Talk:Libertarian Party (United States)/Archive 1

Earlier un-sectioned material
I hope I have answered the critics by directing readers to specific elections and by citing more specific numbers. I have also added a external link to the Nolan Chart, nearly every Libertarian I know of has taken the quiz, and the party refers to it extensively in their campaign literature. I thought it would be more useful, rather than another explanation of its purpose.

Wait, if you can't add copyrighted material, and no one has taken the time to write information about a specific person in the Wikipedia, what is wrong with linking to information about that person off-site until information can be Wikified. Personally, I don't think everything can be added to the Wikipedia, will be added (information is almost infinite) and that some external linking until we can get a larger portion of everything Wikified might be better than no information at all. Ideas?LGPL Wikipedia is not a collection of links - But of course there's nothing wrong with adding both lists of links and lists of on-line references you used in writing an article -- Zoe

Dobbs 00:25 Sep 25, 2002 (UTC)

Added "Libertarians: left or right?" I fully admit that what I added may have a non-NPOV slant, and encourage people to edit it, although k.lee 07:00 Oct 25, 2002 (UTC)
 * I did try to make a strong case for the Libertarians' view.
 * I hope you'll keep most of the content, even if you edit/rephrase it. I think all the facts I added are valuable, and I tried to edit that letter down to the minimum necessary to convey the force of its partisan intent.  NPOV doesn't mean that Wikipedia should not have pointed, forceful content, just that it should present the evidence and arguments of all (reasonable) sides clearly and with minimal distortion.

Well, I am having some serious issues about this sort of material being posted on the Libertarian Party page per se. In a article about libertarian views, sure, but the party's page itself..... Hmmmm, I need to think this out, but it doesn't hit me right to begin with. All the other political parties pages have descriptions of what they are for, there relative standing and successes - this is vital content to be sure. However no other political party's page has anti-party stuff on it either.

Is this a good thing or bad? I'm not sure yet, but I think we should have each political parties page devoted to what they believe and how they perform. Then, under each political IDEA, we should have a debate as to the relative merits of each viewpoint, and how those viewpoints are placed into practice.....

I'm thinking of things like the agreed upon country information pages, etc. They list the political parties and ideology, but then link to the info. Is it consistent to have the political parties page discuss how the party views the world, then a seperate discussion of that belief itself (criticisms and support)?

Criticism of political ideologies are a very good thing, and should be kept on the page (or if the debate is really big and wide ranging, on a page devoted to those criticisms) to promote a whole understanding of the issue. See Anarchism as an example. But political parties are the application of political belief in a political system. Criticism of the belief on the applications page seems to muddle everything and possibly promote duplication of information and effort.

Ideas? Dobbs 02:03 Oct 30, 2002 (UTC)
 * Bob, I'm not sure if you're talking about the "Political Power of the Libertarian Party" section or the "Libertarians: Left or right?" section, but in the latter (which I wrote) I was trying to convey the sociological/historical context of the Libertarian Party, which does not necessarily have anything to do with libertarian philosophy. It is a relevant historical fact that the Libertarian Party allies itself more often with the Republican Party and other right-wing organizations, just as it is historically relevant that the Progressive Party allied itself closely with left-wing interests.  Historical an social context for a specific party belongs on the party page, not the libertarian philosophy page.  k.lee


 * Ok, I don't think it is very NPOV then. I'll take a crack at what I feel is a more NPOV edit, but I think I'm going to remove much information (take a look when I get to it) - and that's something no one wants to do.  I think the information is good, just partisan, and belongs somewhere else.


 * And, while I think that the modern alliances with "right-wing" political movements does have merit, this is due to "left-wing" movements being excessively statist. When I was part of a case here in Colorado, the Secretary of State sued the LP over our choice for Governor, we were defended by the ACLU.  (Not well, I was eviscerated by the Asst. Attorney General when I was on the stand - but I was only 19 and scared silly!)  No one had a problem with that.  The LP was started by anti-draft / anti-war activists (some of whom were  Republican - remember Nixon was an anti-war candidate - "Peace with Honor") who couldn't stand the price and wage controls instituted by Nixon, by philosophical Objectivists, by individualist Anarchists, and by what are now known as Anarcho-capitalists.  Individualist Anarchists are "left-wing" (see: Anarchism ) and anarcho-capitalists are called "right-wing" in the same sense ? but calling anarchists left or right has very little to do with the normal political spectrum anyway - look at the debate on the Anarchism page to see where that whole mess is going.....


 * My point is this - any left wing movement (legalization of drugs, American Indian Movement, various peace movements, and to some extent ? even the ACLU, etc) that seek to lessen governmental involvement to improve freedom ? is unabashedly embraced by the party. There aren?t many ?left-wing? movements out there now that do not advocate government intervention ? but this does not mean that the LP is ?right-wing? by intention or default.  Because OTHER ?left-wing? political movements do not agree with the LP?s tactics to achieve their goals does not mean the LP is ?right-wing? in any sense.


 * The LP calls itself the ?Party of Principle? (which is why it doesn?t win many elections), because it does not change its beliefs to conform to a stronger groups polemic in order to gain an advantage (such as winning elections). More ?right-wing? organizations fit this now.  If those organizations wish to expand the drug war, surrender more liberties to Ashcroft (a good example), or start a draft, than the LP will be against them just as vehemently.  So ? the LP has allied itself with ?right-wing? movements in recent history, but is not a ?right-wing? organization ? not due to the ?Nolan Chart? or any other internal metric ? but deep down inside. Dobbs 16:02 Nov 1, 2002 (UTC)


 * If you look at the wording of my edit carefully, I think you'll see that I tried to express something like what you say, though there may be places where the language comes across as NPOV. Moreover, I believe that a political party's objective, historical effect on the real world (which, in the LP's case, has been to strengthen the Republican Party) is at least as important in an encyclopedia article as its stated political positions.
 * Also, the observation that "left-wing movements are excessively statist" does not contradict the viewpoint that the LP is "more right than left". In fact, it supports that view.  I believe we are running into a conflict of terms: I view the left not as an abstract collection of political principles, but as a historical body of political thought and practice.  If the left is more "excessively statist" than the right, then that is not a deviation from some hypothetical, idealized leftism, but rather the very definition of "left-wing".  Therefore, if you were to describe whether the LP were "more right" or "more left", you would have to conclude the former, because the right is less statist and the LP opposes statism.
 * Anyway, I think our disagreements about the actual article are somewhat smaller than you might think. Do your edit, and we'll see how things go.  k.lee
 * Anyway, I think our disagreements about the actual article are somewhat smaller than you might think. Do your edit, and we'll see how things go.  k.lee
 * Anyway, I think our disagreements about the actual article are somewhat smaller than you might think. Do your edit, and we'll see how things go.  k.lee

---

k.lee:

You have twice added this passage:


 * however, to credit Libertarians with this outcome, one must assume that Libertarian voters would otherwise have slanted significantly towards the losing party in each of these elections.
 * (Observe, incidentally, that the conjunction of these two claims is not tenable:
 * 1. Libertarian Party members transcend the left/right taxonomy.
 * 2. The Libertarian Party is responsible for the outcome of the aforementioned Senate elections.
 * If the first proposition is true, then the Libertarian Party's presence did not conclusively alter the outcome of the elections. If the latter is true, then Libertarian Party members slant significantly either left or right.)
 * If the first proposition is true, then the Libertarian Party's presence did not conclusively alter the outcome of the elections. If the latter is true, then Libertarian Party members slant significantly either left or right.)
 * If the first proposition is true, then the Libertarian Party's presence did not conclusively alter the outcome of the elections. If the latter is true, then Libertarian Party members slant significantly either left or right.)

It doesn't logically follow the facts. If the LP vote received were slightly larger than the margin of victory, what you wrote would be true. However, when the LP vote is, say, 20 times the margin of victory, one need assume that LP voters slanted 52%/48% toward one of the other parties. To call that "significantly" is a heck of a stretch if not simply false. Also, let's suppose your claim #2 is correct. That would mean, if your logic holds, that the LP was "slanted significantly" to one side in 1992 and to the other in 1998, 2000, and 2002. I've never heard anyone make that claim.

Last year, you put in only the Georgia example (with many paragraphs of detail). I added the counterexamples to make it NPOV. Anyway, I'm rather skeptical that your claim #2 holds true in most of these examples. However, the article as I left it never asserted that your claim #2 was true -- only that both Libertarians and others had asserted it (which is true). It's the assertions themselves that LP campaigns have swung elections in both directions that are evidence in support of the idea that the LP transcends the left vs. right taxonomy. Whether these assertions are true or not is immaterial to the point.

If you don't want to drop the offending language, please rewrite it in such a way that it is logically and factually correct. You could write, for example:

Many are skeptical that the Libertarian Party is responsible for the outcome of the aforementioned Senate elections. M Carling (02 Feb 2003 02:05 UTC)
 * OK, I removed the language that you find annoying, although I think it's essentially correct. I also added some content about the LP race in SD (from an LP press release) and I restored the text of the Crickenberger letter, which 213.226.153.20 deleted a while back in the name of "removing bias".  I find it hard to believe that verbatim quotations from LP fundraising letters are somehow "biased" against the LP.  I would like to see someone edit the letter down while preserving the content, though it's hard to keep the full force of the letter's language.  k.lee

I (Infrogmation) moved the following comment from the text to here:

this is misleading and needs to be somehow reworded -- the U.S. didn't always have 50 states, and it seems likely third parties have consecutively appeared on all ballots before the Libertarians -- think the Republicans, the Populists, the Prohibition Party, and the Socialists


 * Restrictive ballot access laws were not enacted en mass by the states until the FDR administration. M Carling (26 Feb 2003 2:02 UTC)

-

k.lee: Why do you keep injected your POV that the Libertarians are Republican-leaning? The facts don't support it. And, BTW, the right/left taxonomy did originate with Augustine; have you read him -- specifically his book City of God? M Carling (24 Feb 2003 19:57 UTC)
 * I think that my edits contain nothing but facts. Could you point to a factually incorrect statement in my last edit?  Do you deny that the Libertarians sent out that fundraising letter?  Do you deny that Libertarian candidate Kurt Evans urged voters to support Jim Thune?  How is it my anti-Libertarian POV when I'm quoting from Libertarian Party press releases and such?
 * Regarding left/right, the modern usage of this term originates with where people sat in the National Assembly during the French Revolution; did you read the link to Leftism? Here's the whole text of City of God.  Downloading the zip archive and doing a textual search for 'left' reveals nothing except some vague figurative language about people going left or right in the Bible, or using their left hands or right hands.  This doesn't prove anything.  Prior to the French Revolution, it was common to associate left-hand things figuratively with wickedness; hence the etymology of "sinister".  The modern sense of "left-wing" politics has nothing to do with that.  k.lee


 * Traditionally, Libertarians have indeed been allied with the Republicans, with both favoring less government control of businesses. There used to be a Libertarian caucus within the Republican party (www.rlc.org looks like the URL, though I'm not sure).  Roger MacBride, who cast the Libertarian Party's only Presidential electoral vote in history, was supposed to have been a Republican. ThirdParty 04:58 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)

-

k.lee: The reason why your edits are POV is that you have been _selectively_ inserting facts to support a POV. For every fact that would support that POV, one can find another fact that supports the opposing POV that Libertarians are more aligned with Democrats. For example, the LP's strategy plan for the current decade identifies the War on Drugs as their primary focus issue. Here they are closer to the Democrats. Another example is civil rights. One could go on. Of course, the particular fund-raising letter you cited has the slant it has because it was written to Republicans. Regardless, a copy of a fundraising letter doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.

Providing a link to City of God is not the same as reading it, let alone understanding it. It is, in its essense, a book on politics in which Augustine espoused particular political ideas and associated them with what he asserted was how God would rule a city. Those political ideas are the ancesters of the right wing of the French revolution and the antithetical ideas the left wing. The fundamentalist Christians are still right-wing today. Anyway, the origin of the left/right taxonomy doesn't need to be in the LP article.

Yes, Roger MacBride was a Republican before he became a Libertarian, but so what? The origin of the LP is more closely tied to the Peace and Freedom party (extremely left-wing) than to the Republicans, but that doesn't prove anything either. Read the entries for the other political parties. They read more like encyclopedia articles. M Carling (25 Feb 2003 07:57 UTC)
 * If my facts are selective, then edit them down (I wouldn't mind; I do think the "Left or Right" section's a little too long) and add your own. There's always going to be disagreement about which facts are most important---I honestly believe that, in practical terms, the LP's anti-drug war stance does little to advance the cause of progressive politics, whereas their anti-tax agitation advances the Republicans' cause quite a bit.  I've posted what seem, to me, to be the important facts; if you find different facts important, edit away.  I've tried to be accommodating of other people's edits to material I write.
 * The "Left or Right" section isn't a little too long; it is far too long. It alone is longer than any of the entire articles for other US parties.  It should not be more than three or four sentences.
 * The length of other US parties' articles is not an indicator of how long this article, or any of its sections, ought to be. Wikipedia is created by volunteers, so articles' lengths will be proportional not to their importance in the wider world, but to the amount of work that volunteers will do.  The universe of Star Wars is given coverage comparable to the entire field of economics.  Do you advocate cutting down the Star Wars contributions, then?  That line of argument is absurd.
 * Also, if that fundraising letter was only slanted because of its audience, I suppose you can produce one that speaks out equally strongly against a right-wing candidate during election year?
 * Sure, but to what end? This is all becoming a load of drivel to which I do not want to add.  At first I thought you might be a vandal, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt and looked at articles you've worked on where you knew the subject matter.  It's clear from all the good work you've done on computer related articles that you are not a vandal.  I really don't want to get into a full blown edit war with you.  Please read the articles for the other US parties.  Think hard about what content is appropriate to an encyclopedia article.  Set aside your POV that Libertarians are nothing more than radical Republicans.  The try to rewrite the "Left or Right" section in three or four sentences.
 * I do not believe, nor have I ever claimed, that Libertarians are radical Republicans. Based on a survey of the facts, a reasonable observer can easily conclude the LP's behavior demonstrates that it is more closely allied with the US right-wing movement than the US left-wing movement.  My edits are an attempt to include a fair description of this point of view in the article.
 * Anyway, the LP's belief that it does not lean left or right is at least as POV as any of the objectively true facts that I've posted. Your attempt to convince me to suppress these facts is at least as POV as my decision to add them.  POV cuts both ways.  I've already stated that I'm willing to compromise, but trimming this subject down to 3 or 4 sentences will not do it justice.  Frankly, I half-suspect that your desire to cut it down to that size reflects a POV interest in having the LP's party line represented without an adequate presentation of differing opinions.
 * Also, as a practical matter, in order for me to rewrite this section with the slant that you want, I would have to possess enough information to claim credibly that the LP is as closely allied with the Democrats as they are with the Republicans. I do not possess that information---the facts that people have posted (for example, the Senate "spoiler" results) fall apart upon closer inspection.  Someone else will have to provide that information and argue that viewpoint.
 * I disagree about City of God, because the distinction between progressive and conservative (theocratic?) government is not the same as the distinction between left and right. To trace the left vs. right dichotomy to Augustine, one should demonstrate some more specific connection (it would make a good Wikipedia article...why not give it a shot?).  And it hasn't always been the case that Christians are conservative---Martin Luther King was a minister, and quoted Augustine specifically in support of the civil rights movement. k.lee
 * This is so confused, I'm not even going to try to respond to it. M Carling (3 March 2003 15:23 UTC)
 * What, exactly, is confused about it? I said that you can either
 * demonstrate some specific historical connection between Augustine and the places that people sat in the National Assembly during the French Revolution; or,
 * admit that the etymology of the term leftism does not date to St. Augustine.
 * It's not complicated. k.lee
 * I disagree about City of God, because the distinction between progressive and conservative (theocratic?) government is not the same as the distinction between left and right. To trace the left vs. right dichotomy to Augustine, one should demonstrate some more specific connection (it would make a good Wikipedia article...why not give it a shot?).  And it hasn't always been the case that Christians are conservative---Martin Luther King was a minister, and quoted Augustine specifically in support of the civil rights movement. k.lee
 * This is so confused, I'm not even going to try to respond to it. M Carling (3 March 2003 15:23 UTC)
 * What, exactly, is confused about it? I said that you can either
 * demonstrate some specific historical connection between Augustine and the places that people sat in the National Assembly during the French Revolution; or,
 * admit that the etymology of the term leftism does not date to St. Augustine.
 * It's not complicated. k.lee
 * It's not complicated. k.lee

Wow. This article is SO POV it's not even funny. I really hate the Wikipedia tendency to do point-counterpoint on everything. Real encyclopedias don't do that. But the LOOOONG section on "Libertarians -- Left or Right?" shows obvious bias and is not NPOV at all. It's way too long, too -- the mere length of it suggests the author's slant. Amcaja 14:29 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)
 * Before I started on this article, it had one paragraph about left vs. right:
 * Libertarians reject the traditional right / left description of political leanings used by most individuals and the media. Instead, Libertarians refer people to the Nolan chart to communicate their perception of political orientation.
 * This presents exactly one point of view: the Libertarian Party point of view about its own political leanings. The fact that it attributes this view to Libertarians does not change the fact that only one point of view is presented.  Therefore, this older version was way more POV than what's there now (which presents multiple points of view); but somehow I suspect you would not have objected to it.  IMO your complaints about POV are cover for your unwillingness to allow alternative points of view to be presented.
 * You don't even know me. You are responding to the first comment I have made on this subject. I find it amusing that you can glean so much about me and my opinions from my comments.
 * As for the length, I believe I addressed that higher up in the Talk page. Wikipedia is created by volunteers.  The relative size of various articles, and parts of articles, will be determined by  what people care about writing about.  There's nothing inherently POV about a long article.  Is the fact that Mao Zedong has a longer article than Harry S. Truman evidence of POV?
 * Mao and Truman's articles aren't on the same page. If you describe something and then spend three times the wordcount attenpting to discredit that thing you just described, that's POV pure and simple.
 * I don't see the relevance of whether the section's in the same or different articles. Some topics deserve more than a paragraph, yet still are too small to be in a separate article.  The "Left vs. Right" controversy is one of them.  Nor do I think that my edits make this section an "attempt to discredit" the LP's POV.  They present alternatives to the single pro-LP POV that was there before.  In fact a good fraction of the "Left vs. Right" section, even as I left it, presented pro-LP arguments.
 * Finally, I've said many times on this Talk page, if you don't like it, propose a better edit. So long as you preserve enough of the facts for a balanced presentation, I'm willing to compromise.
 * k.lee
 * I'll see if I can't cook something up when I get off work later today. Amcaja 17:08 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Brian. I think your edit's an improvement; it reads more smoothly and presents adequate evidence for both sides.  I apologize for jumping to conclusions about your motives earlier.  I was just tired of taking flack for my edits, which I viewed as adding relevant information.  k.lee

I'm going to try to further reduce the analytic tone of "left or right?" and preserve the informational content. --WOT 20:53, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * After some rough work, it could use polishing again. And it turned out that there wasn't much substantial information about ties between the Libertarian and Democratic parties, so if anyone has specifics that they could cite, I'm sure it would be the better for it. --WOT 22:18, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I rearranged some of this content, absorbing the left-right debate in the "Platform" section, and moving the "Relationship to major parties" to just after "history".Quadell (talk) 13:47, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

There is a rather large list of prominent Libertarians and celebrities listed at http://www.theadvocates.org/celebrities.html. Charles Murray is listed amongst them. Sarge Baldy 07:32, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * The list in this article is "prominent party members". The list on the Advocatates page, on the other hand, is a list of celebrity libertarians.  I have no doubt that Charles Murray is a libertarian, but as far as I'm aware he has never been associated with the Libertarian Party. - NYK 14:23, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, if you read his profile on there it does point out that he wrote a book called "What It Means To Be A Libertarian" and at least one other arguing Libertarian ideals.. that's enough for me at least. The list isn't reserved only for celebrities anyway, it's "Celebrities and VIPs" and many prominent Libertarians are mentioned there, including Harry Browne and Ron Paul.


 * My point is that Charles Murray is not a Libertarian Party member. He certainly did write "What It Means to Be A Libertarian", but that book has little or nothing to do with the Libertarian Party.  This article is about the Party specifically. - NYK 06:18, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I cannot find any evidence that Charles Murray is not a member of the LP. Nor, however, can I find evidence that he is. Therefore I've removed him from the list. Sarge Baldy 12:59, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

The prominent Libertarians list now has both Trey Parker and Drew Carey on it. Does anyone have any evidence that they're card-carrying party members, as opposed to merely political/philosophical fellow-travelers? RadicalSubversiv E 03:05, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
 * http://www.theadvocates.org/celebrities/trey-parker.html says that an L.A. Times profile of him stated he was a member of the party. That's good enough for me. Drew Carey is a libertarian though I can't find any sources listing him as a member of the LP. Sarge Baldy 03:17, May 11, 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism by Reithy
I have attempted to remove the blatantly partisan language from this otherwise informative article. This article must reflect the obscure nature of the party, its views are not supported by any more than a tiny handful of voters. Wikipedia ought not be used to promote a political party, it should be NPOV but this article has a long way to go. Reithy 22:19, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Deleting the facts about the electorial vote is hopelessly POV, IMHO. pstudier 22:37, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Wasn't meant to be POV. The Libertarians were able to persuade one of the Electoral College members to vote for another candidate. This is hardly a great political achievement. In fact, some might say it is highly improper to be obtaining a college vote that the voters had not themselves given. It's just not as relevant as informing readers they get very little public support. Reithy 22:57, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article needs work. However, these things:
 * created in 1971 in the home of Pablo Escobar
 * Extreme Anti-Government Views
 * A History of Obscurity and Irrelevance
 * The Libertarian Party was formed in the home of Richard Nixon
 * No one cares about Libertarian Party
 * etc
 * are vandalism, pure and simple. pstudier 23:32, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Pablo was a proud libertarian and I refuse to accept your denial of this.
 * Make this article not an advertisement and I will be happy. Even the most uncontroversial change has been reverted by you Pstudier and your associates.
 * Obscurity and irrelevance are both characteristics of the LP
 * Nothing wrong with Richard Nixon, fine President
 * Indeed, verily no one cares about the Libertarian Party, fewer than 1% anyway


 * None of the above is vandalism in any respect except those parts meant in protest about the unfair reverts. You should all grow up. Reithy 23:41, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Yeah, everybody, grow up and quit worrying about this guy vandalizing Wikipedia! - Nat Krause 04:07, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Throwing in things like a statement asserting that the party was founded in the home of a Columbian drug lord (and also Richard Nixon) is obviously vandalism and should warrant an IP blocking. Reithy has also taken up vandalizing users' personal pages on top of this. Simoes 05:30, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This article has now twice been reverted to before Reithy's vandalism. I have twice reverted it back. Reithy obviously chose a highly unacceptable way to make his point, but the point was a somewhat valid one. The tone and balance of content in the article implied a political significance to the LP which it decidedly does not have. I think the current version is much improved on that front; if people disagree with the changes, they need to make that case, not just announce "revert to before the edit war". RadicalSubversiv E 06:49, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) s well. - Nat Krause 06:54, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Did some idiot on here actually say Richard Nixon was a "fine president?"

Foreign policy plank
In the midst of this edit warring: a substantive issue. I think that the current wording on the foreign policy plank is insufficient: "non-interventionism and free trade". In this context, it isn't very clear what they plan to non-intervene with. I didn't see what was wrong with "non-intervension, peace, and free trade." It's certainly true that everyone wants peace, and thus it is not inaccurate to say that the LP is, too. Moreover, if a reader infers that libertarians are less inclined than some others to use war now in pursuit of peace later, then that is accurate, as well. - Nat Krause 06:54, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I respectfully disagree, on two fronts. First, I don't see what's unclear about "non-interventionism," although it perhaps could be expanded to "reluctance to use military intervention." Second, the problem with "peace" is not just that it's universally held, but also that it's not really a policy position. We might as well indicate in the article for every American political party that it favors freedom, justice, and democracy (also, mom and applie pie). If the LP advocates policies it believes will lead to peace, let's report those. RadicalSubversiv E 07:11, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Doesn't the LP want us out of the UN? That deserves to be mentioned if it isn't just internet rumor.

Sensitive Libertarians Who Don't Like Free Speech
I erred in attempting humor with these people. Mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa.

But let's get serious here, this article is a disgrace.

The relevance of where this irrelevant party was founded in the home of someone no-one has ever heard of is what exactly?

This is madness and I won't be going anywhere so get used to it. But I will not try humor again with these people. Just the truth.

As it stands this article remains biased and a disgrace to wikipedia.

14:25, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Allow me to introduce Reithy. Reithy has persistently vandalized libertarian-related articles, successfully causing Michael Badnarik to be protected. His edits are usually bad jokes ("Pablo Escobar") or simple injections of opinion ("largely unknown party"). He should be banned for vandalism and personal attacks (calling users "dickhead"). Rhobite 14:40, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Despite my better judgment, I'll indulge your request Reithy. Making a section header that says "History of a Minor Party" is needlessly biased. We present facts and let the readers judge whether the LP is minor or significant. I believe Art Bell is a libertarian, is this wrong? You removed specific factual information about their electoral history and replaced it with "Its candidates generally poll 1% or less and has since 1971 won one electoral college vote for President from a total possible of several thousand." The number of possible electoral votes is irrelevant, after all the Democrats and the Republicans have also lost thousands of possible electoral votes. But we don't include that in the first paragraph of their articles, do we? In general you are removing facts and instead adding sections intended to present Libertarians negatively. The location and history of the LP's founding is relevant to the topic, please don't remove it again. "Platform Strongly Opposes Government Regulation" is a poorly written section header, please follow the manual of style.

I hope this has answered your questions. I'm sorry that you feel you should be allowed to sneak jokes into articles, but that isn't how this site operates. You have irritated quite a few editors, and are probably pretty close to a ban right now. If you decide to help this encyclopedia instead of making yourself a nuisance, I am sure they would be happy to forgive you. Rhobite 16:41, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Page protection
Perhaps I need to familiarize myself further with protection policy, but it seems to me that this is not the best course of action in this case. Simply protecting every page Reithy vandalizes is probably what he's looking for at this point. In the time intervening between his vandalism sprees, we've made good progress on the article and had civil discussion (both here and in the edit summaries), and I see no reason to believe that wouldn't continue if Reithy were taken out of the equation. RadicalSubversiv E 17:11, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree, he should be banned. How does one accomplish this? We shouldn't have to jump through useless hoops like page protection and RFC to get a clear bad-faith user banned. Rhobite 18:06, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * This issue is being discussed at Requests for comment/Reithy. pstudier 00:03, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Outsider's view of User:Reithy's edits
I've just spent a little time going over all the edits that Reithy is warring over. While I suggest, Reithy, that you cease your revert-warring now and discuss these issues (properly, not just flinging around words like "biased" and "a disgrace"), there are imho a few things in there that definitely need improving. My thoughts:


 * Changes to the opening paragraph: I can't see a problem with the electoral college mention when it clearly says "the first and only" vote; however, I think it is also fair to refer to them as a "minor" party, on the ground that Democrats & Republicans are the "major" parties and everyone else is "minor".
 * Mentioning Ross Perot and Ralph Nader's greater electoral success in the opening paragraph: No way, the opening paragraph needs to summarise this article. However, some numbers could be added to "Evidence opposing the view that the Libertarian Party is the third largest", rather than just saying "Low performance for its presidential candidates relative to more successful third party candidates such as Ralph Nader and Ross Perot."
 * "..in the home of David Nolan": Seems like trivia to me, but what reason is there to remove it?
 * "During the 2004 U.S. presidential election, some commentators Libertarians have speculated..": Can we source the speculation of a commentator please? Avoid weasel words.
 * Changing section headings (e.g. "Platform" to "Platform Strongly Opposes Government Regulation" and "History" to "History Of A Minor Party"): Vandalism. Stop it.
 * Removing Art Bell from "Prominent party members": Why is he there? There is nothing in his article to explain it, just a "see also: United States Libertarian Party"
 * Removing the entire "Prominent party members" list: Vandalism. Stop it.
 * Removal of the "However, most observers believe.." paragraph regarding the Constitution Party: We need to cite an observer who believes this, not just baldly declare it as fact. Avoid weasel words.
 * Removal of "Relationship to Major Parties" section: I can't see anything wrong with this section.

&mdash;Stormie 01:11, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * "Minor" party: This is fine as long as we add it to the Constitution Party, Green Party, Right to Life, etc. articles as well. Agree re: mentioning Perot and Nader outside of the intro. David Nolan's home: Trivia adds color. Commentators: Agreed, and this should be easy, I've heard this in a few places. Section headings are vandalism, goes without saying. I believe Art Bell is a libertarian, I linked to an article which claims he is. Someone else said Bell talked about it on the air. Perhaps we should add it to his article if it's causing confusion, but as we all know, Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a reference. Rhobite 04:53, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments, Stormie. A few notes: I don't think that getting this article right should have to wait for similiar improvements in the pages relating to other parties.  They are separate issues (although I have occasionally wondered why Reithy focuses his efforts just on this article, as opposed to those of other equally marginal parties, but it doesn't really matter).  Electoral vote: I feel that we are featuring this a little too prominently in some versions of the article; it's an interesting piece of trivia, but it wasn't really any kind of political achievement. David Nolan: can definitely be seen as trivia, but it's the kind of thing that is interesting if you are interested in that sort of thing; it's relevant because David Nolan is generally thought of as "unofficially" the LP's founder; I don't think it detracts from the article to take have a sentence to mention it.  "During the 2004 U.S. presidential election, some commentators ": I believe that this is mentioned in the article primarily on the basis of a story that ran in Fox News a few months ago, so we should probably cite that (and point out that Fox News assumed the LP would not nominate the guy that they eventually did).  Art Bell: not sure what the problem is; I seem to recall that he joined the party on air a few years ago, so that is why he would be included.  "However, most observers believe..": you're right; we can probably find a cite for this at www.ballotaccess.org. &mdash; Nat Krause 05:50, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * First off, I Don't think Minor parties is a valid term... Most people refear to green/reform/constituation/Libertarain as third parties. Minors parties are like the socalist/ world workers, communist ones a step below. Prehapes I'm wrong. And as to art bell Here is a link to the source: http://badnarik.org/Multimedia/radio_interviews/michael_badnarik_art_bell_interview.mp3, conducted less then a week ago, where Art Bell says that he's interviewing the presidential candiate for the party he is a member of.Chuck F 07:07, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, the whole "minor party" issue I guess is one for the Americans to work out, I don't really know what terminology gets bandied around over there. I did a bit more poking in Art Bell, one of the external links describes his membership of the LP, I'll add that to his article if nobody else does it first, just for that little bit more clarity. Rhobite & Nat reckon they should be able to chase up sources for those "some say.." type lines. All looks promising to me. Any comment from Reithy? &mdash;Stormie 09:31, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * Gosh, I don't know where to start. But I reiterate my apology, borne of frustration about those reverting my changes without even the courtesy of explaining why.


 * Is the Libertarian Party a minor party?
 * Reithy response: Any party that routinely gets less than 1% of the popular vote I think is fairly categorized this way. Call me mean-spirited but it seems fair. For what it's worth, dictionary.com agrees, defining minor party as:


 * minor party
 * n.
 * A political party whose electoral strength is so weak that it has little chance of gaining control of a government.


 * That sounds like the Libertarian Party to me.


 * Is mentioning Ross Perot and Ralph Nader relevant?
 * Reithy response: It is puttting the Libertarian Party in context of its competitors who have had some success. Perot actually came close enough to winning, didn't he? That makes his party a legitimate third party and not a minor party I guess. Nader's party/parties I assume would rank as minor parties. I mentioned Perot and Nader to illustrate the partisanship in the first article claiming the party was the third force in US presidential politics. It isn't.


 * Is it valid to delete references to David Nolan's home and references to vanity pages about Libertarian party members?
 * Reithy response: I think it is self-indulgent trivia, probably written by David Nolan himself or a close associate. I thought wikipedia wasn't meant to provide vanity pages and vanity references to people. This seemed to me to be in that category. I think most of those articles like the vanity articles should be deleted.


 * Is it valid to delete reference to the one electoral college vote win?
 * Reithy response: I deleted it because it means nothing. They picked up a disaffected Republican electoral college delegate. Big deal. For this to rank in the first paragraph of this article seems almost bizarre. It is no great achievement, in fact some might say it is quite dishonorable for these people not to vote for the Presidential candidate they are meant to. They are meant to reflect the majority opinion of each state as I understand it.


 * Is it valid to delete the attack on the Constitution Party/Independents?
 * Reithy response: I don't know, but it was a completely unsupported assertion without references. It looked suspicious.


 * Those are the main things I wanted to respond to initially but I'll carefully re-read the commentary, particularly Stormie's and respond to anything else I've missed. There are clearly people better qualified than I to improve the article. I don't have an axe to grind here, I really don't but I am sick in bed and don't have much else to do at the moment. I look forward to a robust debate, within the rules. As to the issue of my vandalism of the article, I again apologise and have learned my lesson that this is not helpful conduct.


 * The Notorious Reithy 13:39, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

On the points raised...


 * Reithy is absolutely right about categorizing the LP as a "minor party." Chuck, you're going to need to offer some kind of citation for the notion that the phrase should be used to apply only to obscure socialist parties; in my experience it's pretty interchangeable with "third party" (except in the rare case where a third party actually has a serious shot of winning major office). The only issue I can see here is that in a few states, "minor party" has a specific legal definition which the Libertarian Party may or may not meet.
 * I have no problem with the electoral college mention, but I think it belongs in the history section. There's no specific need for it to be in the opening, and putting it there arguably makes a statement about the significance of the event. Also, it should be made clear that individual electors have defected from their pledged ticket countless times, often even casting votes for non-candidates.
 * I don't think Perot and Nader belong in the opening. But I don't think "It is, by most measures, the third-largest party in the U.S." does either. If the latter stays, there should be some kind of qualifying language which makes clear how electorally weak the party is, even relative to other recent third party efforts.
 * I see no reason to believe not to mention Nolan, who was apparently instrumental in the LP's founding. Whether he merits his own article is a different question, which should be dealt with on VfD as Reithy has done (though I strongly suspect the article will be kept).
 * There has indeed been speculation about the spoiler possibility, even after Badnarik won the nomination, but it should be sourced. I think it's come up on some of the major liberal blogs (DailyKos and myDD perhaps, I'll look it up later). However, I see no reason to remove the sentence I added indicating that the polling data to suggest such a possibility is extremely weak (polls including Badnarik have put him under 1%)
 * Art Bell appears to be card-carrying member. However, we do need to be vigilant in this section, as misinformed contributors have regularly added people listed at http://www.theadvocates.org/celebrities.html, most of whom clearly aren't.
 * The "Most observers believe" line about the Constitution Party is problematic, although the claim may indeed be correct. Ballot Access News would probably be the source to consult on this.
 * Reithy's POV edits to section headings are totally inappropriate.

RadicalSubversiv E 17:44, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Is the Libertarian Party article NPOV?
From wikipedia: '''Wikipedia policy is that all articles should have a neutral point of view. According to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable".'''

I believe the Libertarian Party article is POV:


 * It denies it's a minor party despite getting less than 1%
 * It contains links to obscure people associated with the party which are clearly vanity pages
 * It contains irrelevant trivia like whose home the party was founded in without explaining the relevance or significance if any of that fact to anything
 * There is a long history reflected on this page of people attempting to remove bias and failing to do so
 * It trumpets as one of its greatest achievements taking one electoral college vote pledged to President Nixon in 1972
 * It runs a catalog of successes which don't alter its lack of support.

Above is food for thought anyway. I hope some of the many editors around clean up this article now. Reithy 15:15, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * It doesn't deny that the LP is a minor party. Have you even looked at the sidebar on the right of the page? It stares at you right from there. Whether links to the party founder(s) is vanity or not is highly controversial, and I won't bother discussing that, leaving it to those wiser and more experienced than me. As for "irrelevant trivia", that one is another disputable item of contention. I think you're the only one who thinks we should exclude this information; I listed this on Peer review a few weeks ago, and nobody even brought up the suggestion that the article could be POVed. As for the long history, we're discussing the current revision, not what some vandals chuck up. The article doesn't "trumpet" the electoral vote beyond a mention in the first section, and this is because of the power electoral votes hold in the American electoral system. I do think it's illegal and unfair, but the American electoral system places emphasis on electoral votes, not the popular vote. As for the catalog of successes, this is definitely in compliance with the NPOV policy. It states the facts and gives the statistics. If you think it's unbalanced, add to the list of failures. Don't remove valid information just because it unbalances the article. Johnleemk | Talk 15:25, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm glad that you've apologized for the vandalism, Reithy. You should be pleased, many of your suggestions will result in a better article - statements will be attributed, certain portions will be given less prominence, consensus seems to be that we'll describe the party as "minor." However, you're going to have to prepare to disagree with the article in some places. Part of being a good editor here is respecting consensus. The clear consensus is that a one-sentence anecdote about the party's founding is encyclopedic. Likewise, we seem to have consensus for including the one electoral vote, although maybe not in the intro. I'm asking you to please respect consensus once this article is unprotected. Rhobite 19:11, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Rhobite, I know I went a bit crazy, it won't happen again. Generally, the problem is that many of those involved in writing the article are clearly involved in the Libertarian Party. That's understandable in some ways as they are interested in it but I think it was making an unbalanced article. I am glad that there is a consensus emerging around these issues and will abide by it. Johnleemk says don't delete valid information, do others have a view about whether is is appropriate to have such a long list of mostly irrelevant information. I could come up with twenty arguments/facts about why the Libertarian Party is "unsuccessful", to rebut the twenty arguments/facts in its favour but would it make for a better article? It would certainly make for an excessively long one. Reithy 21:05, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Come up with a few salient and documented points, and that will be very useful. - Nat Krause 03:45, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I would suggest not feeding the trolls. --Delirium 14:52, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

I think it's probably usually the case that the people most interested in creating, updating, maintaining, improving, and so on, any page in this site will be those who are "fans" of whatever the page is about, whether it's the Libertarian Party or Hilary Duff. The next-most-interested group, then, will be the "haters" who are strongly opposed to whatever the subject is. Hence, likely outcomes include a page that's entirely composed of fanboyish enthusiasm (if the fans show up and the haters don't), or else an edit war between opposing camps with frequent vandalisms and a heated argument in the talk pages. Truly neutral writers are less likely to show up, as they have little interest in or knowledge of the subject nor incentive to work on it, and even if they do appear they are likely to be drowned out in the noise of the flame wars. Dtobias 17:06, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Half the article reads like a brochure pulled off the website. Of course it's not NPOV - in fact, it probably deserves the tag. --Xinoph 22:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The Ideology of the Statist Has No Place Here
Forgive me for being forward, but I think a grave injustice has transpired. ChuckF is being viciously maligned for merely ensuring that an article about the United States Libertarian Party is not in fact a slag-page for every lurking opponent of the libertarian way of life. Few understand us yet a description that is dripping with anti-Libertarian invective is all we ask. Reithy's sockpockets are merely making matters worse. No Reithy, this is not the place for your arguments about why the Libertarian party is unsuccessful, as you perceive success to be. Or not to be. That is not really the question, mate. In fact the question is what is the most encyclopedic description of the Party, not your catalog of its crimes. Why statists must thrust themselves forward in the probing manner of Joseph Stalin is beyond me. ReithySockPuppet 04:37, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

An outsider's opinion
Let me preface this by saying that all declarative sentences in this post should be preceded by "In my opinion, ..." .

The page as it currently exists is POV (on both sides), but worse, it is very poorly written; it is not a good summary of the information out there on the Libertarian party, but rather it is a hodgepodge of pro and anti-Libertarian comments culled from other sites. This is irresponsible.

In the first paragraph, the author discusses the relationship between the Libertarian party and "the left/right". This is needless, since there is (and should be) a whole section devoted to this.

If the Nolan chart is to be mentioned, it should be explained. This is an encyclopedia entry, not a train terminal: a brief explanation of the Libertarian party's ideological direction is necessary.

Anyone who would put into an encyclopedia entry on the Libertarian party an argument "proving" one way or another that the party is aligned with the left or the right is not doing their job, and is clearly expressing POV. All parties overlap with each other on certain issues, but what defines a party is its ideology. Few members of the Libertarian party would have problems with a statement like: "Because the libertarian ideology is one of personal freedom, Libertarians are often in agreement with Democrats and Republicans on particular issues; however, because they feel this ideology to be in a fundamentally different direction from those of the two major parties, they refuse to be allied with either." .

That libertarians have sometimes thrown their support behind major-party candidates seems out of place in an article on the Libertarian party, since this phenomenon is widespread: losing major-party nominees often throw their support behind the nominee; many third-party candidates support major party candidates; many voters ideologically aligned with third-parties vote for the "lesser of two evils", etc. What seems to be called for is a new entry on "Ideology and pragmatism", and a link from within this entry to that new entry.

Of course this observation and many others are out of place because it they are about libertarianism, not the Libertarian party. There is a Wikipedia entry for Libertarianism, yet this entry is not linked in the appropriate capacity. There is no need to summarize Libertarian positions on a page about the Libertarian party; rather, the Libertarianism entry should be linked, and the divergence/adherence of the Libertarian party to this doctrine could be discussed. (For example, I think it would be interesting and relevant to point out that many members of the Libertarian party --allying themselves with Objectivists--  supported the bombing of Afghanistan.)

What is the meaning of the section title, "The political position of the Libertarian Party" ? Why does the author say "Libertarians point to successes..." , and contrast this with "Evidence opposing the view..." ? In my opinion, this is POV, unless the Libertarians' defenses of their successes are not factual, in which case they shouldn't be included. In any case, this section comes across as a fight between sides, rather than a list of facts; one reflex of this is that the author has put "counterarguments" into each list, clear evidence of a POV. (Although not in one direction or another. Consider the sentence: "Many people are anti-abortion (but they err in refusing to acknowledge a woman's right to choose), while others think it's fine (but they err in devaluing life)." .  This sentence is perhaps "even-handed", but it's still POV.)  A similar critique applies to the External Links section, where the pro-Libertarian links are to prominent libertarians' websites, while the anti-Libertarian links are to extensive critiques of the position. Don't compare apples and oranges; instead have links to pro and anti-position pages, and maybe to pro and anti-position people pages.

What I would like to see is a nice simple entry giving the history of the party, its ideology (briefly put, with a link for more information), its candidates, its successes, its failures, its obstacles as a third-party. It would also be relevant to give the names of organizations the Libertarian party has associated with.

Finally, what some commenters have considered "irrelevant" information is really just "unimportant" information, and such information is not necessarily bad. That the Libertarian party was founded in a living room is not really a "weighty" fact, but it is a interesting tidbit. People who are interested in the ideology of libertarianism should go to that entry. People who are interested in a political organization probably want to know more than the ideology: they want to know the particulars --however unimportant you may feel them to be--  of that party and its history. It is the job of an entry author to decide what is *relevant*, not what is *important*. (For instance, I think that philosophy is really unimportant, but it would seem silly to omit an entry in an encyclopedia for this reason.) That the party was founded in one of the founders' living rooms is relevant, because it is a fact that relates to the founding of the party. Leave the question of whether it is important to the individual viewers.

Ron Paul
I've changed the phrasing about Paul to indicate that he is, first and foremost, a Republican congressman. He's on the ballot as a Republican, and he caucuses with them. I've actually been unable to find an outside citation indicating that he continues to be an LP member, but I'll leave that debate for when the Paul article for now. RadicalSubversiv E 20:27, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Hi Radical, good point, not sure how the 'membership' thing works. I thought it was worthwhile to put Ron Paul in there as he is the only Libertarian who seems to have won anything. Will look up further references to his Libertarian status. Reithy 23:42, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)


 * User JerH today added some embellishment on Ron Paul in the main text, indicating it as a (minor) edit, which it isn't; I've looked back through a couple hundred edits and don't see that JerH has contributed before. My feeling is that it would be OK to leave this in, but move it down to sit alongside his link in the prominant party members section.  What do you think?  Courtland {2005-01-25}


 * This information is already included in the section on prominent party members, so I'm reverting JerH. RadicalSubversiv E 00:45, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * There is at least one video interview of him on Youtube where they ask him about it and he tells them he is a member of the Libertarian Party still.
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oWXbxgKbh0 at 3:15
 * TheHoustonKid (L-TX)

I've always heard that he was a lifetime member, and since he did run for President as the party's candidate, it makes sense that he would have done that then. I suppose it's possible to withdraw a lifetime membership once you've obtained it.--Gloriamarie 04:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yet another revert
I have just reverted most of the changes made by an anonymous user. A few were downright incorrect or factually misleading. I reverted most of them, however, because, taken as a whole, they reflected a Libertarian POV through selective presentation of the facts or by presenting Libertarian political argument as fact.

A few specific items:


 * Paul is a Republican congressman -- elected as a Republican, votes with the Republican caucus on organization and procedure -- who may (or may not -- I still can't find any citations) happen to hold membership in the Libertarian Party as an organization. Presenting this information otherwise is misleading.


 * The fact that Libertarians have previously elected state representatives doesn't belong in the lead. The only reason that the party's current lack of state-level electeds is in the lead to begin with is to balance the arguably-POV statement that the LP is the nation's third largest party.


 * Virginia voted for Nixon in 1972, which means that MacBride was a Nixon elector, unless someone can provide a citation indicating that the Virginia had a different method of allocating its electors in '72. (Virginia law may or may not attempt to require electors to fulfill their pledges - some states do, most don't, and most legal experts believe such laws are unconstitutional anyway.)


 * Just because a celebrity is listed as a "libertarian" on the Advocates for Self-Government page does not mean they are a card-carrying member of the Libertarian Party. We've been over this territory multiple times -- try reading talk before making such changes.

RadicalSubversiv E 00:35, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Radical, the inmates run the asylum on the Libertarian pages. POV is abundant. Any reference to an opinion poll or actual election results is regarded as an attack on their way of life.
 * I actually put in the reference to Ron Paul because I thought it helped put the party in context to some extent. They have ONE allied congressman, who has essentially hijacked the Republican infrastructure to get elected despite mainstream GOP opposition. To his credit though he is now hard to beat both in the primaries and general election.
 * Amusingly enough, a Libertarian deleted the reference to Ron Paul without reading it and then hurriedly restored it, proving that they are involved in a censorship exercise some might think contrary to libertarian principles. I always worry about chefs who are reluctant to eat their own cooking! Reithy 23:08, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

I would disagree that Ron Paul has "hijacked" anything. He was a Republican congressman before he ran for president on the Libertarian ticket.--Gloriamarie 04:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Presidential results
Hi, I just wanted to mention that the presidential results can be updated. According to an article at SFGate.com the final tally for Badnarik is 400,217. Please update the article appropriately. Curtis | Talk 04:55 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Look, Browne and all the other candidates haven't polled above one or two percent for ages. Why aren't they in the lead section? Because Wikipedia is meant to be readable by anyone, whether they read it today, next month, or the next century. Badnarik's results are temporal, and as such, are irrelevant for the lead section (although they definitely should be mentioned in the article). Johnleemk | Talk 08:23, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * It is vital in an article on a national political party to prominently report on its electoral success or lack therof. Otherwise this encyclopedia article reads like a brochure distributed by the Libertarian Party. Reithy 21:02, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * I believe the history section is the best place for the results, although they could get their own subsection of history if people want. Please remember not to cut and paste from the article text, since that doesn't pick up wikilinks and footnotes. Rhobite 21:03, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

Reithy, if you're going to insist on placing the results section above everything else you should at least fix the fact that Badnarik is mentioned out of context. Rhobite 21:54, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

Good point. Reithy 22:26, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

The reform party didn't run a candiate, Ralph Nader was endorsed by them, but he wasn't run by them. It's like saying the third parties that endorsed bush or Kerry beat out Libertarian party. Chuck F 06:12, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Celebrity" candidates, etc.
Mcarling's latest edits are a great example of the subtle pro-Libertarian POV which is constantly being inserted in this page -- by carefully inserting and rephrasing things so as to be strictly accurate, but generally create a pro-LP presentation. Describing Ralph Nader as a "celebrity candidate" is disparaging and unnecessary. The fact that Badnarik approached his vote total this time is not basis for removing mention of 2000. If you really want to push the issue, I'll be sure to point out that Nader lost to Badnarik despite being on the ballot in fewer states and being beaten up on in an unprecedented way for a third party/independent candidate. RadicalSubversiv E 17:10, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Nader was mentioned in the press at least 150 times more often than was Badnarik. Sure, some of the press on Nader was unflattering, but so was some of the press on Badnarik.  That Badnarik was on the ballot in more states than Nader is a reflection of Libertarian support.  The root point here is that Nader's status as a celebrity and Perot's wealth were factors that should not be ignored when comparing vote results. M Carling 17:19, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The root point is that half the content of the article is designed to "prove" that Libertarian's are the country's third-largest party, and you're determined to change the few qualifiers so as to needlessly disparage the other candidates with only flimsy justification. Bush and Kerry were each mentioned thousands more times than either of them, so should we go through wikipedia referring to each of them as celebrity candidates? (Also, Badnarik was on the ballot in more states because Democrats waged huge legal battles to keep Nader off the ballot in numerous states.) RadicalSubversiv E 17:49, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Nader is a multi-millionaire and Perot was far better known in 1992 than Marrou (I knew who Perot was in the 1980s), but I'm not interested in getting into an edit war. M Carling 18:03, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I assume that at least Browne and MacBride were also millionaires. I'm not old enough to remember most of the 80s, but I'd be surprised to learn that Perot was known on a particularly wide scale before he started making presidential noises (you're probably a good deal smarter than the average bear). And I'm not interested in an edit war either -- sorry if I came off a bit stridently, I've become a bit over-sensitive to partisan edits to Libertarian articles as of late. RadicalSubversiv E 18:17, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The fact that Nader, MacBride, and Browne are millionaires (presumable true of Browne, I'm not sure) is not really very relevant, because they didn't pump huge amounts of money into their campaigns.  I think Perot did have some celebrity before running for president -- I seem to recall reading that he was a major character in a TV movie at one point during the 1980s (about the rescue of some hostages from Iran).  Personally, I think that the descriptions M. Carling added are mostly relevant and okay seen in isolation.  If there is an overarching bias toward proving the ascendency of the LP, there are probably other ways to fix that (not sure of specifics). - Nat Krause 05:20, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Perot is not just a millionaire, he's a billionaire. According to the Forbes 400, he's the 40th richest person in America this year (and he was higher on the list when he ran for President).  Unlike the other people mentioned, Perot could afford to pump millions of dollars of his own money into his campaign without it having a significant impact on his lifestyle.  Perot was known before he ran for President as the billionaire founder of EDS, so people who paid attention to technology or finance knew who he was.  The hostage rescue story was out there, too, but I don't remember hearing about it until they rehashed it during his first campaign.  In any event, I don't think you can mention Perot and Nader in an NPOV way without recognizing that they brought significant advantages to the table unrelated to their political views. Jwolfe 10:52, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm gonna let this one go in the interets of not starting an edit war, but let me go on the record once more in saying that these edits read suspiciously like an attempt to "justify" the Libertarians' poor electoral performance, which is not a reasonable NPOV motivation for editing an article. My preferred solution is to eliminate all of the third largest party back-and-forth to begin with, but if we're going to have it, you can't just recontextualize all of the counterpoints so as to make them meaningless and the whole article completely slanted. I'm going to ruminate on this one and see if I can't offer a way to deal with this kind of bias. RadicalSubversiv E 19:56, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't think artificially strengthening the argument against the LP being the third largest political party (i.e. by ignoring context) is the way to reach NPOV. The arguments against the LP being third largest are weak, which is why the LP talks about it so much.  The way to reach NPOV for the article is to talk about things the LP doesn't talk about, which seems to be missing from the article at this point.  Jwolfe 10:09, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * After posting the above comment, I realized that some of the pro-LP-is-third-largest arguments were also missing some much-needed context, which I have attempted to provide. In one case, it was about a candidate who had a bit of his own celebrity, if only by virtue of his brother (i.e. Ed Thompson). Jwolfe 11:01, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

LP(US) vs. USLP?
May I ask why this article was moved from United States Libertarian Party to Libertarian Party (United States), which is inconsistent with United States Democratic Party and United States Republican Party? Unless there's a good reason, I think we should move it back. k.lee 23:38, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The "United States Party" practice goes against overall article naming convention, and is currently being discussed at Talk:United States Democratic Party. RadicalSubversiv E 23:43, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't we then wait until that discussion is completed before changing this article? Jwolfe 09:46, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Third or not?
I find the wording of the following section unacceptable:


 * Libertarian candidates have finished third in a presidential election thrice, in 1972, 1984, and 1988. Also, when compared to other parties (that is, excluding independent candidates), the Libertarian Party placed third in seven of the nine elections in which it has run a presidential candidate.  In 2004 Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik placed just behind third place finisher Ralph Nader, who was running as an independent.  No other current third party has ever finished third in a presidential election more than once.

As people have attempted to modify this section, the original author has reverted the changes with explanations in the comment text. My objections are twofold. First, the criteria seem to be finely crafted to maximize the status of the LP, which is hardly NPOV. Second, if the edits require justification in the comments of the edit, they are not clear enough and the article needs to be rewritten. Rather than get into a revert war, can we pound out something here that is clear and NPOV? I'm currently drawing a blank myself, but until I can come up with something, I'll leave it to someone else to start the ball rolling. Jwolfe 22:41, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this would be more to your liking:


 * The Libertarian Party has placed third in seven of the nine presidential elections held since it was founded. The exceptions are 1996 (Ross Perot) and 2000 (Ralph Nader).  No other current third party has ever finished third in a presidential election more than once.


 * As for the criteria being finely crafted, it is the simplest critereon for ranking party strength in presidential elections that makes any sense: rank parties first by electoral votes and then break ties by popular vote. M Carling 9:23, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * It finished third in two out of the nine. If we're counting popular vote, it came third in 1984 and 1988. If we're counting electoral college vote, it came third in 1972, but not 1988. You can't have both. If you are using the electoral vote in 1972 to say John Hospers came third, you have to accept its use in 1988 over-rides the popular vote and puts Ron Paul down to fourth. Perhaps the best solution would be to say it came third in the popular vote in 1984 and 1988, and received an electoral vote from the Republican elector in 1972.


 * In 1972, the Republican Party placed 1st with 520 electoral votes, the Democrats 2nd with 17 electoral votes, and the Libertarian Party 3rd with 1 electoral votes. No other party received any electoral votes.  That was the LP's first 3rd place finish.  In 1976, The Democratic Party placed 1st with 297 electoral votes, and the Republican Party placed 2nd with 241 electoral votes (240 for Ford and 1 for Reagan).  No other party received any electoral votes, so we look to the popular vote.  The party (remember, we're comparing parties, not candidates) receiving the most popular votes after the Rs and Ds was the Libertarian Party.  That was the LP's second 3rd place finish.  In 1980, The Rs received 489 electoral votes and the Ds received 49.  No other party received any.  The party with the most popular votes after the Rs and Ds was the LP.  That was the LP's third 3rd place finish.  In 1984, the Rs received 525 electoral votes and the Ds received 13.  The Libertarian Party again received more popular votes than any Party other than the Rs and Ds.  That was the LP's fourth 3rd place finish.  In 1988, the Rs received 426 electoral votes and the Ds received 112 (111 for Dukakis and 1 for Bentsen).  The party receiving the most popular votes other than the Rs and Ds was the LP.  That was the LP's fifth 3rd place showing.  In 1992, the Ds received 370 electoral votes and the Rs 168.  The party with the most popular votes not counting the Rs and Ds was the LP.  That was the LP's sixth 3rd place showing.  In 1996, the Reform Party placed 3rd.  In 2000, the Green Party placed 3rd.  In 2004, the LP placed 3rd for the seventh time, again receiving more popular votes than any party other than the Rs and Ds. M Carling 6:48, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Whatever way you slice it, you come down to a simple, single fact: Libertarian candidates have come third in two Presidential elections. How about this as a compromise:


 * Libertarian candidates have finished third in a presidential election twice, in 1972 and 1984. The Libertarian Party also came third in the popular vote in 1988. Also, when compared to other parties (that is, excluding independent candidates), the Libertarian Party placed third in seven of the nine elections in which it has run a presidential candidate.  In 2004 Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik placed just behind third place finisher Ralph Nader, who was running as an independent.  No other current third party has ever finished third in a presidential election more than once.


 * My lord, this debate again -mcarling I had this problem last time when they kept demanding that I insert ralph nader's role in the 2004 into the section about why lp is the largest third party. saying I was being misleading, The section is not about Lp as a whole, the section is about why they are the third largest party, What in the world does thier placement in the elections against candiates that weren't members of a third party have to do with them being the largest third party?


 * The point is that you can't use false or distorting information to make the case for the Libertarian Party. You can't make it sound like it came third over all if in fact there was an independent candidate who polled higher. It needs to be phrased in a way that gives the case for them being the largest third party without distorting the truth to make it look like they came third over all if they did not.

Taxes
I was under the impression that Libertarians were in favor of ending all taxation, but the article says they only support a redecution.--The_stuart 21:08, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Some Libertarian Party members are in favor of eliminating all taxation. Some are in favor of major cuts including the complete elimination of some taxes, particularly the income tax. -- M Carling 21:43, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * From the Libertarian Party platform statement on taxes: "we ... support the repeal of all taxation." No doubt not all Libertarians agree 100% with the platform, but that's the party's official position and the article should reflect it. RadicalSubversiv E 23:50, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Chuck's justification for reverting
In response to my request to justify his revert here, he offered this explanation on my talk page:


 * Actually... this was how the article was for a long time, I compleatly mis-read an addition and re-added it, and that's why this edit war has started up agian because that anon aol ip won't listen to anything I say at all and just likes to revert me.


 * Anyway, The section of that article is titled why reasons Libertarians point to such success as(releating to third parties)... Thier placement(as other users besides me have argued on talk) in terms of non-third parties have absoulty nothing to do with that. If you want it to be different you need to change the entire section, not just that sentence, by prefacing that section of the article by saying libertarians claim to be the third largest party and point to success such as, you are also giving a warniing that this is not a netural list, this is what libertarians calim :Chuck F|Chuck F]] 12:40, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I find this to be wholly inadequate. "This is how the article was for a long time" is never a justification for a revert on an encyclopedia we're constantly improving, nor is Chuck's earlier editing mixup. RadicalSubversiv E 20:39, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Re-organize the "third largest party" section?
Let me restate for the record that I don't think most of this stuff belongs in the article at all. We're not really reporting a notable argument, but instead serving as a venue for a fairly original one. If it was up to me "Libertarians claim to be the largest third party in the United States, a claim which is disputed by other third parties, especially the Greens."

That having been said, if we're going to cover the competing claims, I think a rewrite is in order so this is something other than an acontextual bullet-point list of arguments. This should start by contextualizing the claim, particularly for international readers, who may not realize just how dubious the "third largest party" honor is, no matter who claims it. It should make very clear that the claim is that the Libertarian Party is currently the third-largest party, which does not equate to its being, over time, the third-place finisher in major elections (which it hasn't been).

Then, the content should be reorganized so as to fairly present the available evidence in four areas: voter registration, presidential results, number of candidates, and those candidates' electoral success. Data supporting and contradicting the third largest claim should be presented side-by-side so that readers can reach their own conclusions. Along those lines, here's my proposal:


 * The Libertarian Party claims to currently be the largest third party in the United States, a nation which is overwhelmingly dominated by two major parties who typically capture more than 95% of the vote in partisan elections. Their claim is disputed by some, especially other third parties such as the Greens. There is no single objective, agreed-upon standard to compare the size of third parties, so what is presented here is a collection of various measures sometimes cited.


 * Libertarians point to the performance of their presidential candidates, who have often finished above most permanently-organized third parties. In the 2004 election, Libertarian Michael Badnarik received more votes than all non-major party candidates except for Ralph Nader, who ran as an independent but accepted the endorsement and ballot lines of the mostly-defunct Reform Party. In 2000 and 1996, Libertarian Harry Browne was bested by both the Green Party and Reform Party nominees. The Libertarian candidate finished ahead of all other third party candidates in 1992, 1988, 1984, and 1980 (though it finished well behind independent candidates Ross Perot in 1992 and John Bayard Anderson in 1980). No other current third party has finished third in a presidential election more than once, nor have they received an electoral college vote, as the Libertarian candidate did in 1972 (from a renegade Nixon elector). Libertarians have also achieved 50-state ballot access for their candidate four times (in 1980, 1992, 1996, and 2000), a feat no other third party has achieved more than once.


 * In recent elections, Libertarians have run far more candidates for office, at all levels, than all other third parties combined. In the 2004 elections, there were 377 Libertarian candidates for state legislative seats, compared with 108 Constitution Party candidates, 94 Green Party candidates, and 11 Reform Party candidates. In the 2000 elections, the party ran about 1,430 candidates at the local, state, and federal level. More than 1,600 Libertarians ran for office in the 2002 mid-term election. Accordingly, their combined vote totals have far exceed other parties': in the 2000, 2002, and 2004 elections, Libertarian candidates for state House of Representatives received more than a million votes -- more than twice the votes received by all other minor parties combined.


 * Libertarians have had mixed success in electing candidates at the state and local level (no third party is currently represented in the U.S. Congress, although Republican Ron Paul is a former Libertarian presidential candidate). 581 Libertarians current hold some form of public office, although many of these are appointed positions . Following the 2002 elections, more than 300 Libertarians held elected state and local offices; following the 2004 elections, at least 221 Greens hold elected office . Though twelve Libertarians have previously been elected to state legislatures, none hold that office currently, unlike the Greens (one in Maine), the Constitution Party (one in Montana) the Independence Party (one in Minnesota), the Progressive Party (six in Vermont), the Republican Moderate Party (one in Alaska), and the Working Families Party (one in New York). Some Libertarian candidates for state office have performed relatively strongly in statewide races. In two Massachusetts Senate races (2000 and 2002), Libertarian candidates Carla Howell and Michael Cloud, who did not face serious Republican contenders (in 2002, the candidate failed to make the ballot), won a record-setting 11.9% and 19%, respectively. In 2002, Ed Thompson, well-known as the brother of former Wisconsin governor Tommy Thompsono, won 11% running for the same office, resulting in a seat on the state elections board for the Libertarian Party, the only one for a third party in the U.S.


 * As of October 2004, the Libertarians ranked fifth in voter registration nationally. The Constitution Party ranked third with 367,521 registrants, next to the Greens' 312,963 and the Libertarians' 258,408. However, according to Richard Winger, the editor of Ballot Access News, of the 326,763 California voters affiliated with the Constitution Party, who are actually registrants of California's American Independent Party, nearly all registered in the belief that they were registering as independents i.e. not associating with any political party.  Also, excluding New York (where Libertarians just recently won the right to register) and California (where the American Independent Party skews the results), Libertarians rank third in voter registration.  The Libertarians ranked third in fifteen states, the Greens ranked third in eight states, the Constitution Party ranked third in two states, and the Reform Party ranked third in one state. (The total is twenty-six because nearly half the states states don't allow voters to register with third parties.)

I'd like to have some discussion of this on talk before making any changes, but if I eventually do I will not react happily to reverts from editors who have ignored my attempt at discussion here (Chuck, this means you).

Thoughts?

RadicalSubversiv E 22:19, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, that's a significant improvement over the status quo. M Carling 22:57, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I contacted Richard Winger and he does not agree with some of the quotes attributed to him. He does not have time to edit it right now, but here was his response: "I really don't agree with this. This author is putting the Independence Party of New York's voters into the "Reform" column. I didn't do that.  That party left the Reform Party in 2000.  But it doesn't bother me enough to exert any energy to complain.  If people are really interested, I hope they will look at my actual chart."

69.181.190.23 (talk) 19:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Nader as a third party
Guys, who cares whether Nader was a third party or an independent? He placed third, slightly ahead of Badnarik, and that's what we should say. Who said that independent candidates shouldn't get mentioned in this article? It is intentionally misleading to say that Badnarik received "the most votes out of any third party" without even mentioning Nader. Rhobite 03:52, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * My sentiments exactly. If you don't think my phrasing reflects that, feel free to improve on it. RadicalSubversiv E 04:00, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * BUT AGAIN as has been argued for at least a month here, THE SECTION IS about whatever or not they are the third largest party, I have no problem elsewhere putting Nader in, But it's misleading in that section to say he was beaten by Nader when nader really was an independent candiate, and thus has nothing to do with libertarian [party being the largest third party. Chuck F 07:51, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Whether Nader was a third-party candidate is debatable. The text doesn't say he is or isn't, just explains the situation accurately. RadicalSubversiv E 08:05, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is an accurate statement that the LP was the party to receive the third most number of votes for President in 2004. It is accurate to say that Badnarik was the candidate to receive the forth most number of votes for President in 2004. There is nothing "intentionally misleading" about the truth. 136.160.142.98 (talk) 23:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Party affiliation
The statement "Half the states don't allow voters to register with third parties" was a bit misleading, wasn't it? Only 27 states actually require voters to affiliate with a party. (accg. to ) At least two states do not have any party affiliation as part of voter registration (Washington and Minnesota for sure -- and FWIW, Washington did recognize the Libertarian Party in the new primary system this year). - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler  [ flame ] ]] 22:34, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Description of Badnarik's 2004 results
Chuck keeps reverting my phrasing:
 * "In the 2004 election, Libertarian Michael Badnarik received more votes than all non-major party candidates except for Ralph Nader, who ran as an independent but accepted the endorsement and ballot lines of the mostly-defunct Reform Party; received more votes than all the other third party candidates combined, and three times as many as the next placed third party candidate (David Cobb)."

To replace it with:
 * "In the 2004 election, Libertarian Michael Badnarik received more votes than all the other third party candidates combined, and three times as many as the next placed thirdy party candiate, although independent Ralph Nader received slightly more votes -- in part by accepting ballot status from the mostly-defunct Reform Party."

which was originally written by Mcarling. I object to the latter phrasing on the grounds that a) it states that Nader was not a third-party candidate, which is a matter subject to debate, b) the phrasing is awkward and cumbersome, and c) it seems to imply that Nader outperformed Badnarik because of Reform Party support, which is both untrue and POV. Input would be appreciated, particularly from Chuck if he intends to consider reverting without explanation. RadicalSubversiv E 22:04, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Question
Where do I find the sources you guys are using?

a proposal for sub-setting topics related to the Libertarian Party
I'd appreciate some discussion on whether we could emulate Biology and separate from the main Article the following sub-topics:


 * Prominent Members of the US Libertarian Party
 * Publications related to the US Libertarian Party
 * Debated History of the US Libertarian Party

The intention of these additional pages would be to, respectively:


 * Provide a discussion forum for the roles and valid association of particular public figures with the US Libertarian Party (with the end result being an encyclopedic roster of members and their roles)
 * Provide a place for publications to be referenced and described that are both pro-Libertarian, anti-Libertarian and relate the role of the Libertian Party in the context of US Politics
 * Provide a place for the hashing out of a NPOV version of the History of the Libertarian Party, with the intention of not replacing a history section in the main Article but serving as a "settling pool" for bias to sink over time ... as time passes biases do tend to settle away from consensus views, which can then be moved with care into the main Article

I'll not make such major changes myself, but leave it to the group here to discuss these things for a while, then the group can decide when and if these things could/should take place.

Regards,

Courtland {2005-01-22}


 * Wikipedia is not Usenet -- we don't exist to provide discussion forums. Moreover, we generally don't spin-off sections into separate articles unless they've become unreasonably long, which none of the materials you're citing have (or even seem likely to become). If you have specific concerns about the NPOV of the history section, this is the appropriate forum for discussing them. RadicalSubversiv E 00:50, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, Radical; I agree that this is not a discussion forum. Let's set aside the business about "discussion forums" then and concentrate on the technical merits of emulating the Biology organization.  Should I infer from your response that you don't think that the sections are sufficiently long to spin-off?  Courtland {2005-01-25}

I don't know what happened to this proposal but I just want to note there is a WIKI page called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Members_of_the_Libertarian_Party_%28United_States%29 which is in fact a page *ONLY* listing candidates. Perhaps someone with more experience and time could change the title of the page to what it actually is -- CANDIDATES_of_the_Libertarian_Party. (Note there already is a presidential candidates page.) Also there are a bunch of libertarians on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_libertarians some of whom could be linked as having been candidates in any revamped Candidates page.

Carol Moore 12:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Color
I am unaware of any association with yellow. The Statue of Liberty Logo is usually blue. What do others think? I will remove yellow in a couple days if no one provides any reference for this. pstudier 23:03, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

I believe the yellow came from Political_party, where yellow stands for liberal. In the US, liberal generally does not mean libertarian. Therefore I removed yellow from this article and from Political color. pstudier 00:18, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)


 * More accurately, in the U.S., liberalism is referred to as libertarianism, and democratic socialism is referred to as liberalism. Therefore, it is correct to associate libertarianism with yellow. 136.160.142.98 (talk) 23:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

A lot of LP literature is printed in blue ink, but I don't know of any association of any other color with the party. *Dan* 00:25, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The party has no official colour. (Neither do the Republicans, Democrats, and even the Greens.)  Nevertheless, yellow/gold are often associated with classical liberalism, libertarianism, and anarcho-capitalism.  The Libertarian Party (U.S.) website itself employs a lot of gold and navy blue in its layout.
 * If the Libertarian Party did have an official colour, I highly suspect that the colour would be yellow. I'm only slightly more convinced the Green Party (U.S.) would choose green.
 * The reason I am certain the LP does not have an official colour is because I emailed the national office, and they told me this. 136.160.142.98 (talk) 23:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I almost added a reference to yellow when I saw it wasn't mentioned. The source is media coverage, which sometimes uses red for Republican, blue for Democrat, green for Green, and yellow for Libertarian. CNN did this, for example: &mdash;Brent Dax 05:45, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Prominent libertarians
I removed Starchild and put Art Olivier back in. Art was a VP candidate and has a page in Wikipedia. Starchild has never run for state national office. Secondly, I removed the thing about confusing Liberal and Libertarian. There is no evidence for this, and there is no liberal party in the US. pstudier 22:16, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

No, no, no. You are giving false information. Starchild has run for state office in California, besides being a libertarian celebrity in his own right. Do I see some hypocrisy and bigotry from you? Or is this a clever form of covert gay-bashing you are engaging in? Please tell me which it is. --Fahrenheit451 00:18, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The author may have been referring to the Liberal Party of New York. But you're right that without some kind of citation, it doesn't belong here. RadicalSubversiv E 22:29, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant national office. It is POV to list him above all other libertarians as a model libertarian while highlighting his unusual career. pstudier 00:45, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)

All right. I removed the model libertarian epithet. It is very clever for you to euphemize what his career is and stick his entry above the last, where it originally was. Now you change your song and backpedal. You said he was not a state candidate, then, oops, "I meant national office." That does not fly here. Your biased editing will not be tolerated. Starchild is a national libertarian celebrity. You had better check your facts before your butcher another editor's contributions.--Fahrenheit451 00:56, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do you have any objections to listing the entries in alphabetical order by last name? All the other candidates are in order. pstudier 01:09, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)

No, I object to your POV editing and reversions.--Fahrenheit451 01:24, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Removed "gay" from Starchild. A persons sexual orientation is not relevant, and is not listed for any of the prominent Republicans or Democrats. pstudier 23:17, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)

That is entirely your opinion. Your editing is very POV. This article is badly in need of major rewrite to clean up the bias. --Fahrenheit451 03:36, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality of Libertarian Party (United States) article is disputed
I disagree that art olivier is prominent. Starchild is prominent. This indicates a point of view edit by certain libertarian party members. There are a number of individuals listed under the prominent section that have never run for public office. This article is clearly biased towards a particular point of view in the libertarian party. --Fahrenheit451 23:26, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that Starchild is nationally prominent? pstudier 23:18, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that he is not? Is sure looks to me like you are just gay-bashing. You need to be closely monitored. --Fahrenheit451 03:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Enough with the personal attacks. I am not gay-bashing. Starchild has never run for any national office, nor has he served on the Libertarian National Committee, nor is he a media figure of any note, nor did he have a Wikipedia article until you wrote one specifically to support your POV. You are showing your POV by removing Art Olivier, a very respectable mainstream person, and emphasizing Starchild who is probably California's most "colorful" libertarian. pstudier 03:40, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)

Enough with your personal attacks. Ed Thompson has never run for any national office and it is irrelevant if he has served on the LNC, nor is he a media figure of any note, and I don't know who put a pr article up for him. I have never heard of Art Olivier before and it is your POV that he is "respectable" and "mainstream". Clearly, your editing is Very, Very POV. That is not allowed here and there are some major changes coming to the article which you seem to think you own. --Fahrenheit451 04:39, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The idea that Starchild is a national celebrity, or any kind of celebrity, is just plain silly. Art Olivier is not really a celebrity either, but at least he was once a candidate for national office. - Nat Krause 05:04, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ed Thompson is not a national celebrity either, nor did he run for a national office. Actually, nearly half the names posted in the "prominent" section I have never heard of and I think it is silly to keep them there. But, the "prominent" section uses a moniker that is highly subjective. Rather than debate who is and who is not prominent, and what prominent "should" mean, I suggest that this section be deleted from the article. This whole article seems to be a forum for a faction of the Libertarian Party that wants it to appear a particular way. That is POV and strays from the facts. All articles here are subject to Wikipedia policies. Accept them or fork off and start your own. --Fahrenheit451 15:36, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Nat Krause is engaging in POV editing which is completely unacceptable with Wikipedia. ABout half of the so-called prominent libertarians in that section I do not consider to be prominent as I have never heard of them. I think that section either needs to be trimmed back severely or eliminated completely as it is very POV.--Fahrenheit451 17:24, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I repeat again for the sake of redundancies sake, Starchild has never run for national office, or even statewide office in California. He has run for state assembly, which is local. If you want to nominate some other non-prominant libertarians from the list, please do. At least Ed Thompson got 11% in a statewide race (governor). pstudier 19:09, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

The dictionary I am looking in defines prominent as distinguished, important. There is considerable subjectivity there. Running for a political office does not necessarily imply a person is distinguished or important. The example you use is not relevant: I have never heard of Ed Thompson and 11% of the plurality vote in a statewide race indicates a poor support base. I think the prominent list needs to be parred back. Do I have to do it myself or are you and Nat Krause going to help?--Fahrenheit451 23:43, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Ed Thompson is mentioned frequently on the official site of the Libertarian Party. He was the chair of the Wisconsin Libertarian Party and ran for governor.  A seach of his name from the search box on the front page of lp.org yields 23 hits.  Starchild yields 4 mentions.  I personally have heard of Thompson numerous times, and he came up again when he was elected to city council in his city despite the fact that he wasn't running for the post.  I have honestly never heard of Starchild.  All 4 mentions on the official website of the Libertarian Party website refer to him as "San Francisco Libertarian Starchild" indicating that he is more of a local celebrity.  At any rate, he's certainly not more prominent on a national scale than Ed Thompson, and if you've never heard of Ed Thompson, you must not check out the LP site much. --Kyle, 8/05/05

Pstudier, I see you attempting to arbitrarily define what "prominent" means. I am going by the dictionary. Not your definition or Nat Krause's definition. It looks to me like this is going to turn into an edit war. --Fahrenheit451 23:54, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

So, how is Starchild more prominent than Olivier? pstudier 22:18, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

Olivier and Thompson and not prominent --Fahrenheit451 21:31, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Olivier and Thompson are by far more prominent than this Starchild person I have never heard of before, and I live in California. -- James 21:12, 2005 May 13


 * Olivier and Thompson are relatively prominent in context. Art Olivier was a Libertarian candidate for federal office (a category which includes only 14 other people). Ed Thompson ran one of the LP's more successful statewide campaigns in recent years. Starchild is just a person who likes attention. - Nat Krause 09:18, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I guess the question is whether we're looking for prominence within the libertarian movement or prominence in the outside world. (Does Starchild have either?) *Dan* 11:51, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

This goes back to my original objection to the section on the basis that the term prominent is vague. Olivier and Thompson may be familiar names to someone who reads lpnews, but from what I have been able to determine are not outside of WI and CA. Also, the libertarian movement is Not the same as libertarian party. For that matter, I see no evidence of current party membership for the remaining people we are not disputing, excepting Dave Nolan, the founder, and Karl Hess, who technically should not be listed as he is no longer a member. Where can their current memberships be verified? --Fahrenheit451 18:41, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I see Pstudier has changed the section title from prominent party members to prominent libertarians. It now needs to be verified who on that list calls themself a libertarian. Also, it should be made clear that the list may include those who are Not members of the lp.--Fahrenheit451 21:31, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, well it would be useful if you (or anyone) could help in identifying and adding references that have some credibility to support or refute party membership versus libertarian tendencies. Courtland 21:44, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

The party membership part of it is totally irrelevant. It reads libertarian, not l.p. member. Whoever originally created this section should take responsibility for verifiying who is and is not a libertarian. I would rather remove the "prominent" section as it is quite open to opinion and probably difficult to verify in many cases. Quite a problem: First to verify the stated person is politically libertarian, and then to prove that they are "prominent". I say just remove the section.--Fahrenheit451 14:31, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, there is a Prominent Republicans and a Prominent Democrats section in their respective articles. Do you want to remove them also? pstudier 20:03, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

Possibly. I have not looked at those pages yet. But, this one is under discussion right now.--Fahrenheit451 16:33, 21 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Consistency across articles bearing on the same topic assists readers in assimilating and comparing the information in those articles. It is relevant here how the major political party articles have their content organized. Courtland 16:45, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

I didn't state it wasn't.--Fahrenheit451 19:16, 21 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the section should be changed back to prominent LP members. There's already a list of notable libertarians linked to from Libertarianism. Doesn't make sense to have another one here. As for dan's question "whether we're looking for prominence within the libertarian movement or prominence in the outside world", I think the term "prominent" loosely implies a status within a particular social group, i.e. within the party. "Famous" would imply the opposite. - Nat Krause 02:16, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Libertarian movement and l.p. are two entirely different bodies of data. I am not aware of anyone who can honestly state that so-and-so is prominent within the libertarian movement. Who is in the movement? Have you surveyed them? And define libertarian movement. Who does that include? Who does it exclude? That subject is very vague and quite opinionated. Also, your opinion of the meaning of prominence is irrelevant. We are operating with the English language as our common communications medium. Therefore, a dictionary is our reference for the meanings of words. You seem to want to impose your definition of prominent. Is that authoritarian?--Fahrenheit451 16:43, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
 * This is where the introduction of credible references to back up assertions of membership are needed. Courtland 17:18, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

POLITICAL COMPASS
I would suggest that commenters and readers of this discussion look at the site politicalcompass.org. It gives a good sense of what left-right and authoritarian-libertarian actually involve. Looking at their charts of who is actually where in that matrix is very informative. Take the test and see who your allies really are.


 * Some people find the political compass to be simplistic, but it's still an interesting perspective. Rhobite 18:49, May 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Political Compass is extremely biased. (I give more explanation here.)  Politopia is far better.  Allixpeeke (talk) 19:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Along the same lines (i.e. trying to ascertain political leanings based on a small number of questions) is "World's Smallest Political Quiz" @ http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html. Courtland 05:06, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

NPOV
Having read the article, I am of the opinion that for the most part it is NPOV. It is my sincere hope that those of you who contest the neutrality of this article are doing so in earnst and not out of some other motivation.User:Tetragrammaton May 21st 2005

This Tetragrammarton is not a registered Wikipedia user. Could be a random observer or a pseudonym of a registered user who does not want the comment attributed to them.--Fahrenheit451 19:11, 21 May 2005 (UTC) Odd, I log in just fine. Fahrenheit451, I admit that the "prominent Libertarian" section is somewhat POV; however, the rest of the page appears to be accurate, and NPOV. Tell me sir or madam, do you habor some prejudice towards Libertarians? I sincerely hope you do not. I hope your argument stems from a honest desire to make the Libertarian entry as accurate as possible. Tetragrammaton May 21st, 2005

After your initial comment yesterday, your username did not tie in with a registered user. Could be a database update lag. As a wikipedia editor, my opinion of the subject I am editing is irrelevant, as yours should be. The task at hand is accurate, verifiable, NPOV editing. I could ask you if you harbor a prejudice against editors who insist on accuracy. We do agree that the "prominent" section was not NPOV. If the title is changed to "prominent l.p. members" then it will need to be edited again. For example, of those who are currently and formerly there, how many hold current memberships in the l.p.? They would have to show you their membership cards or the l.p.u.s. would have to volunteer some certified information, which I don't think they would do for privacy reasons. --Fahrenheit451 17:10, 22 May 2005 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, only User:Fahrenheit451 disputes the article's neutrality, and only with regard to the choice of who to include in "prominent LP members." I propose to move the NPOV dispute tag down to that section specifically. - Nat Krause 10:10, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Courtland 10:38, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

Disagreed. The "prominent" section is what is under discussion right now. You have no consensus.--Fahrenheit451 16:29, 21 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Consensus is not a synonym for Unanimous Agreement. Given that distinction, it appears there is a consensus and that you are not accepting this. It's ok not to agree with consensus, but acceptance of it is what makes Wikipedia possible. Courtland 16:41, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

The dictionary I have states that consensus is a general agreement or an instance of general agreement. There is no such condition extant right now. It seems you want to impose your own, unstated definition of consensus. Is that authoritarian? --Fahrenheit451 16:48, 21 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't like being labeled as dictatorial as much as you don't like being labeled a trouble-maker. I'm going by an interpretation of Consensus which does not equate consensus and unanimity.  It does, however, say that NPOV arguments trump Consensus arguments, but I don't think we're in that particular territory right now, personally. Courtland 17:14, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

I did not label you anything, I asked a question. No one has accused me of being a "troublemaker". If you are implying that, I wonder if your unstated definition is something like "someone I disagree with who insists on the facts". I hope that is not the case here. We have no consensus yet, as User:Nat Krause made a proposal today and comments are still coming in. However, we do have a NPOV dispute.--Fahrenheit451 17:44, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
 * What I said wasn't fair ... retracted but not deleted You did not seem to treat Nat's suggestion as a proposal but weighed in attacking. So, let's recapitulate that proposal for readers who have now lost it in the drivel we've been spewing at each other so this can move forward ... (continued in next section Courtland)

Proposal to address NPOV concerns
Proposed by Nat Kraus: I propose to move the NPOV dispute tag down to that section specifically referring to the Prominant Members section. (posed in section above).
 * Agree
 * Courtland 10:38, 2005 May 21 (UTC)
 * Agree
 * Tetragrammaton May 21st, 2005
 * Disagree
 * copied from section above The "prominent" section is what is under discussion right now. You have no consensus.--Fahrenheit451 16:29, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, the NPOV template does not pertain to a section, but to the article and placing it above a section is a misapplication of the template. The article is in NPOV dispute. --Fahrenheit451 22:31, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, the NPOV template should be removed completely, as only a small portion of the article is in dispute and not the entire article. Tetragrammaton May 21st, 2005

Thanks for registering as a Wikipedia user Tetragrammaton. There are very few articles on Wiki' that are completely in dispute. If a section of an article is in dispute, the article is in dispute. The NPOV template will come down when our dispute is resolved. I would like it to be soon.--Fahrenheit451 16:55, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Prominent is matter of opinion, noteworthy is not.
The word prominent is too opinionated. Most people have never heard of Michael Badnarik, Ari Armstrong, Rick Stanley, Bob glass, or any other individuals who are or have been prominent within the confines of the Libertarian party.

As a registered card carrying member of the Libertarian party, and an old school liberal, I must concur with Fahrenheit451 about the POV of the "prominent" section of the article. People whom Libertarians feel are prominent are not universally recognized as such.

However, in all fairness to Libertarians, we do have noteworthy individuals in our party and so I changed the title of that section to "noteworthy libertarians".

Therefore, in the interests of making this article more neutral and objective, I changed the title of the section "prominent libertarians" to "noteworthy libertarians" as this title is less POV. Individuals like Art Bell, and Neal Boortz, are noteworthy individuals that have accomplished special excellence. Both of these men are/were radio talk show personalities and both have created published works (Neal Boortz book is, "The Terrible Truth About Liberals" ISBN 1-56352-487-2. Art Bell has writen a few books I believe, but I am only aware of the book entitled "Dreamland"). However, they are not of the same caliber as Bill Clinton or George W. Bush.

Definitions;

noteworthy \adj (1552): worthy of attracting attention esp. because of some special excellence 

prominent \adj 2b: widely or popularly known: LEADING

source; Merriam-Websters New Collegiate Dictionary eleventh edition page 848 (noteworthy) and page 994 (prominent)

Hope this is satisfactory Tetragrammaton

I have no objection to that and will add parenthetically in the interest of accuracy (who are not necessarily party members)--Fahrenheit451 21:07, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

So noteworthy libertarians can now be added to that section if those concerned agree.--Fahrenheit451 21:11, 22 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Certainly; noteworthy sounds ok, assuming I'm considered a concerned party. However, you are going to run into folks who point out "worthy of attracting attention" is as much a matter of opinion, and perhaps more so, than "widely known".  Those who are "widely known" might not be "worthy of attracting attention" and those who are so worthy might not be widely known.  I'll refer back to Talk:Libertarian_Party_%28United_States%29 for a moment and say that a reasonable exercise to test whether noteworthy is a better term to use than prominent is to replace the term in the text related to Starchild and see if the parties can reach agreement in that case where Farenheit451 argued for inclusion and pstudier and Nat Kruse against.  Should Starchild be included or excluded based on this new term? Or conversely that Olivier or Thompson should be excluded as Fahrenheit451 desired and Nat Kruse opposed.  What I'm getting at is that content is a better guide for POV/NPOV judgements than labels. Courtland 03:40, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

You make a good point Courtland. However, if this section is to be included in the article at all, then the title needs to be written in a neutral manner. So the content of the title is as important as the content of the subsection the title introduces. Much like when one writes a thesis paper, the paper must follow the guidelines of the thesis (see Harbrace's Handbook). I for one will agree whole-heartedly that content is an excellent guide for POV/NPOV. I am of the opinion that this section of the article rests on a thin line between POV and NPOV. With that in mind, I carefully selected a word to use that is not strong enough to be construed as expressing a particular point of view. Prominent is synonomous with notable, or distinguished; while noteworthy simply indicates some special achievement that sets the individual or party apart from the "common man."

Therefore, I must agree with Fahrenheit451. His addition of the parenthetical phrase clarifies the content of the subsection of the article. I find this satisfactory. Before we begin warring about who should be included and who should not be included, we should consult the Libertarian party's history from their website.

[Libertarian party history]

Let us chose from individuals listed here and not out of the ether of our own opinions. Tetragrammaton

I think this is sound policy Tetragrammaton. This section needs to be NPOV or it taints the entire article. If it becomes the subject of unresolvable edit wars, then it should be abolished.--Fahrenheit451 14:55, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * the assertion that "Prominent is matter of opinion, noteworthy is not" is... well, i'll temper my reaction and say that i disagree with it strongly. as a newcomer to this argument, it seems to me that desperation for finding a "solution" has clouded reason. to test the logic of the statement, i hereby assert that i am a "noteworthy libertarian". pop my name up there -- pronto! it's not a matter of opinion, apparently.


 * no, one can argue quite well that the converse of the statement is truer -- that prominence is more objectively ascribed than noteworthiness. however, composing a list of either will always involve POV. for example, the current version of the article lists neal boortz as a noteworthy libertarian. in my opinion, he is not a libertarian by any stretch, and shouldn't be in the list. further, the absence of anyone from the mises/LRC camp is a bit perplexing, considering that LewRockwell.com is probably the most popular libertarian web site in the world. if the article is going to stress upper case Libertarian, then why the "(who are not necessarily party members)"? mary ruwart? where is her name? she is the author of perhaps the only book that could ever convince a left-winger to move to libertarianism. she remains quite active in the liberty world, and has run for the US senate. my suggestions are not opinion with regard to both prominence and noteworthiness? as raised in the case of boortz, calling anybody libertarian is by itself POV. the absence of murray rothbard from the list is perhaps the most perplexing. neal boortz is in there and rothbard's not?


 * if NPOV is the goal, it would be better to drop the attempt to differentiate between prominent/noteworthy, and simply place the word "some" in front of whatever word floats your boat. or drop the entire section (my vote). i do not see the point of having it. how does it help readers learn about the libertarian party? SaltyPig 05:48, 2005 May 28 (UTC)


 * Salty: Part of the problem you are noticing derives from the fact that the list we are discussing was originally a list of prominent members of the Libertarian Party, not of libertarians. Therefore, the Rockwell people are not included because they do not generally participate in the Party. Neal Boortz is included because, libertarian or not, he is apparently a member of the Party. However, for some reason, a while back someone changed the list to "Noteworthy Libertarians (who are not necessarily party members)"&mdash;which makes no sense at all on a page about the Libertarian Party specifically. There are already lists of notable libertarians, such as List_of_notable_libertarian_theorists_and_authors, which were broken out from the libertarianism article. There's no need whatever to reduplicate it here. I would be inclined to change it back to a list of members, but at the moment it has become such an object of controversy and has been messed around with so much that I'm just going to take it out altogether for the time being. PS - What on Earth is up with the formatting of the table and the template at the beginning of the article? - Nat Krause 09:22, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

There was an attempt to make NPOV out of it in the context of this article. I recommended its deletion some time ago, but the haggling over that obvious POV section continued. If you are going to list lp members, you had better ensure your listing is verifiable. The "prominent" section was not verifiable. --Fahrenheit451 01:16, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Added link to US Libertarian party web site's history page
Added this link to provide a list of prominent/noteworthy libertarians. Perhaps we should let the US Libertarian Party determine who its prominent/noteworthy members are. This history contains many such individuals. I hope this resolves the prominent/noteworthy issue with this article. I see that section was removed. For what its worth, I agree with the removal of that section. Tetragrammaton

references removed from main article
These are no longer used but might be of use later:



Courtland 14:42, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)

Negative Press section definitely Point OF View
Removed Negative Press section as it is obviously intended to express a point of view towards subject matter and detracts from the article as a whole. A neutral addition like "Libertarians in the News" shows both positive and negative viewpoints (to keep it Neutral) would be acceptable. Otherwise this section expresses only one viewpoint and is thus in violation of Wikipedia's Neutrality rule.Tetragrammaton 06:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, many other articles have "criticsm" sections, and it can be argued that this helps NPOV by balancing the main sections that tend to be more favorable to their subjects. Anyway, you've been blanking out the footnotes and categories at the bottom of the article, which can be considered vandalism. *Dan* 12:25, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * In fact there is an entire Category:Criticism of journalism; is the existence of this category a POV problem? I don't think so. Courtland 04:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Once again I have removed the bias section entitled "Negative Press". This section clearly violates the NPOV rule of wikipedia. Having reviewed both the Democratic Party and Republican Party articles I see no "Negative Press" section, nor should there be one as that would be POV. Therefore, DO NOT continue to add this section as it is obviously Vandalism to this article.


 * Actually, a good-faith content disagreement is not vandalism by any reasonable definition. However, since this time you didn't blank out the footnotes and categories like you did the last two times, I'll leave your edits alone this time. *Dan* 02:22, September 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * We can all appreciate that the article isn't being vandalized any more, but it is not appropriate to simply delete criticism. If anyone does not think that the material is presented in an NPOV manner, then please edit it rather than deleting it. Thanks, -Willmcw 05:05, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

The next time I see the bias "Negative Press" vandalism added to this article I shall add similar sections to the Republican and Democratic entries to gather a census of whether or not this type of one sided entry is POV or not. Willmcw, because any mention of any type of press, positive or negative, is clearly a point of view one way or the other, it is best left out of the article. Thumbing through my encyclopedia Britannica, I failed to find any "Negative Press" articles relating to any parties, even the Nazis. Their actions were clearly there and their policies and platforms but not the bias opinions of reporters and media. Unless Wikipedia is some form of here-to-for unknown type of encyclopedia (which I highly doubt) the "Negative Press" section has no place here.Tetragrammaton 03:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Tetragrammaton, perhaps you should read hostile media effect and have a think before acting further on this matter. Courtland 04:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I have restored this section under the new section heading "Libertarian identity", because that is really what the section is about, not "Negative press". The section describes the activities of Libertarians with respect to their own party in response to public perception (real or imagined) influenced by the media.  Are those who are odd the ones noted in the headlines in the section or those who have abandoned the party as the result of a few headlines? Courtland 04:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Interesting title choice, far better than "Negative Press". BTW, I had already gone over that rather enjoyable article hostile media effect the first time I came here. I shall now add to this section in order to "neutralize" it. Tetragrammaton 04:26, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Clarified that Irwin Schiff did NOT win the 1996 Libertarian Presidential nomination, Harry Browne did. Also, that lunatic Schiff was "politely" asked to leave the party after he began pushing his rather unorthodox methods on the party (See article in Libertarian Newletter dated March 1996). He is currently an unofficial member of the Constitution Party. As for the "blue-senator" that is positively hilarious, so that certainly has to stay.Tetragrammaton 06:56, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Birth of the party
In history parahraph: The Libertarian Party was formed in the home of David Nolan on 11 December 1999 In to border: Founded 	1971

So what´s true? --jilm 18:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

1971 is correct. It was vandalized and the last person who reverted did not revert far enough back. Fixed now. pstudier 18:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

LP News
LP News (or Libertarian Party News) is "the official monthly newspaper of the Libertarian Party". Do you think that it should be mentioned in this article, in a separate article, or in the context of another article? Courtland 04:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Bested the Green Party?


That is blatantly false. U.S. presidential election, 2000 shows that the Libertarians were nowhere close to besting the Green Party. I'm putting an accuracy warning on this article until this is corrected. -- LGagnon 02:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind. I misread that. Sorry. -- LGagnon 02:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Alaska Permanent Fund.
"Libertarian originated Alaska Permanent Fund."

Does anyone have any source for this? Maybe this should be footnoted.

I'm sorry if this has been discussed before.

Ed Clark/Angela Davis ticket?
These two Ohio sites http://serform2.sos.state.oh.us/sos//results/80/1980/presEle.htm say http://www.co.wood.oh.us/Boe/Wood%20County,%201980-1989.pdf that in addition to the Libertarian Clark/Koch ticket, Clark was on the Communist Party ticket in place of their official candidate Gus Hall. Does anyone know why that might have been? Esquizombi 18:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a different person also named "Ed Clark"? Or, perhaps it's just a typo. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 20:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

LP beginnings note from W. J. Mencarow
The following was placed under See Also (I removed it):
 * The Libertarian Party may have been legally established as a result of the meeting in David Nolan's home, but as far as I have been able to determine it had its germination in another home and much eariler, the Hyde Park, Chicago (University of Chicago) home where David Friedman (Milton's son) and I lived in 1968. I have found no other documented history going back earlier than that event. -- W. J. Mencarow

It seems plausable, but it needs to be added to the article in the appropriate place with cites. --Kevin McManus 23:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Platform changes
I added a small paragraph (in line with regards to length with the others) to the history section re: the platform changes which were voted on and approved at the national convention held Summer 2006 in Oregon. With regards to these official changes, the Platform section of the article needs updating as well. Any input on this? 68.233.12.105 19:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

"Among outside political watchers, some consider Libertarians to be conservative (primarily because of their support of the right to bear arms and because of their views on taxes and states' rights); while others consider them liberal because of their advocacy of a non-interventionist foreign policy" - Non-interventionist is actually a conservative ideal. It is liberal, or "progressive", to intervene in other countries to try and create a governments that will be peaceful active member of the "new world order" i.e. Woodrow Wilson. That's why you have a seperation today between "true" conservatives (Pat Buchanan) and "neo-conservatives" (Bush). Neonblak 12:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Views from the LP
Anyone know the US LP's standard view on abortion? I can't find it on their website, and so I think it would be interesting to put it here. - TheTrueSora 17:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * While the views on abortion vary amongst LP members and libertarians in general, we generally believe that it is either a solely state issues to make such decisions, or that due to the controversy regarding when "life" begins, that it should not be illegal. The only official statements I've ever heard that have been at all explicit are that no one wants to make abortion illegal at the federal level.  68.233.12.105 19:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The offical view of the LP on abortion is: No comment. To my knowledge, the party has not taken an offical stance on the position one way or the other, and indvidual members and canidates hold opinions that run the full spectrum. --Shortfuse 02:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Individual candidates do hold varying views on abortion. The Party's 1988 presidential candidate, Obstetrician and congressman Ron Paul, was pro-life. I believe most of the other nationwide candidates have been pro-choice. The bottom line is the LP platform:

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#reprodright

MarcMontoni 12:01, 24 September 2006

no criticisms section?
what happened to the criticism section in the article?

also i have to disagree that Libertarians have a Liberal view on the economy. Classically liberal would be more accurate.

They have a liberal view on the economy. 'Liberal' means free, not socialist. When you click 'liberal' in the article, it doesn't link you to social liberalism. Joffeloff 07:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It was inappropriate for this page. For comparison, I looked at the pages for the Democratic and Republican parties and found no "criticisms" section, so I deleted it from the Libertarian Party's page.  If such discussion belongs anywhere, it belongs on the "libertarianism" page rather than the Party's page.  MarcMontoni 12:01, 24 September 2006

opening
I removed "A liberal attitude on personal freedoms and conservative on economic issues and "Lower Taxation, support of lowering taxes" from the opening ideological statements, because they were already included in some form in the list.

Jimmy Dean?
No way. I clicked on "Jim Dean," listed among the founders in David Nolan's living room, and got singer/sausage magnate Jimmy Dean's wiki article. After much searching, I can find no reference on the net to Jimmy Dean being a Libertarian, much less a founder. I'm 99.44% sure it's not true. 23:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed the link. Probably a different Jim Dean.  Paul Studier 00:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Independents

 * "However, in the opinion of Richard Winger, the editor of Ballot Access News, of the 326,763 California voters affiliated with the Constitution Party, who are actually registrants of California's American Independent Party, nearly all registered in the belief that they were registering as independents i.e. not associating with any political party."


 * "Nearly all??"


 * That strikes me as being a particularly implausible scenario.


 * Did Winger actually make this claim?


 * If so, then why is there no internal citation accompanying that sentence?

Ruthfulbarbarity 05:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have the numbers handy, but if you compare the vote totals compared to the registration for alternative parties, you will find that the American Independent Party has far fewer votes than would be expected based on the registration. Paul Studier 06:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That's what I mean.


 * You would think-if that assumption holds-that they would receive thousands more votes, if most of the voters they had registered were operating under the mistaken assumption that being a member of the AIP was equivalent to signing up to an independent, non-partisan line.


 * I know that in New York State the Independence Party-the third-largest party here-includes many people who conflate the name at the front of their designation, i.e. Independence, with the concept of being unenrolled, i.e. "independent", but I'm sure that there are at least a few thousand members of the party who recognize the distinction.

Ruthfulbarbarity


 * Just FYI: Richard Winger is a walking, talking encyclopedia of ballot access law in the United States (and ineed, internationally). If he says it, it is usually due to his extensive research.  It was me who fleshed out that section with the ballot access data; and I referenced Mr. Winger because if he says it, he can almsot always cite sources.  In fact if you read his Ballot Access News regularly, he usually includes sources for each article.  MarcMontoni 12:01, 24 September 2006

User:Rfrisbie/Userboxes/Political Parties
Is there a way we can get the Libertarian Template Category:Libertarian Wikipedians on the site listed above. I feel that we have enough people in this group to be listed on the site above. John R G 02:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It would make more sense than retaining the Liberal Party template, considering the fact that the Liberal Party is, to all intents and purposes, defunct.

Ruthfulbarbarity 19:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Steve Damerell?
The CIA World Factbook says a man named Steve Damerell is the Party Chairman of the Liberterian Party. I can't find anything on Wikipedia about this guy, go and research him and update any outdated information. Either that or send a correction to the people in charge of the factbook. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.40.32.42 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC-5)


 * Steve Damerell was the Virginia state chairman for the LP from 2003-2006. He is not the current national chairman; Bill Redpath is (although Mr. Damerell now serves on th National Committee).  See:  http://www.lp.org/organization/lncdirectory2.shtml.  I mentioned the CIA Factbook article to Mr. Damerell, and he has no clue why he's listed there.  Probably just a sloppy bureaucrat.  MarcMontoni 12:01, 24 September 2006


 * If the [CIA]'s spies here at home can't get such a simple publicly-avauilable fact right, is is no wonder they can't find the world's most wanted's secret bat-cave? Anarchist42 17:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems to give wrong effect. unclear
"By the 1972 presidential election, the party had grown to over 80 members and had attained ballot access in two states."

Members could mean supporters as well as actual political reps. I think this should be changed to make this issue clearer.

Rishi Sachdev

No proof
Unless there is something sited for the number of registered libertarians in new york the last paragraph in size and influence should be taken out because there is no way in proving that it is the thrid most registered political party. Gang14 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gang14 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Append the tag to it, rather than deleting it, unless it is blatantly false. Hu 20:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Minarchists or anarcho-capitalists?
The "Platform" section notes that the party platform is minarchist. I note that the section only describes the platform active before the 2006 plank purge; as such, I dispute the classification. The former platform contains the following plank:

As all political association must be voluntary, we recognize the right to political secession. This includes the right to secession by political entities, private groups or individuals.

I submit that not even a minarchist state would permit individual secession, and furthermore that any "state" permitting such complete secession could not rightly be termed thus. I submit, therefore, that the correct "realm" of the Libertarian Party platform is one of "anarcho-capitalism," rather than "free market minarchism."


 * That plank does not make the party anarchist. Ludwig von Mises, a self-described liberal, was a libertarian and every bit a minarchist.  He outright rejected anarchism, and even rejected the anarcho-capitalism of his student, Murray Rothbard.
 * In his book Liberalism, the minarchist Ludwig von Mises argues that any group which wishes to secede from a larger group must be free to do so. This included individual secession.  That plank of the platform, therefore, was simply advocating the same policy that Mises had avocated.
 * 136.160.142.98 (talk) 22:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

LIBERALS ARE NOT LIBERTARIAN
liberals want government regulation on everything, the libertarians want the government to stay out of peoples lives and business. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.151.167.250 (talk) 05:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC).


 * The National Democratic Party (or, for that matter, the mainstream Democratic Party of the time) were not liberal in the current sense of the term. Actually, I'm not sure that the term 'liberal' has any real meaning in any overall context as its definition in general use (at least in the United States) has changed wildly on many occasions.  Is there a key spot on the Nolan chart (aside perhaps from the center) that hasn't at some point been called 'liberal'? -- Strangelv 19:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Further POV discussion
I've made a change to the "Platform" section that I believe makes it more NPOV. It had said (my paraphrase), "Some call them Liberal, some call them Conservative, but in reality they're something else entirely." The "in reality" part is, in fact, another POV - that of the Libertarians themselves. Hopefully the change makes it a little more neutral. Also deleted some speculation about the party's lack of success in elections that is irrelevant to the section's subject. Gitman00 15:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Referring to libertarian policies as "left wing" or "right wing"
Regarding two rounds of reverts by Cielomobile, it is my belief that attempting to characterize libertarian fiscal and social policies as either "left wing" or "right-wing" is simply inaccurate, and probably POV. There are too many areas of disagreement between libertarianism and the "center-left" on social issues, (e.g., environmental policy, secession, sexual and reproductive rights, and so on) for libertarian social policy to be accurately termed "center-left". Likewise, there are too many differences between libertarianism and "right wing" fiscal policy for the description to be accurate.

There are many editors who have been working diligently on this page for some time; please discuss controversial changes before making them. Also, please see Resolving_disputes. MarcMontoni 05:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Right-wing fiscal policy is neoliberalism, or free-market economics, which forms the core of libertarian fiscal policy. The Libertarian Party without a doubt follows right-wing fiscal policy. Now, I know that it is difficult to place the party in a particular place for social policy, but I felt that "center-left" most accurately describes their position, though "centrist" might also be appropriate. If you would like to remove that part altogether, I would settle for N/A, but I think that would be a mistake. If you look at three two-dimensional political scales like the Nolan Chart or Political Compass, which were originally conceived by libertarians, you'll find that libertarians actually quite conveniently fit into such a scale. And please do not patronize me; I know how to conduct a dispute. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 19:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I hate to sound patronizing, but the Nolan Chart is a TWO-dimensional scale. Anarchist42 22:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you're right. I meant two-dimensional. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 23:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Libertarians always say they are neither left nor right but ahead, one indication that they themselves reject the "left-right" spectrum. Given that left-right spectrums exist in both major parties, and that there is a vast middle ground of Americans who reject being placed in either, it definitely is a POV issue.

Carol Moore 20:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc
 * If by POV, you mean that of the libertarians, then you are correct, see the comment above this section. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 04:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I just replaced 'right wing economics' and 'left wing social issues' with 'laissez faire' and 'individualism' - if you look at those articles they nearly perfectly describe the LP's position. --Joffeloff 10:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is going to be a constant battle, and it exposes one of the main weaknesses with WikiPedia. There are a few editors who think tarring the LP with the far-right label is OK and NPOV. As someone else said, Libertarians themselves reject the left/right label, which indicates its use here isn't NPOV. I have been searching for some Wikipedia guidelines on this issue, but if it's available, I can't find it. The article on Fiscal Policy doesn't say anything on it. I've reviewed Third party (United States), and all of the other parties have a variety of entries that depart from what some insist should be the case here. Cielomobile, above, says "The Libertarian Party without a doubt follows right-wing fiscal policy" and suggests Libertarians are "center-left" or even "centrist" on social policy - but nowhere does he support either claim with any references. The left and center-left support government health care, social security, and other welfare; libertarians do not. There are so many areas of disagreement between libertarians and the center-left and center that calling them such is simply laughable. But some folks have their misconceptions, and stick with them no matter what. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcMontoni (talk • contribs) 20:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I would support the removal of the phrases "left-wing" and "right-wing." That seems to be a POV, and one that I do not share.  My personal view is that libertarianism and free-market "capitalism" are inherently left-wing.  My conception of the political spectrum reflects that of Karl Hess.
 * Of course, I make no demand that you change it to my POV, either. Rather, since it is arguable as to which POV is correct, I recommend the removal of the phrases "right-wing" and "left-wing" from the box-thing on the top right-hand-side of the page.
 * 136.160.142.98 (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This dispute has recently cropped up again. It's quite clear that libertarian positions on both fiscal and social policy are neither right nor left. Is abolishing third-party limited liability and corporate welfare a left-wing position or a right-wing one? Is opposing gun control and supporting freedom to home school a left-wing position or a right-wing one? And what about non-interventionist foreign policy? The World's Smallest Political Quiz is partly to blame for the confusion by trying to place the libertarian ideology on a two-dimensional spectrum with liberalism and conservatism at opposite ends of one of the dimensions.--Jsorens (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

No mention of Libertarian Platform calling for abolition of immigration quotas
"Repeal all measures that punish employers for hiring undocumented workers. Repeal all immigration quotas." http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml

The Libertarian Party is the only voice calling for the aboliton of all immigration quotas. This issue is very important to most Americans and very central to libertarian ideals. To those of us who believe the main function of the Party is to educate the public on libertarian principles, this issue of immigration should be emphasized above all others. But it's not even mentioned in this article.

--Ray Eston Smith Jr 21:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Why don't you go ahead on add something about it to the "Platform" section? ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 21:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Questions? Ask them through Wikinews
Hello,

I'm Nick Moreau, an accredited reporter for Wikinews. I'm co-ordinating our 2008 US Presidential election interviews. We will be interviewing as many candidates as possible, from the Democrats, Republicans, and other parties/independents.

I'll be sending out requests for interviews to the major candidates very soon, but I want your input, as people interested in American politics: what should I ask them?

Please go to any of these three pages, and add a question.


 * n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Democratic Party
 * n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Republican Party
 * n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Third Party or Independent

Questions? Don't ask them here, I'll never see them. Either ask them on the talk page of any of these three pages, or [mailto:nicholasmoreau@gmail.com e-mail me].

Thanks, Nick --  Zanimum 19:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Famous individuals who support the part/ libertarianism
I don't know if this is appropriate on thus entry, but I recently stumbled upon a list of prominent individuals in the fields of entertainment and science that identify as Libertarians. Is this article-worthy information? The link is here: update: I added a small section regarding this.

Snake666 (talk) 23:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

50 state ballot access
In the year 2000 the LP did not gain 50 state ballot access. Harry Browne was not on the ballot in Arizona. See http://www.harrybrowne.org/2000/WillisCampaignReport.htm, about halfway down the page in the "Ballot Access Problems" section of the report. If nobody objects in the next few days, I'll change the page to reflect that.

Courteously, Tom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.255.108.21 (talk) 02:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Strictly speaking, the Libertarian Party did have 50-state ballot access in 2000. Harry Browne, however, did not. The Libertarian Party of Arizona nominated L. Neil Smith for the Presidency and he was on the ballot. Therefore, one could have voted Libertarian in all 50 states. --darolew 04:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Can we update the 2008 ballot access? http://www.lp.org/ballot-access 68.58.152.238 (talk) 00:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Talk

"Libertarian Views of Rights" vs. "Social Liberalism"
"Social liberalism" describes a belief system that most libertarians do not share. For instance, just in the first two paragraphs, it says "Social liberalism, as a branch of liberalism, contends that society must protect liberty and opportunity for all citizens." First the assertion that social liberalism is an offshoot of liberalism; then the assertion that society must protect "opportunity". Libertarians typically reject "liberalism" on its face; and would argue that society is under no obligation to protect "opportunity", at least not with government. In other words, libertarians would say that everyone has the right to *pursue* happiness, but there is no guarantee from government that they will achieve it.

The next paragraph begins "It has been a label used by progressive liberal parties in order to differentiate themselves from classical liberal parties...". This is an indication directly from real-life practitioners of "social liberalism" that in their opinion, classical liberals (viz. libertarians) are not their allies.

The last sentence of that paragraph is another example of the divergence of libertarians from social liberalism: "Social liberalism however sees a role for the State in providing positive liberty for individuals. They believe that lack of positive rights, such as economic opportunity, education, health-care, and so on can be considered to be threats to liberty." Most libertarians would have none of that.

I could go on citing the many reasons why libertarians cannot be "social liberals", but I think if a reasonable person were to read the article, it should be fairly obvious why that "social liberal" tag simply doesn't apply to libertarians.

MarcMontoni (talk) 00:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The confusion arises from the fact that Libertarian political theory inherently assumes a low population density and Social Liberalism is what happens if population density increases above the critical point.


 * With low density population, the most fundamental and often voiced Libertarian assumption pretty much automatically applies with minimal thought and effort: your neighbors failures do not affect you. For instance Libertarians assume your neighbor's house or business burning down is their problem; unlike the case of a large apartment building or crowded downtown where a neighbors failure can chain react quickly with your home or business.


 * Social Liberatarians attempt to preserve Libertarian values but recognize subconsciously that in high density populations, you cannot isolate yourself from your neighbors sufficiently to allow that absolute unregulated freedom...unless being included in randomly burnt out sections of society is acceptable. Unfortunately the inherent laziness of people inevitably leads to extensive compromises usually lots of regulation (yuck phewy) or a very powerful civil court with vague limitations (assumption of many wise informal judges and juries). Thus the controversy. "True" Libertarians consider these folk cowards for overvaluing human life.


 * Truly honest Libertarians will admit that they believe the world needs a dramatic world population decrease (100:1 or greater) to make Libertarian dreams come true. Except for a few Timothy McVeighs, most are not stupid enough to try to make that happen themselves. Most just assume some foreign or domestic terrorists will provide the favor in the near future.


 * Ask "true" Libertarians the burning home question and they cite looking to rent apartments built to self-contained bunker standards even if at a premium cost. But ask them what they would do if it is their personal money into construction and most honest ones say build it to normal standards, sell it condo style, and get out of the investment fast. Quandry you can only buy what is available so if you are not rich.... thus only voluntary cooperatives for shared facilities are needed. Cooperative efforts like fire fighting are not automatically successful as MOST of pre-1930s history shows; especially if most everyone is at distant workplaces when that apartment fire starts or vice versa. Contracts for emergency services would be especially vulnerable to buyer beware as one failure is sufficient to destroy a buyer's life if the contractee is overbooked, etc.69.23.124.142 (talk) 06:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

open borders?
I have removed the section in the first paragraph stating that libertarians stand for "minimal" regulation of migration across borders. Im sure some libertarians do believe in this, however several libertarian politicians including the current one, Bob Barr are actually asking for much more border security than either Republicans or Democrats. Its just not consistent enough of a stance to list as an integral libertarian value. Perhaps a section can be added elsewhere in the article to elaborate on this change within the party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.246.208.41 (talk) 08:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Please read the entire paragraph. The section was reviewing what is in the party's *platform*, not necessarily what individual members or candidates think. MarcMontoni (talk) 05:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Website
Is the website down or something? It hasn't worked for me for weeks. 75.80.139.24 (talk) 18:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

An outsider questions why the Party's ideology is listed as "Libertarianism" and "Non-interventionism"...
I'm writing from Australia, so this may reflect one of those cross-Pacific misunderstandings, but I notice that the Information Box on this page states that the Libertarian Party's ideology is "Libertarianism" and "Non-interventionism". I then go to (its 2008 Presidential nominee) Bob Jarr's page and find that in his Congress positions he has been the exact opposite of "libertarian" on drug law enforcement, same-sex marriage, 'terrorism' and religious freedom (re the practice of Wicca). It seems to me that if the Party's Presidential nominee is at all reflective or representative of the Party's ideological position(s), then the Libertarian Party's ideology is a mixture of "Conservatism" and "Neo-liberalism".

Where am I getting this wrong? Is it that Jarr does not in fact represent the views of the majority of Party members? If I'm not wrong, I suggest that the Information Box be changed to reflect a broader sense of reality than that which is held by the LP itself.
 * Wikipedia isn't really the place to get into a long discussion about this, but in short, Barr has changed his mind and changed parties. He used to be a Republican when he had those ideas, and he has said many times since then that he was wrong. This all came out mostly when he first joined the Libertarian Party. He has worked against the Patriot Act, the drug war, encroachments on civil liberties, etc. since joining the Libertarian Party. Those previous issue positions of his do not reflect what the Libertarian Party thinks, nor, according to Bob Barr, what he thinks now.--Gloriamarie (talk) 02:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * He has come along in a more libertarian direction which is the goal that all libertarians pursue. He hadn't come far enough according to many people, but he got the nomination, did a good enough job, and that's the story Carol Moore 00:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, a non-radical libertarianism is inherently self-contradictory. When is the use of force OK and when is it not? A moderate campaign fails to provide a satisfactory answer. His shortcomings have been adequately documented here. Lightning Thundercat (talk) 04:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Libertarian Youth Caucus?
I can't find any information on this other than its listing on thi artic;e. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.175.36.113 (talk) 21:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Bob Barr
Are sexual & religious freedom really on the official party platform? Bob Barr authored the Defense of Marriage Act and tried to get Wicca banned from the military. We also have self-identified libertarian right-wing talk show hosts that are vehemently anti-gay and anti-non-christian. We must also check Bob Barr's voting record on drug issues. In comparison, Bob Barr was instrumental in getting the sunset clause inserted into the Patriot Act and has opposed some foreign interventions.

We're seeing here that academics espousing the libertarian philosophy deduce one set of social corollaries from their philosophy, while average practicing libertarians simply don't often agree. In practice, average right-wing people identify themselves as libertarians merely because they don't support Republican military adventures, wire tapping, etc.

I'd suggest reordering the list with the obvious core libertarian issues first, but issues like gay rights and religious freedoms need to be treated like abortion, with some acknowledgment that many members and major figures don't support the academic sides official stances.

Btw, I suspect you want to handle intellectual property and capital punishment similarly, state the official position but acknowledge descent. You don't even admit the official position presently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.146.153 (talk) 07:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Libertarian Party and the Word Libertarianism
Moved from my talk page to where more relevant, here: C.M. I see that you've undid my edit to the Libertarianism page on the section of internal debate. I do not see the relevancy in the statement, "Another debate was created by Mike Hihn's claim the term Libertarianism has been used by anarchists longer than by statist minarchists.[29]" My addition change that from a claim to a fact, since insinuating that such a remark is little more than a claim isn't quite accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnarchistAssassin (talk • contribs) 16:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Libertarianism article clearly shows a first use by someone else than who you put up there in this diff showing edit. Looks like what Mike Hihn said was part of that debate. Trying to prove or disprove it probably would be WP:original research, but maybe not. However both the 18th century use the libertarianism article says is first and the one you mention do both prove his point. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say this is appropriate for the Libertarianism article, but doesn't seem very relevant to the Libertarian Party. I'd have an early section on how the party's views diverge from the philosophy, which is quite radically really.  Wouldn't that attract enough attention that people would read the philosophy's article too?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.146.153 (talk) 18:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, sure, the statement is a little bit involved, but maybe the statement about Hihn should be changed a little bit to something more compact. Instead of stating that "Mike Hihn's claim the term Libertarianism has been used by anarchists longer than by statist minarchists," we might say, "Mike Hihn pointed to the fact that the term was developed and originated from Anarchists," rather than the claim. The point isn't necessarily revelant to the Libertarian Party, but it is somewhat relevant to the way that statement was original phrased, which was in a section about the debate over the origin and use of the word "libertarian."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnarchistAssassin (talk • contribs) 19:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What matters is what the source says, not what an editor wants it to say. Twisting things to the way you want them to appear is what is called WP:original research and is a wikipedia No No. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

primary or secondary sources
Reading this piece it sounds more of a blog then a encyclopedia entry. Also in rules of referencing or citation you can't use blogs and opinion pieces as verification. When one blogger says an opinion you can't use the words "many' or "most". It is simply one persons opinion.  When reading through Britanica you will not find opinion pieces used a primary or secondary sources.

Dave Brady 3/11/09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brvynky (talk • contribs) 21:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Opening segment really necessary?
I don't think it's appropriate to have, quite literally, all the tenants of the Libertarian Party stated as if copied directly from someone's website. ekedolphin (talk) 09:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. In addition, there were numerous editorializing changes made to the actual text.  Unless some good reasons are given in the next few days for keeping it as-is, it should be reverted to the previous "summary".MarcMontoni (talk) 03:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

"Libertarianism" vs. "Market libertarianism"
A few edits ago, an IP editor changed the ideology from "Libertarianism" to "Market libertarianism". "Market libertarianism" sounds like a neologism, so I changed it back. I think I understand what that edit was meant to accomplish&mdash;it was trying to make clear that the Libertarian Party's ideology is distinct from libertarian socialism. However, I think this is already made adequately clear in the "Political position" section: "Fiscal: Free market, Laissez-faire".

Even if this were not the case, I think it's obvious that "market libertarianism" is a poor phrase. The two most common phrases used for non-socialist/non-collectivist libertarianism are "right libertarianism" and "propertarian libertarianism". The former, however, has other meanings and would probably be contested; the latter is simply awkward. I think it's best to leave the ideology as "Libertarianism"&mdash;that is certainly how the party sees it, and any ambiguity would be cleared away by reading even just the introduction section. --darolew 03:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Lyndon LaRouche
If Lyndon LaRouche is at the opposite end of the political spectrum from Libertarianism, as is stated in the article, wouldn't that make him a populist? Stonemason89 (talk) 20:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Death penalty
There is no indication of where the Libertarian party stand their point towards 'death pentalties'. This needs to be clarified.

(217.42.240.189 (talk) 00:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC))

Strongly Regulated Immigration?
I'm a little confused by the mention that the Libertarian Party supports "strongly regulated immigration" in the opening paragraph. The LP platform (under free trade and migration) indicates the opposite, that the government should be minimally involved in regulating immigration. I know I am (clearly) a stakeholder and a newbie so I Just wanted to check for objections/reasonings before changing anything. Apocryphal Libertarian (talk) 04:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi "Apocryphal", and welcome to Wikipedia!. You're quite right. Until recently, the wording was "minimally regulated migration across the borders" which is clearly more consistent with the LP platform. Someone sneakily changed the wording (though I suppose we'll assume good faith and presume it was an honest mistake). Thanks for bringing attention to this. I have restored the previous, and more accurate, wording.--JayJasper (talk) 04:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Basic Info regarding Libertarian beliefs
While much of the information on the United States Libertarian Party is decent, I personally think there should be some more detailed information regarding the core basic libertarian beliefs/stances. Many people who aren't Libertarians go to wikipedia to try to find info regarding the stances of libertarians and this page is somewhat lacking that info. Iscream22 (talk) 17:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Paleolibertarianism in ideology field
I observe that "Paleolibertarianism" has been added to the ideology field of the infobox. (Added on November 8, by Thundera m117, who also added "Right Wing", which was removed on November 12 by Sir Richardson.) However, the party should not be described as paleolibertarian for the following reasons:


 * 1) The party does not characterize itself as paleolibertarian; nor do any reliable sources of which I'm aware.
 * 2) It is doubtful most party members characterize themselves as paleolibertarian; indeed, there are many who would vehemently reject the label.
 * 3) The figures most associated with paleolibertarianism&mdash;the LvMI/LRC crowd&mdash;tend to be very critical of the Libertarian Party.

Thus I have removed "Paleolibertarianism" from the ideology field of the infobox. --darolew (talk) 21:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

'Internal caucuses' section
Any thoughts on moving the 'Internal caucuses' section down to be with the External links? It seems like that would be the better fit. Thanks. Surv1v4l1st (Talk 02:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Heard ofNewly formed(?)US Political Party Lazzize faire?
heard of a Newly formed US Thrid Party with Liberetarian leanings and Ancharist and Capitalist too! Laizzez faire Party True?CraddockKin (talk) 03:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)