thank MisterDub for getting this rolling and inviting changes. Regarding evolution of it, I think that it tries to get into two much depth in covering the topic which is the job of the article. Also in it's attempt to summarize American libertarianism it misfires a bit. Especially trying to see it through a philosophical lens rather and a "common meaning of the term" lens. My thought would be to focus more on the main re-occurring objections which I believe are essentially this:

  1. It misses the point. It should only cover and say that the true meaning of libertarianism is anarchism. As a minimum, the amount of coverage of anarchism should be expanded.
  2. (from USA folks) It misses the point. "Libertarianism" just means following a few tenets. Prioritizing increased freedom, and reduced power and size of government. Not only do the "libertarianism is anarchism" folks have it wrong, but even focusing on the USA folks with complex complete philosophies (e.g. on property, capitalism etc) are off on some philosophical tangent. The "complex, complete philosophies" is an incorrect European or philosopher lens.
  3. (from USA folks) Anarchism is about throwing firebombs in riots, motorcycle gangs taking over towns, and the violence that occurs when civilization has broken down. Libertarianism has NOTHING to do with that. What the heck is that doing in a libertarianism article? What has gone wrong here?

North8000 (talk) 00:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The answers to these are:

  • To #1. You are right that until recent decades, that was the almost sole meaning of the term But now the common meaning for the 200,000,000+ people in the USA who use the term is very different than that. We have decided to cover all significant strands and meanings of libertarianism, including BOTH of those. Also, since there is an Anarchism article, the main coverage is there and so we have decided to have slightly reduced coverage of anarchism in this article.
  • To #2. We are working towards covering what you just described better in the article. But, FYI, libertarianism means something very different historically and in much of the world outside of the USA. It's very interesting. Please read the article to find out about it.
  • To #3. Anarchism means something very different in much of the world outside of the USA. It's very interesting. Please read the article to find out about it.
  • To everybody. Through extensive processes over many years we have decided to acknowledge and cover the significant different meanings and strands of libertarianism. If you are seeking to limit it to one meaning, or to eliminate coverage of a significant meaning contrary to your own, please reconsider. North8000 (talk) 01:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  1. 1: I think today worldwide "libertarianism" - without some adjective like left or socialist or communist - does mean more a pro-property and free market view. Just search Category:Libertarianism and these types of groups and individuals have far more articles, including in many non-English speaking nations, than lefties do. Even Category:Left-libertarianism have people generally in favor of property rights, though they may have some ideological differences on when natural resources become owned, the preferred voluntary way of organizing work, etc. If those who used to call themselves only libertarians (and I don't even see that much evidence that they did so without some adjective) now insist on an adjective to distinguish themselves from more pro-property libertarians, that will become clear in the article, whatever a few WP:RS including chomsky may assert. In any case, I don't think we should be emphasizing it in a FAQ or statement. (Did a new search on "libertarianism" and "worldwide" and "global" and got some interesting stuff to add to list of things still haven't gotten around to dealing with. Latest thing is defending some libertarian BLPs from attacks from right wingers... sigh...) Geez, and I didn't even do a more expanded search on "modern libertarianism." :-) CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 04:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Whatever we decide, I think it's important to answer the common questions with well-explained justifications for why we are including these various ideologies. As we all know, the common questions revolve around the inclusion of anarchism and what we have in the article as modern libertarianism. I think we should use the FAQ to show the connection between these ideologies and the libertarian label as rationale for their continued inclusion in this article. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 05:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
You two have a far better understanding than I do regarding what libertarianism means outside of the US. My answers in that area were just essentially going by what MisterDub wrote. North8000 (talk) 11:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Per conversations above, I plan to work on /suggest we work on paring/refining the FAQ section. The general direction would be to make it more focused on the recurring questions, shorter, and a little less general information article-type material. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reminder. I concur. Just pretty annoyed at wikipedia lately and been doing only easiest of maintenance editing. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 12:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
OK, give that there's been another outbreak of discussion, and that the current FAQ addressed more content conclusions than policy issues, I rewrote it to emphasize policy. (I'll ask below if that clarified matters.) I got a couple content things in there as well. Let's try to discuss any big changes first, as a couple of us mentioned our disagreements above, even if it took a couple weeks to get around to doing anything. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 17:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Section "modern Libertarianism"

I propose we deal with the problem with the section on this article called "Modern libertarianism" which is the most US centric thing that one can imagine until the last paragraph if one decides to call it that way. Anyone can end up implying by that title that only neoliberalism or "right libertarianism" is "modern" and other types of libertarianism are not and so here we don´t only have a big problem of US centrered bias but also a bias towards one kind of libertarianism over others.

A good solution to this problem I will think is changing the name of it to "right libertarianism in the United States" and then the US centrism of this section will be solved in a substantial form since we have a "left libertarianism" section also. Also adding in it a "main article" link to "libertarianism in the United States" will be good so those users interested in having a deeper look inside that particular political position which at some point in history decided to call itself "libertarian".--Eduen (talk) 08:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I think sections covering current libertarianism should be in the article. And "modern" is probably not a good word. And then cover current libertarianism (wherever that is, wherever that takes us) in those sections. We don't need to mis-label US libertarianism to do that. North8000 (talk) 10:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Modern was a phrase used by sources. Let's talk about what sources say. Also in the past when I wasn't paying attention someone removed more references about what is the best known type of libertarianism worldwide. What a way to celebrate Independence Day. I'll put them back in - and I have more. [Later note: a couple might have gotten back in the lead; will check more carefully.] Just have been distracted (and disgusted) by aggressive POV editing elsewhere.
Also, I haven't gone through newest sources to see if relevant to libertarianism, not to mention if reliable. Some look like they at least need verification with page numbers and quotes. Another problem: Libcom.org reprinting notable material is not a problem; libcom original self-published work is and should be removed. Also the last three sources in article were not working at all today, per my tags. Maybe try again tomorrow. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 14:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
The source is an article, "Libertarianism" in the Encyclopedia of Educational Reform and Dissent. There is no indication that it is the term usually used and significant that the authors are writing about the United States. It defines libertarianism as the principles which guided the English and American revolutions and 19th century classical liberalism. The authors appear to use the term "modern libertarianism" as a synonym for liberalism. That is the problem with using tertiary sources. Since there are no footnotes, we cannot tell what the authors meant, or whether their terminology is generally accepted. TFD (talk) 17:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
We could just call the section libertarianism today or recent libertarianism or libertarianism after 1950, none of which probably would need a ref since they'd be more generic and less value laden. (Though I still think those refs saying modern probably are usable somewhere.)
Again, a point no one has contested is that today we don't have lefties calling themselves "just" libertarians but always use a modifier like socialist or communist or left. (Even libertarians who are mostly pro-property but have a few nits regarding copyright, ownership of unsettled and/or unused land, water rights, etc. prefer to use "left" libertarian.) Whereas more pro-property libertarians in general do not use a descriptor. Those who use conservative for the most part mean more conservative values not government action to conserve them. And the ones that do mean government action usually get written out of the libertarian camp fairly quickly.
Anyway, what's needed is careful work and sourcing and less opinionated discussion :-) Just a quick peruse of lead convinces me we have to straighten that out with the libertarianism today section. Dealing with POV edit warriors elsewhere -or making the revolution in the real world :-) -allowing... CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 17:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

We should work at just making this article informative. The real content of those sections (and what should be an important part of the article) is very recent and present day libertarianism. We should cover anything that is significant in that respect (significant political parties, voting blocks, organizations, publications, think tanks, groups that self-indentify as such, philosophers/philosophies with significant current followings etc.) And then just find nice neutral section headers to put over the material. North8000 (talk) 14:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Every once in a while, I play in my sandbox trying to find a better way to organize this article. For the "Modern libertarianism" section, I think replacing modern with contemporary ought to do. I think we need a more thorough "Philosophy" section though. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Great name idea! North8000 (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Just noticed contemporary. The problem is it is a direct synonym of "modern" and at least modern has refs. (Just found a few more will put in at some point.) So I don't see how you or User: Euden can see any significant difference. It's really just WP:OR.
My suggestions - libertarianism today or recent libertarianism or libertarianism after 1950 - were more generic without being synonyms of modern. Any after posting that it occurred to me what we really need is a "libertarian resurgence" section under history that would go up to 2000ish and then a separate one on "modern". In any case, problem - assuming there is one - not solved. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 02:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Repeated paragraph

The opening section of the article contains a paragraph talking about classical liberalism (the last paragraph,) while the etymology section contains the same paragraph:

In the United States, where the meaning of liberalism has parted significantly from classical liberalism, classical liberalism has largely been renamed libertarianism and is associated with "economically conservative" and "socially liberal" political views (going by the common meanings of "conservative" and "liberal" in the United States),[25][26] along with a foreign policy of non-interventionism.[27][28]

I figure I'd leave the actual editing to someone who knows what they're doing. 68.97.202.205 (talk) 16:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

OKC, done. Eodcarl (talk) 16:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually I don't think it's a very good paragraph for either section. But won't think about it today... tomorrow is another day... CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 19:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

"Contemporary libertarianism"

I put back the banner on systemic bias on this section since only the title was changed.

As far as the following affirmation "Again, a point no one has contested is that today we don't have lefties calling themselves "just" libertarians but always use a modifier like socialist or communist or left." by user CarolMooreDC it is clear this user is not familiar with all the anarchists who in the rest of the world used "anarchist" and "libertarian" for themselves when self-describing themselves. I thought this was an old discussion but i have to bring it back again for this particular user. For this reason it it very hard to find a neoliberal or a conservative in places like Argentina, France, Spain and Italy also saying he is a "libertarian" since there self-description with "libertarian" (yes "libertarian" without hyphens or adjectives) means you will be associated by the general public with things like people using black flags, "chaos", placing bombs, murdering heads of state, squats, punk rock, the losing side in the Spanish Civil War, anarcho-syndicalism and things like that. But again i have to direct this user to the old explanation of this which i provided here as well as in other places.--Eduen (talk) 05:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

agree this article is too long and muddled. the modern english single form of the word should be the focus of the article leaving hyphenated and similar terms to their respective articles. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
What is the "modern English" meaning of the term and can you identify any books written about it? Or is it just a term like "fiscal conservative" that is more a dictionary definition? TFD (talk) 06:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
good point, i meant to say current english, for a def of modern english, follow the link. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I am perfectly aware of what you meant. Could you please reply to my question. TFD (talk) 07:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Libertarian ideology is particularly important in the USA but relatively unknown in other parts of the world.

In response to TDF question above: In its current meaning, the term 'libertarianism' is an American creation., page 156 Neoliberal Hegemony: A Global Critique, Routledge 2005 ISBN1134191006. much of the debate appears to be non-USA editors, who have maybe not even met an actual libertarian or even heard the word outside of school, wanting more of the previous European meaning present and US editors familiar with the term as is used by the 3rd largest US party, much like an English subjects would be knowledgeable about its 3rd party, UK Independence Party also libertarian, neither left, cut taxes and reducing federal governance, nor right Disband the Ministry of Defence...decriminalisation of drugs. In no way could either be described as socialist or anarchist. the vast majority of users seeking the term are seeking the current meaning, etymology has sufficiently covered previous European usage of the term. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Cutting taxes and reducing federal governance aren't leftist values?! And no, the "current" meaning doesn't exclude anarchism/socialism; the "free market" form of libertarianism is merely more popular in that region. This is why the title for "Modern libertarianism" or "Contemporary libertarianism" section is a major problem. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
according to the source, merely more popular would be a gross understatement, rather it is relatively unknown. where are these libertarians who are also socialist? which current libertarians have a socialist plank in their platform? Darkstar1st (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
We could re-title it along the lines of 'Libertarianism in North America'? (as Canadians seem to use "libertarian" in the same manner as Americans; see Canadian political parties and political organizations). Also, for sake of the debate, I want to re-iterate that a quick look-over of the list of libertarian parties not to mention other sources around the Web show that the free-market, individualist definition of libertarianism is not limited to North America, much less the United States itself. It may less common, but it is not unheard of, so let's stop pretending that minarchist libertarianism is a head-scratchingly alien concept the second you step even one foot out of U.S. jurisdiction. Furthermore, if nobody is going to address the points I raised above anytime soon, then I'll go ahead and drop the last paragraph of the intro down into Etymology where it belongs and re-work the part of the lead that I mentioned, as I have yet to face any objections. Adam9389 (talk) 16:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Adam9389, I'm not pretending that right-libertarianism is confined to the USA, but because this ideology originated in the US, it's a convenient way to characterize it. I've asked before for some leeway in referring to this ideology on the Talk pages (right-libertarianism, US libertarianism, propertarian libertarianism, limited government libertarianism, classical liberalism, etc.), as it has been hard to pin it down and still differentiate it from the libertarianism of European origin, which is conveniently associated with another popular term. Is there a word or phrase you folks would prefer we use in the Talk pages? I'm happy to adopt a less contentious phrasing if you'll let me know what that is.
As for you proposed change, I say go ahead. Thanks! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
limited government libertarianism, which libertarians do not believe this? it is an unnecessary qualifier, expanded government libertarians do not exist. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Darkstar1st, the difference I'm talking about is between those who want limited government and those who want no government. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
no such thing, people who don't want government, don't form political parties, hence no "anarchist party" Darkstar1st (talk) 18:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Except the sources speak otherwise. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
In the article, "free-market libertarianism," "capitalist libertarianism," "minimal-government libertarianism" (which is a less abstract turn of phrase than "limited gov't"), these are very clear-cut and any of them will work just fine. I don't agree with "right-libertarianism" because the majority of libertarians I've ever met don't identify as "left-wing" or "right-wing," so I kind of want to move away from those prefixes. I don't like "propertarian" because lay-readers who just happen across this page aren't going to know what you're talking about (same thing with "minarchist"). I also don't want to stuff it all under the term "neoliberalism" as liberalism has different connotations in the U.S. (and partially in Canada) and especially because neoliberalism generally has a more narrow definition and is used vastly predominantly in the context of economic policies and not as an over-arching political philosophy. Adam9389 (talk) 01:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Adam9389, thank you very much. I will make sure to use one of your suggestions for referencing this philosophy in the future. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Darkstar1st, your source is "Frontiers and dystopias: Libertarian ideology in science fiction" in Neoliberal Hegemony, pp. 156 ff.[1] It says "libertarianism" in the United States is not traditional libertarianism, but an extreme form of neoliberalism, then says that there is little literature about it. So I do not see what else we can do. The article correctly mentions this meaning of libertarianism not because it uses the same name but because it claims to draw on 19th century libertarianism. And of course we have a separate article about it - "right libertarianism." I think you are a little misty-eyed about UKIP. It is a right-wing populist party. There is nothing in their policies about drugs, other than saying they will crack down on drug crimes. And they plan to increase defense spending by 40%! Their Ministry of Defence plan is to cut bureaucratic waste. TFD (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
[2] The Party is a democratic, libertarian Party.... Darkstar1st (talk) 21:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
It self-describes itself as such. So what? There is nothing in the values it then enumerates as libertarian and those espoused by any other party in the UK. TFD (talk) 21:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
either ukip are liars, or libertarian doesnt mean what you think it means. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't know what UKIP means by "libertarian", but they certainly do not mean an "ideology that promises not only less state but also a lot more sex, more drugs, and more rock'n'roll", as it was defined in the source, "Frontiers and dystopias Libertarian ideology in science fiction", which you just provided as your definition. Do US libertarians plan to double the number of prison places? Or improve government provided health care? Or crack down on drug crimes? Or improve welfare? TFD (talk) 23:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
you ask if there was a book, there is, you have yet to deny it is reliable, so we must rely on the sources. perhaps if i provide a 2nd source you will be satisfied, see below:

The Libertarian Idea

preface, page 3: But I do hope to have added a little to the case against claiming seriously that what socialist can plausibly defend socialism in the name of is liberty Jan Narveson, Broadview Press, 2001, ISBN1551114216 Darkstar1st (talk) 01:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not denying your source is reliable, merely rejecting that it describes UKIP. Your source btw says that the US ideology is "relatively unknown in other parts of the world." There is no reason to believe that UKIP means the same thing as the source. TFD (talk) 01:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

A concern and proposed change

I'm really not sure the recent changes to the intro's last paragraph are better than what we had previously. Was there consensus over this? With these new changes, the intro now has name-drops of five left-libertarians/libertarian socialists, including Roderick Long and Peter Vallentyne (this guy's quoted a lot across the Libertarianism portal for somebody who seems so obscure) whom we're essentially letting define libertarianism itself to anyone who drops by this page. One or two names/specific quotes is fine, but five-to-nothing (socialist v. capitalist) in the intro is starting to push it POV again. IMO, we should balance it out by removing the specific names and quotes and just use articulate summary based on the sources. The last paragraph is of particular concern to me: it seemed so much better the way it was before.

Also, I want to propose a minor change to the lead from "Libertarians advocate a society with a greatly reduced state or no state at all." to "Libertarians advocate a society with minimized government or no government at all." It syncs up just as well, if not better, with the sources which seem to use "government" more than "state." Also we have two immediate links to the two major ideas/factions within libertarianism. Foremost, I want to help give lay-readers a little more insight and clarity by communicating the concepts better without dumbing it down into vague abstraction.

Finally, is there any opposition to mentioning the non-aggression principle in the lead? It just seems warranted as it's such a key philosophical foundation for libertarianism and, as its own article shows, it can be justified under numerous different moral paradigms (natural rights, consequentialist, utilitarian, etc.). I don't see how even the anarchists and left-libertarians would reject it even if they may define non-aggression a little differently. Adam9389 (talk) 01:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

No objections. Eodcarl (talk) 01:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Just FYI, I can't recall any left-libertarians mentioning the NAP. Not that it shouldn't be in the lead, but there probably ought to be some kind of qualifying statement that this is more of a right-libertarian concept. 209.180.184.86 (talk) 02:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
That is a good point; The NAP is not really a part of libertarianism, even if some who self identify as libertarians have that as a tenet. Eodcarl (talk) 03:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Also, we could even drop the intro's last paragraph down into Etymology where it would seem to fit better. That's all that paragraph is about -- the term itself; it's already established in the above paragraphs that there are different factions. Thoughts? Carol and North, your opinions are also being solicited. I don't want to do anything until we have some form of consensus. Adam9389 (talk) 04:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
agree, non-aggression principle is primary to libertarianism and NAP doesn't fit here. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

General problem with this article

It seems to me one of the main problems we have here in this article is the fact of almost trying to propose here an explanation of a very coherent "movement" called "libertarianism" when in fact we are dealing with very wide and in many cases unrelated phenomenons as different and politically opposed as libertarian communism and the views of US right wing economist Murray Rothbard. Things as unrelated and opposing as these will only see each other as political enemies and not in a very different way than say liberals and fascists or maoists and conservatives. So for this i propose we state this at the introduction. It is starting to seem to me that users in this discussion might be having a hard time dealing with the fact that laissez faire capitalism is associated everywhere (including in the United States itself) with the right wing and that as such those positions deserve very well the label "right libertarianism". And so I think US pro capitalist libertarianism has be dealt with the label "right wing libertarianism" since we are also dealing in this article with "left-libertarianism".--Eduen (talk) 05:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Very different political philosophies can share influences. TFD (talk) 05:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Eduen, I've already tried this, but was shot down because people don't self-identify as right-libertarian (forget the fact that we don't usually identify as left-libertarian or left-anarchist either). I really see no problem with it, as there is scholarly work detailing the differences, but the concern here is that we don't want to hurt people's feelers. One moniker right-libertarians do use for themselves is classical liberal, and I'm starting to think we should use the terms anarchist and classical liberal as headings for these differing ideologies.
Another problem with this article—and this might be the most pressing—is the lead has information that isn't repeated in the article. According to policy, "[t]he lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." We really shouldn't be changing the lead at all unless a change is made somewhere else in the article; and definitional information about libertarianism is currently absent from the body of the article (plus, libertarianism is mostly defined by right-libertarians in the lead's first paragraph!). I think the first section after "Etymology" really needs to have this information. If no one else gets to it first (or opposes this proposition), I will move the "Philosophy" section up to this spot and expand on it to include the definition. Then we can alter the lead to reflect the article. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I think that the first sentence of the lead covers common tenets of the various strands of libertarianism
  • We've basically left it to the "left libertarian" editors to decide whether or not "left libertarian" is an OK moniker or not. In fact, I think that they are the ones who have been using the term in the article an writing the sections that use it.
  • I'm all for using those clearer terms (e.g. classical liberal, anarchist) AFTER they are explained, and explaining them is VERY important. Since "liberal" and "anarchist" have very different meanings for our readers depending on where they live. North8000 (talk) 16:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
What the Wall Street bombing of 1920 shows is that anarchism and laissez faire capitalism are as contradictory as leninism and laissez faire capitalism. I suggest an introduction such as follows:

"Libertarianism and Libertarian are adjectives and names used historically and in contemporary times by very diverse political positions often highly contradictory between each other. Nevertheless there can be identified mainly two types of political philosophies which associate themselves with these terms: libertarian socialism and right libertarianism.

Libertarian socialism (sometimes called social anarchism[1][2] or left-libertarianism)[3][4] is a group of political philosophies that promote a non-hierarchical, non-bureaucratic society without private property in the means of production. Libertarian socialists believe in converting present-day private productive property into common or public goods, while retaining respect for personal property.[5] Libertarian socialism is opposed to coercive forms of social organization. It promotes free association in place of government and opposes the social relations of capitalism, such as wage labor.Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). Libertarian socialists generally place their hopes in decentralized means of direct democracy such as libertarian municipalism, citizens' assemblies, trade unions, and workers' councils.[6] Political philosophies commonly described as libertarian socialist include most varieties of anarchism (especially anarchist communism, anarchist collectivism, anarcho-syndicalism,[7] and mutualism[8]) as well as autonomism, Communalism, participism, libertarian Marxist philosophies such as council communism and Luxemburgism,[9] and some versions of "utopian socialism"[10] and individualist anarchism.[11][12][13]

On the other hand Right-libertarianism is a term used by some political analysts, academics, and media sources mainly in the United States (see Libertarianism in the United States) to describe those libertarian political philosophies which, in addition to supporting self-ownership and limited government,[14] are supportive of strong private property rights and free-market capitalism, and thus contrast these views with left-wing views which do not support them. In most of the world this particular political position is mostly known as Economic liberalism, classical liberalism and many times as neoliberalism[15] and is mainly associated with right wing politics[16][17] support for free markets and private ownership of capital goods, and is usually contrasted with similar ideologies such as social liberalism and social democracy, which generally favor alternative forms of capitalism such as welfare capitalism, state capitalism or mixed economies.--Eduen (talk) 02:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Lots of good work there (the first two paragraphs are excellent and IMHO very useful to readers) but you misfired on common US libertarianism. North8000 (talk) 12:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I would suggest something like the following: Libertarianism is an ideology that emphasizes individual freedom. Historically, libertarians believed that this was to be achieved through social ownership of the means of production. However, in the U.S., a new variant emerged that held it was to be obtained through private ownership. While both variants are called libertarianism, scholars distinguish between them, sometimes calling them left and right libertarianism, or using other descriptions. There is dispute whether right libertarianism is a genuine form of libertarianism or merely an extreme form of neo-classical liberalism. In the United States, the term libertarianism is sometimes used as a synonym for traditional liberalism in order to avoid confusion with modern American liberalism. In its modern form, traditional liberalism is often referred to as neoliberalism, which is considered a variant of neoclassical liberalism. TFD (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
That sounds better. I think that we also must understand that there is a difference between the common meaning of libertarianism in the US (basically just prioritizing more freedom and less government, period) and fully developed philosophies which address things like private/social ownership of the means of productions (a common US libertarian would say the "private" is presumed and that such is not part of their libertarian philosophy) and how far to take the reduction of government (to zero/anarchy?), non-interventionism, etc. North8000 (talk) 17:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

"Libertarianism is an ideology that emphasizes individual freedom. Historically, libertarians believed that this was to be achieved through social ownership of the means of production. However, in the U.S., a new variant emerged that held it was to be obtained through private ownership."

Seems user TFD did not grasp my main point here which is that we seriously cannot speak in this article of, as he or she suggests "libertarianism is an ideology" since to put it simply anarchists and right wing liberals are political enemies in a strong sense mainly because of the issue of capitalism. He is forcing in a sense to a wide sector of people the same label and almost the same political views to people who frankly never collaborate and who at times have gone as far as trying to kill each other because of serious political dissagreement. This is the reason why i am proposing making the introduction more careful and modest as far as proposing there is a single thing that is called "libertarianism". On this i think we are almost in a sense deceiving readers of this article into thinking somewhere there is this "libertarian party" or something like that where anti-capitalist anarchists and capitalism loving liberals get along and collaborate and also that one will see there anarcho-punks and suit wearing yuppies fighting for the same cause, the cause of a "libertarianism". Also his suggestion of "the emergence of a "new variant" of libertarianism" in the US is almost a false affirmation since economic laissez faire capitalism as a political position exists at least since the 18th century (Adam Smith) and it was known and it is still known in the rest of the world as economic liberalism or neoliberalism or classical liberalism.--Eduen (talk) 06:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Good points. Except that I think you missed mine, probably because I didn't make it vary clearly. For a typical US libertarian, (i.e. in the zillions who's libertarian philosophy can be described in is one sentence) what you call "laissez faire capitalism" is considered to be the accepted norm (like breathing air) and not a part of their libertarian philosophy. So, I guess that a form of libertarianism that tacitly accepts such was new. (?)
I think that the 30,000' view is that libertarianism is a term covering a set of varying philosophies, and all of those philosophies have the same 2-3 tenets in common, namely prioritizing maximizing freedom and minimizing government. And yes, a Wikipedia article can cover a term, but in this case I think that it's a bit more than a term because the disparate libertarian philosophies are unified on at least 2-3 core points. North8000 (talk) 10:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Peter Marshall explains well the history of the term's application to various ideologies in Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism (pp. 641-2):


Honestly, I don't know how we could write it better, but this information ought to be paraphrased in the article somewhere. I'm still working on the "Philosophy" section, which is where I'm planning on putting this additional information (unless someone beats me to it). Libertarianism, as a philosophy, refers to agency and, in Ethics, the supreme authority the moral agent has over her self. This is why the term is associated with anarchists, and why we criticize capitalists and statists for using the term whilst surrendering their moral authority to external entities. I think I may actually have time to do some editing this weekend (and I finally got my books out of storage), so I'll add more information and sources at that time. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Nice selection! Looks like good material. Still has the limitations of a view that only recognizes fully developed philosophies (not mere common meanings) so I wouldn't call it an overarching summary, but it looks like good & informative material to work into the article. North8000 (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
MisterDub, on the same page, before your quote, Marshall writes, "More recently, Daniel Guerin has argued that anarchism is only one ot the streams of socialist thought and is really a synonym for socialism. But while this approach might help to rehabilitate anarchism amongst other socialists, it would inevitably exclude individualist anarchists like Max Stirner and Benjamin Tucker and modern anarcho-capitalists like Murray Rothbard." Taken together, the page is consistent with my description above, "in the U.S., a new variant emerged that held [individual freedom] was to be obtained through private ownership.... There is dispute whether [it] is a genuine form of libertarianism.... In the United States, the term libertarianism is sometimes used as a synonym for traditional liberalism...." TFD (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
TFD, yes, I thought your proposal was rather accurate, though I think it could use a bit of a copy edit. For example, I think the statement of whether capitalist libertarianism is "a genuine form" might be a bit one-sided, as they often lodge the same complaint against libertarian socialists. I'm honestly not too concerned about the lead at the moment, as I want to add a more robust "Philosophy" section from which the lead's summary statements can be derived; I feel this will make our job easier, and maybe get some of those unnecessary citations out of the lead. 209.180.184.86 (talk) 05:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Etymology/Meaning

The current third paragraph in the Etymology section reads like pro-libertarian propaganda, with the classical- vs modern liberalism issue stated as absolute fact rather than something from libertarian authors. Compare that paragraph vs the fourth which is composed to highlight that "Colin Ward writes... Noam Chomsky asserts..." and "Frank Fernandez asserts..." [emphasis added].

It also would seem that the meaning or interpretation of the term may be considered a separate issue from its etymology. The third and probably fourth paragraphs therein should be moved to another section or sections, such as the intro, Philosophy, or Contemporary Libertarianism, or maybe some newly created section.

I'm moving the third paragraph, as-is, despite it's "weaseliness," to Contemporary Libertarianism with the encouragement for its rewriting, leaving the fourth in that it does relate to the word's anarchy-related origins and I don't immediately see another suitable location for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.223.11.201 (talk) 00:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Ward's statement does not need in text citation, and although Chomsky's statement, which is taken from an interview and hence not a reliable source for facts, can only be reported with in text citation, it would make more sense to use a reliable source, such as Ward's book, to make the same point. The use of the term "classical liberalism" should be avoided because it has several meanings. Ironically, Menger is best known for his rejection of classical liberal orthodoxy - Smith and Ricardo's labor theory of value and Malthusianiam. TFD (talk) 01:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
The third and fourth paragraphs of the 'Etymology' section deal with the shifting meaning and usage of/debate over the term "libertarian". They are in precisely the right section. Regarding your contention of the writing (i.e., "Colin Ward writes... Noam Chomsky asserts..." and "Frank Fernandez asserts..." ), that is how Wikipedia articles are written with regards to the opinions of specific persons. It's proper journalistic format and it reinforces NPOV. Adam9389 (talk) 22:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Major NPOV problems in "contemporary libertarianism" section

First of all, why is it titled "contemporary libertarianism" if all that's presented is neoliberal / laissez faire capitalist ideology. Did libertarian communists somehow cease to exist in this era of "contemporary libertarianism"? I would like to see a source for the implied claim that socialism somehow vanished off the face of the earth. If the purpose of this section is just to outline contemporary developments in libertarian thought, then why does it repeatedly refer to the CATO/Rothbard/Mises/Hayek strain as "contemporary libertarianism"?

It seems that while it's fine to call the traditional sort "left libertarian", "right libertarian" is an objectionable label. Well, okay, fine. What do we call it? It's sharply in contrast with the other kind, so why not pick a name.

Secondly, the section goes on to matter-of-factly describe this as a resurrection of "classical liberal beliefs" while many libertarian scholars, (like Normand Baillargeon, Noam Chomsky and many others) have disputed this and described it as nearly a distant opposite. For example, see this bit from the documentary "L'encerclement - La démocratie dans les rets du néolibéralisme". Finx (talk) 13:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

We're just trying to make a good, informative, accurate balanced article. We need folks with expertise and sources (like YOU) to get there. (but you being a bit more open minded to other strands of libertarianism would be nice :-) ) Why not dial it back a notch and join us?
On terminology, I have strongly opposed the term "right libertarian" Mostly because it has so many meanings (and no consistent meaning) that it is worthless/confusing term. Secondly, thirdly and fourthly because in many places it is oxymoron, pejorative and nobody self-identifies by that term. The use or non-use of the term "left libertarian" has been left to "left libertarians" to decide and so far the result seems that they have retained it. North8000 (talk) 13:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I'm very open-minded about whatever-you-want-to-call-it libertarianism being thoroughly described and referenced in this article. If I come off as dismissive of it, it's spilling over from a different kind of frustration. I'm in no way suggesting it should somehow be removed on account of not being 'genuine libertarianism' -- as some have said about the left -- or anything like that. My personal views on it aside, I think it's one of the most interesting parts of the article. It's just that this is a minefield of POV problems and overreach, which I think is to be expected in an article grouping mortal ideological enemies under the umbrella of a single ideology. I don't think we should be playing a tug of war here, or leaving anything to "left libertarians" or "[insert-whatever-term] libertarians". Why not just write what can be backed up with sources and be consistent? I won't reject someone's opinion on what to call "left libertarianism" just because they don't subscribe to it. Finx (talk) 13:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Is it acceptable to change the wording on the classical liberalism claims, just attributing it to somebody? Eg: "Murray Rothbard describes [such and such] as a revival of classical liberal ideas" (not that I know he does, just a made-up example) Finx (talk) 14:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

My preference is whatever is accurate and informative. Not sure what to say to that (or even exactly what the question is) but trying smaller scale stuff like that on a BRD basis is the norm here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Another glaring problem in wording:


That makes it sound like a bunch of Kropotkin-reading communists just decided to convert to laissez faire capitalism. They didn't adopt a free market stance, they started with a stance. And the stance is better described as laissez faire or neoliberal capitalist than "free market," because we're clearly not talking about market socialists like Tucker or Proudhon. Finx (talk) 02:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

According to the U.S. Libertarian Party ... they advocate a government that is funded voluntarily

This claim is false and fraudulently cited. http://www.lp.org/issues/taxes says:

"Before 1913, federal income taxes were rare and short-lived. America became the most prosperous nation on earth. The U.S. Government did not try to police the world or play "nanny" to everyone from cradle to grave. People took responsibility for themselves, their families, and their communities. That is how the founders of America thought it should be. And it worked. It can again!"

In short, the U.S. Libertarian Party suggests reverting to a pre-1913 tax schedule, which you can see from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_history_of_the_United_States that it consists of situational income tax, excise tax, and tarrifs, among other taxes: none of which are funded voluntarily. Furthermore, the Libertarian Party's 2012 presidential nominee, Gary Johnson, proposed the, "Fair Tax," found, here, as a practical way to reach that goal, which is also not voluntary. In fact, the U.S. Libertarian Party believes that Federal taxes should be compulsory - the opposite of voluntary.


The citations: The first is Watts, Duncan (2002). Understanding American government and politics: a guide for A2 politics students. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press. p. 246. It's an offline source. A PDF copy can be obtained at www.oapen.org. It can't be directly referenced because the site has been blacklisted, presumably for potential for copyright infringement. Page 246 says,

"ideologies in a more ‘Eurocommunist’ direction. The Italian, Spanish and French communist parties particularly stressed an ideological distancing from the Soviet party, emphasising individual as well as class rights and accepting parliamentary ‘roads to communism’. The People’s Republic of China under Mao Zedong, meanwhile, had gone its own way after the death of Stalin. In Mao’s view revolutionary movements need not come from the industrial working class. They could be initiated by the peasants in non-industrial societies and create socialism in line with their class needs. This was an analysis particularly attractive to Marxist and revolutionary movements in developing countries, fighting colonialism and imperialism. By the early 1960s there was an open split between the Soviet and the Chinese communists over ideology and strategy. Marxist groups elsewhere progressively withdrew from the Soviet model. Paradoxically, some of these groups became more significant the further they moved away from Soviet Communism, as exemplified in the multiplicity of Marxist groups involved in the revolutionary upheavals in Paris in 1968. In the Third World, orthodox communist parties were either crushed by the state, as in Indonesia in the 1960s, or evolved along lines of their own, as in Yugoslavia, North Korea and Albania. During the 1980s, change had begun in the USSR itself when Mikhail Gorbachev became leader. He attempted to reform the system by ‘glasnost’(‘openness’) and ‘perestroika’ (‘modernisation’). This sent shock waves through the communist world, leading rapidly to the demise of pro-Soviet communist regimes in Eastern Europe. Communism then collapsed in the Soviet Union itself and the USSR fell apart under the pressure of longsuppressed nationalisms. It was dissolved in December 1991, giving birth to fifteen independent states. At present only Cuba and North Korea can be regarded as old-style communist states. China purports to remain true to the faith but it is very definitely ‘communism with Chinese business characteristics’. One wonders how long the booming capitalist nature of the Chinese economy, and the new social groups it has generated, can be squared with the democratic centralism of the Chinese party. Marxism in the twenty-first century The collapse of Soviet communism caused many people to believe that Marxism itself would shortly be extinct: it had obviously failed. On the other hand, some Marxists rejoiced. Marxism was now liberated from its association with totalitarian regimes, both in theory and in practice, as well as in the popular mind. Already in the 1960s and 1970s some continental theorists, like"

It has absolutely nothing to do with Libertarianism, much less the U.S. Libertarian Party, much less their view on compulsory taxation. The book is a textbook intended to introduce the spectrum of political theory and was published in 2002. Even if you didn't have access to the exact text, it would be safe to assume whatever they have to say isn't going to trump the U.S. Libertarian Party's current website on the issue of the U.S. Libertarian Party's current view. It's apparent that whoever used this reference to make that claim was doing so to intentionally vandalize the article, or at least bias it in a direction that can't be supported.


The second is http://www.lp.org/platform which ONLY suggestion of a tax schedule is as follows:

"All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution. We oppose any legal requirements forcing employers to serve as tax collectors. Government should not incur debt, which burdens future generations without their consent. We support the passage of a 'Balanced Budget Amendment' to the U.S. Constitution, provided that the budget is balanced exclusively by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes."

It makes no mention of voluntary taxes. It does suggest the repeal of income tax and is consistent with compulsory excise, tariff and/or sales tax in the sense that, "All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor." If a person were be compelled to spend the fruits of their labor, they would be subject to said compulsory taxes. 71.137.195.66 (talk) 05:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

IP, thanks for your work. It appears that the first source is entirely irrelevant and should be removed, but I think we can make a copy edit to better represent the second. The source says, "[a]s Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others", which I think ought to be in this article. This really is libertarianism: self-sovereignty, self-ownership, moral agency, etc. The claim about taxes is on less solid ground, as the source states they want to end coercion even from the state, but there is nothing specific about eliminating compulsory taxes. I think we can leave the part about sovereignty and maybe change the bit about taxes. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I also thank IP for his/her work. And MisterDub, I strongly agree with your characterization of libertarianism. Individual sovereignty is not emphasized in this article nearly as much as it should be. Adam9389 (talk) 22:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

"Libertarians advocate a society with a greatly reduced state or no state at all."

"Libertarians differ in opinion about a state's role within society; classical liberals advocate a minimal state, while anarcho-capitalists advocate no state at all.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13]" Can this please be reverted to before this sentence was recently added? It becomes confusing when we start using "classical liberal" in place of "minarchist" because the two have differing connotations and are not always synonymous. Further, it emphasizes a "clssical liberal vs. anarcho-capitalist" dichotomy, which is not exactly how modern libertarianism is characterized. Lastly, it is not fair to write "anarcho-capiatlist" at the beginning, because although they are often considered libertarian, this article should remain fair to left-libertarians and non "capitalist" forms of libertarianism, and so pushing this dichotomy at the beginning does not fairly represent the views of left-libertarians (this includes all geolibertarians and left-libertarians in academia, who are libertarians by academic standards). Onixz100 (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Not only is "classical liberal" confusing but explicitly rejected as a synonym for 'small government' neoliberalism by a whole slew of scholars, who dismiss the claim as, more or less, total nonsense. So the point, along with the statist-ancap dichotomy, is also clearly POV pushing -- as I've pointed out and referenced time and again, but no one seems to care. It's removed and then it sneaks back in, in a few months, and people have to repeat it over and over again to hopefully get the message across. If you call it classical liberalism: be explicit. "So-and-so says it's the rebirth of classical liberalism. Yet, so-and-so-and-so thinks that in most respects it's basically the polar opposite." Finx (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be little basis for the part of the description in the introduction that libertarians would perhaps advocate no government at all. That would be anarchy, which is the ultimate result of the reduction of government until there isn't one. Secondly, the citation points to The_New_Palgrave_Dictionary_of_Economics which appears to have nothing to do with the sentence in question. Eodcarl (talk) 14:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

An item in the FAQ's covers this. Anarchism is a strand of libertarianism. North8000 (talk) 16:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
That might be so, but that is not accurate, and there is no citation in the article to support such a contention. The article should refer to anarchism as a separate philosophy, not a subset of libertarianism. Eodcarl (talk) 17:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
There are several sources in this article that explain libertarianism's long history as a synonym for anarchism; it is not a separate ideology. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Please point me to one of those sources. The citation for the sentence in question is not even about libertarianism at all. It appears to be a filler citation to make it looks like the information is sourced, when in fact it is not. Eodcarl (talk) 17:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
See reference #16, which contains three different sources making this connection. There are more sources available to support this claim as well, but I don't feel we need to beat the reader over the head with sources. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
The three sources are entire books with no page references, and none of them is linked to the controversial statement in question. As I've said, the reference currently assigned to the statement (with which I fundamentally disagree) is to an entire book that has nothing to do with the topic (a fake citation). It doesn't matter how we feel about citations, since Wikipedia has a standard: "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." Small notations of brackets with a number is hardly beating anyone over the head, but failing to do so is lazy, and calls the reliability of the article into question. Eodcarl (talk) 18:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Eodcarl, forgive us if we we sound a bit short but for the last several years, for those of us in the middle, half of the time we have someone like you from one side beating us up saying that anarchism is not libertarianism, and the other half of the time someone is beating us up for under-representing anarchism in this article. You should start by reading this article and the anarchism article and looking at the sources provided before demanding that people personally prove it to you . North8000 (talk) 18:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
When in doubt thrown in a few refs to anarchism, including from sources further down that mention both libertarianism and anarchism, and then no one can complain that refs aren't right there in the lead. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 18:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I have read it, and I have an extensive education on the topic. The problem is two fold: 1) Anarchism is not even related to libertarianism, much less being a subset. 2) Notwithstanding anyone's belief in not having excessive citations (as if there is such a thing), citation #7 is a FAKE reference. It has exactly zero relevance to the topic; Someone likely inserted it to make it look as if the prose one made up actually came from anywhere but their own idea about libertarianism. So, either a legit reference needs to be provided (not by me, because I consider the definition included in the article to be wrong), or a "citation needed" tag to be included, or the wording changed. I have a legitimate reference in front of me written by a respected political scientist that has this statement: "Libertarians are not anarchists, they believe that government has a necessary and important, if quite limited function." Also, referencing an entire book with no page number is not a legitimate way to cite a fact. Eodcarl (talk) 22:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Eodcarl, I think this article and the lead need work, including removing irrelevant sources; however, the lead doesn't need any citations (honestly, any citations not referencing a direct quote need to be removed) and the claim in question is not only supported by other sources, but by the specific one with which you fundamentally disagree. You can see the abstract of that article for free, but must subscribe to read the full text. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
FYI, Wikipedia:Lead#Citations reads in part: The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. This can be annoying, but if copying a couple refs to the lead ends the challenge, it's easier to do it than keep discussing it (she said without volunteering right now). :-) CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 22:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you... yes, I am aware of the policy. I don't think that all of the citations in the lead support contentious claims. Maybe this one in particular ought to stay, but many of them should be removed. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 08:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
It says right there in your quote of the guidelines, inline citations should be included for material challenged, or likely to be challenged. Maybe I haven't been bold enough, but I am most certainly challenging false material with a fake reference. Eodcarl (talk) 22:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Finding a ref for libertarianism meaning anarchism OR libertarianism not the difficult and shall do so. Finding some people who refuse to admit it includes anarchist views is not that difficult; but they are people who either are ignorant or are trying to suppress the truth. What needs to be made clear that I notice is at least twice in the text its mentioned that libertarianism meant only anarchism; a) who said that needs to be identified and b) the time frame also. But that's just one of so many issues that get the mind boggling in the article :-) CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 00:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I do appreciate the quote, but it is still a very obscure view that anarchy is associated with libertarianism, and for some reason this article is riddled with anarchy all over the page. Anarchy has its own page. Frankly, I believe it got that way due to a lack of WP:NPOV. Your "refuse to admit" comment smacks of a WP:NPOV problem, since the prevailing wisdom in political science circles is libertarianism does not include anarchy. Variants of anarchy are in the article 165 times. Libertarianism is only in the article 112 times. Perhaps there is a small place for philosophers with anarchist tendencies self applying the libertarian label at times, but anarchy is at least over-represented. For every reference that claims a form of anarchy is a type of libertarianism, I can find ten that deliberately state libertarians are not anarchists, period. I am used to Wikipedia not having much scholarly worth, but this article is worse than most. Eodcarl (talk) 00:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I have successfully been bullied into giving up on this article now that I know it is a deliberate propaganda piece masquerading as a NPOV article on libertarianism. When a extreme leftist like Noam Chomsky is used to support the idea that anarchism is part in parcel to libertarianism, it is futile to add any scholarly quality to the article for the benefit of visitors trying to learn about the topic. If someone were to ask me, I'd simply suggest 30-Second Politics by Steven Taylor. Eodcarl (talk) 01:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
We reflect reality, and that is that there are left wing anarchists who use the term libertarianism. Now I DO think there are far too many references to far too insignificant groups and a few reference padding quotes. The solution is to add refs and then discuss what to get rid of. Just complaining gets one no wheres. Also that chomsky quote wasn't that great so may move back to second use; still looking around for better ones. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 01:33, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
We don't claim that we have the balance right. It's an ongoing effort. FYI, I am a US style "basic form" libertarian (to me it means prioritizing more freedom and less government, and I'd oppose reducing government to zero), so please don't accuse me of being a pro-anarchism POV warrior. North8000 (talk) 01:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
North8000, good evening, I haven't spoken to you yet, so I hope you don't feel like I've accused you of anything. No, it is not libertarians, or even actual anarchists who did, or would have spammed the page with all the anarchist references. It is those with left-wing bias who have blatantly mischaracterized what libertarianism is. I chuckle at the oxymoron "left wing anarchist" also. There can be no such thing, since central to left wing philosophies is government. It is similar the fake label libertarian socialist. I'm sure you mean well, but based on the feeling I get from others, and the resistance I've received for expressing the prevailing wisdom among political scientists, I don't think it is worth trying to fight the propaganda to make this article accurate. Eodcarl (talk) 01:49, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello Eodcarl. I've worked with Carolmooredc and MisterDub and know that they also just want a quality and correct article. You should dial it back a notch, pull up a chair, and join us.  :-) North8000 (talk) 02:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
North8000, I will take a step back and consider tomorrow a new day.  ;) Eodcarl (talk) 03:42, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Eodcarl, are you saying that anarchists are mistaken in believing they oppose the state or mistaken in believing they are left-wing? And do you have any sources for your ideas? TFD (talk) 03:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Four, the first question would be what do you think left-wing vs. right-wing means? Anarchism is the extreme right end of the political spectrum so it makes no sense to refer to a left-wing anarchist, just as it makes no sense for there to be a right-wing communist. Eodcarl (talk) 04:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Eodcarl, it sounds like you come from a US, neoliberal perspective, since anarchism is traditionally considered left-wing. Political terminology differs rather significantly between the USA and the rest of the world, and we're trying to present both fairly. Your information about US libertarianism is welcome, but not call to remove non-US libertarianism (anarchism). -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 04:42, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
The is the definition in John Birch Society literature, but not in serious sources. However anarchists were members of the First International, and the IWW, Emma Goldman, Sacco and Vanzetti, the anti-WTO protestors, Proudhon and Kropotkin were not perceived as extreme right. TFD (talk) 04:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Even outside the US, libertarianism is not synonymous with anarchism and anarchism is not considered left, certainly not in the English speaking world, and this is English speaking Wikipedia. Eodcarl (talk) 04:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
US libertarianism has spread beyond its borders (as this article makes note), but if you read any history of European political thought, you'll find out that anarchists have used the phrase to discuss their ideologies for ~100 years before US liberals appropriated it. Your protestations are irrelevant to the facts. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 05:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
You're getting caught up in what terms meant a long time ago vs. present day. As an example, classic liberalism has exactly no relation to liberalism today. Considering left-wing is defined as desiring government intervention in more aspects of civil life, it doesn't make sense to equate anarchism with it. It doesn't matter what terms individuals have self applied throughout history (which is part of why anarchism is erroneously equated with libertarianism in this article). What does matter is the terms as used by actual political scientists. Do you have any background in political science? Eodcarl (talk) 05:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
No, not political science; I read philosophy. Read any political philosophy? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 05:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Eodcarl, I think you are confusing what words mean with what they mean to you. Articles are supposed to be based on what reliable sources say. TFD (talk) 05:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
First, mentioning reliable sources in the same breath as this junk article is laughable. Political science and philosophy are intertwined, and I have formally studied both. It is offensive to claim you know what they actually mean and I only know what they mean to me. The following quote obliterates all association of anarchy with libertarianism: "Libertarians are not anarchists, they believe that government has a necessary and important, if quite limited function." from an actual reputable source, unlike the usual low quality Wikipedia echo chamber garbage filling this article. Eodcarl (talk) 06:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Really, you would base the article on an unpublished 1950s opinion piece written under a pseudonym by someone who later changed his opinion as a definitive source for libertarianism. May I ask at which institution of higher learning you formally studied philosophy and political science? TFD (talk) 06:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

"After all we are socialists as the social-democrats, the socialists, the communists, and the I.W.W. are all Socialists. The difference -- the fundamental one -- between us and all the other is that they are authoritarian while we are libertarian; they believe in a State or Government of their own; we believe in no State or Government." 'Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, The Letters of Sacco and Vanzetti, p. 274'

Anarchists have been using the term "libertarian" to describe themselves and their ideas since the 1850's. According to anarchist historian Max Nettlau, the revolutionary anarchist Joseph Dejacque published Le Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement Social in New York between 1858 and 1861 while the use of the term "libertarian communism" dates from November, 1880 when a French anarchist congress adopted it. 'Max Nettlau, A Short History of Anarchism, p. 75 and p. 145' The use of the term "Libertarian" by anarchists became more popular from the 1890s onward after it was used in France in an attempt to get round anti-anarchist laws and to avoid the negative associations of the word "anarchy" in the popular mind (Sebastien Faure and Louise Michel published the paper Le Libertaire -- The Libertarian -- in France in 1895, for example). Since then, particularly outside America, it has always been associated with anarchist ideas and movements. Taking a more recent example, in the USA, anarchists organised "The Libertarian League" in July 1954, which had staunch anarcho-syndicalist principles and lasted until 1965. The US-based "Libertarian" Party, on the other hand has only existed since the early 1970's, well over 100 years after anarchists first used the term to describe their political ideas (and 90 years after the expression "libertarian communism" was first adopted). It is that party, not the anarchists, who have "stolen" the word.JanderVK (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Rothbard weighs in

hey, the editors also deleted my sources when i quoted the same essay you did... these editors are abusing their power a little bit wouldnt you say?? forcing false sources on us while deleting the most informative?? these editors need to be put in check by someone from wiki administration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.51.72 (talk) 21:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Considering the dominant anarchists, it is obvious that the question are libertarians anarchists? must be answered unhesitatingly in the negative. We are at completely opposite poles. [3] Eodcarl, i agree and tried to make the same point years ago, it almost got me banned by one of the editors you are debating in the section above. some of the editors above have rejected this source as it was never published and written under a pen name. ...none of the proclaimed anarchist groups correspond to the libertarian position...all of the current anarchists are irrational collectivists, and therefore at opposite poles from our position. ...we are not archists either: we do not believe in establishing a tyrannical central authority that will coerce the noninvasive as well as the invasive. Perhaps, then, we could call ourselves by a new name: nonarchist. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. It is not a matter of how much government that distinguishes libertarians from anarchists. Anarchists start from the premise that government is bad, obviously focusing on the virtue of government. Libertarians start from the premise individual liberty is paramount while acknowledging there cannot be individual freedom if there is not rule of law enforced by just enough government with the consent of the government to protect liberty. This is why equating libertarianism with anarchism is folly. Eodcarl (talk) 05:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Rothbard also noted that the term was taken from leftists:


And no, anarchism isn't just a repudiation of government. We are libertarians, meaning the individual agent is the highest moral authority, and therefore governance, as well as other forms of rule (e.g. capitalism), or in any form (e.g. government, capitalism, patriarchy), is inherently immoral. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 05:26, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Rothbard qualified his comment by saying, "The Tucker wing of anarchism flourished in the 19th century, but died out by World War I. Many libertarian thinkers in that Golden Age of liberalism were working on doctrines that were similar in many respects. These genuine libertarians never referred to themselves as anarchists...." [In fact, Benjamin Tucker did.] Ten years later of course Rothbard and his libertarian colleagues called themselves anarchists. But if your point is that he saw anarchism as left-wing, your point is well taken.
Eodcarl, the logic of individualism can lead one to think that the state should be abolished, should be minimal or should ensure equality of opportunity.
TFD (talk) 05:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
This article is already mostly about anarchy. Based on that, there is no point in there being a Libertarianism article at all. The Anarchism article already has tacit mention of libertarianism, so this article might as well be discontinued since the consensus among the article guards is that the terms have the same meaning. Wikipedia already has a horrible reputation, so there is no point in trying to work toward scholarly quality with armchair political philosophers with no formal education in charge. Eodcarl (talk) 05:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
We work toward scholarly quality by using scholarly sources and reflecting what they say, rather than putting in fringe theories, such as your definition of the political spectrum. TFD (talk) 06:42, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
It is laughable that the content of this article is based on scholarly sources. I told North8000 I would stick around to improve the article, but it has become obvious there are too many people squatting on this article to ensure it is a propaganda piece with over 300 mentions of anarchy. I'll leave you to it. Eodcarl (talk) 13:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
"It is laughable that the content of this article is based on scholarly sources." I don't know if the editor intended for that sentence to be as hilarious as it is or not, but boy...if that doesn't describe the mindset of POV Warriors, I don't know what else does! --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 14:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Improving the article takes patience since all sides of the anarchist/minimal state and pro and anti-property spectrums tend to weigh in to complain, either without doing anything or making such massive POV changes that it takes six months to clean them up. Only diligent research and sourcing and intelligent and cool headed discussion can solve the problems. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 14:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you noticed Bryon, I didn't make a single edit to the page, deciding instead to try to do the right thing, pointing out the extreme slant to the article, and the lack of scholarly basis for the current contents. Perhaps you think the current references are scholarly, leading you to find my comment "hilarious." Do you not find it absurd there are over 300 mentions of anarchy on the libertarianism article? It makes no sense you think my comment is indicative of POV. Don't worry though, the article guards have successfully persuaded me not to edit the article, except perhaps to put a WP:NPOV banner on it. Eodcarl (talk) 16:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
The term anarchy is used so often because it is signficant to the development of libertarianism. Robert Nozick's book was called Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Rothbard called himself an anarchist, or "anarcho-capitalist." Can you find any sources about libertarianism that omit anarchism?
However, as has been pointed out, libertarianism is sometimes used as a synonym in the U.S. for liberalism, to distinguish it from modern American liberalism as exemplified by the New Deal and Great Society. But that is not the subject of the article.
TFD (talk) 16:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Does the FAQ clarify matters?

See above as rewritten to emphasize the policy issues we've discussed over and over here. There may be some tweaks needed on more content related issues, which we can discuss here or in the FAQ discussion section above. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 17:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I thought it was more explanatory on the frequently asked questions before. But then I'm biased; I was the last to edit before you. :-) North8000 (talk) 18:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I actually didn't notice who did what. Just for discussion purposes, below is a list of original and current questions only. My comments on problem with original are: a) doesn't put these in context of policy and emphasize using policy and dispute resolution to deal with issues; b) first one doesn't sufficiently separate issue; other three don't necessarily bring up most important ones; and the last two questions are important, though last one needs to be better phrased.

1) Original:

  • Is there a significant difference in the meaning of political terms (e.g. left, right, liberal, conservative, libertarian, anarchism, anarchist) between the USA and the rest of the world?
  • Is anarchism libertarian?
  • Is the libertarianism associated with the American Libertarian Party libertarian?
  • Is Objectivism libertarian?

2) Newest:

  • Why does this article mention anarchism/capitalism/Georgism/Objectivism/Marx/Rothbard/Bookchin/or- something-else-I don't-think is libertarianism!!
  • Socialists and leftists first used "libertarian" and most of the world still thinks it refers to socialist libertarianism, shouldn't that be the focus of the article? or "Libertarianism" now means pro-property and free market ideas through most of the world, so shouldn't that be the focus of the article?
  • Isn't "Libertarianism" left wing? Isn't it right wing?
  • Why haven't editors added or discussed (the person/issue/topic/etc.) I think is most important to libertarianism?
  • Why can't I make any edit I want and insult any left wing/right wing or anarchist/statist editor I don't like who dares to disagree with me? (Definitely needs major tweaking, but civility point needs to be made.)

Thoughts? CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 19:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

IMO the most eternal complaints are essentially:

  • The meaning of libertarianism is the historic and European meaning. That should make up 90% or 100% of the article. Get that mistaken stuff about US style libertarianism out of there.
  • The meaning of libertarianism is the common US meaning. That should make up 90% or 100% of the article. Get that anarchism stuff out of there.
  • Ayn Rand shouldn't be in the article. She was not a libertarian.
  • How come you don't describe US style libertarianism using the European framework?

Maybe a combination of the two, making sure we address these. ? North8000 (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with North8000: I prefer the previous version. The issues I have with the current FAQ are as follows:
  1. First question sounds convoluted. Perhaps it can be shortened to "Why does this article mention X?
  2. The second paragraph of the first answer should be removed or rephrased; I don't think we want to warn editors about making suggestions consistent with Wikipedia policy.
  3. Second question is again overly long and confusing. I like how you consolidated the first two questions of the previous version into a single answer, but it needs to be clearer.
  4. Second answer could be better. I don't think NPOV really concerns what is in the article (that's WP:V), but how that content is presented. Other than the mention of NPOV, I think this answer is rather good.
  5. The third question seems to be like the second, just phrased differently. I'm not fond of repetition, but maybe you folks will think it prudent. The word private should definitely be removed from the first sentence of that second paragraph though: private property is really a liberal/capitalist value.
  6. The last two questions should be removed entirely. They are questions about how to use Wikipedia in general, and are not specific to this article. I understand what you were trying to do with that last question, but asking if an editor can flagrantly violate Wikipedia policy is absurd.
I'd say the two most pressing questions concern the inclusion of anarchism and classical liberalism in this article. I liked the previous version more, I think, because it asked these two questions simply and directly. Also, after our conversation with Eodcarl, I think we ought to include sources in the FAQ as well. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 08:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
OK, I changed and shortened it per both comments and if you don't like it, do whatever. Shorter is better.
I am confused about North8000's phrase/question "How come you don't describe US style libertarianism using the European framework?" I got the impression that the question is: isn't socialist libertarianism most popular in europe and worldwide and that's how I wrote it to be more specific to that FAQ.
Anyway, brevity and clarity - and some mention of the two most important policies WP:RS and NPOV - are my goals :-) CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 15:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I've been gone and just got back. Carol, I really really like your reworked version. Answering your question, describing common US libertarianism through a European lens (and the same for a philosopher lens, and doubly so for a European philosopher lens) causes many errors to get introduced. But some folks keep wanting to do that. North8000 (talk) 12:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Can we please stop confusing state "government" and "state"?

Here is a short article to get familiar with the difference. Anyone editing this political article really ought to be familiar with its most pivotal political science terms, and understand the distinction to use them correctly.

Sometimes the two are sloppily substituted for one another, even in serious articles, but the distinction outside of colloquial use exists, and there is a world of difference between limiting/eliminating a government (superficial, since governments are limited and dissolved all the time; it's called an amendment or an election) and limiting/abolishing a state (fundamental, since states persist when governments are dissolved). The latter is far more fundamental. It may surprise you that many, if not most, anarchists are pro-governance, and advocate for a government -- particularly, a participatory and un-stratified one. However, being anti-state, they firstly advocate for abolition of most or all permanent bureaucratic institutions, special governing classes, political parties, territorial boundaries, etc.

This is not a trivial distinction. One phrase is correct; the other is wrong. Finx (talk) 20:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not yet sure which side of the debate I'm on. But it certainly isn't the slam dunk that you claim. First, the question becomes what did the source say. Second, we are communicating with readers, and it is perfectly normal (if not preferred) to communicate using / based on the common meaning of terms. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
The sources all prefer government:



The first excerpt is the abstract (all I can see) from David D. Friedman's "Libertarianism"; the second is Ronald Hamowy's chapter in The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism; and the third source supporting this claim, Paul F. Downton's Ecopolis: Architecture and Cities for a Changing Climate uses both state and government interchangeably. I've hence reverted back to the phrasing that is the best conform to the sources. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 23:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I'll skip the part where I repeat that neoliberalism is a very recent contrarian introduction to libertarian thought, that should be given due weight, which weighs awfully heavy on this article for some reason unknown to me. You need to understand context: government intervention and government action, but state power. Governments are the actors of state. Governments staff state institutions and drive state policy. Yet, governments are not states and states are not governments. When a government vanishes, the state doesn't go anywhere. You can "reduce government", as in "the act of governing" by chipping away at the power of the state. Even Nozick in the sources provided (I still don't get this insistence on an American monopoly on the term) had the sense to talk about "the question of what, if anything, the state and its official may do." The quote is right at the bottom. So no, your sources most certainly do not say that libertarianism is about 'reducing or eliminating government.' Finx (talk) 23:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
These are two completely different narratives here. Governments are self-limiting through statute and policy. In fact, states limit the powers of government. That's one of the main purposes of a liberal state. That's what Madisonian checks and balances are, which were, in his own words, "so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority." It's completely irrelevant that you're "communicating with readers." You should communicate with readers using the correct terminology. People colloquially call harvestmen "spiders" and not "opiliones"; and yet, in an article on zoology you don't call them spiders, because they're not spiders. In an article on political ideology, you use the applicable political science terms and not the inappropriate ones which will create a misleading narrative. Finx (talk) 23:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

To hopefully make this point clearer still with a real-world example:

Finx, I see you making a lot of points /arguments, but none of them seem to be addressing the question at hand, which is: what (government or the state) do libertarians/libertarian philosophies advocate the reduction or elimination of? And second, what is even more important in Wikipedia: what (government or the state) do sources say libertarians/libertarian philosophies advocate the reduction or elimination of? I think that Misterdub is addressing and these two and supporting what they are saying. North8000 (talk) 00:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Libertarians traditionally advocated the elimination of state by way of revolution or reduction of state power. Election terms, new statutes, party doctrines, policies, budget-cutting comptrollers and judges sometimes advocate the reduction of government. I already explained above how most of the quoted sources were being misread and say something different if you read what "government" means in context: the body of persons acting in charge of state. You'll also find that what "sources say" changes quite substantially if the sources you consider don't skew this article to its pretty flamboyant American-fixated disposition. That criticism does not go away just because you claim to stand in the middle and "balance" things. That balancing act is not much help if you've over-represented a spectrum of views so narrow and marginal that it's actually worth considering what you're balancing.
The words are being used incorrectly. It's as simple as that. And not just incorrectly, but so wrongly that the implications are very significant and create a different narrative about what libertarianism means -- specifically, excluding pretty much all anarchist though. Finx (talk) 01:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

There is a group here that has been in the middle of the big debate here (see FAQ's). It may be affirmation that we're in the center that the we get beat up from those at both extremes of the debate spectrum (such as you just did) but we are getting pretty sick and tired of it. A few days ago I just reverted someone who said that anarchism didn't belong in the article and wanted to take it out, and now you are starting with saying that the article has a "flamboyant American-fixated disposition" crap. Nice. North8000 (talk) 01:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

And I don't envy you, but being "in the center" doesn't mean anything. Pravda may well have been "in the center" of party politics in the Soviet bureaucracy. Now, I'm not comparing you to a commissar, and again, my deepest sympathies because I do admire your perseverance, but the point stands. I'm sure even the dirty anarchists among us would agree that being factually correct is not a question of balancing people's wishes, and being intellectually honest is not in itself a democratic process where everyone's truth is as good as the next. Finx (talk) 01:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
The fact is that libertarianism means many different things and this article covers them. (And THAT is the "middle" here.) Including for about 60,000,000 in the US who consider themselves to be such or who sources define as such (which is mostly basically classical liberalism). There's no "dirty" anything or anyone amongst the various strands. What we're tired of is people who say that their definition of it should be the only or dominant definition in the article. North8000 (talk) 01:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
What you should be balancing, is the US's 5% of the world's population (far from unanimous in the Reaganite "government that governs least" narrative still) against the other 95%, and the 150 years of libertarian history against the less than 40 years of post-Charles-Koch-Foundation vaguely Rothbardian libertarianism. That's the subject of the article. Not how many wikipedia editors voice their indignation at the inclusion of anarchism or neoliberalism -- which, as I've said to you before, by many accounts, is almost the inverse of classical liberalism, rather than a continuation. If 98% of the editors here think this article should be a shrine to either Rothbard or Kropotkin, that's still wrong, even though it might be very well balanced. Finx (talk) 02:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
No it means that they all get covered. North8000 (talk) 02:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
They are not, because the way the introduction has been reworded, everything except the Reaganite brand rhetoric of "less government, not more" is now excluded. More importantly, there is an error. Can I fix the error now? We can talk about undue weight later. Finx (talk) 05:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
On your first point, the opening sentences are trying to summarize the tenets which are in common to all significant forms of libertarianism. The fact that these seem to match the "3 tenet" common meaning of libertarianism in the US (vs. the 10-20 tenets of more fully detailed libertarian philosophies) is just due to the shortness of the common US form and that it has landed on the common tenets. On your question, I would suggest talking first on ones that you think would be controversial and BRD on the ones that you think won't. North8000 (talk) 12:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Finx, please don't take my revert personally; this article still needs much work and we will fix the prevalence/dominance of US-style right-libertarianism herein. My only concern on this particular point, from what I can tell, is that the sources supporting this claim use the term government, not state. If this is a problem due to lack of left-libertarian/anarchist sources, we need to add those sources and then change the text. I'm getting closer to a decent "Philosophy" section in my sandbox, which I think will alleviate this issue (by demanding a rewrite of the lead), but I'm busy this weekend and won't have time to work on it. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


I'm not taking it personally, but I don't know what else to do except point out that it's provably the wrong word to use. I could point you to many anarchists who are every bit as "pro-government" and they are "anti-state" provided we apply the actual political science meanings of those words. Many libertarian socialists are in favor of a highly organized society with a participatory system for governing or allowing all people to take action in order to conduct the affairs of their society. That is a government. They are also against permanent bureaucratic structures, political stratification and national borders. That is a state. This is intellectually dishonest, because it's cramming the left that created the libertarian movement in with the neoliberals that later decided it ought to be theirs. Finx (talk) 23:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

While I appreciate the distinction between the two different concepts identified in the link, common usage does not consistently use terms as the author thinks we should. One could say that the government of Canada is consists of all executive, legislative and judicial institutions, federal, provincial or municipal, or it could just be the current federal administration. The state could be defined narrowly as the Queen in right of Canada, or broadly to include the land. The South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands is a state, although it has no inhabitants. I suggest that all we should do is ensure that the meaning of whatever terms we use are clear through context. TFD (talk) 17:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes. North8000 (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


Since the only serious objection I see is a shortage of citations using the word "state" I hope this can be of some use:

  • Woodcock, George (2004). Anarchism: A History Of Libertarian Ideas And Movements. University of Toronto Press. p. 24. ISBN 9781551116297. :


  • Kropotkin, Petr (1927). Anarchism: A Collection of Revolutionary Writings. Courier Dover Publications. p. 150. ISBN 0486119866.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) :
  • "Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed" (45): 38. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help) :

Finx (talk) 06:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The statement is what libertarians (in general) advocate the reduction or elimination of. These do not address that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, they do address that, since for over a century libertarian/libertarian-socialist/libertarian-communist was synonymous with anarchist. So, in fact, those are the statements that historically define libertarianism. Are you suggesting that late 20th century right wing libertarianism is pro-state, rather than anti-state? Please name the ideology that the anti-state part of those quotes does not correctly describe. Thanks. Finx (talk) 12:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
First, I don't have a strong opinion either way on "state" vs "government". But it looks like the case for using "government" in that sentence is stronger. You don't even have agreement here on what word is best for the anarchist strand of libertarianism (anarchist MisterDub disagrees with you) much less as a characterization for libertarians as a whole. You used an oxymoron-here ("right wing libertarian") to pose your last question so I can only answer it by positing a group that you may be asking about, and I'll make it the "the most common form of libertarian in the USA". They would say substantial reduction (not elimination) of government is the objective and a priority. The word "state" as we are using it here would not be in their vocabulary. North8000 (talk) 13:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Capitalists have always been broadly considered right wing. Therefore, it would make sense, to me, that ultra-capitalist anything is right wing by extension. I don't really disagree that it sounds like an oxymoron, but it does exist as an ideology, and chooses to call itself libertarian. I didn't have much say in the matter, personally. And again, while I think I understand what you mean when you colloquially say "government", the term, unlike "state", is extremely ambiguous. What does "less government" mean? Are you referring to the very act of governing? Or some kind of devolution? Maybe taking away a particular system of government, like replacing a republic with some kind of municipality-oriented confederation? Or does it mean state powers? Maybe just lowering the number of senators, if we take it literally? Cutting expenditure relative to GDP? If you use the word "government" in an encyclopedic article, I think it should mean government -- and not "something abstract and immaterial that could mean absolutely anything which we don't want to specify" -- as in the example above: 'Belgium failed to form a government and was left without a government for 541 days. When I read about it, I know what it means. I'm still not seeing any serious objection. If the introduction can't say anything coherent about opposition to the nation state, then maybe it should say anything about it at all. Maybe libertarianism is like Zombocom. It is whatever you want it to be -- and we should just leave the whole page blank. Finx (talk) 13:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
And regarding what is or isn't in their vocabulary, I'll repeat the spiders example above. Just because it's possible that most people looking up "daddy long legs" don't know the word "Opiliones" -- does that mean wikipedia articles should call them spiders? Of course not. That's silly. People can click on the word they don't understand, eg "State (polity)", and learn about it. Presupposing ignorance on the part of your readers is hardly any excuse for this. Finx (talk) 00:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Just to quickly clarify my position, I really don't care what term is used here, only that we conform to the sources. As of now, the sources prefer the term government. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Then I guess I'll find and add some better sources. Is there any issue with Woodcock or Kropotkin's "Anarchism" from the Encyclopædia Britannica? Finx (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
No objections from me. My only minor beef is I'd like to see the lead be a summary of the article, so instead of adding citations to the lead as stand-alone material, we really ought to be putting these sourced statements in the body of the article. This is something that we can do later as well, so again... no objections from me. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I'll throw them in as a temporary measure and then when you are finished with your 'Philosophy' rewrite, maybe we can adapt the lead. Finx (talk) 22:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Mine is that I think that "government" is better, but I could live with "state". On your earlier point, your "spider" analogy is not analogous. In that case, the scientists are the accepted definers. In the libertarian case, people who try to define the terms are the "followers", trying to understand, summarize and communicate the common use/meaning of the terms. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
If I understand Wikipedia correctly, we're supposed to construct an overview of this umbrella of political ideologues the way that political scientists, political economists and historians had explained it, not synthesize the opinions of "followers" -- unless those followers had produced something we can source, like maybe a study of what "followers" believe. Until then, I'd rather take the word of a political biographer / historian like Woodcock. Finx (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
BTW you are using "followers"in a very different meaning than I was. I meant in the sense of which entity sets the standard and which entity needs to follow them. In the case of bug taxonomy, the scientists are the definers, and everyday folks are the followers. In the case of politics /political science, the public is the definers, and political scientists are the followers, the ones that, if they are correct, are accurately reporting on the reality in the public. North8000 (talk) 23:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Finx, the sources you added say a lot about "anarchism" but mention nothing of "libertarianism." This is the Libertarianism article, and as such, we are supposed to go off of sources about libertarianism explicitly. And most of the libertarian sources for that sentence mention "government" far more than "state." Plus, it's much clearer for lay-readers. Adam9389 (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
This has already been addressed ad infinitum and I think you were around when it was explained. Woodcock's book is explicitly titled "A History Of Libertarian Ideas And Movements", for Kropotkin see libertarian communism, for anarchist in general see the etymology section. French anarchists started using 'libertarian' when anarchism was suppressed and later banned, which played a major part in giving rise to the widespread use of the label:
"In terms of anarchist history the aftereffects of the Commune were perhaps more important than the rising itself. The immediate result of its defeat was the suppression of all socialist activities and the passing of a specific law in March 1872 banning the International as a subversive organization. This meant that for more than a decade all socialist or anarchist activity in France was illegal and had to be carried on secretly."
Woodcock, page 289. Anarchism is libertarianism. End of story. Please stop wasting everyone's time. Finx (talk) 04:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I understand your point, and as you know, neither myself nor anyone else here is in favor of removing anarchist information from the article. This is not an Is-Anarchism-Libertarianism? debate -- I will not do that again. This is about balance and, especially in this case, relevance. As there already is an entire article (and portal) dedicated to anarchism, we have to keep it to sources that are explicitly identified as "libertarian." It makes sense, and it was decided on consensus a while back. If we don't hold to that rule, we could throw information about damn near anything onto this article -- it's a slippery slope. Woodcock's book is entitled "A History Of Libertarian Ideas And Movements" -- okay, fair enough, he's in. But, from what I've read so far, the others are too tenuous. Adam9389 (talk) 01:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I still hold to this "esoteric position" as I've just been accused that the article should make claims which are correct instead of claims which are false -- whatever nonsensical 'balance' mechanism someone's arbitrarily invented notwithstanding. If anarchism is libertarian, came up with the word libertarian, used the word libertarian since the mid-19th century, and continues to carry the word 'libertarian' everywhere in the world, then -- I hope this is isn't too radical a suggestion: it matters what anarchists are. Finx (talk) 05:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Funny, considering I posted a reference that states the opposite, but according to Finx, it is "end of story." He is the self-described owner of the article, and as an anarchist, there you go. Eodcarl (talk) 01:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Some more problems with introduction, partial rewrite

It's just very poorly written.


Flow, word choice, grammatical:

  • in my opinion, either "differ on" or "disagree over" -- not "differ over"
  • "degree" sounds like an awkward metaphor here, made stranger by the fact that for anarchists that degree is zero
  • the word "school" is repeated over and over and over

Meaning:

  • mentioning ameliorative assistance to those living in poverty as a tenet is kind of silly when the anti-capitalist currents mentioned just after advocate abolition of private property; if this pertains to the "Minarchist schools" there shouldn't be a period there -- otherwise it's kind of like saying "John drove his car to the corner mart, and additionally 800 miles to Tijuana"
  • There's a lot of confusing redundancy. In "rights in the ownership of unappropriated land" -- what does that even mean? Isn't all stuff unappropriated before it's... appropriated? Also, I imagine this isn't somehow saying that, in contrast, currently appropriated land is exempt from those property rights?
  • "Left-libertarianism" (whatever it means) is not really in itself a system of ownership or a mode of production; those who reject private property generally propose something in its place: worker/collective/common ownership, some kind of socialist system
  • even qualified by "such" saying "private ownership" might be confusing, I think, since it can include personal property or possessions, and socialists reject "private ownership of the means of production" (like the land and resources mentioned just earlier) while generally not the ownership of your furniture

How about:


Is this acceptable to everyone? Are we missing any sources to back this up? Finx (talk) 13:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that it's good work. IMHO it has one significant problem and a second minor issue. The significant problem is that it tries to specifically define which government functions and to what degree the "in between" folks do and don't want. The inevitbaly would cause it to be wrong. In this case wrong for the common vague US libertarians who just generally advocate a reduction of government. The quibble is that I think that "legitimacy" is too narrow of a word. In reality the question is where they want to end up, not the legitimacy of the current structure. North8000 (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't think I follow the first problem. Are you saying it isn't descriptive enough of the full spectrum of 'minarchist' positions, by lumping them together? As far as legitimacy, what would be a better word? Desirability, maybe? Still doesn't sound quite right. Finx (talk) 05:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I think we're kind of just splitting hairs here. That paragraph is one of the better ones in this article. Nothing's perfect, but I can't see that one getting much better than it is. Regarding the example paragraph you gave, I'm not entirely clear on which libertarian schools of thought support government assistance for the poor, but it certainly isn't minarchism. That line is fine the way it is. Also, the final sentence puts a lot more of its weight on the left-libertarian opinion while kind of dismissively mentioning the capitalists, making it come off as more unbalanced compared to the current paragraph, which for an overview paragraph, is quite finely balanced. For now, I say let's just leave it as is. Adam9389 (talk) 22:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Finx, your proposal sounds good to me. Adam9389, if it's not the capitalist libertarians who want government assistance, who is it? It's certainly not the anarchists. I don't have the source for this particular claim, but it's from the Cato Institute, which is a capitalist libertarian (minarchist/right/neoliberal/however you wan to say it) institution. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
The Cato Institute? I'll have to examine the source for myself and see exactly what it says. Never before have I heard of Cato or any minarchist group advocate government welfare of any kind; and, needless to say, their opposition to it is quite well-known. Adam9389 (talk) 01:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Honest NPOV - Libertarianism & Anarchism, a suggestion

There are 34 archived talk pages on this article. The vast majority of discussion has to do with some form of the question, "Is Anarchism a form of Libertarianism?"

As Finx just cited,

Ronald Hamowy, The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism, Chapter: "Anarchism", pp. 10–13; Quote: "... 'Individucals have rights, and there are things no person or group may do to them (without violating their rights). So strong and far-reaching are these rights that they raise the question of what, if anything, the state and its official may do.' Libertarian political philsophers have extensively debated this question, and many concude that the answer is ‘Nothing’.”

as erroneous support for the statement, "Libertarians advocate a society with a greatly reduced state or no state at all." When it should, in fact support a statement more like, "Libertarian political philosophers advocate a society with a greatly reduced state and debate whether there should be a state at all."

Let us please consider the audience: There are roughly 300 million people in the US - approximately 60% of them voted in the last election. Of those that voted, nearly 1% voted for the US Libertarian Party (roughly 1.2 million people) That's more than double the previous election which was roughly at 520,000, which is also a huge increase over the previous election which rang in at nearly 400,000. That is not including the vast numbers of people who voted for self proclaimed Libertarian Republican Ron Paul in the Republican Primaries, and the huge numbers of people wondering who this self proclaimed Libertarian Republican Rand Paul is, who's been making news headlines in the recent past. My point is this: the vast amount of people looking at this article are going to be researching the modern definition of Libertarianism as interpreted by the U.S. Libertarian Party. A Layman reading this article may be misled to believe that perhaps the U.S. Libertarian party condones Anarchy, which is blatantly false. In the grand scheme of things, the idea that Anarchism is a subset of Libertarianism is a very esoteric perspective, although the argument is an important piece to include.

My suggestion: Lead the article with a more general description which neither implies that Anarchism is a subset of Libertarianism, nor implies otherwise. Include a section describing the controversy and allow for both sides of the argument to be heard. I think that would allow the layperson researching, "Libertarianism," to get an accurate general description, and read into the subject further and decide for themselves which side of the argument they agree with. It would allow all parties to be heard. Alphanumeric character (talk) 23:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

One huge flaw in the analysis. Only a small minority of US libertarians are in or vote for the USLP. You are presuming that USLP = US libertarianism. North8000 (talk) 16:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I was unaware of a US anarchist party. How many votes did the US Anarchists Party get in 2012? I never meant to imply that US Libertarians all voted for the USLP. Ron Paul was a contender for the GOP nomination - I'm pretty sure plenty of them voted Republican. My point was not that LP was underrepresented or that anarchism was overrepresented, but just that there are millions of libertarians that don't agree that anarchism is even libertarianism - and that fact was nowhere to be found in the lead. It's kind of a moot point now because the lead reflects a dissenting opinion now.Alphanumeric character (talk) 02:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
It is likely most of the editors here are not American, and don't care much about your premise, but they should agree with your conclusion and suggestion. Eodcarl (talk) 23:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
The evidence doesn't match your narrative. First of all, I was under the impression that this was Wikipedia, rather than the public relations department of the United States Libertarian Party. We don't edit an article on 'democratic republicanism' so as to accommodate the political platform of the DPRK. It doesn't change the concept when some political party decides to associate itself with some political label. With over a hundred fifty years of documented anti-capitalist/anarchist history, it would seem the "esoteric perspective" here is yours. Libertarians, to my knowledge, until this recent aberration which really came rolling in with Rothbard and the Charles Koch foundation, didn't debate about how much state there ought to be, just like abolitionists didn't argue about the best type of slavery. Reconciling pro-state and pro-capitalist views with the libertarian tradition is something best left to the writers on this topic. The lead currently does not exclude neoliberal capitalism from the definition of libertarian. Finx (talk) 02:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually, the current American libertarianism goes back to the founding of the nation. It is not new, and predates the 150 years you note. Many movements have taken the label libertarian, true. One thing the English language Wikipedia article should not do is attempt to translate movements in non-English speaking nations as libertarian, since there is already so many contradictory tenets of movements using the same label. Eodcarl (talk) 14:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Please provide a reference on the word "libertarian" being used to describe "small government" capitalism, predating 150 years, or even 50. Finx (talk) 15:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
The term libertarian is synonymous with classical liberalism in the US. Eodcarl (talk) 20:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
That doesn't answer the question. Were you able to find any use of 'libertarian' before the late 50s to refer to anyone other than anti-state socialists? Any widespread use before the 70s? As for 'classical liberalism' -- there's another term for that: classical liberalism. The term 'libertarian' is now synonymous with neoliberalism in the US political mainstream, which some (generally other neoliberals pretty much without exception) call a rebirth of classical liberalism, while many others describe this claim as absurd and preposterous. See section above. I can give you references besides "L'encerclement" where scholars not only dispute the comparison, but describe it in many respects as completely antithetical. Which, of course, is all beside the point, because the topic here is 'libertarianism' -- which would include all political ideologies that were referred to this way -- which would certainly those who invented the term and used it for a hundred-fifty-some years and counting -- which just happens to be a bunch anarchists and communists. Finx (talk) 20:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Use of the term is irrelevant; considering you all are translating completely unrelated words from other languages as libertarianism, it is perfectly reasonable to state the fact that classical liberalism in the US became libertarianism. There is no use of the term classical liberalism to describe anything today; it is a term of a different era. In the US the same philosophy is referred to as libertarianism, which is independent of the Libertarian Party. There wasn't a reason to use a new term before progressives transformed American governance; before the 1930s the US was actually governed by libertarianism, at least the way the term is used and understood in the US today, at the national level. Eodcarl (talk) 20:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Basically everything you've stated here that isn't an expression of your personal political opinion, which I have no interest in debating, is provably false. Considering "translating completely unrelated words" -- see my post below, in response to your sole citation. Finx (talk) 03:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I think I may have been unclear - I do NOT think the lead should be written to reflect the U.S. Libertarian Party's narrative. The example of someone seeking to learn about Libertarianism and being misled was just a use case. The numbers were to emphasize how much this article is misleading people. In hind sight, with the lack of good faith I've seen in these discussions, I should have just left that out completely. Please read my suggestion with good faith. I do not want the article to be biased either toward the school of thought that Anarchism is a form of Libertarianism, nor against it. My suggestion was to make the lead not imply that it is, nor that it is not, and then to expand and explain the discussion and debate within the article. There are 34 Archived pages of debate that are roughly 90% about this debate. Please read them - if you do, you will agree that to say the argument is not debated is silly. I'm not arguing that it should be one way or the other. I'm just saying there exists an ongoing debate, and we should treat it as such.Alphanumeric character (talk) 16:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, since 'libertarian' has been obviously used interchangeably with 'anarchist' for a solid century and a half, I guess we can safely and definitively say that "it is" and that's the end of that. I would certainly hope that this article is strongly biased towards facts and recorded history. Libertarian communism was around when the USLP didn't exist. Libertarian Marxism was around when the USLP didn't exist. Then, much later, Rothbard and company decided to hop on that particular rhetorical wagon and now we have a very different breed of libertarian which goes against what's been called libertarian everywhere in the world since the mid 19th century. So, just to reiterate, the US has 5% of the world's population and the USLP has existed for a little over forty years. Yet, I haven't seen anyone suggest that the lead should "not imply" that pro-state neoliberal capitalism can be described as a form of libertarianism, while someone suggesting that would have much more of a leg to stand on -- and yet, it would still be a bad argument. Finx (talk) 16:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Yet I have a political science book right in front of me that directly states libertarianism is NOT anarchism, so he has a point in not promoting otherwise in the lead. Eodcarl (talk) 20:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Cite it. Finx (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
"Libertarians are no anarchists, they believe that government has a necessary and important, if quite limited, function" cite book|last=Taylor|first=Steven|title=30-Second Politics|year=2011|publisher=Metro Books|location=New York|isbn=978-1-4351-3334-1|page=72 Eodcarl (talk) 20:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I guess somebody forgot to tell George Woodcock (probably the most authoritative scholar on the libertarian movement -- who happens to be from Canada), Murray Bookchin (the American anarchist and anti-capitalist who came up with 'libertarian municipalism'), Noam Chomsky (an American linguist, anarchist and anti-capitalist who's identified as a 'libertarian socialist' since decades before the USLP existed, as he continues to do today), Benjamin Tucker (the American anarchist anti-capitalist who identified as a 'libertarian', was called a 'libertarian' and wrote about libertarianism), and the hundreds of others whom I won't bother to list because it's a waste of time. Please do note, where you believe it is appropriate in the article, that an obscure political science professor from Alabama who penned a short paragraph in the bargain bin "30-Second Politics" disagrees with their use of the word libertarian. Finx (talk) 03:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Who are you to question the credentials of Professor Taylor, and then mention an extremist hack like Noam Chomsky? Do you even have a degree yourself while being a snob about where a PhD writes and teaches? Don't worry, it seems you'll be able to protect this propaganda piece masquerading as an informative article with help of your fellow narcissist high school drop outs. Eodcarl (talk) 00:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Finx, This is YOUR citation:
Ronald Hamowy, The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism, Chapter: "Anarchism", pp. 10–13; Quote: "... 'Individucals have rights, and there are things no person or group may do to them (without violating their rights). So strong and far-reaching are these rights that they raise the question of what, if anything, the state and its official may do.' Libertarian political philsophers have extensively debated this question, and many concude that the answer is ‘Nothing’.”
I find it baffling that you are arguing with yourself. Moreover, even if the word was used historically to mean exclusively what you say it means, that doesn't mean any other definition is moot. 60 years ago the word, "gay" meant happy and now it primarily means homosexual. Anyone still using the word in it's original meaning has to realize they're using a pretty esoteric definition. Alphanumeric character (talk) 02:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
First of all, no, that is not MY citation. That is a quote from Robert Nozick, which I did not provide. Secondly, I didn't say "any other definition is moot" and so far you are the one suggesting anarchism and libertarian socialism broadly should be pushed into the margins as "esoteric" while plenty of anarchist reds the world over continue to use the word libertarian, just as they have been using since Déjacque, as anti-state anti-capitalism continues to be the dominant meaning of libertarian. So, once again, I remind you that the US has 5% of the world population, the word, even in the US, has not been used to refer to pro-state capitalists until fairly recently, and out of the minority of the US population identifying as 'libertarian' a much tinier minority, going by the electoral record, seems to agree with the platform of the USLP. Believe it or not, there's libertarian socialists in the US who continue to use the word libertarian. Finx (talk) 03:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
How quaint to reduce the US to its proportion of the world population, ignoring the fact the most important thinkers in political philosophy in the last 100 years are Americans. Finx is nostalgic about a time he has never experienced, a time when his home nation was known for anything important. Eodcarl (talk) 00:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
My "home nation" is the USA, and I will not be responding to any more of your angry, hateful nationalism, false accusations (like calling me the 'self-proclaimed owner of the article') or rude, harassing personal attacks (like above, calling me 'a propagandist, narcissist high school drop out') for providing evidence and citations. This is not a message board for your juvenile political slap fights. Incompetence is one thing, but if you can't be civil and respectful and act like a grown up, maybe you should come back when you're mature enough to edit Wikipedia. Finx (talk) 09:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually the talk pages prior to 3 years ago were to decide that we're covering all significant strands of libertarianism. And we're not selecting one strand as being the "one true form" or "primary form". Talk on that topic in the last three years is mostly people who failed to learn the history before writing an epistle.North8000 (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with North8000. -- Fsol (talk) 17:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I disagree that this subject wasn't debated prior to three years ago, but even if you think the talk pages were only about deciding to cover all strands of Libertarianism, and not selecting one strand as being the, "one true form," debating the, "one true form," of the word is very much alike debating whether the Anarchism is truly one form of Libertarianism. My suggestion is to do exactly what was apparently decided three years ago: to avoid selecting a strand as being the, "truly one form," and recording the debate from a Neutral Point Of View.Alphanumeric character (talk) 03:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Agree in spirit. But I think that the "one true form" debate mostly doesn't exist in the real world, it exists here in this article. So, rather than covering the debate, we should cover the various strands and meanings of libertarianism. We did decide to slightly reduce anarchism coverage only because anarchism is typically called anarchism, and there is an Anarchism article. North8000 (talk) 11:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Just saw this post, but it's probably obvious from our other discussion that the debate over the "one true form" exists in the real world as well. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 23:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I object to the reversions on my last article corrections, and subsequent edits to limit "anarchism" to "anarcho-capitalism"

Diff 1 and Diff 2

Reasons provided for the reverts, respectively:

  • "The distinction between anarchists is blurry. i.e: "Anarchists are thus opposed to both capitalism and to the state" not libertarian anarchists. Best discuss changes"
  • "In the context of Minarchists-Anarchists, anarchists refers to libertarian anarchists."

Regarding the first:

Nothing in the edit excluded ancaps/'Rothbardian anarchism' from the lead. It simply stated that anarchists are anti-state, which is totally uncontroversial. One of the references, which was apparently misunderstood as the article's narrative, quotes Kropotkin ("It attacks not only capital, but also the main sources of the power of capitalism: law, authority, and the State"), with an accurate and again uncontroversial description of traditional, run of the mill (anti-capitalist) anarchism.

Regarding the second:

No, the anarchist/non-anarchist distinction is not dedicated to Rothbardian anarcho-capitalists: it includes anarcho-communists (libertarian communism), individualists, mutualists, and collectivists (all libertarian socialists), as already cited dozens of times in the article. Furthermore, "libertarian anarchists" is nonsensical, since the two were always used interchangeably, and libertarian was used as qualifier for e.g. "socialist" or "communist" -- but not anarchist; the sole use of "libertarian anarchist" I see comes from its (AFAIK un-cited) use in the anarcho-capitalism article. I've only seen its (quite confused) usage a few times in some recent, bloggish neoliberal texts of little importance. When Kropotkin's quote was written, Rothbard's decision to start calling his views "anarchist" in addition to "libertarian" (to the bewilderment of all the anarchists that ever came across it) was still around sixty years in the very distant future.

There is no factual basis for these reverts. Finx (talk) 10:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

You are inferring that your edit was about that specific topic. In fact it was a bundle of many changes in widely varying areas. You're going to need to unbundle it to let the process work. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Look again. There was very little in the edit, except the rewording of a few sentences, to fix the lead problems which I reviewed in its own section above (taking what I understood to be your approval and your suggestions into account -- you never responded to clarify) and then the moving of a few references, to a few sentences down, to satisfy the complaints that they were somehow "too anarchist" to warrant a mention. I also remind you that the lead now says "anarcho-capitalists" in the state/anti-state distinction of the very first paragraph, which is clearly contradicted by the rest of the article. Also, the "classical liberals" claim which has now been challenged by several users as clearly POV-pushing on this very talk page.
In other words, my edits: some cautious rephrasing for better clarity. Other changes which are present now, out of the blue: two claims that go against all the evidence in the article. Please tell me what it is you find so "contentious" (as you put it) in my edit and I will provide adequate references. It's so succinct and straightforward, and so thoroughly plowed-over already that there's simply nothing there for me to "break up." Finx (talk) 11:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
You reworded key sentences all over the place. The situation that you are setting up, where somebody has to address your entire huge bundle of changes in order to dispute a change is not correct. Again, you're going to need to unbundle it to let the process work. North8000 (talk) 12:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
My "huge bundle of changes" is the following two sentences:


(simply reworded, with exact same meaning as before, in order to be less opaque and sloppy)


(reworded, with essentially same meaning as before, to fix poorly-written self-contradictory word salad and clarify what the private property / MOP distinction means)
So, which one of that huge bundle of two is problematic? Do you want me to unbundle that from the removal of "classical liberalism" in the intro, which was crammed back in after being removed by someone else for obvious POV-pushing last time? Finx (talk) 12:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I also think it would be best to make individual and precise changes, so as to be able to discuss each one individually.
In regards to the distinction between minarchists and anarchists: it is a distinction only made in reference to right (private property supporting) libertarians. There are no left libertarian minarchists. So the valid distinction would be between minarchists and anarcho-capitalists, not anarchists in general. -- Fsol (talk) 12:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Should I keep it to two or three words at a time, then? How much smaller can an edit physically get? There was nothing in there to suggest "left libertarian minarchists" either before or after my edit. The only thing stated was that there is:
  • A group of people who identify or are identified as "libertarians" in favor of a "minimized state" -- which generally refers to what's called minarchism or relatively mainstream neoliberalism
  • A group of people who identify or are identified as "libertarians" in favor of "no state" -- which would include socialist individualists, mutualists, collectivists and communists, as well as Rothbardian 'anarcho-capitalists'
Notice how that latter group is not just anarcho-capitalists. Is there something unclear about that? Finx (talk) 12:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Finx, you are 100% in the right on this one, the lead is now atrocious!!! First of all, let's understand something: the lead doesn't need citations! It's a summary of the article. We do not work on the lead as if it was its own section! We edit the body of the article, and change the lead accordingly.
This whole set of edits was kicked off because someone wanted to make a semantic change to the article--surprise, surprise, it was another right-libertarian who couldn't stand anarchism being in the article!--that more accurately reflected one of the many sources supporting the claim! I assisted because it was just a semantic change (and the editor in question was apparently not going to stop edit warring), but I didn't realize it was going to lead to this mess. Let's revert it back to how it was before this nonsense. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Reverted. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
The way it was/is implied Libertarians were in general agreement and only had some contention on whether the state should be mostly or completely abolished. It didn't reflect the truth that anarchists consider c liberals thieves of the term that pervert the fundamental axioms, and c liberals consider anarchists morons that live in a fantasy land where everyone is an anarchist because of anyone decides to violate the NAP there would be no monopoly on force to maintain the rule of law. Each view considers the other to not really be Libertarianism, and that wasn't expressed in the lead. You might think it's not that important, but it is the crux of 90% of the contention on these talk pages and among libertarian philosophers since the 18th century and is reflected in a significant amount of citations in the article and subtopics in the article. "Libertarians advocate..." means libertarians agree... It's basic elementary english, and it's wrong; it's not some, "right-libertarian's" bias perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B02C:A7B0:43E2:57C6:7008:9442 (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
BS. An understanding of "basic elementary English" would make it obvious that libertarians cannot possibly hold two mutually exclusive beliefs. And your initial edits removed anarchism from the lead, not detailing any debate among libertarians. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Technically, the statement, "Libertarians advocate ..." is not syntactically wrong, but it is logically vague. The subject of a sentence is what acts on the object of a sentence via the verb. As an example: "The people think the car is blue or black." <- That means that the people, together, collectively agree that the car is either blue or they collectively agree the car is black. You might say, "Well, the car can't be both blue and black, so it's obvious that the people must disagree." That would be called conjecture. Please don't think I'm being condescending MisterDub, you're obviously very intelligent and very proficient english writer. It's one of those common mistakes, like the common confusion of, "I," and, "me." 71.137.195.66 (talk) 02:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
IP, I apologize for my harshness. I agree with you that the sentence could be more specific, and that the ideological divide between right- and left-libertarians can be vast and ought to be represented here. As I said before, because it was only a semantic change, as I think you'll agree, I considered it worth keeping. I think the manner in which the changes were made may have got my goat, but I have to realize that you are probably a new user and are unfamiliar with some of Wikipedia's policies, judging from your lack of a registered name. I think we want the same thing here, and I was fine with the last revision you made to the article. In fact, I'd say we need to do more to accurately present the values of, and conflicts between, these two factions of libertarianism. My issue with recent edits, not just yours, is that the lead isn't supposed to be changed the way it has been: the information in the lead is a reflection of the rest of the article and shouldn't be modified unless the body has been changed or there is a more accurate way to summarize the information already in the article. We need a robust "Philosophy" section we can accurately portray in the lead, but this article doesn't have that yet. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 05:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I think I gotta step away for a few days and cool off, because I've about had my fill of skirmishes that end up with POV warriors calling me names for trying to help, and I'm dangerously close to soap-boxing all over the talk page. I think the changes in wording above have some merit, as we still have problems, but then again I'm sure someone who's a better writer than me can improve them. If there's no objections that come up, I'll toss them back in. Still don't know how I can separate those few sentences into different edits, since they logically flow from and depend on one another. Finx (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I still don't see any individual changes either as a diff ("B" in BRD) or as a proposed change. (e.g. "before" and "after" wording on the proposed-change text.) Finx, it isn't that complicated. Maybe I'll try to do it for you on one of them. North8000 (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about? "Individual changes"? Wikipedia doesn't limit the extent of any proposed change. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I didn't say that there is such a rule. It was just practical / realistic advice, given as such. North8000 (talk) 21:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm aware of what you said, but your advice was not practical, it was absurd. There was nothing unrealistic about Finx's proposal, and demanding his acquiescence to your preferences is authoritarian as hell, not to mention against Wikipedia policy. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

There are certainly a collection of bullies protecting this article, namely Finx and Misterdub. Eodcarl (talk) 02:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree with your political perspective Eodcarl. They're both of the anarchism persuasion, but MisterDub appears to be reasonable and value the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. To me, it looks like you and Finx get caught up in absolutism - who's wrong or right. I think that all that really matters is that everything gets properly documented. (i.e. even if anarchism may factually not be libertarianism, it's important that it be documented that some people believe it is libertarianism.)Alphanumeric character (talk) 03:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your good faith, Alphanumeric character. As you and the IP have accurately stated, there is a deep, ideological divide between what have been called right- and left-libertarians; we often disagree about the government's existence and the appropriation of natural resources so much that we cannot suffer the other to even use the term libertarian to describe their values. But we both do use the term to describe our beliefs and so Wikipedia ought to contain information on both. I think we're well in agreement on this. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 05:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes. North8000 (talk) 10:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I've never suggested anything absolute. I do not dispute a select few anarchists at various times in history have co-opted the libertarian label in order to soften the edges of their extreme philosophy similar to China referring to itself as a republic. In both cases the terms was used but misapplied, on purpose for achieve other aims. I agree the article should acknowledge all uses of the term by anarchists but within that context. Eodcarl (talk) 23:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
So, we co-opted the term before it ever referred to a capitalist ideology? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 02:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
MisterDub, who said anything about capitalism? Eodcarl (talk) 02:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

FAQ section

MisterDub I reverted the material which you added to the FAQ section because I think it made the section too huge and really wasn't addressing article FAQ's. (They are really more FAQ's about the topic which should be covered in the article.) IMO that is excellent informative material that you wrote which should be added to the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

If length is a problem (and it shouldn't be... what's with these arbitrary requirements?!), we can collapse the FAQ by default. You're correct that this information should be in the article, but in the meantime, I thought it might help some editors here understand more about the differences between these varying philosophies, and maybe prevent edits like the ones recently that removed social anarchism from the lead completely. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I added back the copy edits to the first two questions, but left the questions and answers I previously added out. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I dunno. I think that anything that addresses recurring questions about how the article is done would be good. Let's just consider it a work in progress. Maybe my revert was too ham handed. Sorry if it was. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what you mean with that first sentence. The article is done according to Wikipedia policy, whereas the FAQ's purpose is to educate readers/editors on common questions and debates that occur here so we can prevent edit wars and other conflicts. Can you elaborate on this? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
In different words, I meant what you just said / quoted. In essence:
If it relates to a reoccurring debate / question regarding the article itself, the best place is the FAQ's. If it informs the reader about the topic of the article (e.g. about libertarianism) IMHO that place to put it is in the body of the article. North8000 (talk) 20:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, North8000. The reason I added that information was because it occurred to me that other editors may not realize that there is a rift within anarchism as well, between the libertarian socialists and anarcho-capitalists. We left-libertarians not only disagree with the classical liberal's adoption of the term libertarian, but also with the anarcho-capitalist's use of the word anarchism to refer to something that isn't socialist. I think this may help readers/editors understand the difference between right- and left-libertarianism better. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
In short, just keep editing. You do good work. No big deal if we revert or modify each other's edits. We're both just trying to evolve something good.
That's interesting (I'm trying to learn this stuff) So you are saying that for persons with your beliefs:
  1. The best version of anarchism is socialist?
  2. That anarchism should mean (only) socialist?
  3. If #2 is yes, what would you call a complete lack of government or system? (or advocacy for such) (e.g. Somalia a few years ago)?
Thanks. North8000 (talk) 20:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, that's the gist of it. You have to understand that the terms libertarian and anarchist are synonyms to us, and we see these as the rejection of all external authorities imposed upon another:


This is from Mikhail Bakunin's God and the State, and hopefully illustrates our anti-state, anti-religious, and anti-capitalist tendencies. We don't often get along with anarcho-capitalists--there's even a Facebook group called "Still Laughing at Anarcho-Capitalism"--because we view capitalism as inherently authoritarian, and as much as we don't approve of liberals using the term libertarian, we also don't approve of ancaps using the term anarchism. As libertarianism means moral agency and individual sovereignty, anarchism means an absence of rulers. Somalia wouldn't be considered an anarchy because, despite the lack of a stable, semi-permanent state, it is a place of extreme authoritarianism.


Source: The Truth About Somalia and Anarchy -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm learning. It is in that spirit (trying to learn not debate) that I ask: It would seem that socialism (with a central tenet of common ownership) inevitably needs some method to enforce that against the individual, and thus is in direct conflict with anarchism? This is not a debate about viability/issues, it is merely an attempt to learn/clarify the tenets that you use to define libertarianism/anarchism. Thanks. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Socialism isn't necessarily common ownership. There are many different economic theories under this umbrella, but the key is the means of production (natural resources, factories and the tools therein) aren't privately owned and are therefore available for use, a concept called usufruct. A lot of Americans, when they hear the term socialism, think of the authoritarian socialism of the USSR, but that kind of socialism is called Marxism or Marxism-Leninism. Libertarian socialists, on the other hand, don't want an elite group planning the entire economy. I can't really get more specific without detailing a particular economic theory, either communism, syndicalism, mutualism, geoism/georgism, municipalism/Communalism, or the "Tuckerite" socialism of American individualists. I think the essence of libertarian socialism is best summarized as "anarchism without adjectives," which is more of an attitude of cooperation amongst fellow libertarians: organic society will take different forms in different geographical areas, as people live and labor together in unique ways, so these different economic theories can coexist in practice. Libertarian socialism is also strongly tied to the labor movement and the just compensation of workers, which is why we criticize right-libertarians for valuing capitalism... what we view as the exploitation of workers by the propertied classes. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 05:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you so much! It's going to take me a while to digest that including what's at those links. Also I'm entering an approx 8 day period when I'll be barely on wiki so there will be a "pause" here. Thanks again. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Libertarianism sidebar

I have to bring this issue here and not just to the talk section of the "libertarianism sidebar". As it stands now it is mostly biased towards right wing libertarianism or as we outside of the US call it, towards economic liberalism or neoliberalism. The libertarianism sidebar has to go in agreement with this article and not with the particular taste of a single user. That or else the users who want to keep out of that template things like libertarian socialism and libertarian marxism are free to propose instead a "right libertarianism" sidebar or a "Libertarianism according to the US libertarian Party" sidebar.--Eduen (talk) 06:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Eduen, could you please be more specific about what's wrong? I ask because I see libertarian socialism and libertarian Marxism on the sidebar, as well as anti-statism, counter-economics, agorism, mutualism, Bakunin, Bookchin, Chomsky, de Cleyre, etc. Do you want something added to the sidebar? Or do you just not like right-libertarian ideas displayed at all? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
What I asking for as i stated before is balance. And not just balance as far as the right/left political spectrum but also geographical balance. As that template stands now it deals mostly with people and issues relevant to US neoliberalism and its bias is such that it even decides to include a US politician running for president (Ron Paul) and someone who is described in his wikipedia article as a conservative politician (Robert Taft).--Eduen (talk) 00:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Intead of just complaining i decided to add a few names and concepts for balance in the libertarianism sidebar.--Eduen (talk) 00:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I think the sidebar is now, and was before, totally choked with obscure figures and concepts that it is really not useful. You cant just put anything at all in the sidebar just because you feel it somehow has some connection with libertarianism. Bonewah (talk) 13:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I'd be open to and encourage improvements. Whenever one shortens a list a lot of tough and sometimes subjective decisions need to get made. One important thing is to keep / make it broad and balanced. North8000 (talk) 14:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Balanced im all for, but i think if its too broad then it looses its value. In my opinion, we should limit the sidebar to only those subject which are truly important to Libertarianism, and not merely related to it. Bonewah (talk) 14:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Agree. North8000 (talk) 16:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

<-Ok, Im going to make a pass and at least get started on paring it down the essential components starting in the concepts section. Here is what im removing:

Ill do more as time permits and after people have a chance to comment on these changes. Bonewah (talk) 17:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I think we should restore egalitarianism, wage slavery, and workers' self-management... possibly class conflict, participatory economics, and squatting as well. Your justifications for removing these seem to imply that you are not a "left libertarian" (aka anarchist), but these concepts are rather prominent, if not vital, to the libertarian critique of Western, capitalist society. I mean no offense by this, but I think removing these concepts only exacerbates the neoliberal bias to which Eduen previously referred. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Bonewah, I applaud your efforts but agree with MisterDub on those particular restorations. We need to be sensitive to the fact that libertarianism has some very different meanings. And I think that Misterdub is a good one to lend this expertise. North8000 (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
My objection to the inclusion of those concepts has less to do with left vs. right libertarianism or neoliberal bias as it does the directness of the connection to libertarianism. Consider for a moment squatting. I have no doubt that squatting is a tactic that is sometimes employed by some libertarians in pursuit of libertarian objectives, but i dont think that by itself justifies its inclusion in our list. If it did, then you could really make the same argument about say stealing or violence or protesting for example. There are clear examples of left libertarians employing protesting to advance their libertarian objectives, but the concept of protests itself is too broad and far removed from libertarianism to be included in a list of libertarian concepts (as the concept is not unique to, or central to libertarianism, even left libertarianism). In any event, my hope here was to spur conversation about what should and should not be included in this list and i think we are off to a good start. Let me pose a question to you both: How close or tight and association does a concept need to have with Libertarianism to be included? Put another way, how do you determine the relevance of a subject to libertarianism? Bonewah (talk) 21:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Excellent (and difficult) question. I'd almost say that it has to be important to some particular variant of libertarianism, but that could get messy quick. Perhaps if it were important to a large portion of adherents? I'd say the first three I listed earlier, which I've since restored, are crucial to left libertarianism, regardless of the differences within this larger subgroup (e.g. economic policy, meta-ethical theories, tactics for political activism). In fact, I think anything that is common (near-ubiquitous?) among either right or left libertarianism, as one of the most prevalent and divisive distinctions, ought to be included. With this in mind, I agree with your analysis of squatting and withdraw my previous suggestion to add it back. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
My idea: "Important to and often identified with some significant variant of libertarianism." And yes, that too would be messy, but messy is inevitable for this effort. If the standard is sound, I think the messiness would pass. North8000 (talk) 23:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The Lead

There was recently a lot of NPOV dispute about the lead that seems to have settled down with reminders of the Wikipedia policies - specifically, "Wikipedia is not supposed to advocate any libertarian tendency, but to neutrally reflect what reliable sources say about these movements." [from the FAQ] Now that we seem to be cooperating better, can we work on the lead? I think there may be several issues, but for simplicity purposes, I'd like to discuss them separately: Alphanumeric character (talk) 02:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


Citations

The lead ought to be citation free. Each statement in the lead should be repeated or paraphrased within a subsection in the article and cited there. Currently several statements have citations, and some statements have several citations (up to 7 citations.) There should be either a new subsection created in the article for them, or they should fit into a current subsection, and cited there. Alphanumeric character (talk) 02:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The first statement/citation fits in the etymology section. It can be copied there, and the citation removed from the lead. Alphanumeric character (talk) 02:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
First, I just want to say that a lead free of citations is our goal, but it may not be possible. Citations are appropriate if there is a controversial statement or direct quote... but certainly we could do better than the mess we have currently.
My own personal preference is to entirely rewrite the lead. I've been working on a new "Philosophy" section in my sandbox which illustrates approximately how this section ought to be organized, though it still needs much work. (I finally have time this weekend, so I'll be working on finishing it up.) The first paragraphs should talk about inidividual sovereignty, then we can get into the tenets of various libertarian philosophies, which I've listed in nearly chronological order. Once this section is created, we can alter the lead to accurately summarize this information, instead of trying to pull information from the lead into the article's body. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
It's an interesting route. After watching the bickering from the slightest change in the lead, I imagine an entire rewrite would draw considerable criticism. On one hand I'm fairly new to the contributor's side of Wikipedia, so maybe that's how things get done, but on the other hand I watched the very robust and well written NPOV article on, "Wealth disparity in the United States," be mutilated and eventually destroyed by bands of social activists that way. I guess we all have the chance to analyze and debate every aspect of your rewrite, so I don't see a problem with it. Alphanumeric character (talk) 04:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I was very intrigued by the opener in the lead in your sandbox:

"In metaphysics, libertarianism refers to the doctrine of free will.[1] As an ethical and political philosophy, it claims that individuals are both ontologically and normatively primary, and seeks to establish robust boundaries for individual action"

Particularly the phrase, "... as an ethical and political philosophy ..." I think the distinction between ethical and political may have been what Eodcarl was arguing when he claimed that Anarchism is not Libertarianism. As an ethical philosophy Anarchism is obviously Libertarianism and the terms are virtually synonymous, but being that politics is governance which doesn't exist without coercion - Anarchism is an ethical philosophy that is anti-political, and therefore unrelated to Libertarianism as a political philosophy. I'm not an expert on the subject; this is just what I've gathered from the past few weeks of research. If I'm wrong on any count, I'd appreciate an explanation. Thanks. Alphanumeric character (talk) 04:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Encyclopedia References - I've looked, but haven't found anything in the Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines on citing encyclopedia references. An encyclopedia is just collection of references often paraphrased or simplified for readability. I've never read an encyclopedia article that referenced another encyclopedia except in Wikipedia, and I think that's for good reason: the potential for cumulative error. Also, Encyclopedias reference every factual claim, so referencing an encyclopedia is either purposefully using the simplification or interpretation to bend the statement or is being lazy because all you have to do is look up the original reference in the encyclopedia's references. Alphanumeric character (talk) 04:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Alphanumeric character, we needn't worry about rewriting the lead too much: the changes I propose at this time are merely to add a more robust "Philosophy" section and make it the topmost section in the article. The lead, as a summary of the article, will then need to change to accommodate this new information. We can surely take a slow, sentence-by-sentence approach to this, but I don't see why we can't propose a larger edit so long as it accurately reflects the material. Either way, worrying about the lead at this juncture is putting the cart before the horse.
As for the distinction between ethical and political philosophy, I'd say you have it backwards if anything. Libertarianism consists of moral claims to individual sovereignty and certain property rights, and this extends into the political realm as anarchism. Politika referred to the dealings of the polis, the urban center and the outlying agricultural areas in ancient Greek civilization, and doesn't necessarily include hierarchy. I'm fairly certain Murray Bookchin has written on this matter, but I cannot find it easily on the Internet--I think it's in The Ecology of Freedom, if you care to undertake a very difficult read. In any case, my point is that anarchists of my persuasion (i.e. social anarchists) want organization--"Anarchy is Order," as we say--often into small communities that resemble the Greek poleis; we simply don't want a top-down, hierarchical organization, but a bottom-up, voluntary one instead. Of course, regardless of this explanation, we must be faithful to the sources, which refer to both libertarianism and anarchism as political philosophies.
Finally, you make an excellent point about encyclopaedias. According to Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources, "[t]ertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, obituaries, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion [emphasis added]." It appears that they can be used, but ought to be minimized in favor of secondary sources. I think we have enough secondary sources here to justify cutting out encyclopaedias entirely, if that's what others want as well. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I found Bookchin talking about politics, if you're interested:


Radicalizing Democracy: An Interview with Murray Bookchin -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Terms

Some of the terms have been debated and the debates not really concluded. Alphanumeric character (talk) 02:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

"Minarchism" is a term used only by anarchists. I've never seen the term used in a reference that wasn't from a self proclaimed anarchist or anarcho-capitalist. I believe the term, "Classical Liberalism" best describes the minimum state and maximum individual liberty political structure. The [[Classical Liberalism] [Classical Liberalism]] article and corresponding citations support my belief. Would anyone who thinks otherwise please explain why and provide citations? Thanks. Alphanumeric character (talk) 02:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
I assure you that anarchists don't use the term 'minarchism' or 'minarchists' -- anarchists just call 'em liberals, or 'ultracapitalist liberals' or sometimes, less tactfully, just a long string of profanities. I don't know who uses the term minarchism, but I've never seen it used by anarchists. Finx (talk) 11:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I've also heard used, in lieu of 'minarchist': propertarian, neoliberal, laissez faire capitalist, and occasionally riffs on 'Ron' or 'Paul' mashed together with various unflattering words. Not endorsing it, just my observation. Finx (talk) 11:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure that social anarchists use the term minarchism either, actually. I thought that was more of a debate amongst right-libertarians. As for classical liberal, there is an argument for using the neo- prefix because modern libertarians of this stripe often don't "honor" (poor choice of words... sorry) the Lockean proviso or heed Adam Smith's warnings of industrialization. I'll have to find the sources and return. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:31, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm doing more research on the Lockean proviso and Adam Smith and industrialization. That's the first I've heard that they are the distinction between NeoClassical and Classical Liberalism. Thanks for the references. Alphanumeric character (talk) 04:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Here are some sources stating that neo-classical liberalism ought to be distinguished from classical liberalism:
Now maybe this isn't cause to title the section "Neo-classical liberalism," but I think we ought to at least make it known that there are some who would not call today's economic liberalism "classical." -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Add to that "L'Encerclement - La démocratie dans les rets du néolibéralisme" (translated "Encirclement – Neo-Liberalism Ensnares Democracy" -- English wikpedia link, French wikipedia link, pertinent clip with English speakers, AFAIK full documentary). I think it explains the split and scholarly dispute quite clearly, and might be useful for the FAQ above since this keeps coming up. Finx (talk) 11:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
From what I understand, the term, "Classical Liberalism," wasn't used by Locke or the American Revolutionaries. It was a term used later to distinguish one or the other from a more modern definition of, "Liberalism," and which one (17th or 18th century liberalism) is what's debated. I appreciate the references. They don't all necessarily support your claim that Classical Liberalism is specifically 17th century liberalism, or that NeoClassical Liberalism is 18th Century Liberalism. There is some conflicting information among them, i.e. the last article appears to classify NeoClassical Liberalism as a 21st century version that is unlike either of the past versions. I haven't studied them in depth. I'll give them a more thorough read and respond with specific line quotations. Alphanumeric character (talk) 04:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
This is probably a dumb question, but what is, "Hamowy, p. xxix"? You use it in your sandbox and the Classical Liberalism page both use this reference. As far as I can tell it's a reference to Ronald Hamowy and page xxix, but there's no specific publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphanumeric character (talk • contribs) 05:04, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I hope I didn't claim that one term refers to a 17th century Liberalism and the other an 18th century Liberalism. If I did, it was not intended. Neo-Classical liberalism refers to the 21st century, laissez-faire capitalist ideology that is more or less synonymous with economic liberalism. If I may be so bold, I'd say neo-liberals are only concerned with freedom of exchange, and not the hierarchical structure capitalism imposes upon the labor force. Classical liberalism, on the other hand, refers to the liberalism of the 17th and 18th centuries, which was concerned with the well-being of other people before the appropriation of natural resources could be justified. Again, the most prominent example of this is the Lockean proviso.
The source you've asked about is merely a page number for a source previously cited, Ronald Hamowy's The encyclopedia of libertarianism. I can fix the citation later so it is clear that it comes from this work, but perhaps we should not use encyclopaedias at all, per your comment in the above section? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Tags on contemporary libertarianism section

There has been no discussion of any stated specific problems or proposed changes. Unless something like that gets rolling I plan to remove the tags in a week or so. And such should really should include proposed changes / additions. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ Ostergaard, Geoffrey. "Anarchism". A Dictionary of Marxist Thought. Blackwell Publishing, 1991. p. 21.
  2. ^ Chomsky (2004) p. 739
  3. ^ Bookchin, Murray and Janet Biehl. The Murray Bookchin Reader. Cassell, 1997. p. 170 ISBN 0-304-33873-7
  4. ^ Hicks, Steven V. and Daniel E. Shannon. The American journal of economics and sociolology. Blackwell Pub, 2003. p. 612
  5. ^ "The revolution abolishes private ownership of the means of production and distribution, and with it goes capitalistic business. Personal possession remains only in the things you use. Thus, your watch is your own, but the watch factory belongs to the people."Alexander Berkman. "What Is Communist Anarchism?"
  6. ^ Rocker, Rudolf (2004). Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory and Practice. AK Press. p. 65. ISBN 978-1-902593-92-0.
  7. ^ Sims, Franwa (2006). The Anacostia Diaries As It Is. Lulu Press. p. 160.
  8. ^ A Mutualist FAQ: A.4. Are Mutualists Socialists?. Mutualist.org. Retrieved on 2011-12-28.
  9. ^ Murray Bookchin, Ghost of Anarcho-Syndicalism; Robert Graham, The General Idea of Proudhon's Revolution
  10. ^ Kent Bromley, in his preface to Peter Kropotkin's book The Conquest of Bread, considered early French utopian socialist Charles Fourier to be the founder of the libertarian branch of socialist thought, as opposed to the authoritarian socialist ideas of Babeuf and Buonarroti." Kropotkin, Peter. The Conquest of Bread, preface by Kent Bromley, New York and London, G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1906.
  11. ^ "(Benjamin) Tucker referred to himself many times as a socialist and considered his philosophy to be "Anarchistic socialism." An Anarchist FAQ by Various Authors
  12. ^ French individualist anarchist Émile Armand shows clearly opposition to capitalism and centralized economies when he said that the individualist anarchist "inwardly he remains refractory – fatally refractory – morally, intellectually, economically (The capitalist economy and the directed economy, the speculators and the fabricators of single are equally repugnant to him.)""Anarchist Individualism as a Life and Activity" by Emile Armand
  13. ^ Anarchist Peter Sabatini reports that In the United States "of early to mid-19th century, there appeared an array of communal and "utopian" counterculture groups (including the so-called free love movement). William Godwin's anarchism exerted an ideological influence on some of this, but more so the socialism of Robert Owen and Charles Fourier. After success of his British venture, Owen himself established a cooperative community within the United States at New Harmony, Indiana during 1825. One member of this commune was Josiah Warren (1798–1874), considered to be the first individualist anarchist"Peter Sabatini. "Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy"
  14. ^ Ellen Frankel Paul; Fred Miller, Jr; Jeffrey Paul (12 February 2007). Liberalism: Old and New: Volume 24. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-70305-5. Retrieved 13 June 2013.
  15. ^ Taylor C. Boas and Jordan Gans-Morse, Neoliberalism: From New Liberal Philosophy to Anti-Liberal Slogan, Studies in Comparative International Development (SCID), Volume 44, Number 2, doi:10.1007/s12116-009-9040-5, p. 151–152
  16. ^ John, David C. (21 November 2003). "The Origins of the Modern American Conservative Movement". heritage.org. Retrieved 2010-05-13.
  17. ^ Andrew Knapp and Vincent Wright (2006). The Government and Politics of France. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-35732-6.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Libertarianism/Archive_34&oldid=1143854465"