Talk:Libertarianism/Archive 1

Warrants a talk page
I thought this topic might generate enough disagreement to warrant a talk page.

For example the term minimal statism is a bit clunky, libertarians use the term minarchism.

Also I don't care for this phrase (removed since): its (government's) function is only to keep people from harming each other. I don't think that really captures it. If you own a bookstore and I open a competing one nextdoor I've hurt you. If a husband cheats on his wife he hurts her. To libertarians the only purpose of government is to protect the rights of its citizens(those rights being defined by the non-aggression axiom and its corallaries).

Fare: indeed, to libertarians, the criterion is not whether someone feels hurt, but whether his rights have been respected or not. "hurting" or "profiting" is always respective to other imaginary worlds - and you can always imagine a world where you're better off or worse off. The only legitimate comparison when demanding justice, for libertarians, is between the world where your right has been respected, and the world where it wasn't.

 Does libertarianism support state protection of property? I was missing this, which I think has become relevant with legal extensions of the property definition, such as DMCA etc.

MemoryHole.com: Yes libertarians(of the minarchist persuasion) support state protection of property rights. But the DMCA brings up questions of intellectual property rights and there is wide disagreement about that among libertarians.

Fare Most libertarians think that property rights are natural, and that legislation cannot or must not arbitrarily create or destroy them, that it can only discover and claim those rights that exist out of natural law. Actually, many libertarians (particularly the anarchist ones) believe that legislation should not exist at all, and/or should not be a state monopoly, but be done by competing law agencies that people freely adhere to or not.

Fare Some libertarians believe that intellectual property is a natural right, some utilitarian libertarians think that it is an acceptable governmental privilege. The most radical libertarians, anarcho-capitalists, resent state protection of property, and reject intellectual property, at least as we know it. - Is it accurate to treat classical liberalism and libertarianism as synonyms? As I understand it, classical liberalism is used primarily to refer to 18th century and 19th century liberals (as that word was used at the time), such as many of the founders of the US or Adam Smith. Libertarianism (in the recent American sense of the word), by contrast, is used to refer to people since the 1950s.

Although Libertarians look to classical liberals as their origins, I think its wrong to view their views as identical. Though on many issues (e.g. dislike for large or powerful governments) classical liberals and libertarians are similar, I doubt that classical liberals had the same views on all issues as modern libertarians do. (For example, many modern libertarians seem to have an almost Randian enthusiasm for capitalism; Adam Smith, IIRC, saw it not so much as a good thing as the least of the possible evils.)

Furthermore, I think a lot of liberals (in the recent American sense of the word) see their origins in classical liberalism also. (And I think the historical origin of modern liberalism lies in part in classical liberalism as well.) They would argue that where they differ from classical liberalism, they are not so much in opposition to it as a natural development of it. -- Simon J Kissane

No, it is not accurate to treat classical liberalism and libertarianism as synonyms. It is a work of propaganda to do so. -- TheCunctator

Fare: Yes, I think it is arguably accurate to accurate to treat classical liberalism and libertarianism as synonyms. Firstly because classical liberalism is the name for the tradition in all countries but the US. Secondly, because the opinions, the approaches, the methods, etc., are essentially the same - there has been some elaboration, but no revolution, no massive rejection. Indeed, Smith wasn't always enthusiast about capitalism, but Smith wasn't the most enthusiastic man in his own time (compare Turgot, Say or Bastiat). Thridly, yes, the old-time classical liberals did already hold all the modern opinions now claimed loudly by US libertarians, even if they didn't have modern words and references to express them. See for instance this article about Bastiat's opinions. So yes, libertarianism is one and the same with classical liberalism.

Besides, no non-libertarian ideology claims classical liberalism as its root, except in as much as they consider it part of the universal tradition, and after rejecting half of the classical liberal claims. Such is the case for modern US "liberals" -- they are actually socialists who prefer Marx to Smith.

But since I see room for dissensions here, I suppose there should be a specific article about classical liberalism, and another one on libertarianism.

That you can say that modern liberals are socialists is clear evidence of your extremism. Liberals are hardly Marxists; in fact, as the 1960s/70s showed, the distinction between liberals and leftists is pretty strong. None of Lawrence Lessig, Paul Krugman, or Robert Reich show any Marxist leanings, for example.

Your use of the word "ideology" is telling; political theories are not ideologies.

The assertion "Besides, no libertarian ideology claims classical liberalism as its root, except in as much as they consider it part of the universal tradition, and after rejecting half of the classical liberal claims" is as valid as the one you made.

Libertarianism as you define simply can't be a synonym for classical liberalism; libertarianism is a current, 20th-century political theory defined by 20th-century theorists; classical liberalism a historical term for a political theory specific to an earlier era. Asserting that libertarianism and classical liberalism are the same is like asserting that neo-classical and ancient Greek architecture are the same. It's reconfiguring the past into current expectations and understandings.

The past and the present, in reference to social phenomena, cannot be equivalent. Those who believe that they are are idealists or ideologists.

I'd buy that classic liberalism is a precursor to libertarianism.

--TheCunctator

Fare: if you think they differ, show me a point where libertarianism and classical liberalism differ, where one isn't the natural extension of the other. Show me a fork or interruption in classical liberalism. To me this is but US word-play. Just because the US has two words for it doesn't mean it differs.

Okay, here's my assertion: there is no fork, and Lawrence Lessig, Paul Krugman, and Robert Reich are classical liberals. --TheCunctator

Look, it's this simple. If a lot of people, and there are at least a few here, think that classic liberalism and libertarianism are distinct, then they are similar but different things that some people equate and other people distinguish.

Hey Fare, editing my work on the main pages is fine but please don't mutilate my comments on a /Talk page or else remove my name from any comments of mine that you change! I don't want credit for any of your prose. --MemoryHole.com

Wow. The "anarcho"-capitalists have really hijacked many of the articles here on wikipedia.


 * Libertarians loathe socialism.

Would you elaborate on that, please? --Ed Poor

How is it propaganda to say that Libertarians are classical liberals? I would also disagree that they are the exact same thing, but aren't there many similarities between the beliefs of Jefferson, Locke, and Smith and the tenets of libertarianism? I would agree that Libertarianism was influenced by Classical Liberalism, but I would take it one step further and say that Libertarianism is a more extreme form of Classical Liberalism...but not the same thing.

Actually, to be fair, lots of people claim influence from classical liberalism: the contemporary left, the Old Right (a la John Birch Society), Libertarians, Left-Anarchists, Socialists, even a Marxist could use the Marxist philosophy of history to argue that Classical Liberalism precedes socialism which leads to communism. Who's correct seems to be a matter of debate which is the result of subjective, hermeneutic interpretation of the works of the Classical Liberals. --Damnedkingdom

Ed libertarians loathe socialism because socialists believe in a strong welfare state that requires high taxes which runs against the libertarian desire for a minimal (or non-existent) state. --Damnedkingdom

There is a section here for controversies within libertarianism, but nothing about problems with libertarianism. This in itself seems to be other than neutral.

On an abstract level, the largest problem with libertarianism seems to me to be circularity. Libertarians talk about property and contracts, ignoring that both property and contracts are meaningless without law, and therefore presume a law-giver: in other words, property and contracts are impossible without government. It is not obvious why government is obliged to act in a way that makes libertarianism possible, or to create such rights at all; it is even less obvious that when the source of these rights qualifies or cancels them, it has acted illegitimately.

There are, of course, other more practical problems: public goods and natural monopolies. ---Ihcoyc

If one is a libertarian minarchist then they do, by definition, believe that there should be a government that does recognize property rights, which has its source in natural law. For an American minarchist, they would argue that America should be libertarian because the Constitution limits the government to provide basic services (see the Tenth Amendment). An anarchist would argue that they wouldn't necessarily get rid of government institutions, but merely privatize them, laws included, so that they exist but not in the traditional sense, so if the government is dissolved people can contract for their own laws under private institutions. If you want to know how an anarco-capitalist society could possibly solve problems like public goods and natural monopolies they're addressed in The Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman. --Damnedkingdom

I don't want to interrupt the discussion on theory, but wouldn't it be better to merge all the Libertarian Perspectives pages? they aren't that long you know. I'd like to either add them at the end of this page or create a single "Contorversies among Libertarians" page. :: aravindet


 * Libertarians prefer not to be called "right-wing." Indeed, they reject the one-dimensional left/right political spectrum and instead propose a two-dimensional space with personal freedom on one Cartesian axis and economic freedom on the other.

I'm a little confused by this part of the article: It mentions that 'Libertarians prefer not to be called "right-wing."' ... does this mean that Libertarians are more frequently accused of being right-wing? In my experience this would seem to be the case and, if so, surely this should be mentioned in the article?


 * Yes, that is correct: Libertarians are often categorized as rightists, particularly by socialists and social-democrats. I'm not sure why, except for that socialism ultimately derives a lot of its analysis from Marx, who saw economics as far more important than culture, "personal freedom", or other areas where libertarians differ strongly from rightists. (One catchphrase is "A libertarian is a Republican who smokes pot or has an unusual sex life.")


 * However, libertarians usually also differ economically from rightists in being opposed to military adventures for economic benefit (including oil wars), corporate welfare and protectionism, and so forth. --FOo 22:40 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Similarly, this article does not discuss objections with the Libertarian 'political graph'. Is this discussed elsewhere or shuold it be added in for the sake of NPOV? -- Axon Tue Jul 22 11:09:16 GMTDT 2003


 * I think political spectrum discusses it somewhat. --FOo 22:40 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Removing Nolan Chart
The Nolan Chart, as depicted in this article, is hopelessly POV. "The sector of this Nolan Chart labelled Communism/Fascism was originally labelled Populist. The X-axis was originally labelled Government Intervention in Economic Affairs [Actually, I'm pretty sure I'm wrong about that one].  These labels have since been changed to promote the Libertarian agenda.  I originally had that in a caption, but that's way too big of a caption to include.  Furthermore, the use of the terms "economic freedom" and "personal freedom" are POV.  Surely liberals and conservatives, as well as libertarians, believe they are providing people with the most economic and personal freedom.  This chart is propaganda, even if it it is edited to conform to the original wording.  I'm surprised Wikipedians have let something this blatant go for so long.


 * Can you give the correct labels? The earliest source cite I have is  "Classifying and Analyzing Political-Economic Systems" in the January 1971 issue of the Society for Individual Liberty's newsletter The Individualist. -- The Anome 16:04, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I think your source is correct. Does that have Communism/Fascism in the bottom left corner?  Because even the Wikipedia entries I've read seem to state that it was originally Populist.


 * I'll see if I can find a source. You might actually have a more original version than the one I found.  But I still don't think the chart is appropriate, unless it is going to be discussed as itself.  At the very least a caption saying something to the effect of "this chart is commonly used by libertarians to show blah blah whatever it is they claim it shows."  I think the terms "economic freedom" and "personal freedom" are especially POV, unless maybe if you're going to put pure anarchy in the upper right corner of the spectrum. Anthony DiPierro 19:22, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * The NPOV thing to do, IMO, is to include the chart with a notation that it was introduced by David Nolan who also founded the Libertarian Party. The upper right corner may be consistent with anarchy but it doesn't imply anarchy.  The United States from 1776 to 1861 certainly was in the extreme upper right corner but was not an anarchy.  The opponents do not generally claim to give people more freedom, they claim on the contrary to give people fairness or ethics depending on whether they infringe economic or social freedom respectively.  BTW, I like the clarification you made about free speach.  Mcarling 19:30, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * The chart already is included in the Nolan Chart and political spectrum pages, where it is handled in an appropriate way. However, I wouldn't have any object to it being added with a caption that it "was introduced by David Nolan who also founded the Libertarian Party."  As for my anarchy comment, choosing which freedoms people are given and which are taken away seems to inevitably lead to choices being made.  I think most liberals and conservatives alike would most certainly claim that abolishment of indentured servitude increases personal freedom, while a Libertarian would argue that personal freedom is hindered by this. Anthony DiPierro 19:44, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * I've never heard a libertarian argue that indentured servitude increases personal freedom and I can't imagine that I ever would. I think it's akin to the scare tactics of falsely claiming that libertarians favor child pornography. It's just not true. Mcarling 20:29, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Just because you haven't heard it doesn't mean it isn't true, and most libertarians are opposed to laws against child pornography. Anthony DiPierro 17:46, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Your suggestion that most libertarians are opposed to laws against child pornography is absolutely false. Mcarling 21:29, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * I assume you're talking about the creation of child pornography, on which libertarians are probably quite split. But when it comes to distribution and possession of child pornography, most libertarians are opposed to laws against it. Anthony DiPierro 21:33, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * On the question of real child pornography involving real children, Libertarians are as united in opposition as, say, the Catholic Church, the Republicans, or the Democrats. That includes distribution and possession.  Dissent on this issue is not tolerated.  On the question of computer simulated child pornography which does not involve real children, there is dissent among Libertarians just as there is dissent among most groups.  Mcarling 04:02, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Does anybody active in this topic agree that there should be some mention of the different Libertarian stands toward interventionism at the very basis of the Libertarian principle? I see my contribution twice reverted by one user, but it certainly wasn't "nonsense" maybe 'novel sense,' but certainly not some conventional lack of logic. I'd have rather seen someone edit it down than erase it completely because at least heading somewhere, it had potential to shed light unto something not yet delved into here Nagelfar 20:06, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * The problem with that contribution was that it tries to divide libertarians into two camps neither of which exists. The distinction is entirely artificial.  Ask 100 libertarians which one they are and 100 will respond with something like "What on earth are you talking about?" Mcarling 20:29, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Definitions are a science all their own, all terms are 'artificial,' it's all about how one can properly explain divisions, if something needs to be understood that is not commonly known that is the purpose of such a medium as this. The only reason I didn't just revert it back again is because I agree with you, that "out of 100 Libertarians" none would consider themselves anything but their local party, but ask their feelings on the matters without the boilerplate labels I gave for simplification and you will get an equally mixed response. So, by all accounts you could have just deleted those "National" & "International" boilerplates, that much, was just a conveniently useless format to get a basic, existing, division across. So do you think it would be workable without a condensed title for both stands? Even though I still believe such would be ultimately necessary, but not all classifications are fiat even in wikipedia. Nagelfar


 * It seems unclear to me whether this is an idea which you've come up with yourself or something which is established in the Libertarian community. If the former (which I suspect), it certainly does not belong in Wikipedia.  If the latter, perhaps it could be worked on in a more thorough way and added into a link (maybe Libertarian perspectives on foreign affairs.


 * Well the issue certainly exists in the Libertarian community, as it should have spoken for itself, but I'd like to know if it was the opinion of the addition itself or just the presentation and words used which was unacceptable to you more established users. Nagelfar


 * I don't believe the issue exists in the libertarian community. I'm not a member of the Libertarian National Committee, but I'm acquinted with all its officers and most of its members.  I've never heard anyone expound the view you call "National Libertarianism".  If you're looking for a real controversy among libertarians, the most interesting one is perhaps that of whether any taxation can be justified.  Some libertarians believe that minimal taxation is necessary to fund minimal necessary government, while other libertarians hold that taxation is slavery and that minimal government must be funded without taxation. Mcarling 21:23, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * The gap exists AFAIK, I've heard those of the US LP discount other Libertarians as "anarcho-militarists" among other mendacious terms, I actually don't think you will get too much of a "What on earth are you talking about?" response if you ask a libertarian whether in principle they are a nationally conscious libertarian, or an internationally conscious libertarian, though you probably won't get an exact correlation to the terminology I provided, very few are liable to give you an encyclopedically exact description of each word they use to describe themselves regardless. That's why I was hoping for some clarification on the matter Nagelfar 06:27, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC).


 * Certainly, there are a few US LP members who support the war in Iraq. I don't think that makes them nationalists and I don't think it arises out of philosophical differences so much as out of belief in Bush's assertion that elements in Iraq posed a grave and immediate threat to US security.  Those who have called this small minority "warmongers" or "militants" don't have any particular international spirit so much as they are those who tend to be slavish toward ideological purity in general and attack anyone within the party who dissents over any issue.  Actually, the distinction you try to apply is the one that originated at the Zimmerwald conference, until which Lenin and Mussolini were best of friends and agreed on just about everything, but at which they had a falling out over whether communism should be brought about in one country at a time or simultaneously worldwide.  In practice, Lenin did it Mussolini's way.  Trying to apply that distinction to libertarians is like trying to drive a square peg into a round hole. Mcarling 07:30, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Except that Mussolini & Lenin had no leanings toward Libertarianism soever, they were both statists, being against laws & regulation has to effect the sphere of government in one way or another and that was my point, anti-interventionism when peremptory is a regulation and philosophically at odds internally with one or another's take on libertarianism. Is it deregulation or anti-interventionist? those concepts come at odds, this has nothing to do with statism or hegemony or not, but how government is implaced as the most minarchist or anarcho-privatist structure possible. Nagelfar


 * On the suggestion above, I rewrote, and added it to a link within the controversies. It is of interest that editing here in wikipedia on other politics which no longer exist (i.e. Nazism) one is fought under the pretense that you are writing it from their established perspective, alternately, editing politics which still exist, one is fought if they write it outside the established perspective even if what you write draws only from it's own theory. An odd confluence of a NPOV & the POV needed to bring interest to particular topics as what's necessary to an ever expanding database. Nagelfar 02:44, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * No, the NPOV way is the same in both situations. You write facts, not opinions, about the topic itself.  In the case of Nazism, presenting a Nazi belief as a truth is POV.  Presenting a Nazi belief and attributing that belief to the Nazi party is NPOV.  Presenting your own belief about what Nazism could have been is both POV and off-topic.  In the case of Libertarianism, presenting a Libertarian belief as a truth is POV.  Presenting a Libertarian belief and attributing it to Libertarians is NPOV.  Presenting your own belief about what the Libertarian party could believe is both POV and off-topic.  Furthermore, putting the belief under the heading of "Controversies" is inaccurate.  Even if Libertarians happen to hold different opinions about a topic, that in itself doesn't make it a controversy.  We don't want a subheading under controversies about whether Libertarians prefer boxers or briefs, do we? Anthony DiPierro 03:35, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

No original research
These sentences need to be fixed or removed, as they are personal opinions under the guise of NPOV:


 * Critics of this trend point out that libertarians see the market as a universal medium for regulating social interactions and advocate for the severe restriction of state function almost to the point of its elimination while classical liberals did not have this view of the state many of them advocating the expansion of the state into the role of educating children and even providing relief for the poor. Even Adam Smith believed that the utility of the market as a social mechanism was limited. These critics argue that a more accurate term to describe libertarianism would be neo-classical liberalism.

Anthony DiPierro 15:29, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Freedom blues
I believe the section that reads:
 * Most liberals and conservatives reject this type of classification, often arguing that libertarians ascribe the term "freedom" to activities that cannot be considered "freedoms" in any sense of the word, because they infringe on other people's rights.

should be removed because (1) the assertion that MOST people (of any group) believe this to be true is at best highly suspect and clearly unprovable - btw, the greatest share of arguments I've heard from these groups are exactly the opposite, that individuals' rights are to be selectively infringed for the good of the group; (2) the argument is patently false if one is going to accept the description of libertarianism offered in the first paragraph of this article - that is: Libertarians believe individuals should be free to do anything they want, so long as they do not infringe upon the equal rights of others; (3) if it's a matter of the difference between the types of rights that each group acknowledges, that's already been covered succinctly in the opening paragraph; and (4) what activities "cannot be considered 'freedoms' in any sense of the word"? Freedoms that violate other freedoms?? This is overly vague. If you're going to use "the freedom to murder" or something similar as an example, please see the portion of the opening paragraph that mentions 'negative rights' - in other words, Libertarianism is not synonymous with anarchy or "anything goes". Ubernetizen 20:04, 28 May 2004 (UTC)


 * And my answer is:


 * (1) Point taken. I hadn't noticed that word, sorry. I will replace it with "many". As for what arguments you've personally heard, that is irrelevant.
 * (2) The point is to explain that libertarian notions of "personal freedom" and especially "economic freedom" are challenged and disputed by non-libertarians. If you can come up with better wording then I did, then let's see it.
 * (3) See point (2).
 * (4) It's overtly vague because it's meant to cover a wide range of conservative/liberal/other non-libertarian opinions. The "freedom to murder" part was removed, and with good cause. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu


 * (1) I don't think my characterization of the existing arguments is any less relevant than yours. Shall we settle on a quantity-neutral term, like "some"?
 * (2 & 3) Views on personal/economic freedoms are the fundamental, defining features of different ideologies. I don't think it necessary to explain that non-libertarians dispute libertarian notions - wouldn't you agree such a statement is inherently redundant?
 * Ubernetizen 20:59, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Comments on a rewrite
I've taken a stab at a rewrite. Please leave any comments here.

''Libertarianism has significant differences with both conservatism and liberalism (as those terms are used in the United States): see political spectrum. Many Libertarians consider that conservatives generally approve of limitations on personal freedoms but not economic ones, whereas liberals generally approve of limitations on economic freedoms but not personal ones, and that they libertarians do not limit any of these freedoms. However, this simplified point of view ignores many subtleties of the political parties, with conservatives and liberals agreeing on a number of points where the libertarians differ, and with them disagreeing on a number of points in ways that would seem counter to these simplifications. Many liberals and conservatives also disagree over what can be termed a "freedom" in the first place, arguing that the right to infringe upon others is not a freedom at all.''

In fact, the more I think about it, the more I think this whole distinction is nothing more than propaganda on the part of libertarians. Especially with regard to "personal freedoms", I can easily think of a number of counter examples (gun control, abortion, gay marriage, gay sex).

anthony (see warning)


 * Actually, I think your rewrite is excellent. Good job! I'd say it's a reasonable compromise, and I support it.
 * As for libertarian propaganda, I agree with you. This is POV, of course, but in my opinion you can't talk of "freedom" unless everyone has the same amount of it. When some people are more free than others, then you have privilege, not freedom. Hence "economic freedom" (which is directly proportional to one's wealth) is not freedom, but privilege. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu


 * That is insane. The freedom to walk on your legs is directly proportional to one's having-of-legs.  So you claim is that walking is a "priviledge" not a "freedom" as long as there is at least person without legs?  218.101.90.67 09:13, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * The rewrite seems unnecessarily verbose and a bit confusing. Personally I think it should be simpler and more concise.  I don't have any specific suggestions yet.


 * While I think the division of personal and economic freedoms is actually a false dichotomy, it does serve to highlight the differences between ideological approaches. I don't see what about it is propaganda-ish.  Anthony, I don't understand the significance of your counter-examples.  Mihnea, I don't believe economic freedom in this context is a function of how much wealth one has but rather their right to create it, trade it, hold on to it and determine its use.
 * Ubernetizen 23:28, 28 May 2004 (UTC)


 * First the counter-examples. Maybe these are US-specific, though, the abortion one almost certainly is.  Conservatives support abortion laws, which is lessened personal freedom.  They also support bans on gay marriage and gay sex, both of which result in lessened personal freedom.  The gun control one, well, I was just thinking wrongly on that one. [Ugh, I mixed up the two I guess.  Gun control seems to be the only of those examples where conservatives support more personal freedom.]


 * Now, with that said, I do think emphasis on personal and economic freedoms does separate the Libertarian party from the others. For the most part, when there's a split, the side who favors increased freedoms is the Libertarians.  But Mihnea is coming from a reasonable point of view on his assertion that Libertarian economic freedoms are not really freedoms but privileges.  For example, the freedom to own property is really the privilege to not allow others to use the property without permission.  I didn't want to get into that whole argument though.  This is an encyclopedia.


 * I agree with you that this phrasing is long-winded. It was really a first shot at things, and I hope it can be improved.  But the old wording wasn't even very accurate in places.  For instance, the old wording said that "conservatives approve of economic freedoms but not of personal freedoms".  No matter how twisted your definition of freedom, it's certainly not true that conservatives do not approve of personal freedoms.  They merely believe that government should place limitations on those personal freedoms, and in fact most believe that government necessarily must place limitations on personal freedoms.


 * anthony (see warning)


 * I've re-written and re-organized the section in question and I hope it strikes an acceptable balance. I think it serves to tersely explain the concept behind the Nolan Chart while also indicating the source of the ideological dispute that exists.
 * Ubernetizen 03:30, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Regarding my edits today
I removed the examples that had been listed concerning distinctions between libertarianism and classical liberalism. The positions ascribed to the classical liberals mentioned could just as well be ascribed to moderate libertarians of today. For instance, Clint Bolick favors a comparatively large and active federal government. Milton Friedman proposed a negative income tax (i.e. minimum income). I don't really take a position on whether libertarianism = classical liberals, but the latter sure look like moderate libertarians to me. In any event, if we are going to give examples of the difference, they should be more accurate. - Nat Krause 06:29, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The problem is that you could do that with most ideologies. Most ideologies have a few adherants who take a different stance to the majority. Do you not think that Libertarians can (broadly speaking) be classified as against welfare and public ownership? I think the examples stand (I would, I put them in.) It's also nice to point out that classical Liberals who have any standing at all (unlike Bastiat) actually disagreed with the main tenats of Libertarianism. Slizor 11:48, 2004 Jun 24 (UTC)


 * Do you not think that classical liberalism, as well, can, broadly, speaking be classified as against welfare and public ownership? By what criteria do you say that some classical liberals have "standing" and others do not?  And what do you take to be the main tenets of classical liberalism and of libertarianism? - Nat Krause 12:03, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No, I do not think Classical Liberalism can be classified as against welfare and public ownership. Look at Adam Smith, biggest Classical Liberal economist, he thought that some utilities should be under public control.

My criteria of Classcal Liberals having standing is if they were famous during their life time of shortly after their death - Bastiat was not, he was just dredged up by Libertarians so they can claim that Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism are the same.

The difference between Classical Liberals and Libertarians is that Libertarians view lassiez-faire economics as an end in itself - they think of it as "econmonic freedom". Classical Liberals argued for it because they thought it worked (Mill based his defence of free trade on utilitarian grounds) although they also limited where it should extend to. I also doubt that Mill (the foremost Classical Liberal thinker on social freedom) would support unrestrained use of drugs.

Essentially, Classical Liberals focused on social freedom - they were concerned with people being free from the "tyranny of the majority". Libertarians are focused on Economic "freedom" (in the Freedom = Slavery sense of the word.) Slizor 14:47, 2004 Jun 24 (UTC)


 * As you point out, most ideologies have adherents who take positions different from the majority. In fact, I'm quite certain that most libertarians think there should be some public goods.


 * So, you're criterion for historical standing is how famous a person was during their own lifetime? And what is your source for judging the relative fame of a given individual at the time of their death?


 * "The difference between Classical Liberals and Libertarians is that Libertarians view lassiez-faire economics as an end in itself - they think of it as 'econmonic freedom'." This is mistaken.  There are many modern libertarians whose arguments are primarily utilitarian.  Richard Epstein springs to mind.


 * I find it rather difficult to decide on a consistent definition of what clasical liberalism means. What is the source for your opinion?  And if the classical liberals were for "social freedom" and if Mill was one of them, shouldn't Mill therefore be in favor of legalizing drugs? - Nat Krause 10:13, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If we are to take the view that most libertarians think there should be some public goods, should "To many libertarians, governments should not establish schools, regulate industry, commerce or agriculture, or run social welfare programs" be removed? I think that most Libertarians believe in a "minimum state" and thus do not support public goods (because they think the free market can do it more efficiently.)

I don't have any definite way of judging the relative fame of people, but Bastiat was not a famous classical Liberal. Jefferson, Locke, Mill, etc they were famous Classical Liberals. Bastiat is just some obscure french guy drudged up from history so Libertarians can claim Classical Liberalism as their own.

The source of my opinion on Classical Liberalism? It's mostly down to Edexcel (an exam board), British Professors and a lot of teachers and, of course, myself. Mill wasn't in favour of totally legalizing drugs - not in the way alcohol is legalised. He advocated people being allowed to do drugs in private and places which sell drugs not to be highly advertised (unlike a pub.) Slizor 14:25, 2004 Jun 26 (UTC)

I restored the examples. I'm still open to further discussion though. Slizor 11:33, 2004 Jun 28 (UTC)

Critique
This article seems to lack any critical analysis of Libertarianism.

How about something along these lines

- Anarchist criticisms (eg, Libertarians accept the requirement for SOME government, anarchists don't)


 * I don't think it's accurate to define libertarianism of any stripe as necessarily at odds with anarchism. - Nat Krause 08:10, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm really tired of hearing libertarians use the word anarchism when they specifically mean anarcho-capitalism. Please, for the sake of those not of your particular political leanings would you use a more exact term.  I think libertarian socialists (non-capitalist anarchists) see a lot more wrong with capitalist libertarianism than simply that it doesn't advocate a complete lack of state government.  I for one (as a libertarian socialist sympathizer), would rather see a reformist social demomcratic government in power than a one with a pro-capitalist libertarian agenda. millerc 05:16, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Libertarians use the word "anarchism" in it's literal sense: "an-arkhos", "no-ruler". It means what it means.
 * Well, in general, you're right that it's good to be specific. In cases where the context is reasonably clear, I don't see the problem.  In this particular case, what I meant was "libertarianism of any stripe as necessarily at odds with anarchism of the corresponding stripe" and that is, hopefully, how people will interpret it. - Nat Krause 16:53, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't mean to sound like I was bitching at you, Nat Krause. I think your statement made it clear what anarchism was being talked about, but the original author was a bit vague. millerc 17:58, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

- Socialist criticisms (eg, Libertarians deny "positive" rights, socialists don't)
 * Careful. The termonology you use still has an implicit Libertarian POV. millerc 05:16, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

- Conservative criticisms (eg, Libertarians disapprove of attempts to control drug use etc, Conservatives do not).

My PERSONAL disagreement with Libertarianism is the concept of "natural rights" which in my view is nonsense. In short, on an island with one person, there are no limits to what that person can do, so the concept of rights is meaningless. If you add a second person, the actions of one will inevitably affect the other. If the 1st person claims the island is his property and charges the second one rent, he will be within his rights as far as Libertarians are concerned: also the man who has a loaf of bread on a lifeboat is at liberty to feed it to the seagulls rather than his fellow passengers.

In other words, it is the idea of property rights which is the flaw in current Libertarian thinking - but again it's just a POV - but worth discussing? Exile


 * It's not nonsense: natural rights are (naturally) those which arise from natural law. What you mean is that "natural law" is nonsense - but that's only because you don't understand what it means.  Natural law is just "the way nature is".  Gravity is natural law - you're free to say it's nonsense and not believe in it if you want, but I can pretty much guarantee you'll fall if you're not supported by something; that's just the way nature is.  And no, libertarians would not say he's within his rights to claim the island as his property and charge the other man rent (you don't understand libertarianism, either!).  He could feed his bread to the birds, if he wanted, that part is true; but that's a legal statement, not a moral one - he's legally entitled to feed his bread to the birds (it's /his/ bread, after all...even hard-core socialist anarchist types wouldn't dispute this one, surely; they believe in "possession", if not "property"), but that doesn't mean it's OK for him to feed it to the birds; there may well be moral sanctions, but not legal ones. 218.101.90.41 11:03, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I consider myself libertarian (small-L), yet I concur in considering the notion of "natural rights" to be utter nonsense. The article does mention alternate bases for libertarianism, though: utilitarianism and Objectivism.  I'm closest to Objectivism in my reasons for being libertarian; ultimately, I see libertarianism as the best system for me, and that's that &mdash; screw what's best for society. (Maybe the article should mention sheer egoism / personal psychological desire for freedom as a reason some support it?)  ;)


 * Anyway, I'm all for including more critiques of libertarianism in the article. Any good article involving POVs should involve as many relevant sides as possible.


 * - Korpios 17:06, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Though not a libertarian I find some aspects of libertarianism attractive - and the strongest argument I have found for it is - in a Libertarian world Socialists, Conservatives and Anarchists would be free to found their own communities as long as they did not try to force their views on others - while in a "statist" world we all are forced to follow the prevailing philosophy, pay taxes, fight wars if the govt tell us to, etc.

On your "egoism" point - I do wonder whether all political beliefs arise from some deep psychological desires - to do with reactions to authority (eg parents, teachers etc), or possibly even Freudian things like whether one is overly attached to Mother (socialists) or wants to kill one's father (anarchists and libertarians)?

Exile

I find the "loaf of bread, seagull" argument intriguing. One could easily argue that the "ethical" or "nice" or "right" thing is to share the bread with fellow passengers, but in terms of liberty, if the man has the loaf of bread, I would have to agree that he does indeed have the liberty to do with it as he will. The part that is missing from the picture is that there tends to be a basic belief and expectation at the core of libertarianism that people will do the right thing. Statist views seem to often have an underlying expectation that people are foolish or evil. Arthurrh 19:24, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with the point that "natural rights" are non-sense. "Natural rights" are assumed with almost religious fanaticism by many Libertarians.  This issue is probably the strongest criticism of Liberatarianism that exists.  Even the idea has its origins in a religious philosophy (that we are "endowed by our creator" with certain rights), although all Libertarians I've spoken with side-step the issue to try to maintain their mask of "rationality".  They also zealously defend their pre-concieved notions of natural rights, even when there is historical evidence that unrestrained capitalism (I'm guessing we're defining capitalism by those economic institutions that actually exist within the current "capitalist" economy, and not some idealized dream about what could be) does encroch upon the liberty of others (and has damaging psycological effects to those involved).  But they again side-step the issue by defining "liberty" in such a way that liberty only means the same thing as their pre-concieved notion of natural rights.  They'll blame away any historical ill effects on government policy, and not on our economic institutions.


 * I personnally don't understand the utilitarian/Objectivist argument. Since first you have to define the actual utility of something.  This involves making a personal judgement (something impossible to be completely objective about!) about what aspect of the economy you believe is most important.  Modern economists seem to have narrowed the scope of economics to looking at just those human relations that involve the exchange of legal tender in whatever form (this is ok for theoretical study, but not for making decisions which affect other aspects of people's lives).  IMO this has lead many people to disregard other forms of human interaction when determining their own POV.  Not everyone thinks that simple "economic growth", etc. determines the most suitable economy.  millerc 05:16, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Libertarian
Still can't figure out why we have separate pages for libertarian and libertarianism. Should we merge them? Make one or both disambiguation pages? - Nat Krause 15:17, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * The libertarianism page should stay. I really wouldn't know what to do with the libertarian page (as it currently seems to be a disambig).  BTW am I the only one who doesn't like the "libertarianism" box which has taken the place of the disambig header (which had much more information)? millerc 18:03, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * The current libertarian page is sort of a disambig. It has a lot of material for a disambig page, much of which is redundant with other pages.  Since recent changes, it now also gives something of an unambiguous definition at the beginning.  I'm thinking it should just redirect to libertarianism, so I will work on a merge after I have regular internet access again. - Nat Krause 09:39, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC) - PS, I agree with you on the inferiority of the "libertarianism" box situation.

Ayn Rand on list?
I think it is appropriate to put Ayn Rand on the list of "Notable Theorists and Authors." Although Rand herself claimed to despise libertarianism, she seemed to be referring to the leftist-leaning Murray Rothbard. And besides, quite a few libertarians note Atlas Shrugged as a major influence on them. --- But having said that, I welcome comments.
 * I agree. As I understand it, her objection (and that of her 'successors') to the libertarian label springs from the fact that it does not per se denote a component of a complete and integrated philosophy such as Objectivism.  Because libertarians are philosophically diverse, she did not want her particular system of thought to be associated with that ideology.  Nevertheless, she can be said to have been in the narrow political sense a libertarian and she's had a major impact on the movement.  I think it makes sense to list her. Ubernetizen 01:16, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)