Talk:Libertarianism/Archive 10

Protected
I protected this page and also Minarchism because of Irgendwer who is using sockpuppets like crazy at the moment. I have a checkuser request up. If these are all proven to be him, he will be blocked. So this is a band aid to stop him from doing this. He's up to 3 socks and will continue to create them. This should just be for a day or two. --Woohookitty(meow) 09:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

A new user account is not automatically a sockpuppet. Nobody is taken in here by "sockpuppets". You are abusing your authority. --Ööööö 14:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * A new user account used to evade a block is automatically a sockpuppet. Wikipedia has zero tolerance for block-evading uses of sockpuppets. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 17:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * So what? --Ööööö 18:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you indicating lack of comprehension of Wikipedia's rules, or lack of caring about them? &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 18:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * nor. I am not banned from Wikipedia. --Ööööö 18:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * User:Irgendwer is blocked from editing (which is certainly not the same thing as being banned by the ArbCom), and the use of "new accounts" (aka sockpuppets) to evade a block is explicitly forbidden by the blocking policy. See User talk:Ööööö, because further discussion of this here would be disruptive. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 19:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "When it becomes clear that a user account is a "reincarnation" of an existing banned user, the new account should likewise be blocked." --Ööööö 20:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I am a complete tyro as regards putting anything on Wikipedia. Just as I was about to try I find this page is locked. I would be happy to send the administrator who is protecting this page my brief list of suggested additional text and corrections, or paste them in here if that is more appropriate. Please let me know. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Caveat (talk • contribs).
 * Currently, the page is what we call semi-protected (sprotected, for short), which means that anonymous and very new users can't edit, so you've got a few options. If it's something urgent, you can use to request a change or two, or you can list your changes and see if people will make them, or you can wait a day or two, come back, and edit yourself. Hope that helps, and I look forward to seeing your contributions. :) Luna Santin 22:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I think I shall wait a little longer to try to do it myself. Caveat 15:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Negative liberty
Sry about writing in here i'm not familiar with wikipedia. I think theres a mistake in the first paragraph it should say (positive liberty) not (negative liberty).


 * "Negative liberty" is correct: the passage is talking about freedom from coercion, which is what negative liberty is about. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 09:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

'Libertarianism and politics' section
I'm removing this section because it is terribly written, indecipherable, and because the parts of it that are coherent violate WP:NPOV. It was successfully put into the article by the now-banned Irgendwer. He inserted it exactly three times a day for a month until everyone either got tired of reverting or got distracted by one of the many other disputes over his tenditious editing. --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 20:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! --Serge 17:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Citation supporting "political"??
I have removed this citation:



from the intro. C'mon, do we really need to spell it out? If there is anything in the intro that needs a citation, this would be last on the list, wouldn't you think? &mdash;Two-Bit Sprite 18:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * A now-banned user edit warred for months to take "political" out of the lead. Yeah, I don't really think it's necessary, especially now that the Unique Point Of View of that one user is no longer influencing the article. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 20:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, this same user was raising a ruckus over at Anarcho-capitalism over the same (non-)issue as well who was unable to formulate coherent sentances half of the time, let alone consistant arguments or even a convincing description of the users problem with calling it political... &mdash;Two-Bit Sprite 19:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Gun Control
Not to be a bother and such. As a new member of the Wiki-world, I've never left a comment like this before.

Why does this article make it appear that a pro-gun stance is a requirement of Libertarianism?

I must assert that a Libertarian can be in favor of gun control. This is not in itself a contradiction.

At the very least, this should be mentioned in the category of conflict.

-Jon Ivy

Final bracketed material now added:

... Libertarian perspectives on political alliances: Most libertarians ally politically with modern conservatives over economic issues, free speech, and gun laws (but for a libertarian defense of gun control, etc., see here )....

Caveat 18:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Frivolous discussion moved to archives &mdash;Memotype 13:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This might be a fascinating conversation, but would it not be more fruitful to dig up sources that say/deny that gun control is incompatible with libertarianism? &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 18:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

From an american libertarian perspective, gun control is pretty inconsistent with libertarian philosophy. This may be different in other countries where they don't have a constitutional right to bear arms. The liberatrian party's website has some specific info on this if someone wants to use it as a reference to update this section. see http://www.lp.org/issues/gun-rights.shtml Arthurrh 21:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Basically
Libertarianism is to Anarchism as Socialism is to Communism, right?

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.61.67 (talk • contribs) August 28, 2006


 * Well, communism is a form of socialism, so your analogy would state that anarchism is a form of libertarianism. If that is your question, then the answer is "no". Anarchism is distinct from libertarianism, however there is a form of anarchism which draws heavily upon libertarianism called Anarcho-capitalism. Does this answer your question? &mdash;Memotype 16:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Further, most forms of anarchism are socialist, so you analogy shows a misunderstanding of either anarchism, socialism, communism, or any combination thereof. I'd recommend reading the articles on all of them to expand your understanding of them. &mdash;Memotype 17:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * While everything said previously is accurate, in the way most people understand the words, G, yes, you are correct. Timmie.merc 04:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Care to explain? Perhaps start by explaining what the original analogy is supposed to mean, because I personally don't get it, in the same way that I don't get an analogy like: "apples are to pears as fruit are to oranges"... I don't see how this can be described as correct... This is ultimately, however, irrelevant, unless we can redirect this discussion in a way that would improve the article such that it clarifies confusion. &mdash;Memotype 04:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure. In my experience, most people think of socialism as a less extreme form of communism, the way one might consider libertarianism a less extreme form of anarchy.  Maybe not the greatest analogy, but using a common understanding of the words it's "accurate."  Timmie.merc 17:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

comment re "Socialism is to Communism..." Communism is a political system. Socialism is an economic system.grey farmer –==Redirection info on the top== OK, two things:  The redirection to libertarian political parties is totally unnecessary. What makes Canada and the US so awesome that their parties be listed? And we're not listing each and every party of the world. If you look at other articles about political philosophies, you won't find this. The line at the top should be kept to a minimum in length, probably just saying that if this isn't the article you're looking for, you should head to the disambig page.  -Chef Ketone 19:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Nothing makes the US and Canada particularly "awesome", it's just that many times people will end up on this page when seeking information about a libertarian political party in one of those countries. I personally ended up on this page when I entered Libertarian when I was looking for Libertarian Party (United States) and there wasn't an obvious link. The whole purpose of disambiguation is to help people who will likely arrive at one page while looking for another. Betcha dollars to donuts that a lot more people end up at this article when looking for Libertarian Party (United States) than libertarian socialism or Libertarianism (metaphysics). VoiceOfReason 19:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * True... but doesn't "For other uses, see Libertarianism (disambiguation)." do the job well and succinctly? I think that's the point being made. It's also a valid point that we shouldn't be NA-centric: various policy pages even exhort us to avoid it when possible. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 01:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Libertarianism (disambiguation) doesn't even include a link to the political parties. I understand the desire not to be NA-centric, but the fact is that the US and Canadian parties are (probably) the largest of their type and the ones that a Wikipedia reader is most likely to be searching for. Especially considering that this is after all the English Wikipedia and we can safely assume that the readers are most likely to come from English-speaking countries. VoiceOfReason 01:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, do you agree in principle that the disambig toplinks are excessively long? How that might be remedied can be set aside at least until (and if) there's agreement on that point. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 01:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

for what i's worth i would very much like to see a disambiguation or something at least that acknowledges that throughout history and throughout the vast majority of the contemporary world the words libertarianism and anarchism have been / are used interchangeably to mean the same thing. there's no need to go into a lot of depth, a disambiguation link to libertarian socialism and a note that this page covers libertarian capitalism would be good enough. Anarchocelt 03:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

More external links needed!
This article is badly in need of more external links. There are only about 100 of them now. There must be thousands of other webpages in existence which relate to this topic which we could link to. We must not rest until the external links section utterly dwarfs the main body of the article. --Xyzzyplugh 18:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * As amusing as that ironic statement is, it might be more productive if you said what you meant directly. People might misunderstand you. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 21:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the external links to Libertarian parties, as Wikipedia already has a list of libertarian political parties linked to from this article. The number of links in this article is still completely absurd. If nobody takes action to remove these links, the problem will only get worse. People see lists like these and say, "Well, there's already a gazillion links here, and most of them are of fairly low quality, so what does it hurt if I add a link to my own favorite Libertarian essay/thinktank/blog/author/party," and thus the task of pruning the list becomes even more difficult and less likely to get done. End the vicious cycle, editors. Delete links. -- Schaefer (Talk) 21:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * WP:SPAMHOLE suggests in cases of extreme bloat that the most effective course of action is to nuke the whole external links section and start over. This might be called for here. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 23:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I support removing all the external links. I'll do it myself if no objections are raised here in the next few days. -- Schaefer (Talk) 23:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess I object. I know wikipedia is not supposed to be a link farm, but libertarianism does seem to be a broad subject with many different aspects.  I skimmed over the list and nothing blatantly irrelevant jumped out.  If someone is doing research on the subject, at a glance, they all seem potentially pertinent.  Unless some significant number can be shown to be problematic, I don't see what the problem is.   Removing all the external links would be throwing out the baby with the bath water.  --Serge 23:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * A significant number are problematic. Almost all of the links already have Wikipedia stubs, and external links should not be used when internal ones are available. Those that don't have Wikipedia articles probably aren't notable enough to warrant inclusion anyway. The "Libertarian think tanks" section has websites of obscure political parties that aren't even in English. Same applies to "Other libertarian political projects". Under "Publications and Websites about Libertarianism" (sic, with improper caps) there's an internal link (under the superheading External links) to the article on John Hospers. Also in this section, we have such gems as a link to a dmoz category, dozens of self-published pro-Libertarian sites, a site hosted for free on the ad-supported cjb.net domain, and as a crowning achievement: a web site simply linked with the word "site" whose text is entirely in Danish. -- Schaefer (Talk) 00:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The "Publications and Websites about Libertarianism" section is, by definition, trying to be a directory listing. If somebody is doing research about libertarianism, Wikipedia's job is to provide information with references, not be a Google or DMOZ substitute for finding resources. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 20:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I've removed all the external links that were redundant with existing wikilinks. I removed ext. links to subjects with red wikilinks. It's not as good as a nuke-from-space, but at least it stops rewarding pagerank spammers for now. If I get around to it, I'll take a stab at sorting the remaining links (both ext. and int.). -- Schaefer (Talk) 19:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

"Objectivism" title
Someone changed the title of Ayn Rand's section to "Objectivist philosophy" as opposed to "Objectivism." Not a major deal or anything, but wouldn't it make more sense to have the section titled "Objectivism" since that's what it's most often called? Timmie.merc 20:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticism Question
"Libertarians make a similiar point that criticisms of libertarianism fall into the same category as Libertarianism is untried."

What does that mean? How would the criticisms be "tried"?


 * It's flat out untrue as well. The whole article is a mess from start to finish based on American Libertarians taking over the article, and thus everything has a anarcho-capitalist bent to it that the rest of the world doesn't consider Libertarianism. Since they have numbers, it almost makes more sense to split off "classical libertarianism" and this considering they are not the same thing at all.

Politics of libertarian parties
I'm very new to this, but strongly believe that this:

"By endorsing such things as the freedom to discriminate, libertarianism supports freedom of association which is the foundation of human rights."

would require a reference. I had thought that the ICCPR put the right to life (not in the abortion clinic bombing sense) at the top. It's also not a very good sentence.

Also, the left libertarian section seems very vague, but perhaps I am just tired. 210.49.83.243 12:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Initiation of physical force
There is a problem with the introduction. Libertarians do not oppose initiation of physical force. For example, if someone commits fraud, physical force may be initiatied to reclaim the stolen property. Fraud is not theft by physical force but by dishonesty, so taking the property back is truly an initiation of physical force. Also, knocking someone down that's threatening you with physical force is initiating physical force as well. A threat of physical force is not physical force, but the threat of it. So reacting physically against the one making the threat is an initiation of physical force. Libertarians don't oppose initiation of physical force. They oppose aggression. What matter is what the purpose of that force is. For example, if the purpose is to steal, it's aggression. If the purpose is to reclaim what was stolen, or to knock down someone who is threatening to use physical force against you, it is not aggression.Anarcho-capitalism 17:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Libertarians do oppose initiation of physical force. That is the essence of libertarianism.  By your usage, all use of force is initiated, and therefore all use of force is initiation of force.  But that usage makes "initiation of force" meaningless.  So what libertarians define as "initiatiation of force" is that it is use of force which is not justified.  Therefore, physical force used in retaliation for fraud is not initiation of physical force, by definition.  The one who commits the fraud in the first place is the initiator of using force.  Therefore using force in response to that is not initiation of force, even if that response is physical, and the initial use was not.  Any other interpretation renders "initiation of force" to be meaningless.  --Serge 17:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That's really twisting the english language. Stealing by fraud is not physical force. That's why it's called fraud. It's stealing through dishonesty. Libertarians do not oppose initiation of physical force. We oppose aggression. And, keep in mind "initiation of force" and "initiation of PHYSICAL force" are not necessarily the same thing.Anarcho-capitalism 17:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, yes, I agree, libertarians do not oppose initiation of physical force. --Serge 15:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's how I reworded the relevant sentence:
 * They maintain that the initiation (or threat) of force against another person or his property, meaning the use of physical force or the commission of fraud against someone who is innocent of initiating physical force or committing fraud, is a violation of that principle.

--Serge 19:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that looks pretty good.Anarcho-capitalism 21:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The libertarian party in the US specifically states "... accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others;..." (see http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml) Also see article 7 section 1 of the bylaws. Note that individuals wishing to join the libertarian party are required to sign a document endorsing this view. Arthurrh 21:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

That just means they are not supportive or wish to distance themselves from Militant Revolutionaries, or people who would use violence to achieve political victory...

Problem in introduction
I have an issue with this statement in the introduction:


 * Some libertarians regard all initiation of force as immoral, whereas others support a limited government that engages in the minimum amount of initiatory force (such as minimal taxation and regulation) that they believe necessary to ensure maximum individual freedom.

What is described here as the minimum amount of initiatory force is not viewed as "initiatory force" by those libertarian minarchists who support such use of force. I suggest the following revision:


 * Anarchist libertarians regard all use of force by government as initiatory and therefore immoral, whereas minarchist libertarians support a limited government that engages in the minimum amount of force (such as consensus-based taxation and regulation) that they believe necessary to ensure maximum individual freedom and is not initiatory (since it is based on consent).

Comments? Suggestions? --Serge 17:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not true that it's "based on consent." Minarchist libertarians support taxation even if everyone does not consent. It is an initiation of force. If it was truly consensual then it would not be a tax, and would be anarcho-capitalism.Anarcho-capitalism 17:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * In home owner's associations fees are often raised by the board without unanimous consent of all the home owners. Never-the-less, this is not initiation of force, because all the home owners have agreed a priori to abide by the decisions of the board (they agree to this when they voluntarily decide to purchase a home within the association).  The minarchist "tax" is similar: it is based on a priori consent to abide by the decisions of the governing body of the minarchist society.  It is similar to an employer imposing a dress code on his employees - the employees have agreed to abide to such impositions as a condition of their choice to be employed there.  Any society which imposes taxes or makes other impositions without such a priori agreements in place cannot be libertarian, by definition. --Serge 17:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * By your reasoning anything the state does can be justified. You assume just because I live on this land mass that I give "a priori" consent to the state to take anything it wants from me, but that's not the case. I don't consent to anything just by living where I do. At least be an honest libertarian and admit that you will take my money against my consent because you believe it will maximize utilitarian consequences. The homowners association that you're talking about is different because that's private property. The state cannot legitimately claim it owns the land I reside on and charge me rent for it.Anarcho-capitalism 17:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know whether or not you in particular have givena priori consent to something because of where you live. But I do know that it's possible.  There are entire private communities that are governed by such "states". See Pebble Beach, California for an example... everyone who lives there consents to abide by the CC&Rs.  Conceptually, those CC&Rs can say anything.  In practice, if they got out of hand people would leave.  The point is that a minarchist community or area can be governed on a system based on consent.  Taxes do not have to be initiatory force in a minarchist state just like the residents of Pebble Beach having to pay their fees does not comprise initiatory force.  The powers of the governing minarchist state simply have to be limited to that which the governed have consented (including by any a priori consents).  --Serge 16:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * But don't you see that if it's voluntary then it's not a tax? It's merely a purchase of offered goods and services. What you're describing is not minarchism, but anarchism, or what is called anarcho-capitalism. If it's voluntary arrangment then it's not a "state." If I go purchase an expanse of land and then charge people to live on it and require them to sign a contract to pay fees for maintainence, security, and so on, I am not a state. I'm just exercising my private property rights. A state would be situation where someone that does not own the property requires me to pay them money for services and security. That's obviously an act of aggression or an "initiation of force." I'm not familiar with Pebble Beach, but I'm sure it's not a voluntary situation. To be voluntary, then legitimate owners of the land would have to be charging the "tax." I don't think the Pebble Beach government owns the land it presumes to have authority over. "Private" and "state" are two different things.Anarcho-capitalism 18:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think a tax is a particular type of fee which may or may not be based on consent. But if you want to define tax as a nonvoluntary fee not based on consent, then I would argue that the fees paid to the state in a minarchy cannot be "taxes", by definition, if it is a libertarian minarchy.  Pebble Beach is, by the way, entirely private property, with the general areas owned by the corporation, and individual home lots owned by individuals.  Whether or not the fee paid by Pebble Beach home owners to the Pebble Beach Corporation is a "tax" is a matter of semantics - the concept is what matters here.  They contract with the county to provide police (sheriff) and fire services, etc., and it's all paid through the home owner fees to which each owner consents and is obligated to pay by contract.  The end result is really not that different from neighboring Carmel-by-the-sea, where the similar services are paid for through actual "taxes", except in Pebble Beach the arrangements are all explicitly consensual.  Anyway, Pebble Beach is what I think of when I write "consensus-based taxation", and the main point is that no libertarian can advocate for traditional taxes based on initiatory force and still be a libertarian.
 * To be a libertarian minarchist, you have to promote raising revenue for the minimal state exclusively through voluntary and consensus-based systems. Otherwise, it's not libertarian. And whether the mechanism is called taxes or not is a separate and irrelevant semantic matter.  --19:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well that may be your POV that one can't be a libertarian if he supports involuntary taxation, but that's not how all libertarians define themselves. That's one form of libertarianism. The other is the libertarianism of someone like Milton Friedman (he does call himself a "libertarian"). This latter type are utilitarians, who support taxation and other forms of minimal initiation of force by the state. Not all libertarians are anarcho-capitalists, which appears to be what you actually are. There is actually a video attached to this article that explain the difference. It's at the bottom of the page called "Uncommon Knowledge interview "Milton Friedman on Libertarianism" Friedman says "But as a matter of fact there are two really different versions of libertarianism. The more extreme version of libertarianism has one central principle- it is immoral to initiate force on anyone else. That's the prime view, that's the Ayn Rand type of libertarianism. Immoral in and of itself..and all you need to know to know that something of the state is immoral is whether it involves the initiation of force. That's one brand, now there's another brand which is one I would be favorable to which you could call consequentialist libertarianism." Anarcho-capitalism 20:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Two types of libertarians?
I have a problem with the current wording in the intro:


 * There are two types of libertarians. One type hold as a fundamental maxim that all human interaction should be voluntary and consensual. They maintain that the initiation of force against another person or his property, with "force" meaning the use of physical force, the threat of it, or the commission of fraud against someone who has not initiated physical force, threat, or fraud, is a violation of that principle (many of these are individualist anarchists or anarcho-capitalists). The other type comes from a consequentialist or utilitarian standpoint. Instead of having moral prohibitions against initiation of force, these support a limited government that engages in the minimum amount of initiatory force (such as levying taxes to provide some public goods such as defense and roads, as well as some minimal regulation), because they believe it to be necessary to ensure maximum individual freedom (these are minarchists).

I think saying there are just two types is misleading. In fact, with respect to adherence to the fundamental maxim, I suspect all libertarians fall somewhere along a continuum, not into one of two boxes. For example, if you see someone beating a child on private property, all but the most extreme libertarians would probably agree that it's okay to initiate force (trespass) to save the child in this case. On a broader spectrum, does the U.S. invasion of Iraq constitute initiation of force, or is it retaliatory (and therefore justified) because of Sadam's violation of agreements he made at the end of the gulf war? Are all taxes initiation of force? Or can some be viewed as consensual, like home owner's fees? In short, I think we should say that all libertarians support the maxim, but some believe there are certain situations where exceptions are warranted. I agree you can reach libertarianism from either a moral or utilitarian route, but that's a separate issue from how fundamentalist one may be with respect to the maxim. --Serge 22:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed. And "classical liberals" are NOT "consequentialists".  The founders of the United States republic were mostly "classical liberals" but mostly believed in "natural rights" which government was supposed to protect-- their view of government was NOT the "maximum (material) good for the maximum number of people." 74.129.231.106 (talk) 23:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC).


 * John Stuart Mill was a consequentialist. Adam Smith was a consequentialist. The point of saying that Friedman, Hayek, and Mises are called classical liberals as well as libertarians is that it's true. That is, it's true that they are also called classical liberals. That's not the same thing as saying that all, or most, classical liberals are consequentialists.Anarcho-capitalism 00:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

There are two extremes - individualism and collectivism. Collectivism is established through the pursuit of authoritarianism (even if by voluntary association). Individualism is established through the pursuit of libertarianism. A third term - utilitarianism more appropriately establishes the ideology of "consequentialist libertarianism" without creating the egregious misrepresentations and deviation from the libertarian pursuit of individualism!!! Deviation from individualism is a contemptuous application of the term libertarianism. Consequentialist libertarianism is an oxymoron!! Consequential libertarianism is frought with potential contradictions and ideological abuses!!! GeMiJa 02:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Animal Rights
The treatment of animals is a important topic for many individuals, so what do libertarians advocate in this issue? Can Animals have rights, can they be object of ethical consideration? --80.136.57.231 18:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC) (Sorry for my Englisch ;-) )
 * The Green Party would be the one for you then.--64.75.187.201 05:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, many libertarian socialists are vegetarian or vegan and supportive of animal rights and/or liberation. I don't know about American big-L-Libertarians though.  Ungovernable Force  Got something to say? 05:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the American big-L-Libertarian party has no official stance. I have met Libertarians who support animal rights based on their view of libertarian philosophy, as stated above. I have similarly met Libertarians who believe animals are property. So there you are. I don't think there is a consensus. Arthurrh 21:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC) I believe this has been discussed before, look in the archives Nil Einne 17:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure one could advocate, in an intellectually consistent way, the owning of non-human animals as "property" without also advocating treating children or retarded people as property as well. To simply say that an individual is a member of the species Homo sapien tells us very little about that individual. It does not tell us whether they can think, feel pain, feel emotions or if they are self-aware. Clearly, most adult humans can do all of the above, but so can most members of certain other species (cetaceans and primates, for the best examples), and not all humans can. To assign a retarded baby to a higher moral status than a bright dolphin can only be accomplished through speciesist arguments that stink strongly of other -ist philosophies that no longer hold water.

Libertarians refrain from acts of violence against fellow citizens, and this behavior might have some carryover to their animal husbandry.GrEp 15:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The libertarian view is to treat natural life as private property, because they are: (a) farmed sustainably if privately owned, thus preventing enivironmental degradation (b) in the case of domestic pets, usually taken care of better than if they were owned by nobody (in which case they would usually be put to sleep at a dog pound, for example). When it comes to animal rights abuses, the libertarian solution is a voluntary one - they say that environmental activists should purchase the animal/s they believe are being mistreated from their owners. There should be no laws against bestiality, animal abuse, etc. because often animals serve as an outlet for psychos who would otherwise release their rage on humans (same applies to freely available pornography, which studies show reduces the incidence of rape). Mookrit (talk) 01:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Some parts US centric
Some parts of this article are US centric. For example, it mentions the Libertratian Party at the bottom "Controversies among libertarians". What Libertratian Party? You mean the US? Also I believe the Free State Project is only intending to get Americans to migrate to one US state. They're not trying to get people from other countries join them Nil Einne 17:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is international in scope, so I agree some sections could be broadened. Specific U.S. libertarian issues could become a part of an article on the U.S. libertarian movement; though libertarian issues dealt with in the U.S. that are relative to the philosophy world-wide would be fine here.  Nonprof. Frinkus 04:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Simple solution to one issue raised here- change Libertarian Party to United States Libertarian Party. Lurker  oi!  13:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The introduction of this article seems to imply that libertarians are, without exception, right-wing: "Libertarians favour an ethic of self-responsibility and strongly oppose the welfare state…". Shouldn't there be some mention of left-libertarians in the introduction? After all, "libertarianism" was a term originally coined by the left; this article centers around only the US definition of libertarian. Prometheus 2 02:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

thats coz usa is extreme capitalist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.139.204.43 (talk • contribs).

=
================= I have added the following sentence to the introductory paragraph as what is described is NOT Libertarianism rather an American viewpoint of Libertarianism.

It should be noted that this article deals with libertarianism from this (i.e a U.S.) viewpoint and is a disputed subject, please see discussion page for more details.

Again the sentence pointing out that this is a disputed article has been removed, I will keep on placing that innocuous sentence in there until you either leave it or mark the topic as disputed. I can get others to help and indeed can script my editing process, so *please* accept this comment. I believe in the concept of wikipedia especially because I am a non-authoritarian libertarian so I am prepared to put the effort in to make it more accurate; as such I find the article as it stands highly offensive due to it's biased viewpoint.

Steve Mayes


 * There is NO non-american libertarianism. In the rest of the world this is called Liberalism. I am more wondering why these articles have not been merged. This is like having an article-series on Soccer and another on Football. Carewolf 09:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * For someone who couldn't be more wrong, you are awefully sure of yourself. Libertarianism was a term coined by the left, to describe a broad array of anti-authoritarian, egalitarian, and republican movements originating in Protestant Europe a few hundred years ago (Diggers, Levellers).  It is synonymous with anarchism and "left-communism" all over the world, except in the US, and increasingly, in the UK.  Also, the rest of the world refers to Right-libertarianism or libertarian capitalism as "neoliberalism."72.78.173.246 (talk) 13:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Children
This article doesn't discuss children at all. I'm a libertarian but I support libertarian principles only for adults. There's probably some radical libertarians who don't make a distinction. There should be a section discussing this.Anarcho-capitalism 02:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. Much of libertarianism is related to the concept of consent, which someone who "is not of the age of consent" is not able to give, by definition.  --Serge 05:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The reason I brought this up is I heard a self-described libertarian host of a call-in show on Freetalk Live internet radio saying that parents should be allowed to have sex with their own underage children as long as it's consensual, including taking pictures of the sex act and publishing them as child pornography. I don't agree with that at all. Children needs special protections. Just because they consent to something, it doesn't mean it should be allowed.  But, also they should also have less protections in other areas. For example, if a sick child refuses medicine it should be ok to initiate force - to make them take their medicine. I think it's absurd to try to apply libertarian standards to people that haven't reached the age of reason, whatever that age may be. But apparently they are some libertarians who apply libertarianism to all people, regardless of age.Anarcho-capitalism 05:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I, for one, fundamentally disagree. A person owns themself at any age, and if they then give their consent to to any act they should be able to whatever they want, even if it means they'll be hurting themselves. Furthermore, how is parental authoritarianism any different than government authoritarianism? - ZakuSage 04:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * All your arguments rest upon the assertion "A child is not aware of the consequences of his or her actions.", but you can't just take that as a given, especially when generalising about over a billion people. For context, I agree with libertarianism, and believe that age discrimination should not be a part of a libertarian philosophy. 219.78.67.153 12:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Right Libertarian confusion
"This article is primarily about what is sometimes referred to as right libertarianism." It is probably very confusing to readers that the intro uses the term right libertarianism since it could mean libertarianism associated heavily with the political right; or it could mean libertarianism in the sense of political rights. Deepstratagem 11:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe it is clear. The latter would be rights libertarianism.
 * (JoeCarson 13:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC))
 * I don't see it as confusing either, but that's just me.  Ungovernable Force  Got something to say? 19:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

On a related note. Anarcho-capitalism just added to the intro that libertarians do not consider themselves to be on the right. Though this is probably true of most libertarians, I do not believe it is generally true. Some libertarians consider themselves left and some right. Those who consider themselves neither are in the majority however. (JoeCarson 12:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC))


 * I don't like the term "right Libertarianism". It's simply inaccurate. A better term is needed for the type of libertarianism represented by the likes of the Libertarian party in the USA. But i can't think of one. Lurker  oi!  15:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe classical liberalism is most accurate. (JoeCarson 17:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC))
 * But anarchist libertarianism is not classical liberalism. Classical liberalism would only apply to the minarchists.Anarcho-capitalism 17:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, the idea that minarchism is classical liberalism is a disputed point of view (I once removed the term "classical liberalism" from this article's intro because I felt it was POV). See the article on Classical Liberalism for details. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lurker (talk • contribs) 12:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

Easy answer - this is an article on Libertarian Capitalism, primarily of the North American variety, and should be described as such. There should be a disambiguation link in the header to direct users looking for other types of libertarianism. Anarchocelt 03:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. This article having the title "Libertarianism" when it only really talks about one small part of Libertarianism is highly misleading, but I've never been able to bring myself to do anything about it because of the WP:OWN issues surrounding Libertarianism on Wikipedia. Ideally, there should be an article about Libertarianism in general, and separate ones on different types, but I don't want to get into the war that will develop if i try to bring this about Lurker  10:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "libertarianism" is used by supporters of freedom throughout the world. The fact that it is more prevalent in North America does not negate the fact that it is a global movement.  Articles already exist that detail the other "libertarian" movements which are not supportive of freedom.JoeCarson 12:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And this kind of POV is why making this article about Libertarianism rather than one form of it is a pointless exercise Lurker  12:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What POV? The kind expressed on the talk page?  Wikipedia does not require NPOV on the talk page as you clearly are aware of
 * "...it only really talks about one small part of Libertarianism..."
 * To say that the classical liberal form of libertarianism is only a small part of libertarianism is laughable. Classical liberals very likely form the majority of libertarians in the world.  Even before the intro, this article makes it clear that it is only describing one particular form of libertarianism.  It would be fine to rename the article to indicate the type of libertarianism it explains and to have a search for libertarianism point to the disambiguation page.JoeCarson 12:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't say you were wrong to express an opinion here. What should the article be renamed to? Capitalist Libertarianism? Individualist Libertarianism? Lurker  14:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I like Individualist Libertarianism or perhaps something like Property Libertarianism or Natural Rights Libertarianism. This is something we should definitely take a vote on.JoeCarson 17:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, there should be a vote on this Lurker  17:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Lurker on this one: there is an inherent POV because the article just takes for granted the Property Libertarian or Capitalist Libertarian appropriation of the term "Libertarian" and does not even disambiguate other strains of libertarianism (although it mentions some in the "History" section). At the very least, the opening paragraph should make this distinction very clear and link to other related uses of the term. --NYCJosh 21:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Conscription
"Libertarians also strongly oppose conscription because they believe no one should be forced to fight a war they oppose." I'm interested by this. Does anybody have any theory/reference to suggest this to be the case? I can see libertarians being against conscription on the basis of it being 'forced', but it is the 'war they oppose' business that gets me. It suggest a libertarian in favour of a war would not disagree with conscription. Sorry if this seems picky just wondered if anyone had any input on whether this should be clarified/is correct as it is. ny156uk 20:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point. It's bad writing. I'll see if I can fix it.Anarcho-capitalism 00:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say it should be left as is. The reason Libertarians oppose conscription is not due to their support for/against a war.  It is because another person may be against it.  You see, conscription means everyone fights, therefore, it leaves no room for someone to disagree with and not fight that particular war.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Camick83 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

This discussion is interesting, but also POV. Libertarians on the right reject conscription, on grounds already stated above, but left-libertarians often advocate it. In left-lib thinking, benefiting from the security provided by soldiers expelling an invader, without contributing to the cost and effort to accomplish the task of expusion, is a form of elitism. These elites reap rewards which they don't earn or pay for, which is seen as a sort of theft. To misinform the reader by only stating the views of Right-libs (who constitute a small and relatively recent movement within the worldwide libertarian sphere), the article thus becomes POV. The fact of the matter is that this issue illustrates a fundamental difference in the concept of what "liberty" even is. Both concepts contain contradictions, and the views seem irreconcilable (hence the right-left split in the movement). The reader should be informed of this, as it provokes and inspires reasoned inquiry, which should be the ultimate end of all educational tools. This POV is represented throughout the article, and is due, in my opinion, to the sheer laziness of the authors.72.78.173.246 (talk) 13:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is right on. "Neo-Classical" libertarianism is the generally accepted form. In my opinion it's the only for of true true libertarianism since it you can't can't have freedom without free markets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.63.199 (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

War
I think something should be added about the libertarian views on war. I found this article, http://www.zetetics.com/mac/articles/justwar.html but I don't fully agree with the conclusion. It seems like any group of libertarians have the duty to defend themselves from an unjust use of force, and that would include a libertarian group attacking a State that oppresses even 1 individual. There are no "borders" in a libertarian society, so if a group of people in USA feels that someone in DPRK is part of their libertarian community, they have the duty to protect that individual from oppression by the DPRK government. So a libertarian community attacking DPRK, Iraq or even Cuba with the pretext of freeing their citizens from oppression seems fully justified. But this is just my opinion, what are the prevailing views on this subject? User317 19:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow. That can really throw the door wide open to wars of conquest.  Didn't Hitler claim he was rescuing oppressed Germans in the Sudetenland?  And really, "just 1 individual"?  I look forward to following your progress when you storm Guantanamo.  As for there being "no borders" - I never heard that before.  I assume you're leaving aside the borders around an individual's property.  24.90.17.134 02:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a left-lib. Do you have any idea how stupid you look? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.63.199 (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the Open Directory Project- a proposal
Here's a suggestion to deal with the external links problem. Rather than pick through them one by one, why not make a list here of ten or so links that are indispensable and wipe the rest. This way we can avoid an edit war and the hassle of everyone constantly removing and adding links, which is what would happen if we got rid of them one by one. Of course, wikipedia is a work in progress and any list would be up for being edited. But I think a consensus list of a few links, and wiping the rest would give us a good place to start. Lurker oi!  11:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Since there was no response to this, I've cut down the links section to one FAQ, Open Directory and an encyclopaedia entry. Feel free to add more links, or restore some of those I have removed- as long as you can justify its inclusion using WP:LINKS. Lurker  oi!  17:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Non-Gender Neutral Language
I would suggest that the opening paragraph be modified such that a 'person' becomes a gender-neutral. E.g. right to protect "their" property as distinct form "his" property.

I'm not sure how that lines up with Wikipedia's formatting rules.

203.206.28.80 03:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)DS


 * Wikipedia rules don't have a problem with it as far as I know. There are some cases in which "singular they" can be confusing, but in general it isn't. (It's also not a new thing at all; Shakespeare uses it!) But, that said, it's usually frowned-on here to use Wikipedia articles to advocate a particular dialect or form of English (e.g. the British vs. American spellings thing). Since both "singular they" and "generic he" are common English usage, I don't think it's worth making a big deal. --FOo 07:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Singular they is improper grammar. There's nothing else to say about it; the English language has no unique gender-neutral singular personal pronoun, and uses "he" and its derivatives to serve that function.  There's nothing sexist about it; that's just the language.  Rogue 9 03:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Please consider reading our article on the history of singular they before you express your opinion on the subject again. --FOo


 * You'll have to forgive me for not entirely trusting Wikipedia cited as a source for Wikipedia. "They" and its derivatives are plural pronouns.  That is their function; using them in the singular sense creates subject/verb disagreement, which is by definition improper grammar.  Now then, I will direct you to an actual source on subject/verb agreement.  Please review your basic grammar, as apparently you've forgotten basic English sentence construction as it is taught to every school child in the United States.  Rogue 9 22:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please familiarize yourself with the distinction between prescriptive and descriptive grammar before you go running about accusing people of "bad grammar" for academically baseless reasons. Any introduction to linguistics text as it is taught in any college in the United States should suffice.Youngea (talk) 04:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

politics of libertairians...
i belive the historical example of workplace descrimination is poorly written. i'm new to the editing of all this so i'm not going to touch it. i think it is extremely mis-leading to state that liberals would vote to punish the employer for such descrimination and conservatives would take the side of the employer. i don't want to rehash any liberal/conservative or dem./rep. debate, but the numbers show republicans for civil rights and democrates against it. they actually had the longest filibuster in history trying to block the civilrights act. also, even though the employee could leave, isn't descrimination itself and infringement on another's liberties? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Camick83 (talk • contribs) 06:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

Need to Simplify
This article is absurdly long, and, in many cases, aimed so much at some insular community of libertarians that it is often harder to read/more incoherent than even the myriad Fourth International articles. Just thought I'd put that thought out there.

The stuff that's been covered in other articles can surely be summarized far more. Also, several of the sections, while still requiring major attention/rewrites, are long enough to be broken out into already well-developed separate articles. MrZaius talk  05:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Cut it from 62k to 47k by moving Controversies within libertarianism out of this article. I could use a hand moving the appropriate citations, however.  Also, note that there's still quite a few sections that use template:main but are essentially alternative versions of the main articles rather than summaries thereof.  They could be greatly trimmed.  MrZaius  talk  18:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Does anyone have any specific ideas on how to break some of the non-core stuff out of this article and make this article a bit more readable & to the point? Note that the article went back over the 50K mark recently, as well.  MrZaius  talk  13:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In retrospect, I believe it may have been improper for me to complain about the length of this article, given the topic's importance and WP:LENGTH. However, there are a handful of places where this article is needlessly wordy & written in a rather odd tone that still need of attention.   MrZaius  talk  19:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

New Template: Lib
I just created a new template Template:Lib. (It's my first template). It takes one parameter, declaring whether the use on the page is "liberal", "libertarian", or "both". My idea was to use it to head articles such as Liberal International and Libertarian perspectives on gay rights where it might not be clear at first glance which meaning is intended. This would hopefully ensure consistent usage within an article, and prevent overly verbose unclear repetition from article to article. Feel free to discuss on the talk page Template_talk:Lib. samwaltz 20:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That is very confusing, and I can't make sense of what it says or is trying to say. A Libertarian of Liberal are two VERY different things. -  hmwith  talk  20:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The US usage of the term "libertarian" and the European usage of the term "liberal" are synonymous. I have known a number of Europeans who refer to Fox News as being liberal (with regard to its take on gun rights, etc.). See Liberal Democrats, European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party Liberal Democratic Party, Free Democratic Party (Germany). Read the into to Liberalism for more info. samwaltz 00:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The Liberal Democrats are not anywhere close to being libertarians. At least in the UK, "liberal" is not a synonym for "libertarian". Cadr 18:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No liberal and libertarian is exacly the same. The term libertarianism is just an invented right-wing term for liberalism, after liberalism had been associated with Democrats for too long, and therefore seen as tainted by the right-wing Carewolf

Attempt to delete "list of libertarian..." articles
Someone is attempting to delete all the "list of libertarian.." articles. This is where to vote: —Preceding unsigned comment added by taken actor (talk • contribs)


 * This isn't about Libertarianism, articles with "list of" in the title tend to be in the firing line quite often. Lurker  17:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that User:Taken actor has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of a banned tendentious editor. MastCell Talk 17:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Is Libertarianism compatible with authoritarianism?
Do people have the right to vote in a libertarian society? Surely by allowing elections the majority are imposing things on the minority, and so reducing individual freedom? Is there a libertarian philosophy which is also authoritarian?


 * In general, libertarianism is not compatible with authoritarianism, but neither is it compatible with unchecked democracy.JoeCarson 12:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Try liberal democracy. __earth (Talk) 09:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, if by compatible you mean it could function. If the authoritarian leadership limited themselves to defensive military actions, maintaining an impartial judiciary, and negotiating free trade, while only taking a small percentage of GDP for personal gain then yes.

I've often seen the axis presented in the article (associated with Nolan) with Authoritarianism as antithetical to Libertarianism. If the popular notion held that self-determination was of great value, then populism would certainly not be incompatible with Libertarianism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.69.223.249 (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Former Libertarian-Democrat alliance America
http://www.wwnorton.com/college/history/archive/resources/documents/ch16_02.htm (Democratic Platform of 1856)

http://www.civilwarhome.com/davisinauguraladdress.htm (Jefferson Davis Inaugural Address)

In today's terms the Democratic Party of the Civil War era was made up of two modern equivalent movements: Democrat and Libertarian. The Democrats were the emotionally bigotted demagogues. And the Libertarians were the more intellectual rationalizations of slavery such as "States Rights" and "Free Trade".

What happened?
This article used to be a great source of information about libertarianism. What happened? This has turned into the same watered-down washed-out crappy summary like most of the other articles on wikipedia. 143.127.3.10

Clarification needed
Libertarians generally do not oppose force used in response to initiatory aggressions such as violence, fraud or trespassing... some support the U.S. invasion of Iraq while some oppose it.[4]

Supporting the invasion is hard to square with the article's assertions in regard to Libertarians' stance on issues of force, given that the invasion was in no sense a responce to acts committed by Iraq. Or are we to conclude that someone is still a Libertarian if he/she condones pre-emptive violence? (assuming that to be the least ethically objectionable of the minimally plausible rationales for the invasion.) Ayn Rand's support of the Vietnam War, and of the draft, is usually taken as an obvious contradiction of her philosophy - and surely a Libertarian endorsing the Iraq war represents an exception, rather than part of the (already rather broad) definition of the ideology? 24.90.17.134 02:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Concur. The reasoning for the war was that Iraq was using its right to bear arms, which no Libertarian could oppose. samwaltz 02:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It has to be stated that not all libertarians support the war. Many are against it too and Ron Paul is one of them. Reasons for divergence is the assumption of the cause of war. If the cause was 100% identified then or in retrospect, all libertarians would have taken the same stance based on non-aggression axiom, be it for the war, or against it. __earth (Talk) 05:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Justifying the invasion of Iraq is comaptible with libertarian principles depending on how you view the invasion. If you view it as an attempt of self-defense in order to deprive Saddam of WMD then you're simply using force against a criminal to protect your life and liberty. Imagine if you believed your neighbor had WMD in his home. There wouldn't be anything unlibertarian about going and killing him. That would be the case even if some innocent bystanders got killed, if there were no other way to kill the guy. Yes it would be "initiation of force" but libertarianism isn't a suicide pact, and as the article points out not all libertarians are anti-initiation of force libertarians. It might be necessary to initiate force to preserve as much liberty as possible. You're not going to have any liberty at all if someone nukes you. So if you look at it like that it's consistent with libertarianism. If you look at Ron Paul, he's not really opposing the invasion on moral "initiation of force" grounds but practical ones. It doesn't work to maximize liberty is his argument. Operation Spooner 06:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. That's interesting, but I still thinks it's a giant stretch.  By this reasoning, draconian gun control laws, including, by your argument, actually killing someone who breaks them, along with any innocent parties who might be caught up nearby! would be considered "good libertarianism."  (if you merely think - with no evidence - that the guy next door - who knows, perhaps a Libertarian with a particular partiality to the distorted NRA interpretation of the 2nd Amendment - is stockpiling bazookas and AR-5's, no problem, just drop a bomb on his house, so what if the rest of the street blows up as well!)  Saddam had not attacked us.  I don't know of any coherent political philosophy that is a "suicide pact" (that term is just a straw man).  But I would certainly hope that Libertarianism is not a stupidity pact.  Many, many people saw that Bush was inventing pretexts.  Virtually no one, supporters and opponents alike, were surprised that the initiation of this purely optional war brought with it massive curtailments of civil liberties.  And anyone who thinks the mass death, regional instability, and horrendous refugee crisis that very predictably resulted from Bush's actions was a good idea is ethically challenged, at the least.  I submit to you again, that those Libertarians who supported the war were not thinking with the Libertarian lobes of their political brain, if the ideology as described in this article is at all coherent.   Much of the debate here seems to resolve itself to "Libertarians are against unprovoked violent coercion except when they're not."  Oh well.

24.90.17.134 21:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Europe V US
This may have been discussed before, but Libertarianism is simply not widely recognised as being the same thing as 'anarcho-capitalist' in Europe, it is generally regarded as being analogous to social anarchism, which it has been connected to since the late 19th century. In keeping with the general ethos of having a worldwide viewpoint, the article should really be re-named American libertarianism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saii (talk • contribs) 21:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this entire article has an almost offensive US bias. "Libertarianism is emerging in France" - EMERGING!!!! Assuming I haven't gone back in time, how on earth is this a reasonable sentence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.176.209 (talk) 01:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

As much as I would I love to see Libertarianism emerging as a significant movement elsewhere from the United States, this article is not for discussion, but is instead intended to be factual. I would be open to having an additional section regarding Libertarian movement and ideology throughout the world, provided valid sources. Dndnerd (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The main flaw in the design of this article is that "libertarianism" is often confused with "liberalism". What this article needs is a paragraph that clearly emphasizes the difference between liberalism and libertarianism. As continental European, as far as I know, liberalism is restricted to economic matters (radically free market) whereas libertarianism (laissez faire?) also includes the political and the ethical. Rocator (talk) 03:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I second the complaint that this article contains a POV. Left-lib predates Right-lib by about 300 years at least. In the opening paragraphs, "libertarianism" is described as being against the welfare state, wealth distribution, and regulation. For everyone outside the bubble of the US, this simply is wrong. Right-lib is almost an exclusively American phenomenon, spilling over to the UK to some degree. In the rest of the world, the term "Libertarian" is usually used to describe anarchist movements, or "left-communist" movements. This article must be marked POV and dramatically revised. Only a bubbleboy could disagree.72.78.173.246 (talk) 11:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I must agree with the previous statement. As a european, i view this notion of "libertarian" as a complete farce. Somehow, "libertarian" in the US has come to describe an advocator of complete tirany (altough private, not state based), but i dont see how that should spillover unto an article on a international encyclopedia. This is clearly POV 87.196.76.128 (talk) 09:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, too (as a US citizen) -- it would be naive, deceitful, pretentious and/or plain simply inaccurate to retain things as is. So what is to be done? I would suggest 1) Moving much of the contents to a new article specifically on self-identified American/US Libertarianism and 2) rewriting Libertarianism to provide a more comprehensive geopolitical overview (who from where self-identifies as such, and what it means; this would include, in part, American/US Libertarianism)Youngea (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This article already makes too many assertions without references. Now you want to change the whole article without a hwole bunch of WP:RS (reliable sources) making your point - sources as or more reliable than in this article. Show us a dozen good RS and we can talk... Carol Moore 16:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Terrible Sentence
Libertarianism is a political philosophy. It is redundant to call it "a term that refers to a political philosophy that may or may not have the political philosophy of libertarianism".

This is a terribly worded sentence: "They maintain that the initiation of force by any person or government, against another person or their property — with "force" meaning the use of physical force, the threat of it, or the commission of fraud against someone — who has not initiated physical force, threat, or fraud, is a violation of that principle."

Agreed. The first sentence is also bad:"The term libertarianism usually refers to a political philosophy maintaining that all persons are the absolute owners of their own lives, and should be free to do whatever they wish with their persons or property, provided they allow others the same liberty and avoid harming others by abusing their liberty." The last clause should jsut be deleted. Harming others is not un-libertarian. Bsharvy

It is poorly worded. However, harming others without just cause is un-libertarian. Beating up a random old lady is un-libertarian, but beating up a police officer who intends to throw you in jail for growing a plant is perfectly acceptable. This distinction needs to be made.JoeCarson 13:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you intending a parody here? I mean, please tell me in which ideology "beating up a random old lady" is condoned?  If that's how you scope out the parameters of the Libertarian view on violence, then you're representing it as a rather pointless addition to the political spectrum.  I have never heard any advocate of any (minimally coherent) political/ethical persuasion asserting the moral rightness of "harming others without just cause."  "harming others without just cause is un-libertarian"??  It's un-everything!  Where ideologies differ lies in how they define just cause.  You're just offering truisms as argument here.  This would be like me saying, if someone asked me why I opposed capital punishment, "because I'm against murder," and thinking I had made my point.  It just begs the question as to what constitutes murder. 24.90.17.134 02:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, ignoring the interesting remark about beating up police....there are many ways you can justifiably harm people who have done you no wrong. The classic example is any kind competition. Another way would be to be an alcoholic when there is a family that depends on you; this should not be illegal, even though it is harmful. You could vote for bad things, or for your personal self-interest over mine. And so on. Libertarian theory distinguishes wronging from harming. I am going to edit the sentence, if nobody objects.

I see your point. I assumed that physical harm was implied. You are correct. The people upstairs harm me with their terrible music all the time, but listening to garbage should not be outlawed. Libertarians oppose physical harm to others and their property. They generally do not oppose psychic harm. I have no problem with you improving the sentence.JoeCarson 17:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Populist
The image near the bottom puts Populist on the bottom left corner of the box at the bottom of economic and political freedom, directly opposed to libertarianism. While a libertarian would be opposed to a populist on the fact that there is no principle guiding their belief except for popular opinion, because a populist's belief can be whatever the popular opinion is, it is not accurate to describe them as polar opposite as the scale in that image does. The usual word for a polar opposite of a libertarian is a statist, one who supports control in economic and personal matters, the extensive planned society of the state. Perhaps someone could edit the image? Though as it seemed to have a particular name, this graph, then I expect it can't be edited and kept with the name of that scale, but could be posed as a more accurate factual version of that scale.


 * I think the idea is that Libertarianists (I am one but can't spell it!) would support even unpopular liberties, like the right to make racist comments, pay someone £1 for an hours labour, etc., while a popularist would restrain any liberty the public didn't aprove of- authoritarianisnm, if by the majority. Actually, I think the reason it isn't charted as fasicsm or statism is an act of modest- we're not (argueably falsly) putting ourselves against them, or relating the othetr two as being in some respects similar. Larklight 10:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"Criticism of libertarianism" section has misleading title
This section should either be renamed "Libertarian response to criticism" or the portions of the section's text which respond to or attempt to undermine said criticisms should be removed. The section also carries the tone of the apologist. If the section were written with a non-Libertarian voice it would carry more weight.

Much better (as of 20 Dec 2006). That's very close to NPOV now but could definitely be expanded. I'd be willing to write up a few paragraphs and submit for NPOV review (I'm not libertarian) if others agree that this section should be expanded. Also, a mention of communitarianism--in this section, in its own section, or at the very least in "See Also"--seems appropriate. 206.211.132.251 00:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, the whole section is someone's personal opinion and either unsourced or poor sources. There are much better defense of libertarianism than a youtube video and a criticisms of Objectivism page. Objectivism is NOT libertarianism.  Anyway, unless someone can come up with some NON-POV criticisms, sourced from relevant sources (and there are LOTS), I think I'm a gonna delete this section.
 * I hate to see what the rest of the article looks like! But am controlling self cause other more important stuff to work on.

Carol Moore 01:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

The formatting is messed up
On my Internet Explorer Version 6.0 there is a big gap between the heading "Principles" and the text. I'm not a geek so I am reluctant to muck around here, but I hope someone who is can fix it. In the edit page there's a "Political ideology entry points" with double one of this thing around it: {. This item does not appear on my screen, so that appears to be the problem.

Solution: Don't use Internet Explorer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.110.171.4 (talk) 22:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

more criticism on anti-animal rights issues needed
american libertarians are known to be more anti-animal rights and anti-environmental issues than most republicans. the article needs to reflect it.
 * Fair enough -- if we can find sourcing, it may be worth a mention. The first question I see is: are you referring to the American Libertarian Party in particular, or libertarian philosophy as a whole? There's an important distinction, there -- as an example, while many people would generally consider the US Republican Party conservative, they don't necessarily define the historic concept of conservatism. Make sense? Luna Santin 04:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Luna here. Also, I believe that it would be a similar error to conclude too much about libertarianism by looking at liberarians opposed to animal rights. Nozick had some remarks in Anarchy, State and Utopia that could be read as supportive of animal rights. Most libertarians are probably opposed to governments using violence to defend animal rights, but this seems to be an issue where people could hold any number of views and still all be libertarians. JLW777 00:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with JLW777. Yes, most libertarians are probably opposed to government violating the rights of human individuals in order to protect the rights of animals.  However, there is nothing inherent in libertarianism that says animals can't have equal rights to humans.  Also, this is related to children rights.  Does someone have the right, to, for example, trespass onto someone's property in order to stop that someone from beating his child?  How about torturing his pet?  Indeed, any number of views can all be libertarian on these issues.  Libertarianism is only cut and dried once rights are well-defined.  But when it comes to relative rights, and conflicting rights, things get murky.  --Serge 01:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Environmentalism and the EPA (or any other State exercise of force) are not synonymous. It's possible to hold a view that both respects a sustainable environment and self-determination.  However, self-ownership of the child trumps the trespassing infringement in that case, if the child requests aid and you choose to provide it.  (The language of "his child" is inherently confusing.  A parent cannot own their child as property; that would be slavery.)  As for animal rights, all non-persons can be property.  71.162.255.58 20:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think defining all non-persons as property is clearly speciesism, and in the long run our species could pay the ultimate cost there from a scientific standpoint … which is why I believe this comment, was originally started to point out that this article might need to show that. Nonprof. Frinkus 22:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Libertarianism's advocacy for the private property owner allows them to stop acts of violence such as pollution to their property. As for animal husbandry I don't know of any school of Libertarian thought advocates acts of violence against livestock. GrEp 15:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Objectivism & US Military operations
In the second to last paragraph under the Objectivism heading, I think the following is wrong and misleadingly sourced: "They have argued that it is right for the State to take pre-emptive military action when the evidence suggests a genuine risk that another State will initiate coercive use of physical force. Many also would like to see the State more aggressively protect the rights of US individuals and corporations abroad - by means including military action in response to nationalization.[22]" The [22] source is a link to the Libertarian Party's website in which they discuss their opposition to US Military policy in Iraq. There is no source for these claims regarding Objectivist positions on military action abroad. These sentences should either be removed (I believe that the final sentence is particularly erroneous), or should be properly sourced. Any thoughts?

Randallgood 20:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Since it remains undefended, I have removed the offending passage I mentioned above.

Randallgood 02:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The disambiguation page is better than this article
It seems to me that the term "libertarianism" covers a spectrum of political philosophies centred around the general principle of individual freedom. Broadly there are two types of libertarian (for convenience, these can be called right and left respectively): This article seems to have hijacked the term on behalf of the first group. The disambiguation page actually does a better job of defining libertarianism than this article, which is titled "Libertarianism" but in fact covers only a part of the libertarian spectrum. Rodparkes 02:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * those who regard the right to private property as a vital component of individual freedom; and
 * those who view the concentration of economic power in the hands of individuals as a threat to the freedom of others, and therefore seek to limit private property rights in some way, typically through some form of communal ownership. It is in this sense that Murray Bookchin, for example,  called himself a "libertarian socialist".
 * I agree and I feel that this page ought to redirect to the disambiguation. I live in Australia where the socialist and capitalist forms are both referred to freely as libertarianism, though rarely both by the same individuals. In the north, for example, from whence my grandparents came, people are more likely to speak of libertarianism then libertarianism; in the south where I live, it is the opposite.
 * The problem occurs, of course, when considering that libertarianism can refer to anarchism, libertarian socialism or, well, libertarianism. As far as I know there is no alternate name for libertarianism. The only solution I can think of is to merge this article with one of the liberalism articles, such as classical liberalism. ~  Swi tch  (✉ ✍ ☺ ☒ ) 05:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Why not rename the article? Perhaps "libertarian capitalism". JoeCarson 12:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You maybe interested in a similar debate taking place at Talk:Liberalism. I however like the status quo. The article currently describes what libertarianism is about and goes on slowly to describe different kinds of libertarianism, just like the structure at liberalism. In a way, it is a disambiguity page, only that it is more refined. Furthermore, libertarian socialism is a merging of socialism and libertarianism. Surely we need to define libertarianism first before we could define libertarian socialism. If we are turning libertarianism into a disambiguity page, wouldn't that by extension mean socialism needs to be turned into a disambiguity page, simply because there are many branches of socialism? I don't think so and thus, I'm against turning this page into a disambiguity. __earth (Talk) 15:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Libertarian socialism predates libertarian capitalism, it is not a merger of libertarianism and socialism. you have it exactly backwards - right-libertarianism was created by merging classical liberalism with an anarchist/libertarian socialist critique of the State.  I strongly support the idea that this page be renamed "Libertarian Capitalism" or somesuch and that "Libertarianism should bring up a short, concise page that briefly summarizes the two schools, examines areas of overlap, and directs to both.  As written, this page serves only to confuse the issue for readers new to the topic(s) and gives short shrift to the older global tradition (libertarian socialism) in favor of the newer geographically-limited tradition (libertarian capitalism, which is mostly limited to the in the anglo-sphere).    Anarchocelt (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Why not just change the introduction a little to say that there is right libertarian and left libertarianism. There's already a section in this article on left libertarianism. So this article is not just about right libertarianism anyway. Operation Spooner 18:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, everyone. I cannot agree with Earth that the article really covers the various types of libertarianism; the focus is very much to the right. The small section on "left-libertarianism" is very limited in scope, and fails to mention Murray Bookchin, probably the most important 20th Century contributor to left-libertarian thought. In fact the article's very first sentence explicitly states that it is about the type of libertarianism that advocates private property rights, thereby excluding most of the left wing of libertarian thinking from the outset. I believe that "Libertarianism" should point to the disambiguation page, and this article should, as JoeCarson suggests, be renamed "libertarian capitalism" or something similar. Rodparkes 02:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree again; I'd also like to point out that forms of libertarian socialism, as well as their being called libertarianism, predate the modern meaning of libertarianism by several decades. I would however contend that Noam Chomsky is probably a more prominent modern left-libertarian. The issue also exists that this article addresses left-libertarianism as variants of right-libertarianism &mdash; it covers agorism rather than council communism for example. It does make mention of Chomsky but in little context, and Bookchin is absent. ~  Swi tch  (✉ <font color="#800099">✍ <font color="#800099">☺ <font color="#800099">☒ ) 08:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Agorism is just anarcho-capitalism under another name that calls itself left-libertarian to attract the leftists to the anarcho-capitalism. I haven't seen any non-self-referential references for it being left libertarian. Operation Spooner 23:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Since we are discussing on whether libertarianism is libertarian socialism or libertarian capitalism, what does libertarianism on its own (i.e. neutral of the left and right connotation) mean? That neutralness should be the hallmark of this page instead of being a mere disambiguity page. Turning this into a disambiguity page would mean that libertarianism does not have a meaning on its own. __earth (Talk) 04:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Each person should be allowed to do what he wills provided that he does not infringe on the liberty of others to do the same. That's basic libertarianism. Right libertianism and left libertarianism divide over property issues. Left libertarians believe natural resources are owned by everyone in common, or other egalitarian-based doctrines. Operation Spooner 05:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Spot on. Shall we start adapting the pages then?  Swi tch  <font color="#800099">(<font color="#800099">✉ <font color="#800099">✍ <font color="#800099">☺ <font color="#800099">☒ ) 04:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean by "adapting the pages." What's your suggestion? Operation Spooner 05:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Whatever that is, do we agree that this should not be a mere disambiguity page? __earth (Talk) 10:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe we do agree. I think it should cover "libertarianism" as broadly as possible, as the group of ideologies all of which aim to maximise individual freedom. Libertarians, both left and right, oppose state ownership of industry, external intrusion into personal affairs and the abolition of victimless crimes (those last two overlap), for example. Libertarians can be minarchistic or anarchistic. Both left and right libertarians propose economic arrangements that they believe will lead to greater expression of individual freedom, but disagree on issues such as the market, property and usury (some say these all maximise liberty, others say all crush it; many have different opinions on each). You could say anarcho-capitalists are the most right; agorists, more left as they oppose intellectual property but still right; this continues until you reach collectivist anarchism and then libertarian communism on the far left. Interestingly, the far left and right share some characteristics the more centrist libertarians do not, including opposition to money.
 * This page, I believe, should give an overview, describe similarities and differences between schools, and discuss the major issues (state or anarchy, socialism or capitalism or third way). It should include sections on the broadest of the schools and provide links to libertarian socialism, anarchism, minarchism, the libertarian capitalism (or whatever it is to be called; I'd personally call it liberalism because I'm Australian) article to be created, and more.
 * Please note that I'm trying to work with the "other side" here. If this were Switchopaedia libertarianism would redirect to anarchism, which would not include anarcho-capitalism. I dare say that Operation Spooner could say the same. But together we can make this article NPOV, concise and accurate. ~  Swi tch  <font color="#800099">(<font color="#800099">✉ <font color="#800099">✍ <font color="#800099">☺ <font color="#800099">☒ ) 07:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So what are you saying? If you could get away with it you would POV the anarchism article to exclude free-market anarchism? Well that's admirable. Anyway, you mentioned agorism and intellectual property. According the the agorism article it depends on the agorist whether he supports it or not. It's not an official agorist position either way. It also says agorism is a type of anarcho-capitalism, which of course it is. It's simply anarcho-capitalism under another name for marketing purposes for people that don't want to use the term "capitalism." What complicates matters though is that agorists call themselves left libertarians, but there's no secondary source acknowledging that claim. They say they're "left" simply because they advocate black markets. Operation Spooner 18:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You know that A) that's not what I'm saying and B) it's not relevant to this discussion. What I'm saying is that if the anarchism article represented my personal opinion it would exclude anarcho-capitalism &mdash; it would include anti-capitalist free-market anarchisms like mutualism &mdash; but that's not the point here. I'm looking to discuss the status of the article. What do you think? What do the others think? ~  Swi tch  <font color="#800099">(<font color="#800099">✉ <font color="#800099">✍ <font color="#800099">☺ <font color="#800099">☒ ) 01:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you know what you're saying? A free market is a free market. The term "capitalism" in anarcho-capitalism just refers to a free market. Operation Spooner 23:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please stop taking us off on a tangent, OS. We are meant to be discussing the status of this article. Please stick to the issue at hand. ~  Swi tch  <font color="#800099">(<font color="#800099">✉ <font color="#800099">✍ <font color="#800099">☺ <font color="#800099">☒ ) 00:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Free markets do not equal anarcho-capitalism. anarcho-capitalism also requires private ownership of the means of production and the 'common heritage of humanity' (as kropotkin put it).  you can have a free market in which individuals and/or collectives are free to sell, buy, and trade anything that they produce but in which primary goods (the means of production) are collectively owned by the community or by workers.  I know this distinction might be perceived as a bit a bit off-topic, but it's an important one and i believe relevant to this article because libertarian capitalism / anarcho-capitalism is sometimes referred to as 'market anarchism' as though free markets were synonymous with capitalist-style private property.  they are not.  Anarchocelt (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

A lot of this talk page consists of users putting forth arguments as to what various terms mean or should mean. I see very little reference to what the concepts are most commonly referred to in the literature: surely that would be a good place to start! If I pick up a polsci textbook in America, how does it define Libertarianism? Is it different than the definition given by a textbook written from another POV? If so, what do scholars "outside" the debate have to say about it? (And so on.) --Starwed 08:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This article is inherently POV because the article just takes for granted the Property Libertarian or Capitalist Libertarian or Right Libertarian appropriation of the term "Libertarian" and does not even disambiguate other strains of libertarianism (although it mentions some in the "History" section). I agree with the proposal above to rename this article Property Libertarianism or Capitalist Libertarianism or Right Libertarianism, and then adding a clarifying sentence in the lead paragraph to clarify the scope of the article and distinguish other types.--NYCJosh 21:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not our job to decide what the "right" meaning of the word is. It is our job to use words in the way they will be understood by readers, in the way that can be supported by references and common usage in the field. As it happens, in the field today, the term "libertarianism" is almost exclusively used to refer to the view discussed in this article ... even by that view's opponents, for instance here and here. --FOo 21:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Citing two bloggers who criticize and don't happen to contest the term is hardly evidence that libertarianism means exclusively what you say it means. I can cite you many more sources, including authoritative ones, that do contest the term or use the term to describe what may be termed left libertarian or anarchist ideas or positions. It is our job not to confuse the reader and not to take sides in idealogical battles.--NYCJosh 22:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I know 25-30 years ago a lot of lefties were calling themselves "libertarians" and on that basis I have always thought the article should start out with what libertarians have in common and then have separate section on the various types of libertarians. However, you really have to prove there are a lot of lefties calling themselves libertarians now a days first. Then maybe the intro could be made more neutral and the sections highlight the differences. Carol Moore 22:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc


 * You just acknowledged that "25-30 years ago a lot of lefties were calling themselves 'libertarians.'" This article is not just supposed to be about the last two decades, is it? It is supposed to be about the concept(s), not just recent trends. BTW, I don't think that this nomenclature has fundamentally changed over the past few decades. Just do a quick search in google by typing in "left libertarian" and, separatly, type in "libertarian socialism," "anarchism" (to see that the term libertarian will be often be used as a synonym), or the like. The issue is not how the term is used 51% of the time. As long as the term means two or more very different things in common usage, the clarification should be made with appropriate links in a prominent way.--NYCJosh 01:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I've continued this thread under The many shortcomings and problems with this article below. Peter G Werner (talk) 07:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Continental Europe
How can this statement be true: "In continental Europe and to a lesser extent the British Isles the older political meaning of "libertarianism" prevails..."? They don't speak English in Continental Europe. Operation Spooner 17:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? I know hundreds of people in continental Europe who speak English as well as, if not better than, many Americans I know. samwaltz 12:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting, I've lived all my life in continental Europe. And over here the UK is regarded as more liberal. Even Blair is regarded by most continentals not as a Socialist, but a liberal.  Rocator (talk) 03:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

"Libertarianism" isn't an English word anyway. For example, French has "libertarine" Italian has "libertariano" and Holland has "liberijkenn". German has "Libertywenschenminister". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.184.5.184 (talk) 01:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make any sense. You say "libertarianism" isn't an English word, then proceed to list different words for other langauges... Make up your mind. :) &mdash;Memotype:: T 06:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

See Also to long?
Does anyone else think that the "See Also" section is to long? Harpakhrad11 00:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination
Upon its review on October 24, 2007, this good article nomination was quick-failed because it:

"contains cleanup banners including, but not limited to, cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced, etc, or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, huh, or similar tags"

thus making it ineligible for good article consideration.

This article did not receive a thorough review, and may not meet other parts of the good article criteria. I encourage you to remedy this problem (and any others) and resubmit it for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far. --Hemlock Martinis 19:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Structure
I think the way the article is currently structured is not good. What do you think about something like this:


 * Principles and views
 * Natural rights and consequentialism
 * Civil liberties and the role of the state


 * History
 * Libertarian philosophy in the academy


 * Schools of thought (general overview)
 * The libertarian movement
 * Libertarian institutions and prominent individuals
 * Growth of libertarianism


 * Issues
 * Objectivism

-- Vision Thing -- 18:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This seems like a good start. I think it would be a good idea, though, to make sure that we treat libertarianism is a range of political positions and not a single unitary school of thought. The current introduction, for instance, spends too long on the theoretical divisions of libertarianism and not enough on what is held in common -- which is to say, advocacy of individual liberty. --FOo 21:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)