Talk:Left-libertarianism/Archive 2

Henry George was not a libertarian
To include the claim that Henry George was a left-libertarian is wrong, is NPOV, is co opting and hence is a kind of vandalism/intellectual theft.

I've got nothing against the idea of Single Tax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.234.185.204 (talk) 18:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Left-libertarianism as catch all?
Just cleaned up Libertarianism article and stuck all of the following under Libertarianism: Left libertarianism, Libertarian Marxism, Libertarian socialism and Libertarian communism are all phrases which activists with a variety of perspectives have applied to their views.

That does summarize the following paragraphs, but I don't have a source for the statement itself, though haven't looked that hard yet. Any thoughts? Sources? I'd like to put something similar in this article if it is true and maybe a much shorter summary of what is in that section now. CarolMooreDC 20:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Attempted Deletion of Material on Left-wing Market Anarchism, etc.
I object in the strongest terms to the recent efforts by User:Somedifferentstuff to delete massive amounts of text related to left-wing market anarchism and individualist anarchism, which were carried out without any discussion whatever here on Talk, and which are hard to distinguish from deliberate vandalism. Edit notes attempt to delete entire multi-paragraph sections of the article on the basis of complaints about sources in the first sentence (issues which could be resolved simply by referring to printed discussions, such as the book Markets Not Capitalism [2011], from Minor Compositions/Autonomedia), even though claims throughout the section are then referenced to books, magazines, and publications from academic presses. The eradication of the section is then described as being a simple deletion of "unsourced material." It is hard to know what to make of this; it looks uncomfortably like deliberate misdirection from an editor who wants to conceal the extent and the motivations of the deletions being made. In any case, the section on left-wing market anarchism clearly is relevant to contemporary printed usage of the term "left-libertarianism," and clearly belongs in this article. Radgeek (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * First, don't do blanket reverts, I edited many different sections of the article. Second, I explained in my edit summary the removal of left-wing market anarchism from the article. That section was linked to the main article for Free-market anarchism which does not list Left-wing market anarchism anywhere in that article, meaning it carries little to zero weight. Also, the first and most important sentence of the section (which qualifies its inclusion) was cited to a blog. (See the unacceptable source here .) Lastly, that section was poor in terms of layout and the article as a whole looks much cleaner now.  If you can come up with an appropriate source for the first sentence we can discuss possibly adding back the first paragraph. The rest of the section would need to be discussed piece by piece in regards to relevance. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 08:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * User:Somedifferentstuff writes:
 * "I explained in my edit summary the removal of left-wing market anarchism from the article."
 * Your first major deletion of content related to left-wing market anarchism, here, deleted 11 paragraphs of text, totaling 14,075 bytes, with no discussion whatever on the Talk: page, and with no discussion whatever of your reasons for deleting this much material other than the single word "Cleanup." Some content similar to some of what you deleted was later re-added when you rewrote the section on mutualism; the content contained in the discussions of Hodgskin, Tucker, Agorism, etc. was not re-added, nor did you make any attempt to discuss this with other editors or to justify your deletions.
 * Your second major deletion of content, which eliminated the left-wing market anarchism section entirely, here, half an hour later, deleted 3 paragraphs of text, including all the remaining discussion of left-wing market anarchism, amounting to a deletion of 5,703 bytes was also carried out without any discussion or justification on the Talk: page, and was explained in your edit note with nothing more than the following: "Removed section. The first sentence is sourced to a blog. The second is tagged." As I will discuss below, this is a wild irrelevancy, but even if it were clearly on point, if you think that this is anything like an explanation or an adequate discussion for deleting not only those two sentences, but deleting the entire section of the article, totaling 14 paragraphs and nearly 20KB, and thus deleting an entire sense of the term from being mentioned at all, then I can only say that this is far beyond WP:CAUTIOUS and you are going to have to get used to people responding with reverts when you destroy that much content.
 * "First, don't do blanket reverts"
 * You have no basis whatever to complain about this and no standing to issue demands when you summarily delete 20KB of content and erase entire senses of the article without more discussion than "Cleanup," a brief mention of sourcing issues with two sentences, etc. Nor when you respond to my reversion by blanket-reverting, thus destroying edits which directly dealt with exactly the sourcing issues that you claimed were motivating your edits. If you're going to be WP:BOLD, you're going to get some reverts in response. If you don't like this, try and take it up on the Talk page.
 * "I edited many different sections of the article."
 * The edits you made after the reversion that I reverted to consisted of: (1) changing the size of the photo of Henry George, (2) re-inserting material about Mutualism under the heading of "Libertarian Socialism," (3) fiddling with the section headings of this sub-section, (4) removing an "Improve Section" tag, (5) changing the header level for "Libertarian communism," and (6) deleting subsidiary mentions of left-wing market anarchism elsewhere in the article after you removed the section on it. Of these, the only significant constructive edit which is not contingent on the deletion of left-wing market anarchism from the article, is edit (2), which I directly addressed by re-incorporating a significant amount of your edit into the text here, in one of my edits which you wiped out with your own revert.
 * "That section was linked to the main article for Free-market anarchism which does not list Left-wing market anarchism anywhere in that article, meaning it carries little to zero weight."
 * I do not know what could possibly justify this inference. Free-market anarchism does not include the phrase "left-wing market anarchism" in it. It does explicitly discuss the positions discussed under the "left-wing market anarchist" section: see for example the discussions of agorism, and of Tuckerite individualists. The section on left-wing market anarchism in this article easily satisfies the criteria listed for discussion of a viewpoint: it is easy to name prominent adherents -- for example, Tucker, Spooner, Hodgskin, Voltairine de Cleyre, Kevin Carson, Roderick Long, Gary Chartier, etc. WP:WEIGHT is in any case a policy about the relationship between a viewpoint under discussion and the subject of the article it appears in, not some kind of guideline for comparing the discussion of a viewpoint and other, more general articles that it links to. (Free-market anarchism links to Laissez-faire, which does not discuss free market anarchism at all, or even allude to the ideas except by way of a "See also" link.)
 * "Also, the first and most important sentence of the section ..."
 * Here is the sentence in question: Another contemporary school that self-identifies as “left-libertarian” stresses the value of radically free – or “freed” – markets.
 * If you actually think that this is the "most important sentence of the section," then I can only say that that is not a sane reading of the section. Every sentence following it in the paragraph is more important to the content of the section; in particular: T"his strand of left-libertarianism tends to be rooted either in the Mutualist economics conceptutalized by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, classical American individualist anarchism, or in a left-wing interpretation or extension of the thought of Murray Rothbard. It is typically linked with the thought of scholars including Kevin Carson,[61] Roderick T. Long,[62] Charles Johnson,[63] Brad Spangler,[64] Samuel Edward Konkin III,[65] Sheldon Richman,[66] Chris Matthew Sciabarra,[67] and Gary Chartier.[68]"
 * ". . . was cited to a blog."
 * The footnote is explicit that the reference to the blog post is for the limited purpose of pointing to the usage of the phrase "freed markets." (Here is the footnote: "For 'freed market,' see William Gillis, 'The Freed Market.'") It is not intended as a citation to justify the statement that "Another contemporary school that self-identifies as 'left-libertarian' stresses the value of radically free... markets." That statement is justified, on any minimally careful reading of the paragraph, by the citations at the end of the paragraph, which directly cite examples of the view in a series of books, magazines, and academic press titles from Ashgate, Pennsylvania State University Press, and Cambridge University Press. There is in fact no sourcing problem at all, since (as I stated on this Talk page and as I demonstrated in a subsequent edit which you reverted), the minor point that the blog was being cited for (the origin of the phrase "freed markets") can in any case be sourced in print in the collection Markets Not Capitalism. But even if it could not be, it's hard to see any reason why this issue would be treated as a reason to justify deleting not only the first sentence, but the subsequent 14 paragraphs of text and all mentions of a view which was repeatedly sourced elsewhere in that section. It's hard to know what even to make of this complaint other than as an opportunistic excuse to delete a view that you'd rather not see represented in this article; but if so, that kind of POV has no place in editing this article.
 * "If you can come up with an appropriate source for the first sentence we can discuss possibly adding back the first paragraph. The rest of the section would need to be discussed piece by piece in regards to relevance."
 * This is absurd. I gave you an appropriate source for the usage claim in the first sentence, but you reverted it. Your edits are not a WP:FAITACCOMPLI and I will not accept the demand for "piece by piece" re-negotiation of the very existence of a section on left-wing market anarchism.
 * If you want to clean up the section on left-wing market anarchism, then by all means clean it up. But this is not cleaning up; it is cleaning out. I agree that many things about this entire article are a mess; but a blanket deletion of the section on left-wing market anarchism is not even remotely an appropriate solution, and worse, your way of carrying out this blanket deletion has been systematically underhanded, misdirecting and destructive of relevant and well-sourced discussions of the viewpoint. The section on left-wing market anarchism clearly is relevant to contemporary printed usage of the term "left-libertarianism," and clearly belongs in this article. Radgeek (talk) 01:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not know what could possibly justify this inference. Free-market anarchism does not include the phrase "left-wing market anarchism" in it. It does explicitly discuss the positions discussed under the "left-wing market anarchist" section: see for example the discussions of agorism, and of Tuckerite individualists. The section on left-wing market anarchism in this article easily satisfies the criteria listed for discussion of a viewpoint: it is easy to name prominent adherents -- for example, Tucker, Spooner, Hodgskin, Voltairine de Cleyre, Kevin Carson, Roderick Long, Gary Chartier, etc. WP:WEIGHT is in any case a policy about the relationship between a viewpoint under discussion and the subject of the article it appears in, not some kind of guideline for comparing the discussion of a viewpoint and other, more general articles that it links to. (Free-market anarchism links to Laissez-faire, which does not discuss free market anarchism at all, or even allude to the ideas except by way of a "See also" link.)
 * "Also, the first and most important sentence of the section ..."
 * Here is the sentence in question: Another contemporary school that self-identifies as “left-libertarian” stresses the value of radically free – or “freed” – markets.
 * If you actually think that this is the "most important sentence of the section," then I can only say that that is not a sane reading of the section. Every sentence following it in the paragraph is more important to the content of the section; in particular: T"his strand of left-libertarianism tends to be rooted either in the Mutualist economics conceptutalized by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, classical American individualist anarchism, or in a left-wing interpretation or extension of the thought of Murray Rothbard. It is typically linked with the thought of scholars including Kevin Carson,[61] Roderick T. Long,[62] Charles Johnson,[63] Brad Spangler,[64] Samuel Edward Konkin III,[65] Sheldon Richman,[66] Chris Matthew Sciabarra,[67] and Gary Chartier.[68]"
 * ". . . was cited to a blog."
 * The footnote is explicit that the reference to the blog post is for the limited purpose of pointing to the usage of the phrase "freed markets." (Here is the footnote: "For 'freed market,' see William Gillis, 'The Freed Market.'") It is not intended as a citation to justify the statement that "Another contemporary school that self-identifies as 'left-libertarian' stresses the value of radically free... markets." That statement is justified, on any minimally careful reading of the paragraph, by the citations at the end of the paragraph, which directly cite examples of the view in a series of books, magazines, and academic press titles from Ashgate, Pennsylvania State University Press, and Cambridge University Press. There is in fact no sourcing problem at all, since (as I stated on this Talk page and as I demonstrated in a subsequent edit which you reverted), the minor point that the blog was being cited for (the origin of the phrase "freed markets") can in any case be sourced in print in the collection Markets Not Capitalism. But even if it could not be, it's hard to see any reason why this issue would be treated as a reason to justify deleting not only the first sentence, but the subsequent 14 paragraphs of text and all mentions of a view which was repeatedly sourced elsewhere in that section. It's hard to know what even to make of this complaint other than as an opportunistic excuse to delete a view that you'd rather not see represented in this article; but if so, that kind of POV has no place in editing this article.
 * "If you can come up with an appropriate source for the first sentence we can discuss possibly adding back the first paragraph. The rest of the section would need to be discussed piece by piece in regards to relevance."
 * This is absurd. I gave you an appropriate source for the usage claim in the first sentence, but you reverted it. Your edits are not a WP:FAITACCOMPLI and I will not accept the demand for "piece by piece" re-negotiation of the very existence of a section on left-wing market anarchism.
 * If you want to clean up the section on left-wing market anarchism, then by all means clean it up. But this is not cleaning up; it is cleaning out. I agree that many things about this entire article are a mess; but a blanket deletion of the section on left-wing market anarchism is not even remotely an appropriate solution, and worse, your way of carrying out this blanket deletion has been systematically underhanded, misdirecting and destructive of relevant and well-sourced discussions of the viewpoint. The section on left-wing market anarchism clearly is relevant to contemporary printed usage of the term "left-libertarianism," and clearly belongs in this article. Radgeek (talk) 01:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ". . . was cited to a blog."
 * The footnote is explicit that the reference to the blog post is for the limited purpose of pointing to the usage of the phrase "freed markets." (Here is the footnote: "For 'freed market,' see William Gillis, 'The Freed Market.'") It is not intended as a citation to justify the statement that "Another contemporary school that self-identifies as 'left-libertarian' stresses the value of radically free... markets." That statement is justified, on any minimally careful reading of the paragraph, by the citations at the end of the paragraph, which directly cite examples of the view in a series of books, magazines, and academic press titles from Ashgate, Pennsylvania State University Press, and Cambridge University Press. There is in fact no sourcing problem at all, since (as I stated on this Talk page and as I demonstrated in a subsequent edit which you reverted), the minor point that the blog was being cited for (the origin of the phrase "freed markets") can in any case be sourced in print in the collection Markets Not Capitalism. But even if it could not be, it's hard to see any reason why this issue would be treated as a reason to justify deleting not only the first sentence, but the subsequent 14 paragraphs of text and all mentions of a view which was repeatedly sourced elsewhere in that section. It's hard to know what even to make of this complaint other than as an opportunistic excuse to delete a view that you'd rather not see represented in this article; but if so, that kind of POV has no place in editing this article.
 * "If you can come up with an appropriate source for the first sentence we can discuss possibly adding back the first paragraph. The rest of the section would need to be discussed piece by piece in regards to relevance."
 * This is absurd. I gave you an appropriate source for the usage claim in the first sentence, but you reverted it. Your edits are not a WP:FAITACCOMPLI and I will not accept the demand for "piece by piece" re-negotiation of the very existence of a section on left-wing market anarchism.
 * If you want to clean up the section on left-wing market anarchism, then by all means clean it up. But this is not cleaning up; it is cleaning out. I agree that many things about this entire article are a mess; but a blanket deletion of the section on left-wing market anarchism is not even remotely an appropriate solution, and worse, your way of carrying out this blanket deletion has been systematically underhanded, misdirecting and destructive of relevant and well-sourced discussions of the viewpoint. The section on left-wing market anarchism clearly is relevant to contemporary printed usage of the term "left-libertarianism," and clearly belongs in this article. Radgeek (talk) 01:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This is absurd. I gave you an appropriate source for the usage claim in the first sentence, but you reverted it. Your edits are not a WP:FAITACCOMPLI and I will not accept the demand for "piece by piece" re-negotiation of the very existence of a section on left-wing market anarchism.
 * If you want to clean up the section on left-wing market anarchism, then by all means clean it up. But this is not cleaning up; it is cleaning out. I agree that many things about this entire article are a mess; but a blanket deletion of the section on left-wing market anarchism is not even remotely an appropriate solution, and worse, your way of carrying out this blanket deletion has been systematically underhanded, misdirecting and destructive of relevant and well-sourced discussions of the viewpoint. The section on left-wing market anarchism clearly is relevant to contemporary printed usage of the term "left-libertarianism," and clearly belongs in this article. Radgeek (talk) 01:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If you want to clean up the section on left-wing market anarchism, then by all means clean it up. But this is not cleaning up; it is cleaning out. I agree that many things about this entire article are a mess; but a blanket deletion of the section on left-wing market anarchism is not even remotely an appropriate solution, and worse, your way of carrying out this blanket deletion has been systematically underhanded, misdirecting and destructive of relevant and well-sourced discussions of the viewpoint. The section on left-wing market anarchism clearly is relevant to contemporary printed usage of the term "left-libertarianism," and clearly belongs in this article. Radgeek (talk) 01:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If you want to clean up the section on left-wing market anarchism, then by all means clean it up. But this is not cleaning up; it is cleaning out. I agree that many things about this entire article are a mess; but a blanket deletion of the section on left-wing market anarchism is not even remotely an appropriate solution, and worse, your way of carrying out this blanket deletion has been systematically underhanded, misdirecting and destructive of relevant and well-sourced discussions of the viewpoint. The section on left-wing market anarchism clearly is relevant to contemporary printed usage of the term "left-libertarianism," and clearly belongs in this article. Radgeek (talk) 01:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Many changes
All, I figured this page probably doesn't see much editor traffic, so I was bold and made some sweeping changes to the article. I've:


 * 1) created a "Notes" section for citations with quotes or explanations that have multiple citations
 * 2) pulled "Agorism" and "Geolibertarianism" out of the section for market-oriented left-libertarianism and made them top-level sections
 * 3) condensed both the Steiner-Vallentyne and left-wing market anarchism sections into coherent accounts
 * 4) hidden the history of "Left-wing market anarchism" as potentially violating due weight, per a previous discussion (this can be reinstated by uncommenting the text)
 * 5) added "Verify section" template to section called "Similarities with Georgism"
 * 6) removed redundant wikilinks
 * 7) fixed format of citations
 * 8) added a few things to the "See also" section
 * 9) revised lead to accurately reflect these changes

I still need to go through all the references and check that we aren't duplicating them unnecessarily, but I feel this is at least a significant improvement. Thanks! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Nolan chart
The following edit was deleted as "biased".


 * "On the Nolan chart, left-of-center libertarians put a high priority on personal liberties while tending to favor restriction of economic liberties."

I dispute this claim as the chart is itself libertarian and comparative of the range of libertarian views - including left-libertarianism. JLMadrigal (talk) 14:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * There are several issues with your addition. One, you added it to the lede. The lede is intended to summarize the article. Material which is new to the article should never be added to the lede. Two, the material is worded in a highly biased, misleading way. It is clearly written from the POV of a right-libertarian. If you take left-libertarian philosophy seriously, it does not restrict economic liberties. Left-libertarianism support the easing of some restrictions, and the creation of other restrictions, just as right-libertarianism does. This is a widespread misunderstanding, since libertarianism is widely equated with right-libertarianism and left-libertarianism is widely ignored. Third, the Nolan chart website is not such a great source that it needs to be added at all. Great sources are published by publishers known to publish scholarly material, such as university presses. &mdash; goethean 14:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with goethean that the addition was POV not only due to the phrasing ("tend to favor restriction of economic liberties."), but also in that it uses a right-libertarian model of classifying political ideologies. The Nolan chart is inherently biased toward right-libertarianism, as it places this libertarianism at the apex of freedom in two dimensions, one of which&mdash;the economic dimension&mdash;identifies freedom with laissez-faire capitalism.  This information would probably work well in the section titled, "The Steiner-Vallentyne school," but I'd seriously question any association of the Nolan chart with the other left-libertarians whose traditions stem more from either American individualist anarchists or libertarian socialists.  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The lede is to summarize "left-libertarianism" - which is the subject of the article. If the article fails to discuss left-libertarianism as commonly interpreted in current libertarian circles, it is incomplete, and needs to be updated. The Nolan chart is commonly accepted today among most libertarians as an accurate measure of political views. Although many who consider themselves libertarian, but who are left of center, mistakenly place all advocates of laissez-faire economics on the right, the subject of this article can not be exclusive to their interpretation. Neglect of the discussion makes the article biased. JLMadrigal (talk) 16:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The Nolan chart is not some kind of great scholarly source. It's a private website created by David Nolan, a Libertarian Party (United States) politician. It is biased. I have to disagree strongly with your assumption that this article needs to be written from the perspective of right-libertarianism. &mdash; goethean
 * JLMadrigal, if you can add this information in a way that doesn't define left-libertarianism from a propertarian perspective, I'd support it. Perhaps you can preface it with a statement of its origin, i.e. that the Nolan chart is a model that is not accepted by all libertarians, especially left-libertarians?  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It appears that he's decided to ignore us and edit war. &mdash; goethean 04:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I have revised addition as requested by MisterDub, and was reverted by Goethean. JLMadrigal (talk) 13:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I urge you to slow down and think about what you are doing. Now you have created a new section in the article dedicated to the Nolan Chart's description of left-libertarianism, and you have placed at the very top of the article. This article contains a lot of good sources. There is no indication that the Nolan chart deserve this kind of extreme over-representation that you are insisting on. This is poorly-sourced, biased material. Please stop giving it top billing in this article, ahead of good, scholarly material which examines left-libertarianism on its own terms. What you have is a personal website whose importance, reliability, and objectivity is attested to by exactly no one. You really want to argue for the claim that this material is more reliable than the Encyclopedia of Libertarian or scholarly, peer-reviewed journals? &mdash; goethean 14:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The Nolan Chart is prominent (not just a web site) I think because it provides an accurate description of the common form / meaning of libertarianism in the US. My gut feel is that it will not be as useful to provide information and context on left-libertarianism.  Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 14:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Goethean, you are encouraged to add and reference academic studies regarding the political orientation of left-libertarianism in relation to other political viewpoints. The new section is useful for readers who need a political backdrop on the subject. JLMadrigal (talk) 14:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * , can you quote the exact wording that you are using from the site for the material that you are adding to the article? Thanks. &mdash; goethean 15:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Is there no reliable source about the Nolan Chart that can be used in this "Political orientation" section? I appreciate JLMadrigal taking my advice into consideration, but I don't think it's appropriate to include this material without an explanation of what it means (what is social freedom? what is economic freedom?), especially since it's a model built by propertarians to promote propertarianism. I looked at the Nolan chart article and noticed that it really doesn't have anything in the way of reliable sources either. I'm almost guessing that there are no academic sources that cover the Nolan chart, perhaps because libertarianism is a minority position. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Additionally, the citation that JLMadrigal provided for his addition to the article has completely failed verification. The cited source simply does not say what he is adding to the article. He is interpreting a chart based on his own ideology. His addition clearly violates WP:OR and WP:V in a big way. Thus my request for him to supply the text from the cited source that he is using for his addition to the article. Given the fact that he first added this poorly sourced and biased material to the lead of the article, and then created a new section dedicated to this Nolan Chart business, it seems that his edits are quite inappropriate and should be reverted. &mdash; goethean 18:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Additionally, I note that the articles on Liberalism and Conservatism do not mention the Nolan Chart. If JLMadrigal thinks that I am being unfair, I suggest that he attempt to add the material to the lead of those articles and see how long it lasts. &mdash; goethean 20:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of green left libertarianism and of libertarian socialism
I don't understand why the sections on green left libertarianism and on libertarian socialism have been edited out of this article. The resulting article is very skewed to a very narrow and arguably esoteric US-centric understanding of left libertarianism. In Europe, the term has a much broader application. I am adding both libertarian socialism and green left libertarianism back in. If you want to delete them, please discuss that here and seek consensus rather than simply deleting them. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The libertarian socialism section was deleted because, by and large, that is a synonym for anarchism and there is already a significant section detailing that philosophy, though I see now that we would do well to explicitly mention these synonyms. The green libertarianism section was deleted for a lack of reliable sources.  I have again removed these sections and will work toward improving the "Anarchism" section to explain its various synonyms.  — MisterDub (talk &#124; contribs) 17:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry for slow reply due to seasonal distractions. I find MisterDub's response rather cavalier and un-Wikipedian. Surely we need to discuss and reach consensus before deleting large section?
 * 1. Re the green stuff, surely the way to deal with sections with lack of reliable sources is to insert citation needed tags and work towards sourcing them, rather than unilaterally delete? Besides, there were actually quite a few references there, to peer reviewed scholarly articles using the term left libertarian to describe these currents, such as in the now deleted footnotes https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Left-libertarianism&oldid=638523336#cite_note-85 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Left-libertarianism&oldid=638523336#cite_note-86
 * 2. Re socialism and the European left libertarianism more generally, it is very clear from looking at the libertarian socialism page that it is not a generally understood as a synonym for anarchism although some do use it synonymously or as overlapping movements. It seems to me very bizarre that the historically and globally largest and most significant type of left libertarianism - libertarian socialism - is mentioned only once in this article and in a very in passing way. --BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think those references support what you think they do. Merely mentioning left-libertarians and environmental policies in the same article is not enough to make the claim that left-libertarianism refers to green libertarianism/anarchism as a distinct current from other left-libertarians.  The fact that left-libertarians (often) hold environmental concerns should instead be noted in the other sections, which have reliable secondary sources supporting their inclusion.
 * Libertarianism is a synonym for anarchism, as multiple sources note (see below, and I can easily obtain more). Technically, anarchism is a subset of libertarian socialism, but "non-anarchist" elements within the latter are a tiny minority whose political beliefs and activism do not significantly differ from that of anarchists.  The major reason for labeling this camp "Anarchism" and not "Libertarian socialism" is due to lack of sources; there are plenty of sources relating anarchism to left-libertarianism, and few, if any, for libertarian socialism.  I would be okay with renaming the section for technical accuracy, or if you feel that WP:DUE WEIGHT demands that we expand this section, please add to it.
 * The The Routledge Companion to Social and Political Philosophy states that "In its oldest sense, [left-libertarianism] is a synonym either for anarchism in general or social anarchism in particular." Colin Ward writes in Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction that "For a century, anarchists have used the word 'libertarian' as a synonym for 'anarchist', both as a noun and an adjective."  Noam Chomsky, in Z Magazine's "The Week Online Interviews Chomsky", states that "The term libertarian as used in the US means something quite different from what it meant historically and still means in the rest of the world.  Historically, the libertarian movement has been the anti-statist wing of the socialist movement.  Socialist anarchism was libertarian socialism."  In Anarchist Seeds Beneath the Snow: Left-libertarian thought and British writers from William Morris to Colin Ward, David Goodway states that "'Libertarian' and 'libertarianism' are frequently employed by anarchists as synonyms for 'anarchist' and 'anarchism', largely as an attempt to distance themselves from the negative connotations of 'anarchy' and its derivatives. The situation has been vastly complicated in recent decades with the rise of anarcho-capitalism, 'minimal statism' and an extreme right-wing laissez-faire philosophy advocated by such theorists as Murray Rothbard and Robert Nozick and their adoption of the words 'libertarian' and 'libertarianism'. It has therefore no become necessary to distinguish between their right libertarianism and the left libertarianism of the anarchist tradition." — MisterDub (talk &#124; contribs) 18:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Of course I agree that many people use libertarianism or left libertarianism and anarchism synonymously, but many people do not. It's a lot less neat than you are suggesting. Even the examples you use show this. Ward says that anarchists used it that way for a century - but do anarchists or non-anarchists later? Chomsky is clearly saying the terms are used differently in the US and elsewhere. Goodway's book includes several people who are very obviously not anarchists - EP Thompson, William Morris and George Orwell, for example, who are far from non-notable - because he clearly uses the term left libertarianism to mean something broader than anarchism. Many anarchists emphatically reject the designation "left" (see e.g. [Post-left anarchy]] and some who use the term anarchism with adjectives partly to signal that they are not of the left. On the other hand, many on the left who are not anarchists - including libertarian socialists, but also green libertarians - describe themselves and are described by political scientists as libertarian. Again, if you look at the libertarian socialism page on wikipedia, it is full of non-anarchists who are significant libertarian socialists, who are clearly also notable within this wider current of left libertarianism ("autonomism, communalism, participism, revolutionary syndicalism, and libertarian Marxist philosophies such as council communism and Luxemburgism" in the lede, then social ecology, the New Left and within the mainstream labour movement later in the article). I strongly think this broad left libertarian current, the current Goodway talks about, needs to be mentioned right at the start of the article, with both anarchism and libertarianism situated within it. I shall therefore at some point take up your suggestion to add to that section to ensure weight is where it is due.
 * As for the green stuff, the articles cited in the deleted footnote https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Left-libertarianism&oldid=638523336#cite_note-85 are not just mentioning left-libertarians and environmental policies in the same article, nor are they arguing for this being a distinct current. Rather, they are using the term left-libertarian to designate a family of political parties and movements that are currently not included in the current article. Please take a look at what they say before dismissing them. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Bobfrombrockley, that is precisely my point: the articles are using the term left-libertarian to refer to "a family of political parties and movements" that are not distinct from the movements currently mentioned in the article. Therefore, listing green-libertarianism separately, which has the effect of presenting those libertarians with environmental concerns as an unique current detached from the other three mentioned here, creates a false distinction.  Rather, information about environmental concerns ought to be added to the appropriate section(s).  And, perhaps most importantly, it would be ideal to have secondary sources instead of interpreting primary ones.
 * As for your comments regarding anarchism and the (slightly) broader left-libertarian tradition, I am well aware of the various (and still minor) currents which comprise left-libertarianism. In fact, I am a social ecologist, i.e., libertarian municipalist and Communalist.  These "non-anarchist" views should certainly be included, but accorded due weight.  — MisterDub (talk &#124; contribs) 16:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I think we're pretty close to agreement MisterDub. Re the green stuff: the sources in the footnote - which are secondary - all describe a series of parties as left libertarian, in ways which would be very uncontroversial in political science. Have a look at these examples: http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/content/78/2/491.short http://www.jstor.org/stable/522545 http://www.olemiss.edu/courses/pol628/kitschelt88.pdf http://cps.sagepub.com/content/23/2/210.short They include groups such as the Ecolo, Agalev, Alliance '90/The Greens, Nordic Green Left Alliance, GreenLeft, the English Greens, etc. My thought now is to expand the opening section, introducing a broad left libertarian tradition, including socialist and non-socialist, anarchist and non-anarchist currents, then note that these currents informed the New Left and social movements of the 1960s-80s, which moved into the mainstream and led to the emergence of new electoral parties such as these. Does that sound viable? BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that sounds like a good plan. I would just reiterate that we would prefer secondary sources for attribution.  — MisterDub (talk &#124; contribs) 17:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Cool. Will get to it at some point! --BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Propose merging with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
Propose merging with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism --Lance W. Haverkamp (talk) 04:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree this is a good idea, there is no real distinction made between the two terms in either article. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 16:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Strongly disagree. As presented in this article, “left-libertarianism” encompasses several different views, some of them identical with libertarian socialism, others a more specific subset of it (e.g. mutualism, which is one of many schools, and notably distinct from, e.g. anarchist communism or syndicalism), and others (such as philosophical georgism and geolibertarianism) which are not identical at all. Trying to condense the information in this article into something that would fit in Libertarian socialism is certain to produce editing conflicts and probably the loss of a great deal of the material here on non-socialist left-libertarian views, with no obvious gain. Radgeek (talk) 10:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * agreed. i will make the change now.  Darkstar1st (talk) 09:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Libertarian socialism
Topics are very closely related Pariah24  ┃ ☏ 22:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree. The text of the articles do not seem to clearly distinguish one from the other. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 19:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose. the term "Libertarian socialism" is older than "left libertarianism" and more widely used around the world. Left libertarianism is mostly used in a small literature of a few authors. I also can understand why left libertarians will also want to keep those two as separate article. Libertarian socialism on top is a major branch of socialism as a whole. --Eduen (talk) 22:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The fact that "only a few authors" use the term left libertarian is an argument for merging, not against. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 18:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The articles are no more closely related than are left-libertarianism and anarchism. 207.161.217.209 (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree. would the oppose please clarify the main distinction of the two? Is there any party considered one, not considered the other? Darkstar1st (talk) 01:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that many anarchists would not necessarily identify as libertarian socialist, but they are certainly left-libertarian. 207.161.217.209 (talk) 01:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, while mutualists considered themselves to be libertarian socialists historically (in the 19th century), I don't know how many would accept the label socialist nowadays. They are, however, definitely left-libertarian. 207.161.217.209 (talk) 02:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The artlcle Libertarian socialism explicitly states that it is also called left-libertarianism: these are two words for the same thing. The very opening sentence of that article says: "Libertarian socialism (sometimes dubbed socialist libertarianism,[1] or left-libertarianism [2][3]) is..."


 * Given that the Wikipedia article itself say that the two are the same, why are there two articles? Merge. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 19:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Eduen echoes my concerns 172.56.2.239 (talk) 18:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose: The most prominent form of "left-libertarianism" in recent scholarly writing is probably still the tendency described here as "Classical liberal radicalism," which should not be confused with socialism. And the individualist-anarchist treatment of the term "socialism" (in the writings of Tucker and Ernest Lesigne, and then in modern circles like those around the Center for a Stateless Society) is idiosyncratic enough that it would probably cause more confusion than clarity to lump all these things together. Libertatia (talk) 21:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Is there any issue one would side one way and one another? trade, tariffs, guns, abortion, jobs, religion, schools, war, if so, which side of which issue? What is the single largest difference of the two? Darkstar1st (talk) 23:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That seems like a pretty un-nuanced way to analyze ideology. Has it not already been established that there are people in one category but not the other? I notice that I received no reply to my answer to your question. 207.161.217.209 (talk) 05:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The proponents of "Classical liberal radicalism" are not socialists and are a different kind of "libetarian" than the libertarian socialists. Both the "left-libertarian" and "libertarian socialist" labels describe heterogeneous groups and there is some overlap, but it is clearly only partial overlap. Libertatia (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Libertatia, could you point out how they do not wholly overlap?
 * Do you consider the approach documented in the "Classical liberal radicalism" to be a form of socialism? I guess, more importantly, are there reliable sources to back the merger? Libertatia (talk) 02:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ip address, please share the nuanced version. no, reread the lede of both articles, identical. your qualifier, not necessarily negated your reply.
 * natural resources (land, oil, gold, vegetation) should be held in an egalitarian manner, either unowned or owned collectively.
 * abolishing authoritarian institutions that control certain means of production.
 * Darkstar1st (talk) 13:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose: If anything, the tautological so-called "left-libertarianism" should be merged with libertarian socialism, which is by far the more serious article of the two. fi (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I would support either merge, perhaps Pariah24  would be willing to restart this on that page? Darkstar1st (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I oppose either merge unless the reasons are stated clearly. If someone wants to argue the point that "left-libertarianism" should be merged into libertarian socialism and market anarchism on account of not being particularly notable as a term, or, for that matter, considered redundant by typical left-wing libertarians, I might reconsider. fi (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Would you point out the main difference betwixt the two? Darkstar1st (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure. Libertarian socialism describes a socialist tendency (principally anarchism) and "left-libertarianism" is a fatuous neoliberal tautology that appeared in the process of laissez-faire capitalists, in the words of Rothbard, attempting to "capture a word from the enemy." One is historical; the other is a new phenomenon, where socialists have to explicitly remind people that they're socialists. fi (talk) 18:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Your argument just said that left-libertarianism doesn't really exist, it's a made-up word without any real meaning other than (in your words) "attempting to capture a word from the enemy". This is an argument saying the article should be deleted.  Given that some people will try to look up left-libertarianism, the question is: to which article should this term be redirected? Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 13:22, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * All words are made up; the phrase I quoted was written by Murray Rothbard, not myself; I did not propose deleting any article. What I said what that there's a serious, historical article – that would be "libertarian socialism" – and a much less serious article, which is kind of a historical curiosity that probably says more about [[Recuperation (politics)|recuperation

]] than any well defined modern political movement or tendency. And that might be okay – I don't know. In any case, the words are used quite differently, sometimes inclusively. fi (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't say you proposed deleting an article; I said your argument was saying the article should be deleted. I would think that saying an article is "fatuous" (your term) could be described as an argument for deleting it.
 * Since it's clear that the article needs to distinguish the two terms, I added your description of how the terms differ to the text. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 17:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Any characterization of the distinction really should be properly sourced and expressed in language more appropriate to an encyclopedia. Libertatia (talk) 06:50, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The term "left-libertarianism" can refer to a number of non-socialist positions, ie. agorism. Oscar666kta420swag (talk) 02:55, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Well I support the merger, but it is looking like consensus is going toward nay. I'm not going to pursue it further. Bigger issues to worry about around here. Anyone is welcome to untag...I will refrain from doing so in case someone else wants to run with this. Pariah24  ┃ ☏ 17:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Left-libertarianism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150317210356/http://www.progress.org/views/editorials/geoism-explained/ to http://www.progress.org/views/editorials/geoism-explained/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121104040047/http://www.progress.org/archive/fold251.htm to http://www.progress.org/archive/fold251.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120204155505/http://libertarian-labyrinth.org/warren/1stAmAnarch.pdf to http://libertarian-labyrinth.org/warren/1stAmAnarch.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120105095946/http://www.iaf-ifa.org/principles/english.html to http://www.iaf-ifa.org/principles/english.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090609075437/http://www.mutualist.org/id32.html to http://www.mutualist.org/id32.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140722145233/http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/tgif/workers-of-the-world-unite to http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/tgif/workers-of-the-world-unite

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:10, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion that affects this article
There is a discussion / presentation of ideas that affects this article at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Libertarianism Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 16:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Left-libertarianism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080911064302/http://www.homepages.ucl.ac.uk/~uctymio/leftlibP%26PA.pdf to http://www.homepages.ucl.ac.uk/~uctymio/leftlibP%26PA.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Left-libertarianism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100702184359/http://klinechair.missouri.edu/on-line%20papers/LL%20Primer.doc to http://klinechair.missouri.edu/on-line%20papers/LL%20Primer.doc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Propose removing Bleeding-Heart Libertarianism
I don't think this has anything to do with left-libertarianism.

24.245.124.232 (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It may be a naming in public discourse. Anyway is left-libertarianism the version were all drugs should be legalized, but public healthcare should be socialized? --105.0.2.184 (talk) 18:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Alliance of the Libertarian Left listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Alliance of the Libertarian Left. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Roderick T. Long
This citation's authorship was credited to the encyclopedia's editors, omitting its actual author. Roderick T. Long, per his WP article, is associated with "left-libertarian" activism in a way that makes him a partisan source to cite in this article. We should be looking to independent, reliable, secondary sources for left-libertarian definitions from individuals unaffiliated with the ideology. Also, the above citation is used like 11 times and all cited to page 227 (from the longer chapter), which sounds likely incorrect. But I'd recommend finding/using alternative citations anyway. (not watching, please )  czar  22:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Second paragraph of Steiner-Vallentyne section highly misleading
Consider the first, run-on sentence:

"Scholars representing this school of left-libertarianism often understand their position in contrast to right-libertarians, who maintain that there are no fair share constraints on use or appropriation that individuals have the power to appropriate unowned things by claiming them (usually by mixing their labor with them) and deny any other conditions or considerations are relevant and that there is no justification for the state to redistribute resources to the needy or to overcome market failures."

That strongly implies the Steiner-Vallentyne school, "in contrast to right-libertarians", believes there is "justification for the state to redistribute resources to the needy or to overcome market failures." The editor cites only two sources:

1) an entire book by Van Parijs (can I get a page number?) that basically advocates UBI, which is neither targeted to the needy nor meant to "overcome market failures".

2) an essay that does advocate welfare but whose author is a self-described right-libertarian. He briefly mentions members of the Steiner-Vallentyne school only to dismiss them in favor of proviso Lockeanism, his version of which is the explicit source of his support for welfare. Pennythugginit (talk) 19:17, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

OR / unreliable tags
would you please elaborate further on the rationale for these tags? --Pfhorrest (talk) 06:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)


 * What it says: citations to blog-level or fringe sources, synthesised into statements in wiki voice.
 * More generally, this is an issue with a lot of our articles on libertarianism - it all goes a bit WP:Walled garden, where primary sources, often dubiously RSes, are used to support claims that are then made in wiki voice - when the claims being made need a secondary source that's a clear RS making them. There's a lot of "X-Libertarians believe Y" in wiki voice, cited to primary source examples - that's prima facie synthesis. Tagging is the minimum first step, I'd think - David Gerard (talk) 15:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'm now working away at trying to cut down on the original research and novel syntheses in this article, as part of a broader effort on culling OR from libertarianism-related articles. This is another one of those articles that has grown bloated with inaccurate information and unreliable sourcing, but hopefully I'll be able to work this down into something more manageable. Let me know if there's anything else I can do as I make my way forward with this. -- Grnrchst (talk) 15:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Good luck with it :-) Frankly a lot of that sort of OR-riddled wikitext is just unevidenced and should be cut - but this is then protested by fans, who say it's true (and it might well be!). Finding solid sources is not easy when a lot of proponents came to a political position from non-RSes - David Gerard (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm less concerned with what its fans may think than what is explicitly said in the sources. At the end of the day, if more than half of the sources don't even use the term "left-libertarianism", then they may be useful to its ideological proponents, but they're not useful to an encyclopedic article. -- Grnrchst (talk) 17:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)