Talk:Libertarianism/Archive 20

support for a new rfc, the previous rfc has been closed without consensus or conclusion.
suggestions for title of the new rfc here: Darkstar1st (talk) 08:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yet, LK is claiming that there is a consensus of opinion (see below). This is extraordinary. BlueRobe (talk) 08:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * the wording was flawed from the beginning. right-libertarian isn't even recognized as a term to be included below libertarian-trans-humanism  Darkstar1st (talk) 08:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * For the binary question of whether to solely write about minarchist right-libertarianism, the consensus was to disregard the weak arguments that desired to have us ignore an understanding found in a multitude of reliable sources, and to follow WP:NPOV, as clearly followed on a range of Wiki articles with a similar topic. That you don't like this consensus may be one thing, but we have it all the same. The matter of completely stripping viewpoints from the article is closed. Please respect that.  Also note: Tendentious editing is considered disruptive and blocks may be sought against editors choosing to tendentiously oppose a decision, as if they didn't hear it.  If editors choose to continue harping on whether viewpoints should be stripped from the article or soapboxing about how a narrow writing is the way "it should be", I will be forced to proceed to the WP:ANI. BigK HeX (talk) 08:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * this section is for discussing the title of the new rfc only, please move your comments. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no. BigK HeX (talk) 08:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, BigK HeX, I'm tired of you acting like you are an admin, which you are not. You are just as important as the rest of us, so stop making threats to us.  Toa   Nidhiki  05 

Revisionist definition of "consensus"?
With regard to the RFC: "Should this page discuss only right-libertarianism?", the conclusion has been stated thus: "The consensus was: "Libertarianism" should be broadly construed to include all significant viewpoints from reliable sources."

The definition of Consensus "is defined in English as, firstly - general agreement and, secondly - group solidarity of belief or sentiment."

Wikipaedia's own definition goes on to declare that,


 * "The formal process of achieving consensus ideally requires serious treatment of the considered opinion of each group member: those advocating the adoption, say, of a particular course of action, genuinely wish to hear those who may be against the proposal, since discussion, it is supposed, can only enhance ultimate consensus. The hope is that in such circumstances action, or the adoption of group opinion, without resolution of dissent will be rare."

The dispute has not been resolved in any way. There has been little (read: no) compromise by the parties on either side of the dispute. The parties on both sides of the dispute remain as intransigent as ever. NO consensus has been achieve on this issue.

Why has consensus been claimed, in regards to such a polemic issue, when no such consensus exists? BlueRobe (talk) 08:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Please do NOT start anymore talk page threads on this same issue. If you have an objection to the RfC, please find an appropriate noticeboard and file a report. Input from the broader community was sought and we received it. Any editors that hope to contribute to the project for a length of time must learn to accept that editing here is a collaborative effort. NO article is going to end up looking "just the way we want," which is exactly why we shouldn't try to WP:OWN any articles. As this is a community project, we should show respect for the community. Of course, consensus not falling your way on this issue isn't the end of the world, and I'm sure there's much that you can contribute on other issues. BigK HeX (talk) 08:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You have no idea what the word "consensus" means. Stop using it, you're just looking foolish. BlueRobe (talk) 08:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I know what it means. In the face of intransigence, we have no problems defaulting to "rough consensus".  It's pretty clear that your opinion was given due consideration.  In any case, let the matter be.  It's over. BigK HeX (talk) 08:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no "rough consensus". There is the usual round of Wikipaedian petty politics (blatant threats, constant harassment and rhetorical doublespeak) where a gang of ideologues have sabotaged the Libertarianism page and substituted their own revisionist agenda. Much of the information that is on the page is misrepresentative, at best, and outright wrong, at worst, (for instance, that sheer nonsense about Noam Chomsky being a Libertarian). Further more, the Libertarianism page has been gutted of right-Libertarianism so effectively that it is essentially useless to those readers trying to learn about Libertarianism. And the lede is utterly ridiculous, (the bloody dictionary contains more information on Libertarianism!)
 * BigK HeX, do you get a thrill out of trashing the Libertarianism page to the point where there is NO point in anyone reading it?
 * Is it any wonder that Wikipaedia is falling into such disrepute? BlueRobe (talk) 09:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This article has been trashed by flooding it with over representation of off-beat stuff. The answer is probably two pronged.   More coverage of mainstream stuff (e.g. where are the largest scale practices of Libertarianism, and what's happening there?) and reducing coverage of the small minority views.North8000 (talk) 09:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * North8000, I completely agree. But, lets face it, we're not going to see any common sense around here any time soon. It is patently obvious that the Libertarianism page is complete gibberish. The page lacks a real lede, it doesn't have a complete account of the predominant version of Libertarianism (aka right-Libertarianism) or its main features, it has gross misrepresentations (Noam Chomsky labeled a Libertarian?!) and the Undue Weight given to fringe ideologies is beyond absurd. But, there's nothing we can do about it while half a dozen revisionistic ideologues and saboteurs are deemed to represent the "consensus".
 * Either the lefties are deliberately sabotaging the Libertarianism page as a way of censoring Libertarianism out of Wikipaedia, or this is all some elaborate Wikipaedian version of Punk'd. Either way, this whole process disgusts me.
 * I'm giving serious consideration to creating an alternative Libertarianism page. The petty politics behind the scenes of this page have shown me just how little integrity our opponents across the floor really have. BlueRobe (talk) 10:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm too new here to know the folks involved so I'm just commenting on the content. There's gotta be a way to get to a better article.  North8000 (talk) 10:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * One "three birds with one stone" thing that should help is to start a section on Libertarian organizations, including links to the main articles elsewhere. North8000 (talk) 10:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Lawrencekhoo should read up on RfC policy before declaring a specific outcome. "RfCs are not votes. Discussion controls the outcome; it is not a matter of counting up the number of votes." --Xerographica (talk) 11:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It is exceedingly obvious that Lawrencekhoo gave consideration to each comment. Heck, that is one the most thorough RfC closures I've seen for quite some time. BigK HeX (talk) 12:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Xerographica, I'm still trying to explain the definition of the word "consensus" to them, (<-- lefties, please click on this bloody link). At this point, I'm just thankful they weren't compelled to take their shoes and socks off if the "broad" vote had passed 10.
 * Requests that they accord due weight to our arguments and sources would seem to be in vain, given that they've barely acknowledged the fatal blow you delivered with your WP:Undue Weight argument (which was left as little more than an inconclusive after-thought at the end of LK's conclusion.) They still maintain that, because a handful of random Secondary Sources use the term "left-Libertarianism", then left-Libertarianism deserves equal weight with right-Libertarianism in the Libertarianism page. *facepalm*
 * BigK HeX, it is "exceedingly obvious" that LK has no more idea what "consensus" means than you do. There is more of a consensus in New Zealand's Parliament (that is to say, there is no consensus) than there was on that rfc, but that hasn't stopped LK (and you) claiming consensus for the "broad" view. BlueRobe (talk) 12:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * To tell you the truth I don't see how the RFC question relates to the current issue of the article. It essentially asked whether or not to completely exclude coverage of less common forms of Libertarianism. However, I did find the end summary thoughtful and useful, especially since it avoided using the flawed "broadly/narrowly" wording of the question. If you take the summary in terms of the current state of the article, it says that the space in the article devoted to unusual but RS-covered variants of Libertarianism should be reduced, and that variants and terms with no RS coverage should be eliminated. North8000 (talk) 13:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Since I am mentioned by name, I should clarify that the standard to use when closing discussions and determining consensus on Wikipedia is 'rough consensus'. This concept of rough consensus does not imply unanimity. See WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS for a discussion of this process. I would also like to remind all to refrain from any further comments about editors, as such personal attacks are against policy, and can lead to an editor being blocked from editing Wikipedia. If anyone here feels that I have closed the discussion improperly, please raise the issue at the appropriate forum, otherwise, please refrain from further disparaging my efforts here. LK (talk) 13:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that you did a good job. I also think that some are misinterpreting what you wrote.  See my comment one post up which I think was simultaneous with yours.  North8000 (talk) 13:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * LK, I am so bloody sick of left-wingers threatening anyone who challenges them. Never a day goes by when BigK HeX doesn't threaten someone who challenges him, (usually for doing precisely what he does with great frequency), and now you're doing it. Do your worst. I'm done with the ridiculous sham that Wikipaedia has become. In recent weeks I have discovered why fellow academics roll their eyes when the topic of Wikipaedia comes up during discussion. Now I know why one of my colleages has declared that ANY reference to Wikipaedia in a student's work will result in an a course-fail.
 * In every Wikipaedia page where I have deep knowledge on the subject I have seen petty politics undermining the integrity of Wikipaedia pages. The Libertarianism page isn't even the worst example, despite being so thoroughly broken that it has become nothing more than an incoherent shambles that is full of lies, half-truths and an absurd apportionment of Undue Weight based on the ridiculous justifications of random-secondary-source-used-that-word. The lede is a schizo shell of an introduction and the main article barely even touches on mainstream US Libertarianism. And the fact that 99% of self-identified Libertarians will immediately recognise that the Libertarianism page is full of utter NONSENSE doesn't phase you dishonest saboteurs one bit. Are you PROUD of the worthless sham that you have turned this page into? YOU DISGUST ME. BlueRobe (talk) 14:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * @BlueRobe: You don't understand the importance of references. You have made significant statements here too, but with no reference. Some of them: "full of lies...", "absurd apportionment of Undue Weight", "99% of self-identified", "full of utter nonsense"--WHO says so? All the "lies" are properly sourced. On what basis do you say that the weight is undue? Where do you get the number '99' from? Almost everytime others have pointed out WP:OR to you. N6n (talk) 14:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * N6n, you don't seem to appreciate the level of dishonesty that is at work in here. The criticism by the right are ignored. The criticism by the left are exaggerated. The Libertarianism page is a ridiculous sham, and so is the "debate" *cough* in these talk pages. The right-Libertarians HAVE provided reliable sources (which are immediately ignored and forgotten). Meanwhile, the left-Libertarian RSs aren't even on point! They insist that random-secondary-source-used-that-word is enough to justify devoting half the Libertarianism page to left-Libertarianism. This is absurd. I'm done with it. The fact that I have banged my head against such an extraordinary level of dishonesty and irrationality in this tower of Babel for so long is probably grounds for my expulsion from Mensa. Good luck working on a Libertarianism page that has been rendered completely WORTHLESS to anyone who wants an accurate appreciation of Libertarianism, (most of it is f**king Anarchism!) BlueRobe (talk) 15:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't bothered to read the non-WP:RS related bla blah blah above, but I think MY cleaned up version of the lead should solve problems for now. Remember a lot of things happen through pure drift followed by massive fights over some position no one really strongly holds. Invest less ego and more RATIONALITY and maybe we could get more done. Who ever added the ref about the nonagression principle to end of the paragraph, please move it to the nonaggression sentence. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Please no unsourced WP:OR and Non-English, non quoted sources in lead
As I just had to remove here. Get some English or easily translated sources and quote them if no online link. In a sensitive editing environment, why try people's patience?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * take it up with the left-libertarian wp page, it is on the 3rd line, and check the source again, it actually does include an english source as well. Hans-Georg Betz, Radical Right-Wing Populism in Western Europe (London: Palgrave-Macmillan 1994) 180-1.  Darkstar1st (talk) 21:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So ... have you actually read this source?? BigK HeX (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

New Issue: How relevant is the popular media?
This has been a common theme: "North8000: 'I've been an active Libertarian for decades, as a matter of politics rather than academics. The common theme of all contacts has been simply smaller and less intrusive government, and Freedom. 2/3 of this article is Greek to me, with the various forms I've never heard of, and the thoughts of all of the various intellectuals and philosophers. I don't know whether that means I know less than or more than (forest for the trees situation) what's here.'"

How valid is this line of thought? To what degree should the popular media guide the coverage? If not the popular media, on what basis do we decide how to proportion the coverage? (e.g., citations?) N6n (talk) 12:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't equate my point with the type of media.  But either way, a good starting point would be to start adding coverage of the larger scale instances of people practicing Libertarianism such as organizations.  North8000 (talk) 13:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That's an interesting point. Most of us will be quite reluctant to give much credence to popular media (because most popular media sources talk a lot of crap). But, popular media is also a strong indicator of how terms and concepts are understood or appreciated by the general population, and this can sometimes be strikingly different from how academics (living in their Ivory Towers) understand the terms and concepts.
 * While popular beliefs are not the "be-all and end-all" of the true nature of a term or concept, they can constitute useful guides in relation to WP:Undue Weight issues. Personally, I think the significance of such popular beliefs, as reported by the popular media, is dependent upon the complexity of the terms or concepts being discussed. For instance, popular beliefs are largely irrelevant to issues of Cosmology (Stephen Hawking et al don't give a toss what most of the population think about Big Bang Theory). But, popular beliefs are very relevant to issues related to popular sports.
 * In relation to Libertarianism, that sub-section of popular media that identifies itself (correctly, rather than flippantly) as being Libertarian would provide a strong indication of the prominence of competing beliefs within Libertarian discourse. BlueRobe (talk) 13:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * @North8000: Perhaps "popular perception" would be more accurate, but there is no way to measure it! So, we better stick to "popular media". —Preceding unsigned comment added by N6n (talk • contribs) 14:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * @BlueRobe: Those "ivory tower" 'academics' are who originate ideas. Anyway, concrete suggestions please. N6n (talk) 14:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * BlueRobe, there is a difference between an encyclopedia and a dictionary. TFD (talk) 14:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * TFD, why don't you just state your point instead of insulting people? North8000 (talk) 15:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It was not my intention to insult BlueRobe, but I have revised my comment anyway. Incidentally you may wish to comment on BlueRobe's comments above - do you think that they represent the model of civility we should follow?  There is however a difference between an encyclopedia that describes topics and a dictionary that describes popular usage.  One would not expect for example an article about royalty to include JFK and Elvis or an article about liberalism to exclude laissez-faire economics, despite how these terms may be used in the media.  TFD (talk) 16:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * But there are many "term" type topics where the main and useful meaning of the term is defined by mainstream/popular practice and usage. Determining and conveying that in an un-obfuscated manner is an important task for the article. I think that this is one of those cases.North8000 (talk) 17:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please take philosophical debates to talk pages. If there's a question on particular popular media source for this article, discuss it here. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * IMHO a discussion such as this is germane to and important for the article. There are infinite possibilities for source shopping out there....plenty to make a chopped up incoherent mess out of the article, as has happened to this one. North8000 (talk) 17:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So if the popular media uses the term libertarian to refer to the mainstream of the Republican Party, do we ignore academic writing? Do we call NAFTA libertarian?  TFD (talk) 17:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that this section is getting confused, probably starting with the title. I think that the useful topic is info from RS's (whatever they may be) regarding prevalence of practice of these variants. North8000 (talk) 19:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Just list the refs you have a problem with and why. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * @North8000: You are right, my topic is bad. It should be something like: "on what basis do we decide the proportion of coverage". Sorry for the confusion. Please start a new thread (if you think it is relevant, etc.) N6n (talk) 08:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A new thread, "This article may be inaccurate..." is relevant. N6n (talk) 08:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

One way or the other
TFD you just undid someone's edit with no reason stated except "need consensus first". Then minutes later you did big edits of your own without consensus, and then asserted that they should stay until there is a consensus to remove them! North8000 (talk) 22:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It has already been made clear to Darkstar1st that the edit was contentious, with reasons already given. BigK HeX (talk) 22:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This page is to discuss article content. If you have any reason to support the inclusion of the text I deleted, could you please explain it.  TFD (talk) 23:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that the double standard was hypocritical and undid TFD's removal of the tags. --Xerographica (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Please avoid personal attacks. You need to provide a reason for the tags.  Whatever reason there was has been long forgotten.  TFD (talk) 01:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Criticizing behavior is not a personal attack. I saw that you took the tags down a second time.  I'd put them back up except that I don't like top level tags plus we need to look for a more appropriate one like "this article is a jumbled, uninformative mess".  Or else put our energies into fixing it.   North8000 (talk) 01:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hypocritical means professing feelings or virtues one does not have. It refers to intention not behavior and therefore is a personal attack.  TFD (talk) 01:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The term is extensively applied to behavior which exhibits a double standard, and I think that that was clearly the usage here. North8000 (talk) 01:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Saying that someone exhibits a double standard is a comment on their intentions. For example when you say something that is wrong, I assume you are mistaken rather than that you are lying.  TFD (talk) 05:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD, the reasons for the tags have not been long forgotten. This article clearly violates Wikipedia policy by giving undue weight to minor and highly irrelevant definitions of libertarianism. Until the proportion of coverage reflects the prominence of the various viewpoints this article should have those disclaimers.

Right now the only evidence that has been supplied to support inclusion of the minor viewpoints is that a handful of authors debate the various viewpoints. Academics debating viewpoints in no way indicates how widely held those viewpoints are. Just because this talk page primarily consists of left-libertarianism versus libertarianism in no way indicates how many of us editors hold the left-libertarianism viewpoint.

This article should reflect political relevance. Libertarianism is tons more politically relevant than left-libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism combined. It's so much more politically relevant that it meets Wikipedia's criteria for primary topic. You don't realize that because you still have difficulties with the basics...such as whether libertarianism follows economic conservatism or not. BigK HeX is incapable of recognizing the organizational, practical, theoretical and policy value of giving each definition of "libertarianism" its own dedicated article. Carolmooredc, an anarchist, is well aware how irrelevant anarchist varieties are and has been trying to increase their relevance by advertising them in the lead of this article. With you three editors controlling this article...saying that this article requires a disclaimer is a huge understatement. --Xerographica (talk) 03:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Strike the personal attacks. BigK HeX (talk) 03:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Just statements of facts...
 * TFD said of libertarians..."They actually support economic liberalism not economic conservatism."
 * Carolmooredc said..."I'm more a Rothbard libertarian who became a decentralist libertarian since I don't care if people live in anarchist or minarchist communities as long as there's no central govt and communities don't aggress on each other and work out their differences peaceably."
 * Your response to the issue of undue weight was, "Thanks, we've got it covered in the article with, "Right-libertarianism is thought to be better known than left-libertarianism""
 * Let's review...TFD doesn't grasp the basics, Carolmooredc just wants to promote anarcho-capitalism (Rothbard) and you think ONE SENTENCE solves the fundamental problem of undue weight. Yup...with you three in charge of this article a huge disclaimer is definitely necessary.  --Xerographica (talk) 03:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Strike the personal attacks. And moreover, do NOT put words in my mouth or take them out-of-context. BigK HeX (talk) 03:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Since you're not familiar with the undue weight policy I guess it's no surprise you're not familiar with the personal attack policy. According to Wikipedia policy, "pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack".  Put words in your mouth?  Out of context?  Seriously?  It was a direct quote regarding undue weight.  --Xerographica (talk) 04:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It was a direct quote in the context of your continuing tendentious soapboxing about stripping viewpoints from the article. In any case, you blatantly misrepresent my position on the matter, so don't presume to know me.  And actually, your speculation of my familiarity with policy is laughable.  I've asked you to strike your personal attacks and to cease the WP:IDHT "primary topic" ranting -- that discussion has been closed, even though you may not have liked the outcome.  Still, you choose to push forward, though many editors hold the opinion that it is disruptive.  But, good luck with that attitude.  BigK HeX (talk) 04:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "Soapboxing" is the word that you and Carolmooredc use with great frequency to indicate that somebody's point is totally and utterly frivolous and barely worth responding to. We have valid points and we've presented sufficient supporting evidence.  But because of the reasons I've already mentioned...you three continue doing whatever the hell you like.  When I arrived on the scene you three were completely ignoring Darkstar1st and even trying to get him block/banned even though he was patiently trying to explain to you the problem of undue weight.  And you're still trying to get him blocked.  To block me and others from editing the article you "protected" it from IP editors.  Born2cycle expended a lot of energy trying to correct the problem of undue weight but who knows what happened to him.  BlueRobe seems to have burnt out trying to correct the very same problem.  So no, it's not me.  It's you three.  --Xerographica (talk) 05:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

(out) Xerographic, this is getting off topic, but right-libertarians support an economic theory called economic liberalism. This theory was based on the economic theories of Adam Smith and developed in the 19th century by liberal economists including Bastiat and Ricardo. In the 20th century liberal economists, including Hayek, Mises and Friedman, tried to revive liberal economics. Libertarians of all stripes have always rejected conservative economics, also called mercantilism, which relied on high tariffs. If you believe that libertarians support mercantilism and reject liberal economics, then you should provide a source. TFD (talk) 05:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * One more time...Modern liberalism and classical liberalism are two completely different things. Modern liberals are all about state intervention into the economy.  They want a big government.  The word "liberal" is synonymous with the Democratic Party.  On the other hand are the conservatives...aka the Republicans.  They do not want government intervention into the economy...and they want a smaller government than Democrats.  "Conservative" doesn't mean going all the way back to mercantilism!  For goodness sake.  It means going back to classical liberalism.


 * Socially liberal and economically conservative means taking social freedoms from the left and fiscal responsibility from the right. We can't say socially liberal AND economically liberal because that would make us liberals.  However, if everybody used "liberal" in the sense you did then we wouldn't have to go around saying classical liberal or libertarian.  --Xerographica (talk) 05:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * We come back to the problem of explaining right libertarianism. If it is a revival of classical liberalism, well classical liberalism was never as extreme - they supported welfare, health and safety laws, free education and public works.  Even Herbert Spencer turned against them in his article "The New Toryism".  On the other hand, they were not very socially liberal either, bringing in blue laws etc.  And their 20th century turn to the welfare state can be seen as a way of breaking up traditional social arrangements - family, church, gentry, just a continuation.  TFD (talk) 06:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This might help. Watch this c-span video...Tea Party Movement and Government.  Take notes on the use of the word "libertarianism".  Also, pay especially close attention to Jeffrey Bell's portion.  Count how many times he uses some combination of economically/socially conservative/liberal.  Here's a cheat sheet...
 * * conservatives = socially conservative and economically conservative
 * * modern liberals = socially liberal and economically liberal
 * * libertarians = socially liberal and economically conservative


 * While you're at it...search through the c-span video archives for "libertarianism" to get an idea of how prominent the various definitions are. --Xerographica (talk) 17:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

"This article may be inaccurate in or unbalanced towards certain viewpoints"
Could someone please provide a contemporary (i.e., within the last 60 years) source that provides a viewpoint of the subject that represents the viewpoint that they wish the article to reflect. TFD (talk) 06:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure I understand your question. Personally I'd like to see proportionate coverage of all of the belief sets with the word "Libertarian" in them. And do this with respect to each of two areas:  1. Preponderance of viewpoints in prominent leaders and "thinkers" (philosophers, academics )in this area, and 2.  preponderance in the number of people currently practicing Libertarianism, who self-identify primarily as such.   And, speaking of the latter, a massive "hole" in this article is coverage of practice of Libertarianism.
 * I think that everybody here knows that the above would naturally lead to reduced coverage of the rarer or small minority forms of Libertarianism. North8000 (talk) 12:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * In the context of WP policies/guidelines,it's inaccuracy and tilt is over-representation of small minority forms of Libertarianism.North8000 (talk) 12:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you please provide a source that discusses the "preponderance of viewpoints". Which of 1. or 2. do you suggest we use?  do we use the beliefs of self-declared libertarians or what the individuals/parties they support believe?  How do we treat historical libertarianism or the development of modern libertarianism?  Could someone please provide an example of an article (rs or not) that illustrates the balance you would find acceptable.  TFD (talk) 13:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If the idea sounds good, lets work toward it (find sources with info on this) rather than what appears to be searching for roadblocks like implying that we need to have all of the details from later steps in place before we take the first step, which is finding sources to guide this. On your last question, I'm not knowledgeable enough on the changes to answer the question. Perhaps I could find out from this article if it wasn't such a mess. :-)  North8000 (talk) 14:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * finally a compromise, 2 articles, both branched in the disambiguation page, modern libertarian, historical libertarian. ty tfd  Darkstar1st (talk) 13:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

"Personally I'd like to see proportionate coverage of all of the belief sets with the word "Libertarian" in them. ". Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Every WP article should be about a separate topic, not a summary of every topic that might be referred to by the term that happens to be the article title. --Born2cycle (talk) 14:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. That statement of mine represented an attempted compromise or interpretation of that. The issues is that with ALL of the terms in dispute / being discussed here, there are some people saying that they should be in this article = none are soooooo different that nobody wants them here. That is the core of this zillion word dispute.  North8000 (talk) 14:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Advice from the community was sought on that matter, and we resolved that the article is not merely covering "every topic that might be referred to by the term", but rather, that reliable sources discuss the topics as related aspects of a single concept. BigK HeX (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * not resolved several editors agreed with born2cycle saying a narrow focus was preferred.  Darkstar1st (talk) 14:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Preferred isn't the same as respecting reliable sources and Wikipedia Policy. BigK HeX (talk) 15:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me pose a HYPOTHETICAL question. Let's say that we (collectively) found out that Libertarian Socialism has absolutely nothing to do with Libertarianism. Could / should we, as a compromise (and possibly to help inform readers) put two sentences on it in this article that say that? North8000 (talk) 15:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC
 * Hmmm ... I'm not sure. I suppose it's likely that some articles mention their homonyms, in order to educate on the fact that homonyms exist for the term discussed by a Wiki article.   BigK HeX (talk) 15:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * North8000, I remember when I thought it was even remotely possible for some sort of compromise to be reached with BigK HeX, TFD and CarolMooreDC (et al). It's not. They're dedicated to their cause of sabotaging the Libertarianism page with revisionist doublespeak and nonsense, thereby making the Libertarianism page essentially worthless for any viewer who wishes to learn about Libertarianism, and no amount of rational argument will lead them to a reasonable compromise of any kind. Indeed, the stronger your arguments, the more likely you are to receive threats and intimidation (it is a rare day that one of us doesn't receive a threat from BigK HeX or CarolMooreDC). BlueRobe (talk) 03:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

RFC revisited
I just saw that RFC and it is an abomination, completely misses the point, and was closed WAY too quickly. The issue is presented in a very biased manner (narrow vs. broad). There is no discussion about separate uses of the term, and relative popularity of the uses, much less discussion of which use (if any) is primary. NOBODY even attempts to argue that the "broad usage" is primary, which the current article clearly violates. The issues of coherency is practically ignored (and so I just restored the tag). Not even a hint about WP:NAD, which the current article also violates (being about all the uses of the word rather than about a single clear/coherent concept). Ridiculous. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * As noted in other complaints from editors prefering the narrow writing of the article, please file a report in an appropriate venue if you believe the RfC to be inappropriately done. I don't see any possible way that rehashing it out with another simple thread on the talk page can resolve anything about the RfC. BigK HeX (talk) 15:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The question "narrow vs. broad" was never decided, presumably because it was so badly chosen and worded. Instead, there was IMHO a well written conclusion which the "broad" folks have been ignoring. In the context of this article, it says reduce the coverage of the off-beat forms. North8000 (talk) 15:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Pretty clearly, the question of "narrow" vs "broad" was very explicitly decided. To quote from the RfC closure, "'Libertarianism' should be broadly construed to include all significant viewpoints from reliable sources." But, it still stands that us having a discussion amongst ourselves in this talk page thread can serve no useful purpose about "rectifying" any possible improprieties of the RfC. BigK HeX (talk) 15:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * What I meant was that that the result is defined by the what was written by the person who closed it, not by the question. North8000 (talk) 15:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I still do not know what Darkstar & co. think the article should be about. Once mention of anarchist influences on libertarianism what is left?  Could someone pleased find a source that describes the ideology that they believe this article should be about.  TFD (talk) 15:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * a good start would be removing the conflicting terms in the lede, left-libertarian, which is committed to expanding the welfare state, and sourced, is listed as anti-statist Darkstar1st (talk) 15:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think a better start would be to provide an RS, of the type that TFD has requested at least 3 times already. It's always better to actually have some RS to work from. BigK HeX (talk) 16:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * here are 2 that have been on the left-libertarian page for some time: Herbert P. Kitschelt, “La gauche libertaire et les écologistes français,” Revue Française de Science Politique 40.3 (June 1990): 339-365, ctd. Hans-Georg Betz, Radical Right-Wing Populism in Western Europe (London: Palgrave-Macmillan 1994) 180-1.  Darkstar1st (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you read La gauche libertaire et les écologistes français? BigK HeX (talk) 16:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * bigk, if you have an objection to the source, we would all like to hear what it may be. forget about the french, mon ami, and focus on the english source.  Darkstar1st (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've mentioned no objection to anything in that last comment. I asked a question.  Have you read that source, yes or no? BigK HeX (talk) 16:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

First, can we stick to the subject? Second, If people didn't like the form of the question, they shouldn't have participated at all and just agreed that the question was no good in the relevant section. But they chimed in and went along with the "broad" vs. "narrow" designations through a long discussion, so I think the matter is settled. Please read carefully Disruptive editing and especially it's subsection on Refusal to get the point. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * great, i will re add the material clarifying the left-libertarian is NOT anti-statist, but actually supports growing the welfare state as the source verified.  Darkstar1st (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Better idea for ya. Quote the passage from the source, and your proposed edit for us, please. BigK HeX (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: left libertarianism: Other sources can be found for left libertarians and libertarian socialists who are against the welfare state. Obviously you won't provide those but they will be provided soon enough in the interest of NPOV. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Way too complex. Choose two definitions of libertarianism, e.g., one from Vallentine and one that represents one you think should be used and ask readers to choose. TFD (talk) 16:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Lets have an RFC every week. A few suggestions: And finally, Devil finds work for empty hands. Keep busy! N6n (talk) 16:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Should the article only cover minarchism?
 * 2) Should references to anarcho-capitalism and left-libertarianism be deleted?
 * 3) Should the article only cover minarchism?
 * 4) Should references to left-libertariansm and anarcho-capitalism be deleted?
 * 1) Should the article only cover minarchism?

In my limited knowledge in this area, when I read the whole Left Libertarian article, I only saw one sentence about one person's pro-welfare opinion (with an off line reference) which seems to conflict with mainstream Libertarianism. Further I found verylittle saying that the term is really used, and when it WAS used, it seemed more to refer to instances of people who (presumably vaguely) consider them left leaning but also call themselves Libertarians. This would seem to be about a confluence of attributes (e.g. brown haired Libertarians) rather than "left Libertarian" being a distinct set of beliefs. So I guess what I'm implying / asking puts me in conflict with folks from both "sides". Is there even such a thing as "left Libertarian" as somehing defining a set of beliefs? And if so, what is it, and, other than that (weak) one sentence about one person's, opinion, where is the info about the conflict? North8000 (talk) 16:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * From my reading libertarians are big on freedom and some of them in the 1950s decided that the right to own private property was the only effective way to guarantee freedom. Since then some defenders of private property rights have been called libertarian, even though their ideology derives from liberalism, not libertarianism.  TFD (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * User:North8000: You pretty much have it right. Some leftys do think a temporary measure to protect people is various welfare state programs, environmental laws (and ones that allegedly control abuses of big corporations) until they can be replaced by voluntary means, but that is controversial and many don't agree and it is not part of the ideology. It should be noted that gradualist pro-property libertarians also sometimes say that the really bad programs like big military/drug laws/corporate welfare/etc. should go before welfare state type programs, at least until we can sell off the feds land and redistribute money to social security recipients, the general populace, or who ever. It would be nice to move these non RfC discussions to another dedicated section - Darkstar, feel free?CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll do that. North8000 (talk) 17:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * carol, which left-libertarians do not believe welfare programs are part of their ideology? it has been the edit on their page for quite some time, doesn't that put the burden of proof on you?   Darkstar1st (talk) 20:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * @tfd, his name is actually peter vallentyne, and he is used as a wp:rs several times in this article, his presentation Left-Libertarianism and the Welfare State, Centre for Socio-Legal Studies, Oxford University (2007), should end the debate on whether left-libertarian is anti-statist. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that Vallentyne wrote an article called "Left-libertarianism and the welfare state" does not support the statement that it "actually supports the welfare state according to Peter Vallentyne". 23:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Carol removed the sourced and accepted text, Left-Libertarians support growing the welfare state, how is that anti-statist?
the reason given was non-english OR, but the material has been on the left-libertarian page for some time, and includes an english source. please undo your erroneous revert or give a better reason why the source is invalid. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Have YOU read the source? BigK HeX (talk) 05:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * i have added sep as a source confirming left libertarian is actually statist, which contradicts the lede. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/libertarianism/#4, paragraph 3, line 2,  most left-libertarian views, individuals have an enforceable duty to pay others  Darkstar1st (talk) 06:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Since you don't give a diff, I'm not sure what you are talking about. (If it's what I think, I moved it to the left libertarian section for reasons explained elsewhere. I don't know why this thread is so far away from those explanations. But maybe it's something else. Without a diff, who can remember two days later? CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * carol the fact that you can't remember deleting the follow accepted and tested source left-libertarians support growing the welfare state is a good reason why you should not edit here anymore. Darkstar1st (talk) 04:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * maybe the reason you cant remember is because i have supplied several wp:rs already in use on this page. each time, you delete, discount, or move my source.  here is the diff to help you remember:  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libertarianism&action=historysubmit&diff=382527222&oldid=382520187  Darkstar1st (talk) 05:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Warning on Sock and Meat puppets
Which of course are banned under WP:Sock puppetry. See User_talk:Darkstar1st for details. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Is there something currently at issue regarding this, or is this warfare by innuendo? North8000 (talk) 15:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Darkstar1st should not be communicating with banned editors on his talk page and should apply for semi-protection to stop this. Looking through the stats, the no. 2 contributor to this article was User:RJII, User:Irgendwer was 4th and Anarcho-capitalism (a sock of User:Billy Ego) came in at no. 14.  I cannot find any evidence that User:Hogeye, the other main sockmaster, on this type of article edited.  TFD (talk) 16:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * To North8000: Read the link to the talk page. FYI, the "more troops are on the way" paragraph - plus Darkstar1st's repeated requests I provide full relevant evidence - necessitated this. But it's best discussed there where there is full info. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * my comment was reference to the success of the rfc, and my section asking for support for a new rfc, does that make me a meatpuppetier? Darkstar1st (talk) 16:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, if you are talking about recruiting people all over wikipedia and the internet and your comments were sufficiently vague that they suggested that. Plus there is the sock puppetry and other questionable history with AnonIPs/new editors to make your comment raise eyebrows. Full details at the link above. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * no carol, i was not talking about "all over", rather a new rfc, they seem to work pretty well. there is not sock puppetry in my history, you incorrectly accused me and it was declined.  my history in wp is longer than yours, question whatever you like, when you accuse, at least cite your evidence.   Darkstar1st (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, Carolmooredc has resorted to yet another round of threats against an editor she disagrees with - Darkstar1st - in an effort to silence him. In this instance, she is basing her claim on a flippant remark about "troops" that was made on his own talk page. However, she has not been able to provide ANY examples of sock puppets or meat puppets that have entered the Libertarian discussions to fight at Darkstar1st's side.
 * Indeed, the only examples of new users who look suspiciously like sock puppets or meat puppets are a few one-off contributions by random editors who entered "broad" votes alongside Carolmooredc (et al) in the recent rfc. Predictably, the consideration that LK gave to the vacuous contributions of those sock/meat puppets in his conclusions was equal to that given to the contributions of the regular editors to the page. BlueRobe (talk) 03:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems suspicious that after relatively little activity for 2.5 years, and that mostly from lefties who want to purge pro-property libs, that suddenly there's an influx of editors with the opposite POV. One of them has been proven to be the infamous Aussie sock User:Karmaisking who probably is the sock puppet who boasts about all the edits he's gotten away with [on Darkstar1st's page here. Making one wonder how many he is getting away with here and now. [[User:Carolmooredc|CarolMooreDC]] (talk) 04:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We'll need more than the merest suspicion of the page's most delusional saboteur. (Oh no! People are talking in the Libertarianism page, the puppets must be coming to get Carol! rofl) BlueRobe (talk) 06:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Update: Users:114.73.173.184, 125.7.71.6 and User:ShadowMan4444 - who all edited on the topic of libertarianism on Darkstar1st’s talk page (and one on BlueRobe’s talk page) - today were banned as socks of User:Karmaisking. In July User:BarbaricSocialistZealots who edited here also was banned as one of his socks. User:Ddd1600, after being blocked for a few days, also was caught using a sock and hasn’t been back since. So alertness on this issue in this article remains necessary. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The amount of time you spend in the talk pages of other users is truly disturbing. BlueRobe (talk) 03:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Incoherent-topic tag
The incoherent-topic tag was removed with this comment: ''purported "incoherence" decided upon in talk. Removing tag''.

I see no discussion about the tag on this page, much less a decision to remove it. Therefore, I restored the tag, with this comment: ''Article remains incoherent. Issue not resolved on talk page, and will not be resolved as long as this article is about the word than some distinct topic.''

This restoration was reverted, without further elaboration; only a repeat of the previous unfounded claim: ''rv tag. Issue discussed and resolved on talk. Please respect the community's input)''

What input about the incoherency of this article, much less the tag itself? Removing tags without basis is unacceptable, especially when the removal is disputed. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If as you say there is no discussion about the tag on the talk page then there is no reason to keep the tag. If you believe that the tag is warranted then please provide explanations so that we can improve the article to reach the level of coherence that you would find acceptable.  At present no one has any idea why you find the article incoherent.  TFD (talk) 23:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The discussion for original placement of the tag has been archived. I see no point in duplicating that here now; that defeats the purpose of having archives.  The issue now is whether there has been discussion, much less consensus developed, for removal of the tag.  I see none of that.  --Born2cycle (talk) 23:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Here, by the way, is the discussion about adding the tag (from the archives). --Born2cycle (talk) 23:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Darkstar1st wrote, "I've added the maintenance tag to this article to bring attention to the root problem - the attempt to cover all (some widely disparate) topics referred to by the term "libertarianism", rather than just one, leading to the incoherent topic problem."  Please read how wikipedia defines "Stay on topic".  Darkstar1st's comments seem to show that he disagrees with the scope of the topic, not that the article does not support the topic as defined.  Also, could you please not place templates on my talk page, which is totally unneccessary and abusive.  TFD (talk) 23:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The quoted comment above attributed to someone else was made by yours truly. This has nothing to do with Darkstar1st or his/her views.  The topic of an article should never be a word and all of its uses.  That's a violation of WP:NAD.    --Born2cycle (talk) 01:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This is typical of the sort of dishonest behaviour that we've learned to expect from certain (left-wing) editors on this page. They arbitrarily remove/add tags and content on the main page, without any consultation on this talk page, and then they demand that you establish a consensus within the community before you remove/add tags or content (even when it is regarding the restoration of a tag they removed without justification in the first place). Their hypocrisy is beyond absurd.
 * Carol, in particular, makes unilateral changes to the Libertarianism page on a regular basis, without notification or consultation, and issues threats against anyone who even hints at doing the same. BlueRobe (talk) 03:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The RfC finding a broad interpretation of the word is preferred would seem to clear up the alleged coherence problem described by Darkstar1st's quote which is really a "let's make it narrow" POV problem. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

We have an RfC that has concluded that the article's discussion of anarchism, left-libertarianism, etc is the most appropriate route. If any editor replaces this tag, I will have little choice other than to pursue action for disruptive and tendentious editing. For the time being, we have the recently closed RfC, and such community input should be respected until a new consensus is proven. BigK HeX (talk) 05:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It is patently obvious that NO CONSENSUS EXISTS regarding the in/appropriateness of the inclusion of "anarchism, left-libertarianism, etc". You are fully aware that there exists a clear discord among the editors. Stop claim a consensus on an issue when it is clear that there is nothing but intractable division. BlueRobe (talk) 02:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

anarcho-capitalism, normally known as individual anarchism, by definition unable to protect authentic libertarian principles
why was this removed? the existing source was already accepted by those who removed the new material, yet the old material was left on the page? how can one page of a source be valid, and not the next? Anarchy and the law: the political economy of choice By Edward Stringham page 504, line 21. 517, line 20. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * For a useful experiment, quote the EXACT text from the book, and then quote your exact edit. BigK HeX (talk) 05:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * page 504 line 20, "the term individual anarchist will therefore be used to refer to those who oppose government entirely and advocate the market as the primary..."   my words: anarcho-capitalism, normally known as individual anarchism   Darkstar1st (talk) 05:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * So, you got "normally" from ... where? BigK HeX (talk) 07:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * page 504 line 20, i left it out to prove you do not ever read the sources you revert.  Darkstar1st (talk) 07:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * lol ... you "proved" that I "do not ever read the sources" when I'm clearly asking YOU to quote the source. And you also "proved" that I just go straight into a "revert" when we're discussing an edit that I never touched. Amazing proofs, I guess. BigK HeX (talk) 07:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

How this Darkstar1st's edit misrepresents the source

 * But now .. let's do the ACTUAL experiment. BigK HeX (talk) 07:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The source opens by explaining that, "There are two distinct strains of libertarian thought: minarchism and anarchism... While this study focuses on the anarchist branch of libertarianism, the sole, although crucial, difference between the two factions resides in their views regarding government provision of police and proper function of court services...Because the anarchists propose that a definite economic institution, the market, replace the political institution of government, they have been referred to as 'free market anarchists', 'anarcho-capitalists', and 'individual anarchists'. Since libertarianism is compatible with any voluntary non-coercive institutional arrangement, of which the market is only one...of such arrangements, terms such as 'free market anarchism' or 'anarcho-capitalism' are overly restrictive. The term 'individual anarchists' will therefore be the term normally used to refer to those who oppose government entirely and advocate the market as the primary..."
 * And from this author's opening where he is describing only how he will employ terminology for this one paper, you get the following edit: "...anarcho-capitalism, normally known as individual anarchism..."
 * As usual, I find your edit problematic. BigK HeX (talk) 07:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * would it be ok if i said, "anarcho-capitalism is overly restrictive, and not compatible with libertarian" Darkstar1st (talk) 08:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's even worse. I'm not sure how you don't see that such an edit would wholly misrepresent the source....  Out of curiosity (and you do NOT have to answer), is English your first language?  BigK HeX (talk) 08:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ok, is there any words i could use from that passage that would be ok referring to anarcho-capitalist, if so, which? Darkstar1st (talk) 08:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of "words" you could use ... unfortunately, the problem is with how you are putting those words together. If you're soliciting my advice, I'm not sure if you should do anything with this source.  Even with there no doubt about whether you reading the thing, it seems you're not understanding it yet.  I might hold off, if I were you. BigK HeX (talk) 08:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * but i ask you which, as you have denied every noun on the passage, so which word may i use? Darkstar1st (talk) 08:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't give you permission to use any of the words -- you already have the permission to try. But note -- due to this being a common problem that I encounter with your edits -- that I will scrutinize and immediately revert any of your edits that misrepresent the source (or appear to be borne of unfounded speculation).  You have my apologies in advance for this. BigK HeX (talk) 08:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * no, i am trying to paraphrase a rs to add material about a term which directly contradicts the claims made in the lede, either deny the source, or provide your version of how to add it. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Why was what removed? New editors who want to review archives will be very confused if even those of us who have been paying some attention are, a few days later. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * very funny carol, why was anarcho-capitalism, normally known as individual anarchism, by definition unable to protect authentic libertarian principle removed, relevant, as you were the editor who deleted this wp:rs, which contradicts your claim anarcho-capitalism is libertarian. Darkstar1st (talk) 04:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Had CarolMoore not removed it, I would have done so, as it is WP:OR that misrepresents the source. Why are you still worrying over this edit, when you've already been shown above how it's not an acceptable edit? BigK HeX (talk) 04:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * misrepresents the source how? page 504 and 517 clearly say such.  Darkstar1st (talk) 04:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't remember seeing or removing that, though it sounds pretty fishy. But if Darkstar provided a diff I could look at it. Since he hasn't and I don't know context or if I really removed it, I really can't respond. Why does Darkstar keep harassing us about old issues he doesn't even bother to identify? See Disruptive editing. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * you cant remember deleting this from the lede 2 days ago? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libertarianism&action=historysubmit&diff=382527222&oldid=382520187   Darkstar1st (talk) 05:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "misrepresents the source how?" ... It misrepresents the source in exactly the way I explained in the top half of this thread. BigK HeX (talk) 05:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The diff having been provided, I'd forgotten the earlier version with some absurd WP:OR content. It was so bad it didn't even warrant a discussion section, just an edit summary reading rem pov wp;or; please put in individualist anarchist or libertarianism section if want in lead; spelling; put back questionable sentence allegedly ref'd by Frenchman when get actual language So why are you suddenly now deciding it's such a great edit. Please read WP:Original research if you don't get it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * carol the fact that you cant remember speaks volumes. bigk no, you simply reposted my edit and the source.  i have ask you before, what you thought was misrepresented, and how you would add text from that paragraph, you answered neither.  Darkstar1st (talk) 05:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I very clearly lay out what was misrepresented and described precisely how, and then even put a section header on it so that there was no doubt where you could find my comments. I can do no more for you on this issue, and won't waste my time trying.  BigK HeX (talk) 07:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * no, all you did was repost my work, and say you didn't like it. now mention of how, or what specifically was word misrepresented.  you did highlight the part where the source explains the correct term is individual anarchist, not anarcho-capitalist.  you seem to be making my case, then at the end, saying, "see OR"  Darkstar1st (talk) 08:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Exploring "Left Libertarian" Term
(Continuation of a discussion that started in "RFC Revisited")

I understood Carol's answer but not TFD's. Carol and all, does that not then mean that "Left Libertarian" is not a real term? And that the material in the "Left Libertarian" article is just "Libertarian" material? North8000 (talk) 17:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course, that goes even more so for right Libertarian, but one thing at a time.North8000 (talk) 17:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by a "real term"? Numerous RS's have been supplied that touch on the breakdown of libertarianism into left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism.  If you want comprehensive coverage of contemporary left-lib, then there's a book by Otsuka that might help you. (You may hear a rumor that Otsuka is "wrong", but let's assume that the cited RS is more credible than a random Wikipedian.) BigK HeX (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That question could be complicated, but probably a quick test would be: Is there a reasonably sized group of people who would identify themselves as practicing "left Libertarianism". This requires that they believe "left Libertarian" identifies a distinct school of thought.  (not just lefties with some Libertarian tendencies or vica versa). North8000 (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If we're looking at authors, (e.g. Otsuka) did they make up the term for writing clarity purposes, or are did they say that it in actual use?


 * I'm not really understanding what difference an answer to this chicken/egg question would make. The term is in use.  I believe you've asked previously if people self-identify as "left-libertarian" and the answer is "yes".  I'm not sure if it is the "first" term to come to mind for these people, just as most US citizens might not be prone to offer the self-label of "Earthling" before just calling themselves "American", even though both are accurate and both terms are well-known among Americans. BigK HeX (talk) 18:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I meant with respect to their political beliefs. North8000 (talk) 18:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Libertarianism broke into two strands in the 1950s, creating a problem because both claimed to be libertarian. For convenience the older form of libertarianism is called left-libertarianism, while the newer version is called right-libertarianism.  Liberalism also split into two groups creating naming problems, which in the U. S. was resolved by calling the older group "conservatives".  In fact most ideologies have similar splits and similar naming problems.  Albert Jay Nock is an example of a transitional figure between left and right libertarianism, a follower of Henry George who became an important influence on Murray Rothbard, Frank Chodorov, Leonard Read and William F. Buckley, Jr..  TFD (talk) 18:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not that everything is there / clear, but I think I learned more on this topic from your one paragraph than from reading all three articles.


 * Just a quick "gut feel" answer, what comes to mind as 1 or 2 things where these right and left libertarian philosophies would disagree? North8000 (talk) 18:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The main thing they disagree on is ownership of property. But left libertarians differ among themselves about what types of property should be excluded from private owership.  To the Georgists, land could not be transferred to private ownership and so they advocated taxing only land, removing the tax burden from businesses and individuals that created wealth.  Other left libertarians considered businesses to be property, and opposed their private ownership.  I cannot think of any other defining difference.  TFD (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. North8000 (talk) 02:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Exploring a term usually means at least one example from a WP:RS . Fyi. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? Did you find some new rules that talk page insertions need to be referenced?  And what is your motive for sniping at a a germane talk page discussion? North8000 (talk) 22:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Is this tag appropriate?
. Is this tag appropriate: "This article may lack a single coherent topic"? The template links to "Stay on topic": "The most readable articles contain no irrelevant (nor only loosely relevant) information".  The posting editor justifies the tag, ""I've added the  maintenance tag to this article to bring attention to the root problem - the attempt to cover all (some widely disparate) topics referred to by the term "libertarianism", rather than just one, leading to the incoherent topic problem."  TFD (talk) 23:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Inappropriate. Given that the tag originally was added by an editor who does not like the article including discussion of "left-libertarianism" and anarcho-capitalism, and given that a very recent RfC settled that those topics ARE appropriate, the tag is no longer warranted, even despite any lingering concerns of the editor.  Moreover, the continuing push for this tag, in the face of the previous RfC can be viewed as tendentious.  That we're forced to need a 2nd RfC on the heels of the last one -- when the last one already concluded that inclusion of the topics IS appropriate -- is pretty disruptive, IMO.  BigK HeX (talk) 00:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * What definition of the word "settled" are you using to claim that any of the significant disputes have been settled? If anything, the irrational and dishonest conclusion to the recent rfc demonstrated the extent to which the parties on one side (the left) of the divide will use any means to defeat their ideological adversaries, without so much as a hint of compromise. Nothing has been settled and the parties are as entrenched and intractable as ever. BlueRobe (talk) 02:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Appropriate and needed at the moment  I don't like top level tags. I've only been involved on this article for a about a couple of weeks.   This article (actually trio of articles) is a confusing mess.  The last RFC was misworded, making for an even more confusing mess.  But the closer's comments and findings were good, but everybody is looking to "spin" and misinterpret them rather than following them.  Even the battles here seem incoherent.  I really don't see underlying differences, or POV differences at the root of the disputes, or see underlying differences being discussed, it seems like the editors have caught themselves in a trap of arguing for the sake of arguing.  There are many VERY intelligent, active editors here on both sides of the issue who I have had the privilege of learning things from.   They just need to get their heads conked together and say "get together, work it out, and make a really good article (or trio of articles) and have some fun doing it".  And, speaking directly to the topic of a "single coherent topic" there certainly isn't one, or even real discussion on what it is. And more decisions by briefly involved persons in an RFC are likely to make the problem worse.   And so. despite my dislike for top level tags, I think that this article needs them (and that these are appropriate) and an impetus for getting this worked out.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So .... to make sure there's not any "misinterpreting" of the RfC closing, I ask you if the RfC concludes that the article should be written with Libertarianism construed broadly? (Yes/no?) BigK HeX (talk) 01:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, your question is worded so as to spin the closer's comments rather than follow them. But, my interpreatation of their comments in the context of this article is (please excuse my oversimplification-for-the-sake-of-clarity):
 * - For the viewpoints / terminology which are minority but still significant /significantly held, keep them, but keep their coverage in proportion, which means reduce them (or give them wording that identifies them as such)
 * - For the viewpoints / terminology where RS does not indicate they are significant or significantly held, remove them.
 * And I agree with the closer.
 * If I had to pick literally amongst the badly worded choices in the RFC, I guess I'm in the "broadly" category, but such would do more harm than good in this environment, so I do not officially pick that.
 * Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So, concluding that the closing comment which explicitly says, ""Libertarianism" should be broadly construed to include all significant viewpoints from reliable sources" is somehow "spinning" the comment that the article be written with a broad understanding? Calling that some kind of "spin" is not even a plausible interpretation, IMO.  Worse, I'd have to respectfully conclude that refusing to acknowledge that the closing was concluded as support for a broad writing borders on WP:IDHT. BigK HeX (talk) 04:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, what I said is that the closing is as it it worded, not something that you are trying to take out of context from it. North8000 (talk) 12:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Appropriate. The claim above that this tag was added "by an editor who does not like the article including discussion of 'left-libertarianism' and anarcho-capitalism" is false and would be irrelevant if true anyway (I added the tag and those are not my views).  It doesn't matter who adds any tag or what their views are.  All that matters is whether there is justification for the tag. There are several people who find the article content to be incoherent since it attempts to describe multiple uses of the word libertarianism.  The above RFC was active so briefly I (and who knows how many others?) didn't even get a chance to participate.  My primary objections to the current content -- incoherency, violation of primary topic, violation of WP:NAD, years of evidence in the article and talk page history of people objecting to the topic of this article being the relatively obscure (certainly not primary) use of the term referred to exclusively in Wikipedia (as far as I know, and thus verging on violation WP:NOR as well) as "Libertarianism construed broadly"  -- were not even mentioned, much less raised, discussed and evaluated.  --Born2cycle (talk) 01:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that there are a few determined editors who refuse to respect the community's input on the matter is irrelevant. BigK HeX (talk) 04:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Appropriate. The phrase "nor only loosely relevant" is key.  In terms of ideological similarities...modern liberalism, conservatism and libertarianism share two very important features.  They recognize the necessity of the state and they support private ownership of the means of production.  Anarcho-capitalism advocates abolishing the state and left-libertarianism advocates public ownership of the means of production.  Any topic that is broad enough to include both left-libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism would also have to include modern liberalism and conservatism in order to maintain coherency.  --Xerographica (talk) 02:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Appropriate. Given the clear divisions between the editors on this talk page, and the on-going ideological war that is being fought on the Libertarianism page itself, I don't see how anyone with even an ounce of integrity could deem the tag inappropriate. Even the lede reflects the polemic nature of the Libertarianism page's incoherent content that has resulted from the inconsistency of its editorial contributions (read: blatant sabotage by certain unscrupulous editors). BlueRobe (talk) 02:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Inappropriate looks like an attempt to impose a particular position on the article -- Snowded TALK  04:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No. You look like a puppet who has been conscripted in to make up the numbers. BlueRobe (talk) 06:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Inappropriate This article has been attacked for months by people who claim the article is "incoherent" because they refuse to recognize WP:NPOV's policy: All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. They also have poo poo'd the result of the recent RfC where twice as many editors opined that the article should have this broad viewpoint. And don't get me started on the behavioral misdeeds that have disrupted editing so that any attempt to deal with any legitimate issues could be resolved in the article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Appropriate Left and right, pro property and anti-property, statist and anti-statist.  what is coherent about the article?  Darkstar1st (talk) 05:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That they're all LIBERTARIANISM (as described in a multitude of RS)? BigK HeX (talk) 02:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Inappropriate -- It seems WP defines coherence as containing "no irrelevant (nor only loosely relevant) information". (link in the initial post) It is not the usual definition of the term, but it makes sense. A tag's "reason for being" is to lead to improvement of the article. In this case, does this article mention "irrelevant or loosely relevant information", which can be removed? No. N6n (talk) 05:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Although I hope the editors will keep the dictionary meaning of 'coherence' an a (perhaps unreachable) goal! N6n (talk) 06:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * N6n, the references to left-Libertarianism, Libertarian Socialism and Noam Chomsky are all only "loosely relevant", at best. BlueRobe (talk) 06:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it's inappropriate -- I'm reluctant to cast a vote because this is in effect a repeat of the RfC that was only concluded two days ago. (I don't think that outcome should be ignored and everyone forced to vote a second time in the hope of a different result.) The argument that the article is incoherent seems to be based on the claim that there is "one true libertarianism"; that has already been rejected by a rough consensus.


 * I know that some on here don't agree that that "rough consensus" is valid, but can I make a suggestion?: There appears to be broad agreement, from both sides, that the different forms of libertarianism should be represented in accordance with their relative importance. We might actually make some progress if we build on that agreement. It would be constructive to move to a civil discussion of how much weight should be given to each subtopic. That discussion should be based on keeping an open mind, seeking to persuade others, and being open to persuasion, rather than trying to insult to other side and "win" the argument (which both sides have been guilty of).


 * No-one here is infallible. Perhaps the right-libertarian advocates have truth and justice on their side. But the reality is that the current campaign to remove certain subtopics entirely from the article is unlikely to be successful, no matter how many votes are held and how many pages of this talkpage are filled with angry posts. In the meantime that campaign is causing a lot of acrimony and is harmful to the article. Iota (talk) 12:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Inappropriate The article follows a definition found in external sources. TFD (talk) 13:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Inappropriate. (Resp. to RfC). Broad subject, broad article. Figureofnine (talk) 15:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A four-word explanation on a rfc vote by a user who has never been seen before = prima facie case of meat-puppetry. BlueRobe (talk) 01:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You SERIOUSLY need to review WP:AGF. Your baseless accusations are tiring... BigK HeX (talk) 01:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yet more hypocrisy from the red corner. You and carol have been endlessly hounding people (especially darkstar) with allegations of puppetry. BlueRobe (talk) 02:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And, between the two of us, only one of us has a clear basis. There is ZERO "hypocrisy" in pointing out your baseless claims. BigK HeX (talk) 02:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No. My claim is not baseless. Random people come in to post votes, void of any real commentary (or simply post a random-revisionist-source-backs-me-up claim), for the causes of the left-wingers in the RFCs. And they're never heard from again. Yet, miraculously, this doesn't happen in any of the other threads/sections of the talk page. This begs suspicion of meat-puppetry. BlueRobe (talk) 03:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Inappropriate per BigK HeX. This was just discussed in the RFC. My impression on dispute resolution is that in case less formal attempts at dispute resolution (e.g. RFC) fail, the correct avenue to pursue is more formal dispute resolution, not this kind of labeling. I'm not saying that the RFC would have failed, by the way. --Dailycare (talk) 19:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Appropriate - As no consensus exists, this would aid discussion and advance the goal of consensus.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  22:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments
These are the results if you google for "Libertarianism construed broadly": No results found for "Libertarianism construed broadly". We can't just make up topics and write articles about them. And, no, I'm not saying there are no sources that use the term broadly; I'm saying that the sources that use the term in that (broad) sense are a relative minority among all sources that use the term.... which means that broad sense is not the primary topic. By having an article on that (broad) topic at Libertarianism, we are incorrectly implying that the primary topic of the term Libertarianism is this broad usage. That's way off. I'm pretty sure that there is NO topic that has a legitimate claim for being the primary use of the term. Of course, there is no need to reinvent the wheel here. We already have a clear directive for what to do: If there is no primary topic, the term should be the title of a disambiguation page . --Born2cycle (talk) 01:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * As I have mentioned earlier, Google shows 3.4 million hits for "Libertarianism". But, for all the popular recognition of Libertarianism, Google shows only 32,700 hits for "left-Libertarianism", (that's less than 1%!). When they argue for the "broad" concept of Libertarianism, they're arguing for equal weight to be accorded to ridiculously fringe ideologies. BlueRobe (talk) 02:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, but I still think the more compelling argument is that use of the term "libertarianism" to refer to "left-libertarianism" is a fundamentally different use of the term and should not be covered in the same article for basically the same reason that Orange (fruit) and Orange (colour) are separate. The topic of this article, like the topic of any Wikipedia article, should be a single use of the relevant term.  --Born2cycle (talk) 02:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. We have repeatedly pointed out that about the only thing that Libertarian Socialism and left-Libertarianism (often used as synonyms) have in common with Libertarianism is the word "Libertarian" in their labels. Indeed, Libertarian Socialism and left-Libertarianism are defined in terms that directly conflict with Libertarianism, despite their "Libertarian" labels. Left-Libertarianism and Libertarian Socialism are versions of Anarchism, not Libertarianism. They've turned deaf ears to that discussion. BlueRobe (talk) 03:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed, you have tendentiously repeatedly harped on this topic even disregarding the community input we've received. BigK HeX (talk) 04:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a three day weekend in the USA, so the full volume of responses from various editors looking at RfC lists probably won't be coming in til Wednesday. FYI. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * BigK HeX, we can all see through your special rhetorical misuse of terms like "community" (anyone who agrees with you, to hell with the rest), "consensus" (contrived by ignoring the numbers and commentary of everyone who disagrees with you) and "settled" (you claiming victory by ignoring the people and arguments that challenge your position). BlueRobe (talk) 06:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

NPOV argument is begging the question
I also want to add the whole WP:NPOV argument is based on the logical fallacy of begging the question. That is, it presupposes that the topic is "Libertarianism construed broadly" (whether that should be the topic is the question at issue), and then says any legitimate views about that broad topic should not be excluded per WP:DUE. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * As an example of what I'm talking about, in the RFC above that was closed so quickly I was not able to participate, the following statement was made as part of a conclusion: "The arguments for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC have been rejected as editors have failed to show why the understandings of reliable sources on the topic of Libertarianism should be dismissed in the article on Libertarianism, and certainly no actual evidence has been presented to support the contention that only minarchist right-libertarianism is the topic that "is highly likely – much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined – to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that term in the Search box." See how the usage of "Libertarianism" in this statement presupposes the broad interpretation? When Big writes, "the understandings of reliable sources on the topic of Libertarianism", he means, "the understandings of reliable sources on the BROAD topic of Libertarianism"! Look, there are many uses of the term among reliable sources.  This article, like all article, should be about only one of those uses.  It doesn't make sense to put an article about a relatively minor use of the term ("Libertarianism construed broadly") at Libertarianism itself. Even if minarchist right-libertarianism has not been shown to be the primary topic, that's no reason to put an even more obscure use at this article!  That's an argument to put the dab page here.  --Born2cycle (talk) 03:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

There is NO begging the question here. Reliable sources were examined and THEN we concluded that they are relevant to the article. The argument of this thread is erroneous. BigK HeX (talk) 04:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * BigK HeX, L2colon. BlueRobe (talk) 06:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * BigK, of course sources for the use of X are going to suggest X is relevant!   That's begging the question!    Unless you were looking at preponderance of use for each meaning of the term among reliable sources, including the preponderance of the use of the "libertarianism construed broadly" meaning,  that tells us nothing about which topic should be at this title.  --Born2cycle (talk) 07:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * WE DID NOT FIND A "DIFFERENT" MEANING. We examined the sources and determined that THEY DISCUSS THE SAME meaning.  We are NOT presuming anything, so to try to cite begging the question is quite dubious. BigK HeX (talk) 07:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The bottom line is it doesn't matter if the varieties are somewhat different, as long as lots of WP:RS describe them as libertarian. If "Anti-immigration anti-abortion libertarianism" became it's own philosophy with lots of WP:RS for that exact phrase, guess what, we'd have to put that horrific malformation of libertarianism in the article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK, are you seriously suggesting that every use of "libertarianism" in reliable sources refers to the same meaning? Do you really not see different meanings in even the various uses cited in the article? How about, (1) "Libertarians are committed to the belief ... that robust property rights and the economic liberty that follows from their consistent recognition are of central importance in respecting individual liberty" IEP, and (2) any use of the term which includes opposition to property rights. Carol, do you not understand what "begging the question" means? When you say "varieties [of libertarianism]" and "malformation of libertarianism", you are presupposing the "libertarianism construed broadly" meaning of "libertarianism" in your statements. That's begging the question, since the question at issue is whether this article should be about that meaning. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It is like other terms for ideology - conservatism, liberalism and socialism. Each has different varieties and terminology to describe the different varieties may differ.  However each merits its own article as they share certain core beliefs and history.  Of course socialism as practiced by Tony Blair and Pol Pot may differ even more than left and right libertarians may differ.  TFD (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * But that's a totally different argument (follow precedent set by other articles about political philosophy), and a much better one in my view, from the NPOV/DUE argument being discussed here. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * While you are correct that other articles need not be our guide, we may have articles about subjects that are recognized in academic literature. Some conservatives are strong supporters of the welfare state while others oppose it.  Same with liberals and socialists.  But we do not arbitrarily exclude huge sections of these topics based on our decision on who are the true believers.  TFD (talk) 22:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Toa Nidhiki05, I think you may have placed this vote in the wrong place. You might prefer to post this vote further up the page. BlueRobe (talk) 00:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * RE: "BigK, are you seriously suggesting that every use of "libertarianism" in reliable sources refers to the same meaning?"
 * Uhh... no? When did I say that?  We're not talking about "Libertarian Cookies" or just any conceivable nonsense.  We're largely talking about left-libertarianism, right-libertarianism, and anarcho-capitalism and NUMEROUS reliable sources have been provided which show that those three are discussed as variants of the SAME concept.  If multiple reliable sources hold the viewpoint that the three varieties (and others) are treated as Libertarianism then this viewpoint will be reflected by the article, per policy.  Seems pretty simple to me.
 * The bottom line is that there is no "begging the question" from the editors here because we are directly reflecting the opinion consistently found in multiple reliable sources, so, at best, any presumptions would be those of the reliable sources, and accusing the RS of "begging the question" is beyond the scope of a Wikipedia editor's authority. BigK HeX (talk) 01:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * When you state, "If multiple reliable sources hold the viewpoint that the three varieties (and others) are treated as Libertarianism"' you're presuming the broad definition (the issue in debate) and thus begging the question. I know you can't see it but I can't solve your blindness (denial?) problem.  Begging the question (or petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a type of logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise.  The proposition to be proved is that the topic of this article should be the broad meaning of the term. Your premise (quoted) presumes that meaning.  The argument is obviously fallacious. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Verify minutiae in lead - WP:OR????
You wrote in lead: "which is not actually anti-statist, as individuals have an enforceable duty to pay others." using this ref. Where does this ref say that? Please quote it. I must have missed it, what with having to squash sock puppets wasting so much of my energies. And if you are going to throw in minutae, why not let me throw in "Anarcho-capitalism (also known as “libertarian anarchy”[102][103] or “market anarchism”[104] or “free market anarchism”[105])"??? I'd like to see that personal buggaboo of mine in there too. But I have respect for not imposing my pov in a short lead. CarolMooreDC (talk) 06:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you found any sock puppets yet? Have you tried looking under your bed?
 * Regardless, your own personal POV is all over the Libertarianism page. Indeed, you are the primary reason that it is such an ideologically-biased incoherent shambles. BlueRobe (talk) 06:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * carol, i said it was in paragraph 3, line 2, if you missed it, you didn't both looking. if "enforceable payment" isn't statist, i will eat my hat  Darkstar1st (talk) 06:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Quote the precise text for us, and paste it here please. BigK HeX (talk) 06:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, much as I read paragraph 3, line 2 [your ref I couldn't find it, only:
 * Libertarianism can be understood as a basic moral principle or as a derivative one. It might, for example, be advocated as a basic natural rights doctrine. Alternatively, it might be defended on the basis of rule consequentialism or teleology (e.g., Epstein 1995, 1998; Rasmussen and Den Uyl 2005; or Shapiro 2007) or rule contractarianism (e.g., Narveson 1988 and roughly Lomasky 1987).
 * And enforceable is not used to modify payments. But the other issue, of course, is why that minutiae belongs there and mine doesn't. CarolMooreDC (talk) 07:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * because you are in the wrong section, notice the link takes you to section 4, para 3, line 2. next time, at least read the source before you revert, please   Darkstar1st (talk) 07:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Quote the precise text for us, and paste it here please. BigK HeX (talk) 07:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Lazy formatting like you did makes it easy to confuse a section when you are reading/cutting/pasting a reverted diff, as I was. Anyway, feel free to stick it in the Left Libertarianism section (and article for that matter) as their opinion and we'll see what left libertarians and libertarian socialists disagree. I get impression all three authors could be pushing their own statist POV but more research will tell. In mean time it's one of many factoids about libertarianism that don't belong in a short lead. CarolMooreDC (talk) 07:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * maybe you should read the entire sep article anyway carol. For on most left-libertarian views, individuals have an enforceable duty to pay others for the value of the rights that they claim over natural resources.   statist, not anti-statist as in the lede.  Darkstar1st (talk) 07:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * carol, sep is considered a rs, not an opinion. left-libertarians do agree, welfare sate is in the lede on their article.  Darkstar1st (talk) 08:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There's quite a paradox at work here. If left-Libertarianism entails no State apparatus or coercive mechanisms (which would, for instance, enforce economic contracts or the Harm Principle at criminal law), then surely left-Libertarianism must be a form of Anarchism. BlueRobe (talk) 08:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

mountain of evidence ignored left-libertarian is statist  Most left libertarians support some form of income redistribution on the grounds of a claim by each individual to be entitled to an equal share of natural resources. A number of left-libertarians of this school argue for the desirability of some state social welfare programs.
 * I will ask for a THIRD TIME. QUOTE THE PRECISE TEXT FROM THE SOURCE AND PASTE IT HERE FOR US.  Why is it taking so long for this to be done??? BigK HeX (talk) 11:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * see above, i have already, next time, please review the source yourself, it was linked in the article: For on most left-libertarian views, individuals have an enforceable duty to pay others for the value of the rights that they claim over natural resources. statist, not anti-statist as in the lede. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC) Darkstar1st (talk) 11:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You have NOT quoted text from the source. For the 4th time, please do go into the ACTUAL SOURCE and paste the text here for us.  Thanks. BigK HeX (talk) 12:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * To end the impasse, here it is from Stanford Section 4, para 3:
 * The above objections to the modern welfare state would be made both by right-libertarians and left-libertarians. Left-libertarians, however, can endorse certain “state-like” activities that right-libertarians reject. For on most left-libertarian views, individuals have an enforceable duty to pay others for the value of the rights that they claim over natural resources. Individuals seeking economic justice could form organizations that, under certain conditions, could force individuals to give them the payment they owe for their rights over natural resources, and could then transfer the payments to the individuals who are owed payments (after deducting a fee for the service, if the person agrees). The organization could also provide various public goods such as basic police services, national defense, roads, parks, and so on. By providing such public goods, the value of the rights claimed over natural resources by individuals will increase (e.g., rights over land for which police protection is provided are more valuable than rights over that land without police protection). Such public goods could be provided when and only when they would be self-financing based on the increased rents that they generate. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * bigk i told you i did, you have just proved for the 2nd time in 2 days, you do not both to follow the sources you oppose. perhaps your pov would be different if you actually read what i have.  carol, are you now convinced Left-libertarian is statist, if so, would you restore my edit, or at least not revert it this time?  Darkstar1st (talk) 15:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Libertarians opposed the establishment of the welfare state, which was pioneered by Conservatives in Germany and introduced into the UK and US by liberals. To them the welfare state was designed to meet the needs of the establishment and to destroy non-government institutions controlled by the people that already delivered many of those services.  Now that the state has taken over these functions the debate is how can they be transitioned back to the people or is that even possible.  TFD (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

agree libertarians oppose the welfare state, left-libertarians support such as per their wp article and a mountain of evidence, see above. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There was no left-right distinction among Libertarians when the welfare state was established. TFD (talk) 16:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * @tfd, please see source, the left libertarian page has the words, "grow the welfare state", so it is an ongoing process, and statist, which contradicts the lede. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone is against using the info in the Left Libertarian section, just in the lead. Am I incorrect. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * then dont put left libertarian in the lede as anti-statist, the sep clearly says, enforceable duty, that means some form of state. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Your WP:OR will not dictate the article text. (see my post below, since apparently you haven't read it yet) BigK HeX (talk) 19:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) Darkstar1st says, "bigk i told you i did, you have just proved for the 2nd time in 2 days, you do not both to follow the sources you oppose." The only thing proven so far is that you refuse to provide quotes when requested.
 * 2) Darkstar1st says, "carol, are you now convinced Left-libertarian is statist" The irony of you telling someone else that they supposedly don't read sources, WHEN THAT SAME SECTION OF YOUR STANFORD SOURCE which supposedly supports text about "statism" actually has the text below that is highlighted [I quote larger sections here for context]: "Libertarianism is committed to full self-ownership. A distinction can be made, however, between right-libertarianism and left-libertarianism, depending on the stance taken on how natural resources can be owned....[certain] objections to the modern welfare state would be made both by right-libertarians and left-libertarians.....Individuals seeking economic justice could form organizations that, under certain conditions, could force individuals to give them the payment they owe for their rights over natural resources, and could then transfer the payments to the individuals who are owed payments...Such “justice-promoting” organizations engage in many of the activities of the modern states, and left-libertarianism can accept the legitimacy of such activities....There may be many organizations providing such services....Libertarianism, then, is not only critical of the modern welfare state, but of states in general." That you figured you could use this section to support your WP:OR that "left-libertarianism is 'statist'" is amazing.  Frankly, your consistent misuse of sources is very disturbing, IMO. BigK HeX (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think Darkstar1st is familiar with the concept of Gradualism. Some left libertarians may gradually want to get rid of welfare state just like some anarcho-capotalists only gradually want to abolish the military or police. Don't confuse strategy with ideology. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * according to wp:rs, left libertarian is statist, not up for debate. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You have provided not a single source about left-libertarianism being statist. I'll ask you not to push this WP:OR. BigK HeX (talk) 20:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * ::It is interesting that Darkstar1st wants to exclude left-libertarians because they are statist, while BlueRobe (section below) wishes to exclude them because they are anarchists. Maybe they should be called anarcho-statists or statist anarchists.  TFD (talk) 22:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

@bigk you must have missed the original link to the wp:rs above, or the mountain of evidence ignored left-libertarian is statist Most left libertarians support some form of income redistribution on the grounds of a claim by each individual to be entitled to an equal share of natural resources.[1] A number of left-libertarians of this school argue for the desirability of some state social welfare programs.[2][3]  Darkstar1st (talk) 23:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Lots of governments denationalized industries by redistributing shares in government-owned companies to taxpayers. Would you call that statist?  TFD (talk) 23:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * For the fourth time today, Darkstar1st POST A QUOTE FROM THE RS HERE IN THIS TALK SECTION PAGE. If you fail to do this, I will not be able to WP:AGF for any edits you make on these lines. Especially since a source you've provided to supposedly support the case that "left-libertarianism is 'statist'" actually says "Libertarianism is committed to full self-ownership. A distinction can be made, however, between right-libertarianism and left-libertarianism, depending on the stance taken on how natural resources can be owned..... Libertarianism...is not only critical of the modern welfare state, but of states in general." Due your recent penchant for misrepresenting sources, any of your edits that your refuse to back with quotes directly from an RS will be treated as WP:OR. BigK HeX (talk) 01:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * For the love of all that is holy, would you numpties learn some basic formatting skills. This section looks like a dog's breakfast. BlueRobe (talk) 23:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "Numpties?" I had to look that one up. Please read WP:No personal attacks. (Article probably should specify if that includes sock puppets ;-)
 * Anyway, as Big K HeX points out, the source does say Left Lib is libertarian except "it" (actually more like some of them) wants statism in certain limited areas. Just like minarchist libertarianism is libertarian except some minarchists want a big fat state to keep out immigrants and outlaw abortion. But I'll let Darkstar1st put that in the article too. Just not in the lead. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * @carol, ty for "letting" me add wprs, the problem is it contradicts your edit in the lede, which incorrectly list left libertarian as anti-statist. @bigk, your repeated request for verification of sources has become tiresome, this is obviously some kind of joke on me, haha you got me.  from now on, you will have to look these up yourself, but for the 4th time today, here is the direct qoute, settling for all time, left libertarians are statist:  Handbook of political theory By Gerald F. Gaus, Chandran Kukathas, page 128, paragraph 2.  most left-libertarians thus uphold some substantial form of income redistribution .  if you again ask for verification of a source readily available, a spaceship will land and take me back to zenu, where i will be melted downed a reformed as a more perfect unit, capable of communicating basic source coordinates to earth people.  Darkstar1st (talk) 04:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If that is the totality of the source material for which you are basing your edit, then that leaves no doubt that you are engaging in WP:OR, as there is absolutely nothing in there saying "left-libertarianism is 'statist'".  BigK HeX (talk) 04:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, suggesting that you've quoted this source for me in any of my previous requests in this thread is inaccurate. Your most recent comment is the only one in the thread to even mention the Handbook of political theory. BigK HeX (talk) 04:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It turns out that there are a few different positions which describe themselves as "left-libertarian". This is discussed in our article left-libertarianism. One of these, the one associated with Noam Chomsky, is largely anarcho-communism. It is not really part of the libertarian movement described in this article, and uses the word "libertarian" only in the French sense of the word, as a less-scary synonym for "anarchist". It is not really relevant here except in a disambiguation sense.

However, the other one, described here, is very much a part of the libertarian movement. It is even Rothbardian. It is derived from individualist anarchism and Austrian economics, makes use of the non-aggression principle, but draws different economic and cultural conclusions from these than right-libertarians do. Notably, left-libertarians of this sort claim that the economic and power inequality visible in today's society is not a consequence of market forces, but rather of state interference. Thus, a libertarian society would be more egalitarian and less classist than today -- in other words, would accomplish the sort of things that leftists claim to want. In addition, left-libertarians find cultural common ground with the left on issues such as labor conditions, feminism and sexuality, environmentalism, and the like -- although favoring voluntary rather than statist approaches to these issues. --FOo (talk) 08:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Libertarianism lede implies some forms of Libertarianism = Anarchism?
The last sentence of the lede states: "Some libertarians support a minimal state (or minarchist) position and others various non-state anarchist views, such as anarcho-capitalism and left-libertarianism."

We all know that the left-wingers have been sabotaging the Libertarianism page and inserting revisionist doublespeak. But, an express declaration that some Libertarians are Anarchists, who oppose all State mechanisms, is absurd.

The core principles of Libertarianism entail the need for some basic coercive State functions - the enforcement of private property rights, the enforcement of contracts and the enforcement of the Harm Principle - even if the State contracts those jurisdictions out to the private sector.

The Libertarianism page - especially the lede - is no place for Anarchist ideologies that oppose all forms of State coercion. BlueRobe (talk) 23:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

''Note - the above comment appeared as if it was posted by BigK HeX. It was actually posted by me. I have no idea what happened to cause the confusion.'' BlueRobe (talk) 23:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "some" is a weasel word and a disgrace to the lede of this article. "some" is a sure sign the article is trying to cover more than 1 term.   Darkstar1st (talk) 11:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Some is not a weasel word and I while I find accusations of left wing revisionism amusing, can we please this type of language and focus on the content please. -- Snowded  TALK  12:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * some actually is a weasel word, see example 20 on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word Darkstar1st (talk) 15:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not at all sure what happened to my comment that started this section, or why it appears that BigK HeX posted it. BlueRobe (talk) 12:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "Some" is merely a summary technique. Like "some humans are female and others are male." Is that being weasily? CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * CarolMooreDC, Darkstar1st is right. That use of "some" is misleading. It's like saying "some Socialists are mentally retarded..." That may be true, but the prejudice embodied in that statement is misleading. BlueRobe (talk) 05:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

"Some" becomes a weasel word only when used to avoid talking about specifics, especially specific sources. For instance, it's weaselish in the sentence "Cats are widely accepted to be mammals, but some claim they are alien lizards." It is not a weasel word when it is used in a purely descriptive sense, such as "Some cats have short hair and some cats have long hair." The former avoids attributing the remarkable (and false) claim, whereas the latter merely introduces the idea of diversity in cat hair length, which would presumably be addressed in greater detail later on. --FOo (talk) 08:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If you start issuing some Clintonesque, "...it depend on what the meaning of "is", is...", I'm going to spend the rest of my evening looking for an ignore function ;-) BlueRobe (talk) 08:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * @Fubar: Agreed. There's clearly no weasel-ing going on with the statement in question. With all of these dubious objections to the material, there does seem to be some POV pushing though.  BigK HeX (talk) 18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The Welfare State
Imagine one belonged to a trade union in 1900. One's voluntary contributions were used to pay for unemployment insurance, health care, old age pensions, employment agencies and education. Then the liberals decided that these services were better delivered by government. One's new fees now exceeded one's previous payments, one's benefits were cut and they were harder to obtain. One's union now stopped providing benefits. Now the government decides to reduce benefits further and use the money to support "national defense". If one opposes what the government does, does that mean that one is "statist"? TFD (talk) 06:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No libertarian of any stripe obviously would support the government taking over and then gutting private or cooperative voluntary programs, while raising fees. Many, both left and right, would see these programs phased out while voluntary programs are encouraged through things like tax credits, end of anti-competitive and anti-cooperative regulations, etc. Maybe lefties would phase them out slower. Just like some "righties" would phase out immigration restrictions and military bases overseas more slowly. I think we could find some good WP:RS on that topic for a brief mention and will add to my TO DO list on this article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

is left-libertarian anit-statist? "enforceable duty to pay others" and "income redistribution", if so, who is the enforcer, who redistributes the INCOME?
please only comment on statist, or anti-statist. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Personally, I'm not sure. Left-Libertarianism is a fundamentally incoherent ideology - it endorses Positive Liberty (see John Stuart Mill) with regard to questions of economic egalitarianism (and sometimes Marxism), but it opposes the coercive State mechanisms that are necessary to ensure such a result. I'm open to persuasion. BlueRobe (talk) 09:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm guessing that the advocates of left-Libertarianism are relying on all citizens willingly cooperating to ensure the egalitarian outcomes they desire. Otherwise, a coercive State is a necessary means for their egalitarian ends. In other words, left-Libertarianism is an "...it would work if we all just hold hands..." ideology. BlueRobe (talk) 09:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * To BlueRobe and 122.....Why not (in a more Wikipedian way) cover what y'all said above in this article?  You yourself said that some people practice it and that they call themselves Libertarians.  So, if it too rare, and too marginal, it should not be in Wikipedia at all (i.e delete the left-libertarian article). And if not, I can't imagine covering the distinction in a disambiguation page. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * To Bluerobe: Would you say that "Left Libertarian" is a real term (vs. something made up by 1 or 2 authors and Wikipedia just for explanation purposes)? To me it seems that you are the strongest proponent of it being a real term.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Ahem. WP:NOTAFORUM.  Your personal questions/opinions are not relevant here.  Please find sources that raise and address the questions you're discussing, to make this discussion relevant to the article.  --Born2cycle (talk) 14:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * North8000, to coin a British colloquialism, are you taking the piss? :-) I have consistently been one of the most passionate advocates of having the fringe oxymoronic ideology of left-Libertarianism (aka. Libertarian Socialism) removed from the Libertarianism page entirely. I think, perhaps, you have me confused with someone else or have accidentally attached my username to the wrong post, lol.
 * I think "left-Libertarianism" is a real term which should have its own Wikipaedia page. Indeed, I would be utterly horrified at the suggestion that the left-Libertarianism page be removed (censored) from Wikipaedia altogether, and I would fight alongside BigK HeX and CarolMooreDC to retain it.
 * But, clearly, it is too rare and marginal for the Libertarianism page and belongs in the Libertarianism disambiguation page. Frankly, I think it is utterly absurd and disgusting that left-Libertarianism is given equal weight with Libertarianism (aka. right-Libertarianism) in the Libertarianism page. BlueRobe (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * BlueRobe, I'm afraid I don't understand British English well enough to fully understand the term "Taking the piss"  But if I may try to explain my seemingly schitzophrenic behavior.  I'm somewhat of a logician dissector of these things.   And I think that step one of fixing this three article mess seems to be to figure out whether or not  the terms "Left Libertarian" and "Right Libertarian" exist in the sense that they identify some real world philosophy or set of such.   The folks on the "broadly" side of this debate seem undecided on this and can't seem to come up with a real definition of it, if it exists. But your actions (ironically) seem to imply that it IS a real world term, with a real world definition.  And so I thought that I would challenge you with that question to try to help sort this out.  So, there's my excuse for my apparent schitzophrenia.   :-)  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Why are you indenting your comments as if responding to Born2Cycle? Please learn to colon. BigK HeX (talk) 16:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Anti-statist - which is why they are called left libertarians. There are of course leftists who are statists just as there are rightists who are statist.  TFD (talk) 17:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * the sources say most, so the question here, is is the section title statist, or anti-statist. your answer, "why they are called.." is your personal opinion.  Darkstar1st (talk) 17:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't even have one source about statism, much less "the sources". BigK HeX (talk) 18:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I second that opinion. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Anti-statist in theory, statist in practice - This is one of those ideologies that might look good on paper to a leftist, but is not so in practice. There is no way redistribution of wealth can be accomplished without either of these two things happening:


 * 1 - Government forces wealth redistribution to accomplish egalitarianism
 * 2 - Selfish human nature is eliminated, peaceful anarchist revolution ensues, and private property is eliminated, resulting in a completely egalitarian society

Obviously, option 2 is impossible to accomplish, thus requiring option 1 to be used, which would obviously be statist. You can't just push a button, destroy government, and have everyone magically equalize their wealth; it requires the state to accomplish. There is nothing more statist then the theft of private property.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  22:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Toa Nidhiki05 is exactly right. In theory, left-Libertarianism is anti-Statist. But, to achieve it's redistributive justice aim of egalitarianism would necessitate the use of coercive force by the government, which is clearly Statist. As I stated earlier in this section, left-Libertarianism is fundamentally incoherent. BlueRobe (talk) 22:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Exactly; like it or not, is needed to perform some tasks, such as running Police Offices/Jails, the Fire Department, and protecting it's citizens from crimes committed against them, but not those committed by the citizen upon himself; this is the fatal flaw of anarchism, and anarcho-socialism in particular. 'Mandatory wealth redistribution' would not be required by 'society' or 'the collective'; it would be required and enforced by a totalitarian, statist government.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  23:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * How amusing ... a false dilemma fallacy. To be clear, No, it is NOT necessary for either of your scenarios to occur to implement left-libertarianism.  That is WP:OR.  Why the heck are there so many editors expending so much time on original research on this page?? If there are reasons for any objections that actually FOLLOW policy, why divert our time with these other useless non-policy-justified arguments?  I can only conclude that many of you must have no reliable sources when you resort to so much unsourced OR. Feel free to prove me wrong and start posting a RELIABLE SOURCE with your claims (or feel free to prove me right and make sure that your next post is completely devoid of any passages from an RS).  BigK HeX (talk) 23:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Then explain to me how it can be accomplished without state intervention; can you give me a source that shows a working example to prove otherwise?  Toa   Nidhiki  05  23:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Take a look at the anarchists during the Spanish Civil War (Murray Bookchin wrote a great book on this). I'd also look at the anarchists in the Ukraine (look up Nestor Makhno). For a modern day example, you could take a look at the EZLN in Chiapas, Mexico. Or you could look at how modern social movements organize themselves on a large scale, in a decentralized manner. It should also be pointed out that not everyone is either "anti-statist" or "statist". Things aren't always so black and white. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If left-Libertarianism is completely "anti-Statist", doesn't that make it a version of Anarchism? Seriously, with no, albeit minimalistic, role for the State, what is left of left-Libertarianism to make it a version of Libertarianism? It sounds more like Communist anarchism to me. BlueRobe (talk) 00:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, many left-libertarians consider themselves as anarchists. For instance, libertarian socialism is a type of left-libertarianism. Socialist anarchism is a form of libertarian socialism. But not all left-libertarians are anarchists. Some of them believe in the need for a small state (either temporary or permanent), in order to protect human rights and ensure an equitable distribution of the social products of labor. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * RE: "what is left of left-Libertarianism to make it a version of Libertarianism?"
 * A score of reliable sources that SAY explicitly that left-libertarianism is a version of Lbibertarianism. BigK HeX (talk) 01:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Lack of support for Left-Libertarianism
Here is just a quick list of all the ideologies on this page and their respective hit count on google, from greatest to least:


 * Libertarianism - 4,520,000
 * Libertarian conservatism - 2,400,000
 * Right-Libertarianism - 537,000
 * Libertarian socialism - 189,000
 * Libertarian transhumanism - 153,000
 * Left-Libertarianism - 142,000
 * Anarcho-capitalism - 109,000
 * Minarchism - 103,000
 * Geolibertarianism - 34,100

From this list alone, one can see that anti-state 'Libertarian' ideologies rank far below Right-libertarianism. The search total for Libertarian conservatism is 12 times higher than Libertarian socialism and Left-Libertarianism, 22 times higher than Anarcho-capitalism and minarchism, and a whopping 70 times higher than Geolibertarianism. From this, we can see the primary and dominant ideology of Libertarianism is Libertarian conservatism, aka. Right-Libertarianism. I feel the primary focus of this page should be on that ideology; the anti-state variants should only gain minimal coverage, and I think Geolibertarianism should be cut from the article entirely. There is really no reason to grant proportional coverage to a relatively minor ideology.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  22:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * So, you would be happier if the article reflected the "sub variants" of libertarianism by Google hitcount? Specifically, would you be willing to drop the objections if the balance of left-libertarianism did not exceed the rough proportion shown by Google hitcounts, as compared to right libertarianism? BigK HeX (talk) 23:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm still wondering why my Google result for "left-Libertarianism" only had 32,400 hits, lol. Regardless, Toa Nidhiki05 is right. While a Google head-count is not an especially scientific source for the ascertainment of appropriate weight, it does make a very useful tool that is somewhat more persuasive than a few secondary-source-from-Mr-nobody-who-contrives-a-revisionist-use-for-the-definition-of-Libertarianism-to-boost-his-left-wing-academic-career. BlueRobe (talk) 23:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Precisely; I would not give much weight to the results if they were not so disproportionately showing a lack of popularity/prominence for Left-Libertarianism; however, they do, and that has to count for something.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  23:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It's important to discern references to terms (which is what google finds) from references to concepts. For example, minarchism and right-libertarianism are essentially synonyms for the same concept, but that concept is most often referred to as (drum roll) libertarianism. Searches should be limited to only English pages. Also, let's not forget quotes.  For example, I get only 25,400 (English) hits when I google for "libertarian conservatism" (in quotes), and 31,400 for "left-libertarianism" (with or without the dash).  I also get only 78.900 hits for "anarcho-capitalism". When we consider that left-libertarianism is rarely referred to as just libertarianism, while the term "right-libertarianism" is typically only used to contrast with "left-libertarianism", the relative obscurity of that concept, much less the dearth of references to it as just "libertarianism", becomes even more obvious and significant. I say again, perhaps it's time to suggest a page move? --Born2cycle (talk) 00:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Born2cycle, what do you mean by "page move"? Can you give some details of the move you have in mind? BlueRobe (talk) 00:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * There are several possibilities, most involving a merge of some kind as well as a move. For example:
 * merge (Libertarianism, Libertarianism (disambiguation)) → Libertarianism
 * OR:
 * Libertarianism → Forms of libertarianism
 * merge(Right-libertarianism, Minarchism) → Libertarianism
 * --Born2cycle (talk) 00:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Born2cycle, I believe those two choices are roughly representative of the primary debate that has dominated this talk page for the last few weeks (at least). The left-wingers invariably support the first option, (which is pretty close to the status quo), and the right-wingers support the second option. BlueRobe (talk) 02:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * RE: "Precisely; I would not give much weight to the results if they were not so disproportionately showing a lack of popularity/prominence for Left-Libertarianism; however, they do, and that has to count for something."
 * Great! Then you'll be glad to know that the CORRECT Google results are as follows (in descending order):
 * "Anarcho-capitalism" - About 79,200 results
 * "Left-libertarianism" - About 31,400 results
 * "Libertarianism conservatism" - About 25,200 results
 * "Geolibertarianism" - About 18,100 results
 * "Right-libertarianism" - About 3,360 results
 * Apparently, BlueRobe and Born2Cycle confirm that your counts are off. In any case, since you found the (incorrect) 4-to-1 ratio significant, then this 10-to-1 ratio of left-libertarianism over right-libertarianism must be quite significant.  Anyone care to backtrack from their Google logic, now? BigK HeX (talk) 01:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Your links are not showing anything. Linkfail.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  01:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Better than Google-fail? BigK HeX (talk) 01:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * BigK, that's why I wrote above: It's important to discern references to terms (which is what google finds) from references to concepts. For example, minarchism and right-libertarianism are essentially synonyms for the same concept, but that concept is most often referred to as (drum roll) libertarianism. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Even accepting that as true justifies nothing about removing other obviously prominent viewpoints of libertarianism ... in fact, it would be contrary to policy to eliminate other viewpoints in preference to one. BigK HeX (talk) 01:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * BigK HeX, I would have thought the reason for such a low number of hits for "right-Libertarianism" was bloody obvious - when the world says "Libertarianism", the world means right-Libertarianism. This is the predominant meaning of "Libertarianism". Your failure to appreciate this is truly staggering. BlueRobe (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Your continued failure to use sources and make a policy-justified argument is even more staggering. Especially your push for censorship, in total disregard to WP:NPOV and in total disregard for the overwhelming outside opinion we've received on the matter. BigK HeX (talk) 01:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * BigK HeX, if anything the Google hitcount establishes that Libertarianism is so predominantly recognised as so-called right-Libertarianism, that the vast majority of people around the world don't even bother to (or know about?) the use of the label "right-Libertarianism". BlueRobe (talk) 01:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So, a low Google hitcount "obviously" must be the One True Correct Topic of Libertarianism. Yeah.... that's a pretty blatant non sequitur.
 * It's somewhat amazing how this thread went from promoting the HUGE Google hitcount for Right-libertarianism as a reason for censoring other implementations, and now apparently it's low Google hitcount is an "obvious" reason that others implementations of Libertarianism are "inappropriate". BigK HeX (talk) 01:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

In any case, given the corrected hitcounts, is there anyone that still wants to support the premise of this thread in deciding the prominence of right libertarianism and left-libertarianism by Google hitcounts? BigK HeX (talk) 01:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * When people mean right-Libertarianism, they say "Libertarianism". When people mean left-Libertarianism, they say "left-Libertarianism". The hundreds of thousands of voters for the Libertarian Party of America are referring to right-Libertarianism when they say "Libertarianism". And we all know it. BlueRobe (talk) 01:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's an idea. Instead of telling us what "we all know", try using reliable sources for your posts in the talk pages.  If you want people to give your objections any credence, it works wonders.  Unsourced, likely WP:OR is worthless on Wikipedia. Until you start trying to follow policy and use the support of RS, I expect to have no further replies for you, and will continue to accord to your arguments the weight deserved of any of your objections based on unsourced WP:OR (which is ZERO weight). BigK HeX (talk) 02:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed. You continue to claim that the Moon is made of green cheese, based on some children's fairy-tales that you've used as WP:RS, until I provide some WP:RS to show that you might be a little off base... Welcome to Wikipaedia, where ANYONE can say ANYTHING and entrench that as the truth as long as they have even one reference that they can throw a "WP:RS" label at. BlueRobe (talk) 02:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * There are hundreds of thousands of Americans who believe that they are libertarians and millions more who believe that they are liberals or conservatives, right or left. Millions of young people who supported Obama believe that they are socialists.  Millions of Protestant Americans believe that they are Irish.  Millions believe that the universe was created in 6 days, that smoking is unharmful, that 911 was an inside job, that the government is controlled by the New World Order.  We do not base articles on the misconceptions that people have.  TFD (talk) 06:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * what is relevant is most libertarians have never heard of left libertarian, and do not believe any of it's ideology. the proof lies in the number of political party/members with the term libertarian in the name, vrs left libertarian.  your objections attack the editors, OR, NPOV, why not address the content this time.  Darkstar1st (talk) 06:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I just explained that most Americans do not understand what these political terms mean. Do you think that articles on political ideology should be based on popular misunderstandings?  Should we say that John Locke was a conservative because he supported limited government?  You should read 1984, a novel by a left-libertarian writer, George Orwell, that complains about re-writing history for ideological reasons.  TFD (talk) 06:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * BigK, you're relying once again on the fallacious (begging the question) wp:rs argument, as explained above. Reliable sources don't tell us anything about what the scope of an article should be; they do tell us how commonly used are the various meanings of a given term, and which one of the uses, if any, is the primary topic.    --Born2cycle (talk) 06:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You're erroneously attempting to apply a begging the question fallacy. An error that is quite certain, since I've not made a serious argument here. Any suggestions in this thread (if there are any) about changing the article content are tongue-in-cheek, and made to point out the ridiculous backfire of trying to use Google hitcounts in support of "right libertarianism". BigK HeX (talk) 06:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This discussion begs the question, should we base this article on popular misunderstandings of terminology? TFD (talk) 06:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * articles on political ideology should focus on a single ideology, and the understanding of the most followers of that ideology. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So would you re-write the articles on Liberalism and Conservatism so that they reflect what most Americans believe? TFD (talk) 07:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * apologies, my comment was not clear, i meant since there is one major libertarian party with hundreds of thousands of members, elected officials, as well as a few hundred more libertarian parties aligned with this ideology, and less than 1 party with the term "left-libertarian, it is obvious to anyone capable of OR, to deduce, which meaning is sought by the most searches in wp, therefore should be aligned to accommodate the search. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Heck with what the public understands, I've been asking for two weeks and nobody here even knows what "Left Libertarian" means. North8000 (talk) 14:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears to me that both "Right Libertarian" and "Left Libertarian" are not real terms, there are instances of authors, speakers and editors and editors adding an adjective ("right" or "left")to the term word "Libertarian" to try to organize a presentation. "Right" being a synonym for the overwhelmingly prevalent form of libertarianism, (used ONLY to disambiguate it) and "left" meaning who knows what / nobody really knows. To make it worse, by the common meaning of "right" and "left" (= meaning for a typical reader) these terms are both oxymorons. So right from the start, these terms confuse and mislead the reader rather than informing them. North8000 (talk) 14:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. While the term "left-Libertarianism" does have some recognition outside Wikipaedia, the term "right-Libertarianism" doesn't really exist outside a handful of Wikipaedia talk pages. Perversely, this has led BigK HeX to claim that this means the "right" view of Libertarianism must be the fringe/minority version of Libertarianism (/facepalm!). And "left-Libertarianism" is such a fringe ideology that the overwhelming majority of self-declared Libertarians have never heard of it.
 * I don't know if you've asked any of your friends about left-Libertarianism as a result of the bizarre stalemate in this thread (how dare we suggest that Libertarianism be the predominant topic in the Libertarianism page, lol), but my friends responded with a mixture of eye-rolling, head-shaking and laughter at the absurdities of "Libertarian Socialism" and a "left-wing" version of Libertarianism. (Oh no, that's WP:OR! How dare I refer to the real world! lol) BlueRobe (talk) 00:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OR is ignoring sources and making one's own interpretations. TFD (talk) 00:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So are you implying that we shouldn't discuss left-libertarianism, even though it's clearly covered in a large body of reliable sources (which have been presented), because ... your friends rolled their eyes and shook their heads at something they knew nothing about? I don't find this to be a very convincing argument, and am having trouble seeing how this fits in with WP:V and WP:NPOV. What your friends think about something has no bearing on whether or how it is included in Wikipedia. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * RE: "nobody here even knows what "Left Libertarian" means" There is NO indication that editors here don't know what it means. Moreover, I personally pointed you towards reliable sources to learn about it.  That you have yet to learn more of it, in-depth, doesn't make left-libertarian somehow un-real.
 * Further if an editor admits not knowing about a subject, then -- to me -- that seems more of a reason not to worry about pushing for ANY sort of modifications to edits on that topic. I'm not sure that I understand how an editor would make judgments regarding the edits of a topic that they are asking for basic information on. BigK HeX (talk) 00:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Outdent. Your statement is founded on the premise that the "subject" exists. THAT is the question, and it appears that the premise may be false. Why don't you just clear it up and tell us what "Left Libertarian" means? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * On whether the subject exist, there is no question. An explanation from me on left-libertarianism or even a lack of an explanation, would not change that there are plenty of RS that cover the topic, and these RS have been provided and, I've even recommended some for you. I'm still baffled as to how you indicate that you have not even a basic knowledge of the subject, but simultaneously feel confident that you know the Libertarianism article's coverage of the subject is inappropriate. To me, it seems the most prudent editing strategy to pursue on an aspect of a topic that one is unfamiliar with, would be to recuse one's self from editing decisions regarding that aspect.  BigK HeX (talk) 01:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I commend you on that superb display of sophistry. So, using your logic, Stephen Hawking may not comment on a discussion where it is alleged that excessive weight is being accorded to Flat Earth Theory in the Big Bang Theory talk page because he hasn't studied that fringe POV in depth? Brilliant!
 * Btw, is it even possible to study left-Libertarianism in-depth? Aside from a handful of left-wing academics who have tried to bolster their careers by establishing that rare niche in political philosophy, left-Libertarianism seems to receive little more than an occasional note in the literature. BlueRobe (talk) 01:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So, when I say that someone is asking questions because they indicate that s/he lacks even a basic understanding, you create an analogy about a person not knowing a topic in-depth. And you also mange to wikilink sophistry in that same post. Very interesting... BigK HeX (talk) 03:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * See Left-libertarianism. The article also provides many sources that you may follow.  TFD (talk) 01:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Although reliable sources have already been presented discussing left-libertarianism, I'll grant that North8000 has probably not had the time to read through the talk page and archives. So for your convenience, North8000, here is a list of about 11,000 books which discuss it: . If you need me to, I can grab you definitions/descriptions of left-libertarianism from them (such as Unlike right-libertarianism, however, left-libertarianism holds that natural resources are owned by the members of society in some egalitarian manner, and may be appropriated only with their permission, or with a significant payment to them.). Or, as TFD suggested, you could just look at the article for left-libertarianism, which has plenty of sources and is defined there. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. In the thousands of words, that's only the second time that someone has actually answered.  ( I read the article and saw no answer there, but have not started reading references)  Both said the same thing (ownership of property) so it appears that that is the main difference.  North8000 (talk) 11:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to reply to all the points in this WP:Refusal to get the point of the recent RfC section. (See WP:Disruptive editing.) But I would like to point out again that Libertarian socialism gets a lot of hits. 120 in news archives (as opposed to 210 for "left libertarianism") and 35,000 in google as opposed to 11 in google. (When narrow search through apostrophes.) Not to say eliminate left libertarianism, but to be aware of this point for future editing purposes. And I haven't even looked at books.google recently.CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)