Talk:Libertarian Party (United States)/Archive 3

Ron Paul got an electoral vote in the 2010 presidential election...?
And the electoral representative was pledged to Donald Trump? None of that should be accurate...

A. There was no presidential election in 2010 (it says "44 years" after 1976). B. Ron Paul ran for the party in 1988, but got no electoral votes. C. Donald Trump never ran until 2016.

I'd edit it myself but I don't know what the actual fact whoever wrote that meant. Supershanimal (talk) 01:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I should probably add that what I'm referring to is under the "Size and Influence" section. Supershanimal (talk) 02:04, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


 * It's 44 years from the last time the LP got an electoral vote. 1972 + 44 = 2016.
 * There were 7 faithless electoral votes cast in 2016. One of them, a defector from Trump, went to Ron Paul.
 * Further down, under the "2016 election" section, it discusses this again, but I don't think it is accurate. It says "The single faithless vote went instead to former Republican Congressman Ron Paul, who had rejoined the Libertarian Party in 2015."
 * Ron Paul became a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party in 1987 and never renounced that membership. In fact, he publicly reaffirmed it several times over the years. In August 2008, for example, he said "I remain a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party and I’m a ten-term Republican Congressman. It is not against the law to participate in more then one political party." He therefore did not "rejoin" the Libertarian Party in 2015. Nor has he resigned from the Republican Party, to the best of my knowledge. He has had dual party membership with the Republicans and Libertarians for decades.
 * Also, the phrase "single faithless vote" could be misleading. There were 7 faithless electoral votes cast in the 2016 election. AJPEG (talk) 08:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Why is Plummeting Membership not mentioned!?
Why is the Plummeting LP Membership over the last 15 years not mentioned!? Based on membership, there is for all intents and purposes, no longer a viable LP. Since the child prostitution/child labor/child divorce scandal in the LP Party Platform, it would appear that most LPers became Republicans (Such as Ron & (Ayn) Rand Paul). A quick google turns up: "Child prostitution is of course protected by the U.S. constitution according to the Libertarian Party Platform." Or say, "The Libertarian Child Prostitution Pimp Clause." And; "The 2004 platform is still as ridiculously extreme as its predecessors. It calls for legalization of baby selling, polygamy, secession, child prostitution, all drugs, insider trading, etc. It calls for abolition of public schools, medicaid, and Social Security, patents, and copyrights. And even privatization of air. All that and lots more, cloaked in..."

Here is one of the other membership-losing debates circa 2000 about misleading Libertarian propaganda.

In 2003: "Libertarian Party lost 87 Member in California last month. That's down 2.3% in that state." 87 Members is 2.3%? "LP forced to fire staff, no money" But today I can find no such official membership numbers, as if they were being hidden. (But we do see recent official state Party claims that membership is up X%, but conspicuously, nothing to derive the actual number of members.) Yet the article strongly implies continual LP membership increases. Either these should be removed, or a membership-growth-line should be there to support these implications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.82.20 (talk) 14:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I also wonder if the above and other important and interesting controversies should be included in the article. See: Manual of Style (lead section): "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.82.20 (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have reliable sources that support this information? - SudoGhost 16:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * All that is down is membership in the US national party. Based on party registration at the state level, in the states that actually report that number, affiliation with the LP is up both in total numbers and percent of registered voters. The supposed scandals you mentioned have had no discernible affect on willingness to affiliate with the LP. The percentage of voters registered as Libertarian has tripled since 1992.

1992 - 100,394, 0.13% (18 states) http://www.ballot-access.org/1993/2-8-93.pdf 1994 - 109,001, ?, (?) http://www.ballot-access.org/1998/1208.html 1996 - 162,545, 0.20% (19 states) http://www.ballot-access.org/1996/1212.html 1998 - 182,481, 0.22% (19 states) http://www.ballot-access.org/1999/0206.html 2000 - 224,713, 0.26% (21 states) http://www.ballot-access.org/2000/1205.html 2002 - 208,456, 0.23% (21 states) http://www.ballot-access.org/2002/1201.html 2004 - 258,408, 0.27% (23 states) http://www.ballot-access.org/2004/1212.html 2006 - 235,500, 0.25% (21 states) http://www.ballot-access.org/2007/010107.html 2008 - 240,328, 0.24% (24 states) http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/120108.html 2010 - 278,446, 0.28% (25 states) http://ballot-access.org/2010/12/28/december-2010-ballot-access-news-print-edition/ 2012 - 330,811, 0.32% (26 states) http://ballot-access.org/2013/01/04/december-2012-ballot-access-news-print-edition/ 2014 - 399,302, 0.38% (27 states) http://ballot-access.org/2014/12/26/december-2014-ballot-access-news-print-edition/ 2016 - 411,250, 0.40% (25 states) http://ballot-access.org/2016/03/27/march-2016-ballot-access-news-print-edition/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.76.87.230 (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * "Membership" in the LP just means someone who signed the Libertarian pledge. That number essentially only declines once every few years when the party purges people who have died. Very few people formally give notification that they have renounced their pledge signature. The number that has declined that the editor is referring to is "active members", which means members (pledge signers) who have donated to the national party within the previous 12 months. The Libertarian Party, I believe, is the only party that publishes a count its donors. It doesn't hide that number. It can be found in the Membership Reports which are published every month by the Libertarian National Committee.


 * I have hundreds of them in a folder. They look this: http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business_hq.lp.org/attachments/20170905/f6dc5891/attachment-0001.pdf


 * The peak occurred in November, 1999. There were two reasons for the spike and fall in membership.


 * The first was the Unified Membership Program. That was a revenue sharing program between the state parties and the national party. It ran from 1995 - 2006. The long and short of it is, everyone who had previously only donated to a state party began being counted as a donor to the national party. That made the national donor count look larger during that period than it did before and after.


 * The other reason was Project Archimedes. That was a direct mail campaign that ran from 1997 through 1999. The LNC was mailing out solicitations to subscribers to libertarian oriented publications, like Reason, Citizens Against Government Waste, and so forth. By 1999 it was sending out solicitations in batches of 1,000,000, which caused membership to skyrocket. It stopped the program for the 2000 election season and, for whatever reason, it was never restarted. From what I've heard, apparently through carelessness, renewal reminders weren't sent in period after 2000.


 * After the end of the 2000 election season, with no Presidential campaign driving membership, no mass mailing program, and no renewal reminders being sent, membership declined precipitously until the 2004 Presidential campaign season. As usual, membership rose during the 2004 Presidential campaign season and then declined during the following year, 2005 (the same thing happened in 2016/2017 and every other Presidential cycle). In 2006 the donor count briefly declined again because the UMP was terminated. Since the end of 2006 LNC donor numbers have been pretty flat, other than the temporary bumps/declines during Presidential election cycles. AJPEG (talk) 09:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Position
Just wanted to state that according to David Bergland (the LP's presidential nominee in 1984) in the book Libertarianism in One Lesson, he uses the Nolan chart to show the libertarian position on a political spectrum which is more than left or right politics. Libertarians are not in the centrist part, nor the rightist side, they are in the libertarian quadrant (border opposite of the "statist" quadrant).

I just keep seeing people trying to change the position to right-wing or centre-right. These are false. Ghoul flesh •  talk 18:31, 24 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Would it be accurate to say that their position on social issues is different from their position on fiscal issues, and give the Party's position in each category? This separation is done on the pages for multiple political parties, including Nigeria's All Progressives Congress or the Texas Republican Party. I think it would be at least somewhat accurate to say that the LP has a broadly center-right to right-wing position on fiscal issues and a center to center-left position on social issues.Li&#39;ljk100 (talk) 03:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Libertarian Party (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://wayback.archive-it.org/all/20170525185516/http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/cp3/message/9701 to http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/cp3/message/9701
 * Added tag to http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

lpedia?
Is lpedia a legitimate product of some Libertarian party? Whether yes or no, I would like to see it mentioned someplace on Wikipedia.

More specifically, I'd like to know if the "1980 National Platform" article in lpedia.org is accurate -- and if the summary of that platform on sanders.senate.gov is accurate? Sanders does not cite a source, but his summary of the 1980 Libertarian platform seems consistent with what I found in the lpedia article on "1980 National Platform". Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * LPedia is owned by the national Libertarian party (US), but for most of its existence the national party and its staff ignored it. Like wikipedia, most of its contributions come from volunteers. Unlike wikipedia, it doesn't pretend to be unbiased, it accepts original research, and its primary concern is accurately preserving Libertarian history regardless of how well sourced something is (or even if it is sourced at all.) It also hosts an expanding library of original documents.


 * Other than the artifacts from transitioning the document from different formats, the 1980 national platform on LPedia is accurate and the Sanders summary does seem consistent with it. However, it cannot be inferred that, because David Koch was the VP candidate in 1980, the Koch brothers agenda in 2014 (when the Sanders article appears to have been written) is the same as that 1980 document. It cannot even be inferred that the Koch brothers agreed with 1980 national platform in 1980. The platform wasn't written by the Koch brothers, it was written and adopted by the 1980 convention delegates. The Koch brothers represented a more moderate faction of the Libertarian Party, but, judging by the outcome of the 1980 national platform, the Platform Committee looks as if it was mostly populated by the radical faction of the party. Libertarian Presidential candidates sometimes issue a "campaign platform" that is separate from the national party platform. Unfortunately, I don't see anywhere on LPedia either a statement that the 1980 Presidential campaign accepted the 1980 national platform as its own, or that it issued a separate campaign platform, nor am I aware of any statement from David Koch on the 1980 national platform. AJPEG (talk) 02:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia style in section headings
I may be making too much of this, but I just reverted an edit by 67.78.106.132, which changed the heading of the section on "Freedom of speech and censorship" to "Freedom of Speech and Censorship". This violates Manual of Style. I mention this here, in case someone (e.g., 67.78.106.132) might wonder why that change was reverted and might look here for an answer. DavidMCEddy (talk) 00:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Votes have been increasing since 2012
The "votes have been increasing since 2012" statement in the intro, as written, is factually wrong. There were 17.8 million votes cast for Libertarian candidates in 2012 and only 13.2 million votes cast for them in 2014. Voter turnout is often much lower in non-presidential years, so even when more candidates run and their percentages are higher, raw vote totals in non-Presidential even years tend to be lower than in Presidential years.

It would be correct to say that the total votes cast for all Libertarian candidates has been increasing in Presidential years since 2004. It would also be correct to say that the percentage of voters who cast a vote for a Libertarian candidate has been increasing every even numbered year since 2008. But the raw vote total declined between 2012 and 2014. AJPEG (talk) 10:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Libertarian Party (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150507012119/http://www.lp.org/issues/current-issues to http://www.lp.org/issues/current-issues
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131003085018/http://www.lp.org/issues/social-security to http://www.lp.org/issues/social-security
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131005053347/http://www.lp.org/issues/poverty-and-welfare to http://www.lp.org/issues/poverty-and-welfare
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131003084817/http://www.lp.org/issues/crime-and-violence to http://www.lp.org/issues/crime-and-violence
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131008202343/http://www.lp.org/issues/gun-laws to http://www.lp.org/issues/gun-laws
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080104231600/http://www.ypa.org/article.php?article=0030 to http://www.ypa.org/article.php?article=0030
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150518064831/http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/com_ind/2005_C00255695 to http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/com_ind/2005_C00255695
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160504174949/http://www.lp.org/issues/poverty-and-welfare to https://www.lp.org/issues/poverty-and-welfare
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150511125038/http://www.lp.org/issues/poverty-and-welfare to http://www.lp.org/issues/poverty-and-welfare
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110514110414/http://www.lp.org/issues/freedom-of-speech to http://www.lp.org/issues/freedom-of-speech

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:56, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Why is the libertarian Political Position Syncretic?
They are a classical liberal party, an ideology that (if you look on other pages for parties on wikipedia) is always listed as centre-right — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.118.99.130 (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Is syncretic politics as an ideology even relevant? It seems to rely on the antiquated left-right political ideological spectrum, which political scientists have rejected as insufficient for decades. If syncretic politics refers to something that combines ideological elements from both the left and right, then it has problems in that not everyone can agree on what constitutes left and right and the definition of what constitutes left and right changes over time. To me, syncretic politics makes more sense as applied to the major political parties. Meaning, a new political party could come along and take some positions held by Republicans and other positions held by Democrats. That doesn't apply to the Libertarian Party, which has elements that are neither Republican, nor Democrat, let alone the positions it has that are neither left nor right, according to most modern usages of the terms.


 * The same, I think, would apply to attempting to fit the LP into a 'center-right' position. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think 'right' and 'left' ideology originally referred to authoritarian and anti-authoritarian. Libertarians took the non-aggression principle from 19th century individualist anarchists, who were anti-authoritarian and left wing, natural rights from classical liberals who were considered left wing at the time (monarchists were 'right wing'), economics from laissez faire capitalists, which was considered left wing at the time ('right wing' economics would have been that which needed authoritarian control and which was favored by the aristocracy - mercantilism), and the Aristotelian ethics of Ayn Rand, which I suppose isn't left or right. So its derivative parts came from the left, but now it is to be considered 'right' wing, because, why? Some authoritarian Progressives rejected full blown anarcho-communism, grew in popularity, and declared that they were still part of the left and so everyone else must be right? That just seems to illustrates the futility labeling any of this on a left or right spectrum. Just drop the terms altogether, as well as vague terms like 'syncretic' and use more descriptive language. AJPEG (talk) 10:41, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

RFCs on Third Party inclusion in the election infobox
FYI, there are two RFCs asking about third party inclusion in election infoboxes. They can be found here at talk page for project E&R. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Recognition of Liberland as an independent state
The LP recognised Liberland as an independent state on December 2. https://www.lp.org/libertarians-resolve-to-support-development-of-liberland/

Shouldn't we add it to the article?

94.134.88.77 (talk) 13:38, 16 December 2018 (UTC) Vladimir Adoshev

Drinking age
I'm concerned about your edit re., "Many Libertarians believe in eliminating or lowering the drinking age", because the piece you cite does not clearly say that. I read the following in the reference [19]:


 * "Many productive, civilized countries manage with a lower drinking age: no minimum in China or Portugal, 14 in Switzerland, 16 in most of Europe.
 * "By lowering the drinking age to 18, people could learn about alcohol long before they turned 16 and get their driver’s license. We should prepare young adults to make responsible decisions about alcohol in the same way we prepare them to operate a motor vehicle; to exercise the full privileges of adulthood so long as they demonstrate their ability to observe the law. Alcohol is a reality in the lives of young adults. We can either try to change the reality – which has been our principal focus since 1984, by imposing Prohibition on young adults 18 to 20 – or we can create the safest possible environment for that reality."

This is stupid, because people can NOT legally "learn about alcohol long before they turned 16" if the drinking age is lowered to 18.

Accordingly, I've changed the text to the following: "Many Libertarians believe in lowering the drinking age.[19]"  This is supported by the (poorly worded) reference.

Another alternative is to eliminate that sentence and reference entirely, as being so poorly worded that it's not credible. This is especially true, since the reference is on the "Wayback machine" and may not be currently advocated by "Many Libertarians".

[19]

??? Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 01:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Abortion photography
Currently under the Abortion subsection, there is a photograph of a pro-choice Libertarian rally at Washington D.C. from 1989. For a historical photo, this is important for improving the reader's understanding of Libertarian views on abortion. However, if we can find a free photograph of a pro-life Libertarian rally, I recommend adding that to the subsection, since Libertarians are not largely for the controversial procedure, but rather divided on the issue. Opinions? Gamingforfun 3 6 5 02:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

for me, a not-so-helpful article
Relying on what I've been told, I was under the (apparently mistaken) impression that in order to be a Republican one needs to believe 100% in free markets and in the elimination of all government subsidies. That reminded me of when I was in the LP and reading everything published by Ayn Rand and her acolytes.

I'm a frequent W'pedia user. So, when I wondered how it is that the Federales are gleefully throwing cash at U.S. corporations and megafarms while mouthing Libertarian slogans, I arrived here as a first stop. Really, this nonsense has been going on at least since the Reagan Era, and the slogans have continued thickening but action has gone the opposite direction.

Unaddressed in this article is a clear stance against such subsidies. How can that be? Again, I was hoping to find at least one reference that would start me off. Weeb Dingle (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2019 (UTC)


 * You're looking for an explanation for what you believe is Republican Party hypocrisy on the Libertarian Party wikipedia page? Why? And just FYI, the Republican Party does not now, nor has it ever, believed in 100% free markets and the elimination of all government subsidies. The Libertarian Party stance on those issues is discussed in the Economic Issues section of Political Positions. AJPEG (talk) 06:34, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Has Amash Joined the Libertarian Party
Hello, I'm not sure Amash has joined the Libertarian Party. He certainly launched a bid for the parties nomination, but just how Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat, yet ran for the nomination, I don't know that Amash is a member of the Libertarian Party. If anyona has a source on that please let me know. I think we should wait for him to specifically state that he's joining the party before noting him as a party member. Aurora (User:Horkak) (talk) 07:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

He's a member: https://twitter.com/nsarwark/status/1255310040942116869 Starks (talk) 13:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Change 2020 Maine ballot access
I have a COI as a member of the Libertarian Party Please change ballot color from green to yellow as under state law to qualify for ballot access, Jorgensen must submit 4,000 petition signatures to the state by August 3. Jorgensen has sued the state for a reduction of the signature requirement, citing an increase in the difficulty of petitioning caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Jorgensen is suing the state for ballot access so is not yet on the ballot until lawsuit is settled Wjqx (talk) 16:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Ballot Access News reported that on August 10th the Maine Secretary of State said that the Jorgensen petition had enough valid signatures and she would be on the ballot. Joregensen dropped the lawsuit the same day. AJPEG (talk) 02:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Good to know — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wjqx (talk • contribs) 13:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

State lower chamber seats in infobox
I just want to know why my edit on the lower state chamber number was revert back to 0? Fab1442006 (talk) 16:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , thank you for your edit and welcome to Wikipedia. It was reverted because Representative-elect Marshall Burt has not yet taken office. He will take office on January 3, 2021. The reverting editor should have explained that in their edit summary. ― Tartan357  Talk 23:21, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2020
Change "As of 2017, there were 168 Libertarians holding elected office: 58 of them partisan offices and 110 of them non-partisan offices." To "As of 2020, there were 242 Libretarians holding elected office: 98 of them partisan offices 144 of them non-partisan offices."

Also, Change "Other elected offices: 234" to "Other elected offices: 241" 24vikie (talk) 19:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. [[User:Eggishorn|Eggishorn ]] (talk) (contrib) 19:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:26, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Libertarianism in the United States Collage 2.jpg

Right-libertarian party
The Libertarian Party should be described as “Right-libertarian” under Ideology, to distinguish it from Left-libertarianism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeSmoe2828 (talk • contribs) 06:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

They are not a big tent party
The claim made by the article in the source that I removed that there would be a big tent in the libertarian party is not enough to classify its political position as big tent, since he was referring to a big tent within the libertarian ideology what corresponds to a very small range of political positions.

Furthermore, the source should not be used as it is opinionated.

All the candidates that ever ran in the presidential elections by the libertarian party were aligned with very specific political positions (ex: support for extreme reduction in the size of federal governement, laissez-faire economics, isolationist foreign policy, gun rights and civil liberties) Almost all candidates running for other political offices are aligned with this same ideology.

They have a libertarian socialist faction, but it is a very small minority that is unlikely to grow, since left-wingers would probably be unwiling to run in a party that almost always supports the exact opposite of what they defend.

The author of the article assumed that the libertarian party would gradually became acceptable to a wider variety of political views, but it not happened, because the party is mainly composed by extreme libertarians that want to convince people towards their ideology rather than tolerating more popular political views in the party to achieve political sucess, what makes them fundamentally different than big tents parties. Lucasdmca (talk) 22:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable source to support your assertions? The infobox does state those ideological elements that you have listed are in the majority. The "political position" field is something else entirely. That's for placement on the left-right spectrum. I think the LP itself cannot be placed on that spectrum and attracts people from across the left-right spectrum, i.e. it is big tent, which the source supports. Also, consensus is that FiveThirtyEight is generally reliable. You can take that up at WP:RSN, but this is not the place. ― Tartan357  Talk 23:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * When I said that the source shouldn't be used I was not referring to the website, but to the specific article because it is an opnion piece and Wikipedia says that they should rarely be used for statements of fact.
 * I might have exagerated in saying that "Almost all candidates running for other political offices are aligned with this same ideology." but the position in the political spectrum don't need to define all party members, it only needs to be the general and dominant position of the party members and this position may be defined as classical liberalism or right-libertarianism, ideologies that are generally defined as center-right. I can't find reliable sources describing the position of the libertarian party in the political spectrum, so I prefer to remove this section of the infobox. Why do you think that LP can t be placed in political spectrum?--Lucasdmca (talk) 04:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think that libertarianism doesn't fit well onto the left-right political spectrum. I agree that the sourcing basis for the "big tent" label is kind of weak—it's just the closest fit there is. So if you want to just remove the "political position" field altogether from the infobox, I'm fine with that, too. It's probably not tremendously useful in this case. ― Tartan357  Talk 05:00, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Remove Ken Moellman link
In general, I like to promote a distinction between acting-officers versus those serving their own terms when it comes to notability. At least, that was the idea behind much of my work-in-progress draft notability policy. Either way, considering that the page Jim Lark was PROD'd successfully, I sincerely doubt that Ken Moellman will clear the bar unless I'm missing something. – MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 02:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , sure, go ahead and remove it. That note is just a holdover from JBH that I didn't consider whether to remove when I made the change to Moellman. You may wish to edit Libertarian National Committee as well. ― Tartan357  Talk 03:40, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 17:18, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Mentioning Amash in lead
I definitely think that Justin Amash and the fact that he was the party's only ever representation at the federal level needs to be mentioned in the lead. It was a huge milestone for the party even though he wasn't elected as a Libertarian. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 11:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the first half of the article that Justin Amash was a mark for the Libertarian Party DontTakeMyIPLol (talk) 05:58, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Information about this party's ideas about copyright and patent reform
Article not tell about this party's ideas about copyright and patent reform. This party want revoke copyright and patent monopoly like Pirate Party or no? Trinhhoa (talk) 12:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable source? ― Tartan357  Talk 20:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

It really depends on which libertarian you meet. Right now the Libertarian Party has not disclosed their official stance on piracy in any of their party platforms. Some libertarians say that piracy is bad because the copyright owners' property rights aren't respected and that piracy is not a victimless crime. As for monopolies, I could say that most libertarians oppose government intervention to break up monopolies. DontTakeMyIPLol (talk) 06:02, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Always remember, each elector has two votes (one for prez & one for vice prez)
Thank goodness the edits were corrected to show that Nathan got a veep electoral vote, meant for Agnew. Hospers got the presidential electoral vote, meant for Nixon. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Err, thank you for disclosing the edit DontTakeMyIPLol (talk) 06:03, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Libertarian Socialists?
I checked the article which was cited for the "Libertarian Socialists" claim that some members might have.

It is said that the Libertarian Socialists-wing of the Libertarian Party comes from people with affiliations (former or current) with the Democratic Socialists of America and the Industrial Workers of the World.

The IWW doesn't even have 10,000 members (worldwide), and around 6,000 in the US (and it's fair to say that the numbers weren't that different in 2018 (the time when the article was written)).

The DSA, on the other, had would have had around 50,000 members in 2018.

It would maybe be fair to say that the majority of libertarian socialists of the USA are in the DSA and that only a small fraction of them actually joined the Libertarian Party. The Libertarian Socialist-wing of the Libertarian Party has 13,397 followers on their Facebook page at the time of writing this. This number wouldn't either really claim how many actually are in the Libertarian Party. I know that there were a few Berni Sanders supporters who voted Libertarian after the whole DNC scandal in 2016. But those people probably all moved to the DSA.

The Libertarian Socialists-wing's Twitter account only has 1,963 followers (at the time this is written).

They don't have an active community either, it seems. Their Tweets barely get more than 10 likes (~0.05% of their followers). With their Facebook sometimes reaching over 100 likes (~0.08% of their followers).

Now, social media accounts don't often get a lot of likes, since a lot of people follow more than just one person.

Let's assume that the 13,397 followers of the Facebook page were there from the start, that the page has basically only had 13,397 followers since its creation (just for the sake of argument). It would mean that only 2% of the Libertarian Party in 2018 (with 500,000 members) would be in this caucus. Today the number will have decreased to 1.9%. Now the probability that all the Facebook and Twitter followers are members of the libertarian socialist movement inside the Libertarian Party is very low. The numbers are probably in hundreds, maybe one or two thousand. If we assume that the number is 2,000, that would mean that only 0,02.8% of Libertarian Party members are libertarian socialists. Is this really a significant minority? That, in their best-case scenario, only 0,02.8% of Libertarian Party members are libertarian socialists. Is that really something that should be put in the "minority" part of the infobox? Or should it just be mentioned in the article itself?--Los Perros pueden Cocinar (talk) 09:08, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Third party status has changed as of 2022?
We've no verification that the party is the third largest party in the United States, per voter registration as of 2022. GoodDay (talk) 02:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a little early in the new year for all the states to have updated and published their totals, and for someone to have compiled them nationwide. Give it a few months, and Ballot Access News should come out with a 2022 report. Or you can try adding up all the totals from the states with partisan registration, though some may not have 2022 data yet. ― Tartan357  Talk 02:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, for what it's worth, I'm confident it is still the third largest. But our guesses don't satisfy Wikipedia policy, and there's nothing wrong with having statements that are slightly out of date when new information is not available. ― Tartan357  Talk 02:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Who are the four sitting state lower house seats?
I know of the three in New Hampshire. Who is the fourth? I looked at the elected officials list and couldn't find one. Maybe I missed it? Ghoul flesh •  talk 04:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

"Libertarian Party Caucus Wiki"
https://lpedia.org/wiki/List_of_Libertarian_Party_Caucuses#Libertarian_Socialist_Caucus_of_the_Libertarian_Party
 * Firstly, I don't know if this website is a "good source"
 * Secondly, Is it possible that some of these caucuses could be included in the "Factions" section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veritas Virtutis (talk • contribs) 08:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)


 * This site is completely unusable as a source. It's interesting to read if you're interested in the little facets of the party, but it cannot be used as a source here. This is twofold: on one hand, we don't allow the use of Wikis as sources (unless there is complete editorial oversight, with little or no ability for the general public to edit, and the overseers are experts in the field); additionally, LPedia has basically become a mouthpiece for Caryn Ann Harlos to air her many grievances (for example, the entry on the Portland Massacre). Anyways, the major factions are already accounted for in the infobox. Curbon7 (talk) 08:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Infobox
Is it acceptable to change the infobox to the format/layout seen on the talk page here, or should what is currently used on the article's page be retained? Helper201 (talk) 21:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I have tried to make some minor adjustments to the infobox to make it neater and easier to read but have been reverted. Aspects such as political ideologies break line by line on all Wikipedia pages in the respective party's infobox. Therefore, it makes sense and is easier to read if this is retained, hence why I wrapped the text ensuring "Deontological libertarianism" remains on one single line of text. Also, deontological is not a commonly used or known term, so I could see many readers at a glance mistaking this for its own individual ideology. As can also be seen from |previewing my edit these adjustments did not make the infobox overly stretched or the lead/introductory paragraph in any way difficult to read. This is merely a small change in order to improve readability and avoid confusion that I see no negative results occurring from. The infobox under my changes can be seen on the right. I would ask editors to please compare it to the current infobox and see which is better. Helper201 (talk) 07:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose deviation from the standard infobox width for the sake of visual consistency. Graham (talk) 02:53, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, there's nothing wrong with text wrapping. should be used sparingly. What does look wrong is stretching the infobox width, which then requires making the logo much larger to fill the space. I fail to see how text wrapping causes "confusion". I do not think this requires an RfC, either, it's a minor formatting change and one you have not previously brought up on the talk page. It can be handled through normal discussion. ―  Tartan357  Talk 03:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Rothbard mention in introduction
Not sure that statement really belongs. The sourced article isn’t accurate. The party was very objectivist leaning in the beginning. I’m sure his writings had some influence, but he wasn’t a founder or a central figure. For the first couple of years of the LP, Rothbard himself was a member of the Peace and Freedom Party. 2601:1C2:1B7F:F450:CD4B:4478:6CA4:790 (talk) 02:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Deletion of discussion of Libertarian local party exclusion from Senate debate
The relevance here is this relates to a Libertarian party federal election in a Commonwealth, in which the party was excluded from a debate, with the tv station having changed the requirements for inclusion mid-stream. That relates to the Libertarian Party, the subject of the article. And as well, to a local chapter. As is evident by the head of the local chapter commenting on it. And this section is about local chapters of the party. I would urge that the deletion be reverted. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libertarian_Party_(United_States)&diff=1124673961&oldid=1124670293 2603:7000:2143:8500:8C79:75A0:F11E:F236 (talk) 23:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


 * It is not relevant to this particular article, as this is the national party's article and should thus be an overview of it. Consider adding it to Libertarian Party of Kentucky. Curbon7 (talk) 00:56, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Transcendentalism
In full disclosure, I hold a leadership within the Libertarian Party Wild Caucus. I was alerted on Discord that an alteration was made today adding 'Transcendentalism' to the list of minority ideologies within the Libertarian Party of the United States.

I believe that it's fitting, and I am here to support the term, or something similar, being mentioned in the minority ideology section. I know the term is broad, but no more adequate terms which can be easily cited come to mind.

Why do I support this? There is undeniably a faction of Thoreau-ites, Eco-Libertarians, and the like within the party, and with the formal creation of an active Caucus to represent them, I feel there should be, at the very least, some tip of a hat to the group within this article. The faction is quite large, though I must admit that not all members of this faction consider themselves transcendentalists and not all, by any means, are involved with the Wild Caucus, of course. The caucus merely gives the broad faction an organizational body.

Transcendentalism and the political philosophies of Thoreau are explicitly mentioned in the Caucus Platform and LPedia page multiple times. they are the primary influence for the philosophy of the Caucus. I will look for other sources to cite as well. TheLibertyBoi (talk) 02:09, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Npov
Various problems: Use of primary sources (e.g., the party platform); "Libertarian socialism" with unreliable outdated sources; Absent political orientation... Am I wrong or is Mises Caucus considered far-right*?

* https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2022/10/11/libertarian-party-loses-state-parties-donors-after-hard-right-turn 93.45.229.98 (talk) 20:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)


 * That SPLC source is an Op-ed, so it is WP:UNDUE to include such a statement in Wikivoice. Additionally, none of these constitute a violation of NPOV. Curbon7 (talk) 20:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Curbon7 The use of primary sources is against the guidelines. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 20:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Curbon7 "The party generally promotes a classical liberal platform" the source is the party platform that doesn't even say that. It doesn't seem to me that the party is proposing Whig doctrine and radicalism. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 20:50, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Curbon7 Also, why does the Wikipedia article not say that Libertarians are in favor of segregation by private entities?
 * Am I wrong, or would this lead to the annulment of Runyon v. McCrary and Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co.? 93.45.229.98 (talk) 20:58, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * p.s. see https://www.currentaffairs.org/2020/07/why-libertarians-oppose-civil-rights 93.45.229.98 (talk) 21:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It is therefore evident that whitewashing was done by cherry picking sources to make the party's ideas appear more left-wing. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 21:22, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * To reiterate, the SPLC source is Op-Ed so it is WP:UNDUE and cannot be used. Additionally, none of your previous statements constitute a violation of NPOV, with credible non-op-ed sources you can add the information about the party's stance on segregation or the political position of the Mises Caucus - the party's current leadership. The party's political orientation or position is absent per Wikipedia policy, political positions are not to be included in the infoboxes for any major American political party - hence why it is not present in the Libertarian Party's infobox. The NPOV warning should be removed from the top of the article. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 00:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As for libertarian socialism being included in the infobox, there is a libertarian socialist faction of the Libertarian Party per the sources. The sources supporting this are not necessarily "outdated" because of their publication dates, there are many sources cited in the article that are older that are still accurate - date alone does not determine if a source is outdated, only when the information found in the source has become out of date and become inaccurate is the source considered outdated and the source's information removed. If the sources currently cited are found to be non-credible or other credible sources can be found that prove that the libertarian socialist faction no longer exists, then libertarian socialism should be removed from the infobox's list of ideologies. Additionally, classical liberalism does not solely mean "Whig doctrine and radicalism" in modern America, multiple credible sources describe the Libertarian Party as being "classically liberal", hence its inclusion. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 00:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Mt.FijiBoiz I wasn't clear: you can't use the party platform as a source'''.
 * The source for "libertarian socialism" is based on an interview with party members, ergo it is a primary source. So you should find reliable sources for these claims.
 * «multiple credible sources describe the Libertarian Party as being "classically liberal"» I don't think so. "Socially liberal and fiscally conservative" can also mean: neoliberalism, conservative liberalism, liberal conservatism, neo-classical liberalism, etc. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 06:36, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The party platform and claims of party members cannot be used as sources:
 * "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Neutral point of view)."
 * "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors, and not those of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. "
 * WP:RS
 * WP:REPUTABLE
 * WP:INDEPENDENT
 * Southern Poverty Law Center can be used as a source:
 * "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."
 * WP:BIASED
 * The date of publication matters:
 * "In areas like politics or fashion, laws or trends may make older claims incorrect."
 * WP:AGE MATTERS 93.45.229.98 (talk) 08:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC)