Talk:Libertarianism/Archive 30

Problems with this article
These are comments about the current version:.


 * 1) Is this article about one particular "libertarianism", or all philosophies ever referred to as "libertarianism"?  The opening words imply the former by saying, "Libertarianism is a political philosophy that ...".
 * 2) The first paragraph of the intro describes a very vague philosophy, so vague that whatever it is, it is not supported or advocated by anyone.  The subject of the second paragraph, which is several times longer and comprises the majority of the intro, is all about the differences among the various supposed "schools" of "libertarianism".
 * 3) The overview is entirely about differences among libertarians.  This reveals, again, that the topic is a disparate collection of philosophies, not one philosophy as the opening words suggest.

I was going to review the whole article, but I really can't take it. It's unreadable and incoherent, because it is covering two distinct philosophies (as noted by Chomsky, Widerquist, etc.) as if it's one. It's a mess! --Born2cycle (talk) 23:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It's about a single philosophy, including viewpoints that hold that left-libertarianism is a shared part of that single philosophy. How many times are you going to try to ignore that numerous RS make this point?
 * BigK HeX (talk) 22:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You're wrong about what these sources say.
 * Bevir says nothing about one philosophy, but writes separately about three distinct forms.
 * Vallentyne writes primarily about right-libertarianism under libertarianism(1), but says there is also another version, left-libertarianism, but the one that is also under libertarianism(1). He makes no mention of libertarian socialism (libertarianism(2)), libertarian socialists, nor any libertarian socialist ideas.
 * What I said about Vallentyne also applies to Mack, and also to Becker & Becker.
 * The Ellen F. Paul source is just another Vallentyne piece (p. 187), again saying nothing about libertarian socialism.
 * The Sapon link won't load.
 * There is no link for Long.
 * None of these sources support your position that there is one single philosophy which includes libertarian socialism, and they all support mine that there is one philosophy which does not include libertarian socialism, and by including libertarian socialism in this article, we're making it about two distinct philosophies. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Has anyone argued that left libertarianism, right libertarianism, and libertarian socialism are not distinct philosophies? ... Didn't think so. What people have said is that they are distinct philosophies that are all variants of libertarianism, which most of these sources seem to support (which is why you used the words "forms" and "versions" -- i.e. "forms" and "versions" of what?) Anyhow, this talk page has turned into a cesspool of personal attacks, misrepresentations of source material, and misrepresentation of the positions of involved editors. I'm out, until someone comes in and gets a handle on this. Cheers. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Good luck with that argument that these sources do not support inclusion of left-libertarian ideas such as libertarian socialism. There are plenty more sources that you'll have to go through, as well. BigK HeX (talk) 06:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Jrtay, plz dont leave yet, the section below was directed at your comments from sec 4 Darkstar1st (talk) 06:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The Ellen F. Paul source is just another Vallentyne piece (p. 187), again saying nothing about libertarian socialism.
 * The Sapon link won't load.
 * There is no link for Long.
 * None of these sources support your position that there is one single philosophy which includes libertarian socialism, and they all support mine that there is one philosophy which does not include libertarian socialism, and by including libertarian socialism in this article, we're making it about two distinct philosophies. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Has anyone argued that left libertarianism, right libertarianism, and libertarian socialism are not distinct philosophies? ... Didn't think so. What people have said is that they are distinct philosophies that are all variants of libertarianism, which most of these sources seem to support (which is why you used the words "forms" and "versions" -- i.e. "forms" and "versions" of what?) Anyhow, this talk page has turned into a cesspool of personal attacks, misrepresentations of source material, and misrepresentation of the positions of involved editors. I'm out, until someone comes in and gets a handle on this. Cheers. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Good luck with that argument that these sources do not support inclusion of left-libertarian ideas such as libertarian socialism. There are plenty more sources that you'll have to go through, as well. BigK HeX (talk) 06:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Jrtay, plz dont leave yet, the section below was directed at your comments from sec 4 Darkstar1st (talk) 06:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Misrepresentation, Jrtayloriv? Substantiate that claim, or retract it, please.  The article overview states, "Libertarians exhibit differing approaches in areas such as the treatment of property rights".  Which sources in BigK's list supports that claim?  None.  Vallentyne, for example, says, "Libertarianism asserts that each autonomous agent initially fully owns herself and that agents have moral power to acquire property rights in natural resources and artifacts." .  --Born2cycle (talk) 06:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you serious??? At this point, you can only be intent on wasting people's time on this page.
 * Which of the sources supports the claim that "libertarians exhibit differing approaches in areas such as the treatment of property rights"?
 * Oh ... you could try actually reading the source that YOU list as an example. It pretty clearly states, "A distinction can be made, however, between right-libertarianism and left-libertarianism, depending on the stance taken on how natural resources can be owned."
 * As I have no patience for disingenuous baiting, I have no plans to address any more of your waste-of-time "concerns". BigK HeX (talk) 07:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * My bad. I searched for "property" and so missed that, sorry.  But even then, note that Vallentyne's article is primarily about libertarianism (1), and mentions what he calls left-libertarianism as "another version" which is "lesser known".   Would you object to putting that in the article?  --Born2cycle (talk) 17:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * support and good luck. i made this debate a year ago trying to restore balance.  minority views are to be minimized and tiny minorities are not to be included.  this article appears weighted too much to the minority view LL.  Darkstar1st (talk) 17:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Vallentyne's article is primarily about libertarianism, not "primarily about libertarianism (1)". It includes right-libertarianism (or your made up term for it, "libertarianism (1)") and it includes discussion of left-libertarianism.  It includes discussion of the minarchist and the anarchist adherents.
 * As for putting "lesser known" into the article .... it IS in the article and has been for almost a year. BigK HeX (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It's pretty sad that you've been repeating these challenges, but even now haven't done more than Ctrl-F through some of the sources. I refuse to humor any more of the shallow snippet-based objections.  If I may humbly make a suggestion then I'd say that if you want to challenge the material in the article with any seriousness, I'd suggest that actually reading at least a couple of the sources that have been recommended to you for nearly a year might be a good first step.  Best wishes in your research (should you opt to try that)! BigK HeX (talk) 22:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Taxonomy of significant movements who consider themselves to be significantly "libertarian"
This is just a talk page organizational tool, trying to summarize what the participants have gathered from sources, trying to have all of the above excellent discussion go somewhere. Please feel free to change anything in the "changable" area. North8000 (talk) 12:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Taxonomy
- -  -  -  Beginning of "changable" area. Please feel free to change material here. Titles, names and brief notes only in this section -  -  -  -

1.0 Classical Liberalism, and the type currently common in the USA. Some authors call this "right liberetarianism" describe this, one of the many meanings of the "right" adjective with respect to libertarianism. Maximize individual freedom. Minimize (those with minarchist attribute) or eliminate (those with anarchist or anarcho-capitalist attribute) government. Common to 1.0 and unique to 1.0 is that they like property rights, including on natural resources.


 * 1.1 People (e.g. Carl Hess) who fully support the above but otherwise look "lefty" are sometimes confusingly called "left libertarians"   What they typically call themselves:  ??


 * 1.2 People who fully support the above but don't look "lefty." Some authors confusingly call this "right" when organizing a discussion about 1.1.  What they typically call themselves:  "Libertarian"


 * 1.3 A certain group of proprietarian anarchists who follow either Proudhon or some similar 1960's schools of thought that formed part of the "Movement of the Libertarian Left" (now the "Alliance of the Libertarian Left")    What they typically call themselves:  ??

2.0 Left Libertarians  (One of the libertarian-related meanings of "left") Advocate the main tenets of Socialism, and also minmizing or eliminating government. Maximize individual freedom. Advocates communal ownership of many things. Chomsky mostly follows this but sometimes deviates from it when he advocates governmental power to some goals, e.g. taking from some to give to others.


 * 2.1 anarchists What they typically call themselves: Anarchists
 * 2.1.1. common-property in natural resources What they typically call themselves:  ??
 * 2.1.1.1. progenitors of libertarianism (Dejacques)What they typically call themselves:  ??
 * 2.1.1.2 libertarian socialists (Chomsky) What they typically call themselves:  Libertarian socialists :::2.1.1.3 geolibertarians  (Foldvary) What they typically call themselves:  geolibertarians
 * 2.1.2. expansively propertarian
 * 2.1.2.1 agorists  What they typically call themselves:  argorists
 * 2.1.2.2 mutualists (Kevin Carson) What they typically call themselves:  Mutualists
 * 2.2 minarchists What they typically call themselves: ??
 * 2.2.1 Steiner-Vallentyne's common-property view ("contemporary left-libertarianism") What they typically call themselves: ??

- -  -  -  End of "changable" area  -  -  -  -

OK, if I'm going to do the editing on the above, you're going to have to tell me what changes you think I should make and tell me where I screwed up. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Taxonomy discussion

 * Comment This discussion appears to assume a false premise, that these are homonyms, words that have the same spelling and pronunciation but different meanings, often as a result of having different etymologies. Were that the case, we should be able to find sources for this assumption.  TFD (talk) 14:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Seems pretty far from accurate in the current version. What are the "many meanings of 'right'", with regards to libertarianism??  AFAIK, there is only one notable general meaning of right-libertarianism.  Even with left-libertarianism, there are only 2 notable meanings: (1) the common property group and (2) some of the revolutionary propertarian anarchists who follow either Proudhon or some of the 1960's schools of thought that formed part of the "Movement of the Libertarian Left" (now the "Alliance of the Libertarian Left"). BigK HeX (talk) 14:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Feel free to change it. ! North8000 (talk) 14:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess that the above says that the meaning of the "right" adjective varies with the context of use. In one of those cases it means "not 2.0"  and in the other case it means "not 1.1" North8000 (talk) 14:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure I got it wrong, so let's keep changing it. North8000 (talk) 15:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

What this is starting to look like is that many of these are defined more by attributes than named sects. And it looks like the biggest split (and the one which the big split in the above "tree" follows) is view on property rights. North8000 (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Almost all of the left-libs are anarchists, and some of the right-libs are anarchist, so that's probably the bigger differentiator. BigK HeX (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I guess what I really meant is an attribute that tends to make the "big division" in a way that doesn't cut any specifically named groups in half. North8000 (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I think we could speculate on taxonomies, but I seriously doubt they'd be sourceable.
 * If I had to make one up, I'd probably do
 * Right libertarians
 * Minarchists
 * Nozick
 * Anarcho-capitaliists
 * Murray Rothbard
 * Left-libertarians
 * anarchists
 * common-property in natural resources
 * progenitors of libertarianism
 * Dejacques
 * libertarian socialists
 * Chomsky
 * geolibertarians
 * Foldvary
 * expansively propertarian
 * agorists
 * Konkin
 * mutualists
 * Kevin Carson
 * minarchists
 * Steiner-Vallentyne's common-property view ("contemporary left-libertarianism")
 * Meh..... BigK HeX (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Then again, I guess we could use some sort of informal taxonomy just to organize the material within the Wiki article.  BigK HeX (talk) 16:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Put a bunch in.  Trying to understand....if someone is expansively propertarian, (e.g. agorists, mutualists) what would make them "left libertarian" ?  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * They aren't the same. There are groups of "left libertarian" who have two different meanings with the label.  The agorists and mutualists etc called themselves the "libertarian left" as part of forming a political alliance with the government-protesting New Left movement back in the 60's and 70's.  The agorists, etc use "left" in the sense of "desiring revolution against the existing political order (i.e., against government and corporations)".   BigK HeX (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's an article that might help explain it...
 * 
 * Hope that helps. BigK HeX (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Very informative.  I'm going to have to read it a couple more times with a highlighter and a notepad. Sincerely, North8000 (talk)

I am convinced that right libertarianism should be merely a large section of the classical liberalism page, as it is identified in that page as the modern form of that ideology. As for the 'classical liberalism/type common in the usa' quote by North8000 (as if it is only the more popular variant in that country), do not know why you are still perpetuating that crap oft-quoted (by left libertarians living mostly in the usa so who would have no clue) which stands contrary to all existing (right libertarian) political parties, popular usage and evidence. That irritating, unsubstantiated line needs to go. As far as I can see from the examples of famous left libertarians given and the makeup of this talk page, there are more 'left libertarians' in the usa than anywhere else by a long shot. Right libertarianism should have its own detailed article, and have a very large section in the classical liberalism article devoted to it, or be moved completely to the classical liberalism article. Saruman-the-white (talk) 02:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Disagree - not within the scope of that article. TFD (talk) 02:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Saruman, I'm not sure if your criticism referred to "classical liberalism/type common in the usa", but that was just my summary of what Born2 said. I am NOT claiming to be an expert on any of this, I'm just trying to be a facilitator to improve this article.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Libertarian Socialism is not a derivative of Socialism although many Anarchist strains are classified as Libertarian Socialism. Council Communism, Autonomism, and Zapatismo are all examples of Libertarian Socialism that are not classified as Anarchism. 131.252.212.183 (talk) 20:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC) Anatoly-Rex

A table, and differentiating attributes
I'm realizing that a table with columns for differentiating attributes would work better than a tree. The first two columns would be:


 * 1) What they call themselves
 * 2) What scholars/writers consistently call them.

I think that one thing in common to all groups with "libertarian" in their name is that they all SAY that they want greater individual freedom, and less control by government, which means less government. Within that I think that these are the differrentiating attributes:

Did I miss any?
 * 1) For or against private ownership of land and natural resources
 * 2) For or against private ownership of things other than land and natural resources (e.g. means of production)
 * 3) Whether or not they view current "big business" power and wealth as a good thing or an unfairly-arrived-at bad thing.
 * 4) reduce vs. eliminate government

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Libertarian support for minimal social welfare or safety net
Libertarians such as Milton Friedman and Charles Murray advocate the "negative income tax" welfare program. Hayek also supported public assistance for the very poor. In the introduction of this article, it gives the impression that such libertarian views don't exist, saying "minarchists advocating reduction to only state protection from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud..." There are libertarians that advocate a bit more than that. This is not being accounted for. This is just one example. SeaNozzle (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Friedman advocated it to replace the entire welfare system, however (and I support the idea wholeheartedly), but all of those programs are just that - a single program to aid the chronically poor and reduce the current welfare cost, which even many libertarians may agree under the pretense that doing so may slow poverty-driven thefts, murders, etc. - increasing the safety of it's citizens, per say.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  18:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You deleted a statement with a legitimate source. SeaNozzle (talk) 18:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Edit seems to be appropriately sourced and reflects third party review of a viewpoint held by at least one of the very notable figures within the topic. BigK HeX (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's the relevant quote from the source: "Some libertarians oppose all forms of coercive income redistribution as illegitimate, and they call for the complete abolition of social insurance and safety net programs, arguing that there is every reason to believe that the marketplace and private charity will fill the void. Other libertarians, such as F. A. Hayek and Milton Friedman, distinguish between social insurance and safety net policies. Hayek, writing in the Constitution of Liberty, endorsed public assistance for the indigent; as a corollary, he accepted the propriety of requiring people to purchase insurance and save for retirument so that they would not become public charges. In Capitalism and Freedom, Friedman opposed compulsory saving, but did propose a “negative income tax” that would serve as a safety net.” Hamowy, Ronald. The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. "Sociology and Libertarianism." Sage 2008. p. 480. I'm using it to source my sentence: "Some libertarians go further, such as by supporting minimal public assistance for the poor." SeaNozzle (talk) 18:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * By convention, if no further elaboration is made in the article, then it is not really appropriate in the lede. Material in the lede is supposed to summarize the highlights of information covered in the article body. BigK HeX (talk) 19:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok fine, I'll make a more elaborate statement in the body. SeaNozzle (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

SeaNozzle, welcome, please join that party here, and stick around. But there is an issue with some of the stuff that you are putting in. Stuff there is very unusual/fringe for Libertarianism confuses rather than informs. And the premise of your comments seems to be that being sourced is a mandate or sufficient condition for inclusion rather than the reality which is that it is just a condition for inclusion. You are asserting that removal is improper merely because it is sourced, which is not the case. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Your comments are true, though -- even if SeaNozzle hasn't asserted it -- the material does seem to be deserving of some weight as a viewpoint of extremely prominent libertarians which is being covered by a pretty respected third-party source. So, a blurb on this material in the article would very likely pass cover both NPOV and RS concerns. BigK HeX (talk) 21:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not fringe. It is more mainstream than the strict minarchist libertarianism. Milton Friedman, Hayek, and other academics represent the more mainstream version of libertarianism. It is certainly less fringe than anarchism, which is represented. To say in the introduction that there are only anarchists and extreme minarchists neglects a major swath of libertarians. SeaNozzle (talk) 23:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd agree that it's only the more idealistic of libertarians who idealize a strict Night watchman state, but it's possible this fanciful group is the majority. Not really sure. BigK HeX (talk) 00:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with North8000 here -while BigK HeX makes a good point that it is a notable blurb, does it really accurately represent a significant enough portion of the libertarian base to be given credence, and, if so, can it be done in a way that is not confusing to readers?  Toa   Nidhiki  05  21:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It represents a notable view as expressed in a well-respected source. You are, of course, free to seek sources that report on whether it "respresents a significant portion of the libertarian base" but that's mostly irrelevant on the matter of including this material. BigK HeX (talk) 00:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that the key item is whether there is a significant following.  I guess it could be plausible that someone could still hold the common tenets of libertarianism, but be for an even milder reduction of government than the Minarchists.    Heck, that sounds like me. Also, it depends on how it is presented.  ed.  If their main theme is expansion of government (or if the writing puts that spin on it) then that is certainly not libertarian. But if it is or is presented as dialing in a lesser degree of reduction in government that certainly could be libertarian. (by North8000, split item)
 * I doubt that's any sort of "key item". What policy leads you to believe that? BigK HeX (talk) 01:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * A general note on the source discussion here (although it may not apply to this specific case.) This is supposed to be secondary sources reporting on  libertarianism.  "Sources" that are just presenting their opinion are primary sources, and further, only covering the opinion of one person, themselves, and not per se suitable or really even sources in this context.  North8000 (talk) 01:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I would not want to exclude them from the article, just not count them as sources when deciding how muchy weight various strands or philosophies should get. North8000 (talk) 13:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Answering Big K's question BigK, there is so much supporting that concept (wp:undue, the finding from the RFC in the fall, good / quality article writing)  that I would have to write very long to respond.  Also, keeping my my last paragraph in mind,  briefly sources would be people writing about something other than themselves/their opinion.  BTW, the more I think about it, the more I think that the following represented by SeaNozzle's insertion meets that test. In fact they may the the largest group of libertarians of all, although they have no distinct name. How bout "Minarchism-lite"  :-)  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ha. Not sure "Minarchism-lite" would survive in the article for very long.  (They'd be just plain "minarchists" as well.) BigK HeX (talk) 01:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I was already wondering about that. Are these folks Minarchists?  At least from the Minarchism article, it appears that Minarchists want a reduction of government to a certain, very limited set of roles, more limited roles than these folks want. North8000 (talk) 10:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. They are minarchists. A night watchman state is only one idea for minarchy. BigK HeX (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks North8000 (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Criticism section?
From an wp:NPOV standpoint, I think there should be no section labeled a "criticisms section"  It's sort of like saying that we're going to have a section with material discussing whether Libertarianism is a good or bad thing, but per the heading, only statements that it is a bad thing are allowed in the section. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Criticism should be integrated into the article. Also, most of the criticism appears to relate to right-libertarianism.  TFD (talk) 21:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't really see any other political ideology article with a criticism section.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  22:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * See Socialism, Communism. TFD (talk) 22:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Most small minority topics have material on criticisms. Actually, per WP:NPOV a reader should gain an understanding of the mainstream regard for these minority thoughts throughout the article. BigK HeX (talk) 00:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that criticism material is good, but a so-named criticism section is bad. North8000 (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Where are the libertarians? workspace
Political or political-philosophy-related groups, organizations, movements, where there is a noteworthy presence of quantities of libertarians in them. (present day) North8000 (talk) 01:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

--beginning of editable space - please feel free to add, subtract, edit--


 * U.S. Libertarian party
 * Tea Party Movement
 * Fabians
 * New Left
 * Liberal Democratic Party (Australia)
 * Libertarian Party (Netherlands)
 * Brazil's Partido Libertários

--end of editable space - please feel free to add, subtract, edit-- North8000 (talk) 01:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC) I think that this is a workspace for development / expansion of a section on the practice of libertarianism. And that even longer term, getting such material into the article will (be one of many inputs) to help us apply due weight to other areas. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The listing of "Brazil's Partido Libertários" caused me to google it and I ended up on the libertarianism page of the Spanish Wikipedia, http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarismo, translated it to English, and found this statement in the intro: "they all share a principle supported by the voluntary association and private property, the assertion of the intrinsic freedom and efficiency of capitalism, of free markets and minimal state intervention , or even zero - in any aspect of life". At least they got it right on the Spanish version.  --Born2cycle (talk)
 * the translation which i agree is the most widely accepted understanding of the word today
 * The libertarianism (English libertarianism, sometimes translated into Spanish as libertarianism or libertarian ) is a political philosophy that affirms the supreme force individual freedom (or negative freedom ), ie the right of the individual over himself , whose limit is none other than the rights of others. The support of the libertarian ideology is the philosophy individualistic , political anti-statist economy and capitalist laissez-faire , because of that libertarians, all human relationships must be the result of voluntary agreements and force can only legitimately be used against other so defensive or a failure of an agreement ( nonaggression principle ). There are some libertarian philosophical justifications, they all share a principle supported by the voluntary association and private property , the assertion of the intrinsic freedom and efficiency of capitalism, of free markets and minimal state intervention , or even zero - in any aspect of life . 2 In advocating the maximization of individual rights and property rights , the libertarian ideology promotes an ethic of individual responsibility, among other things opposed to compulsory military service and social regulation by the state, which argue that suppress individual freedom. Apart from some basic principles that favor personal freedom and free markets, there is no official canon of libertarian beliefs. Libertarians disagree with other libertarians on several specific issues, like abortion, the "culture war," defensive military interventions, the proper form of political activism, and so on.   Darkstar1st (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking that this worksheet would start helping us sort things like this out and eventually communicate it in the article. North8000 (talk) 02:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Taxonomy - take 2
Actually, it's now really names with differentiating attributes, but "taxonomy" sounds better :-) North8000 (talk) 11:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

'''Beginning of editable section. Please free to make any changes (including deletions etc)''' within the format, please follow format

Common tenets (attributes which do not differentiate between libertarians)


 * Greater personal freedom, especially from government.
 * Reduced government (where "reduce" may include reducing to zero)
 * Enlightenment values:
 * Humanist: centred on the person's place in the world
 * Secular: believe that the polity ought to be ordered by the polity, and not by religious establishments
 * Political: believe philosophy or social action capable of changing the composition of the polity and economy
 * Economical: believe the organisation of social production and the economic relationships between individuals to be a central issue of politics
 * Universality of law: law to not single out or elevate individuals, but rather be universally applicable
 * Centrality of the individual to analysis, and as a grounding example and test case
 * Self ownership (to varying degrees)
 * Individualism

Meanings (here) of terms used

These refer to these terms when they are just adjectives / attributes of followers, not to:  Where they self-identify their politics by this word alone, they should also get a line in the above table.
 * Anarchism, anarchist, anarcho- (prefix) Advocate complete elimination of government
 * Minarchist Advocate reduction but not elimination of government to a certain "night watchman" scope..
 * Deontological vs Consequentialist libertarianism Opposite views on whether prohibition on use of force is categorical.
 * Right/Left (libertarianism): Varying meanings: 1. Make the distinction of proprietarian libertarians (right) vs. those anti-proprietarian on some types of assets (left), 2.consider an initial state of wealth of "big business" to be an unfair or bad condition achieved via un-libertarian means (left) vs. those who don't. (right), 3. Minarchist (right) vs. Anarchist (left), 4. Those proposing change from the status quo in a revolutionary manner. (left)     Few or no libertarians of any type self-identify as "right", some libertarians self-identify as "left"

'''Terms, sects, strands, philosophies covered in the article.... libertarian significance, and are they libertarian?'''

End of editable section. Please free to make any changes (including deletions etc) in the above within the format North8000 (talk) 10:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC) North8000 (talk) 11:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Libertarian Communist First use of (single word) "libertarian" in a term to refer to a set of political beliefs. Regarding libertarianism, probably a historical note only.
 * Market Liberalism = classical liberalism = libertarianism, but term seldom used.
 * Contractarianism Reflects on one very narrow concept, has no article.
 * Individualist anarchism Seems libertarian, but seems like just a varying concept with varying meanings.
 * Fabianism Not libertarian. But noted for including practitioners of libertarianism.
 * New Left Not libertarian. But noted for including practitioners of libertarianism.
 * Geo-libertarianism Addresses natural resources and wealth based on them. Is libertarian
 * Georgism / Georgists Not libertarian per se, but a cornerstone of Geo-libertarianism which is
 * Austrian economics Not libertarian per se, but a component of various libertarian philosophies

"Taxonomy 2" discussion
You've got to be kidding if you think Murray Rothbard and the ACs would be "OK" with big business. Randians would be. MR believed the banking system and govt supported big business and his advocacy of defaulting on govt debt and eliminating business subsidies would greatly reduce big business income. So the answer in a sense should be "no" because even though private property is approved, unjust or unethical acquisition of wealth is not, and should be reversed. Hence the distinction between Randians (big business good) and Rothbardians (big business corrupt thieves). - EuroRIP (talk) 23:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks.  Darkstar, you put that in.  Any objection to changing?    North8000 (talk) 00:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Big Business is a term used to describe large corporations, in either an individual or collective sense. MR be against govt subsides, govt loaning money to BB, and a central govt bank.  In a private law environment, unjust and unethical vary depending on the jurisdiction.  MR would not oppose a private business growing the to size to which someone would describe as big.  Darkstar1st (talk) 08:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, what that line is supposed to really be about is Anarcho-capitalists, with Murray Rothbard (to the extent that he follows it) being merely an example. And when I wrote "big business" I was really trying to distill out teh differentiator from those with "socialist" in their name, and I think I mis-worded it.  As I understand it, they hold that the current wealth/power of big business was unfairly arrived at through non-libertarian means, something which should be "erased" at the starting point, with no specific opposition to re-emergence of big-business. I'll tweak the headings, change it back to question mark on that one, and someone can suggest what to put in there. North8000 (talk) 09:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I did it, and took out the answer. Could somebody pleas fill it in in the context of these new clarifications? Thanks. North8000 (talk)

Fabians
Is there some aspect of Fabian that is libertarian? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * British socialist movement. In no way shape or form anything libertarian. Saruman-the-white (talk) 11:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It looks like it refers to the Fabian Society. I had searched that article and found no reference to libertarian, liberty, libertarianism. As I understand it, the person that put it in noted that some Fabians are libertarians.  I'm thinking that that is not quite enough to consider Fabians to be libertarians.  But I have no expertise or knowledge about Fabians. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Much like the various sections of Green parties, and "new social movements," Fabianism was involved in a concerted project around civil liberty centred in the individual as the point of analysis. I'd suggest poking your nose into the early history of formal civil liberties organisations, or actual fabian writings about the rights of man. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The Fabian Society brought together people with a range of views. TFD (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

May as well call the republican party of the us or liberal party of australia because they have SOME members with libertarian based views. the fabian society is largely a socialist society. it does not belong here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saruman-the-white (talk • contribs) 11:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that it's good that we reviewed it, and that we have info on it in the table (but probably not the article).  It looks like they have some libertarians as followers/members, but that there is nothing specifically libertarian about Fabianism. (adding to older unsigned comment of mine.  I'll mark it as such. )

Further discussion
My main flurry of work is done. Are there any comments, corrections, critiques, additions etc.?

Also, if I walked up to an Argorist, and asked the the name for their overall politics, would they typically say just "Argorist"? Thanks. North8000 (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A proponent of the philosophy described by Konkin (author of The New Libertarian Manifesto) would probably call themselves an agorist, anarchist, or libertarian. However, that whole agorism part needs to be straightened out; it mashes together a bunch of stuff under agorism that probably shouldn't be.  BigK HeX (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

BigK thanks for all of the good stuff you added/corrected. I noticed that you removed the note regarding certain terms (e.g. left, right, anarchist, liberal) having different meanings here than some very common ones. Probably a good idea to remove it here, because it's just excess clutter. But I think this certainly needs to be noted when using those terms in the article, or else it will be confusing / uninformative. For example, in the US, the common meanings of "left", "liberal" and socialism (and, for most, any title that includes those words) very clearly includes/means expansion of government in economic areas, i.e. increasing taxes and re-distribution of wealth by the government. And the common meaning of anarchist in the US is things like hurling firebombs in the streets, riots, or a motorcycle gang taking over a town, not a political goal of eliminating government. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ummm .... socialism does not mean "expansion of government", nor does left ... in any country. And even if "left" did, there is nothing in the article that attempts to suggest that "leftists" and "left-libertarians" are supposed to somehow be similar. Also, anarchy means nothing more than the elimination of government.  I suppose you could try to clear up those confusions and misconceptions, if you like.  However, the LAST thing to do would be to write the article from the implied point of view that these misconceptions were any sort of fact.  BigK HeX (talk) 18:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll bet you don't live in the USA! Those are (overwhelmingly) the meanings of those terms here. Agree with you on your last sentence. We have to use the libertarian literature related meanings of the terms.  But we (just) have to say that they are different than some common (e.g. US) meanings of the terms or else we will totally baffle US readers, of have them think that the article is whacky. Possibly that explains some of talk page history here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Those are not the meanings of the terms in the US. Those are the misconceptions of the terms.  I'm not sure if it is appropriate to use the libertarianism article to clear up US misconceptions about socialism and "leftists" and anarchy, but I probably wouldn't oppose such efforts.  BigK HeX (talk) 21:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * We should use the language used by academic sources, which is the same in the U.S. as elsewhere. Incidentally, there is no major socialist party in the U.S. - it reached its peak of popularity (6% of the vote) in 1912.  TFD (talk) 21:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * (added later) I think that the main two common meanings of "socialist" are as the extreme version (as a pejorative) of someone who wants to expand government in the areas that the DNC wants to, and to "that thing that they tried in Russia for a while" :-)  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we could get into a big interesting discussion here on the common meanings of the terms in the US, and, whether or not a common meaning by definition becomes an an actual meaning. But I think we agree on the end point, which is to use the meanings in the article which are correct in accordance with libertarian literature.  And I would consider explaining those to be core material for the article rather than being an off-topic course on terminology. What I want to add is a brief statement saying that these meanings are different from some common ones, such would prepare/open people's minds to be able to absorb the definitions rather than being confused by the material.  IMHO, knowing the situation, using those terms without saying that would be pedantic.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * given the fact the majority of English Wikipedia searches originate in the usa, we could follow both the global view, and the most widely understood view guidelines, by simply writing the article to meet the understood view by the audience. perhaps too much attention to the ENGLISH wp article has been garnered by tiny minority views perhaps more widely excepted in other languages.  Darkstar1st (talk) 12:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * http://infodisiac.com/blog/2010/01/wikipedia-page-views-a-global-perspective-2/ bocsánat  Darkstar1st (talk) 12:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Possibly my idea is the middle ground? The work here has been instructive to me. For example, I learned that "liberal" outside of the US, (especially classical liberal) in some respects means the exact opposite of what "liberal" means in the US.  North8000 (talk) 14:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

"Right" in the first entry in the first column  BigK, thanks for assuming bad faith with your edit summary :I'm starting to get the feeling this table is designed to avoid the proper (right libertarian) label at all costs" and double so in the face of immense evidence to the contrary.  When I said that "right" is ambiguous, I was thinking about the 2-3 definitions/ subject where the term is used in libertarianism.  But come to think of it, that first line qualifies as "right" under all of them.  But I was also thinking about self-identification; nobody or practically nobody-within that group self-identifies by that term. And in the US, the common meaning of "right" is opposite to "libertarian" in about 1/2 of all areas.  And so I got to thinking that this is the only group who, if asked to give the full name of their strand of libertarianism, would still simply say nothing beyond single-word "libertarian". North8000 (talk) 11:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Re: "bad faith" ... your table had a design from the beginning which placed special emphasis on right-libertarians, and gave the impression that they have a monopoly on the label "libertarianism". It even goes so far as to make up the WP:OR phrase, "single-word libertarianism" or the recent "present day single-word-considered-a-full-description 'libertarianism'". BigK HeX (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Right-libertarian has a very specific meaning, even if you insist on conflating "right-libertarianism" with "right-wing parties".  It's irrelevant if right-libertarians don't like the term, that's still the term that sources use to specifically characterize them.   BigK HeX (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * RE: "I got to thinking that this is the only group who, if asked to give the full name of their strand of libertarianism, would still simply say nothing beyond single-word "libertarian""
 * This is incorrect, and even if it were accurate, it is isn't largely important. In any case, pretty much all of those groups may describe themselves as simply libertarians, one obvious example being the agorist New Libertarian Manifesto. BigK HeX (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Recent mass deletions and changes
This article has had a contentious history (better now) and some of the material in here is the result of much discussion. Byelf2007, I'm sure that you have some good ideas. And yes, the article does need a lot of work. But the approach of re-writing half of the article (including mass deletions) during one night and without prior discussion is too much by a mile. Please slow down and talk more. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * In defense of mass deletions:

In general: (This is a minor point) You're not disputing the rationale any of my edits (they're there with the edits). If an article needs a lot of work, that might include mass deletions. However, perhaps you're right that I committed a wikipedia faux pas.

The Overview: The point of an overview is to give an overview. If you want to put the overview stuff in the pre-overview section or in an overview section, I don't care either way. However, it makes no sense to have an overview in the pre-overview section, and then do another overview entirely. It's incredibly redundant. Furthermore, the overview in the old "overview" section has ITS OWN redundancies (about anarchism and minarchism). This means that prior to my edit, we had an explanation of anarchism and minarchism three times before the end of the overview. We also had another redundancy with the pre-overview and the official overview: "Libertarians exhibit differing approaches in...property rights".

The Libertarian Party: "According to the party, libertarians support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters." Even if they mean "small-l libertarians", this description is irrelevant--every political philosophy favors X amount of liberty. The disputes between philosophies revolve around which liberties are good and which are bad. "Smaller government" than what? Do all libertarians/Libertarians want a government that is strictly "limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence" and "oppose [all] government bureaucracy and taxes"?? Do liberals/conservatives not "embrace individual responsibility" or "promote private charity" or "tolerate diverse lifestyles" or "defend civil liberties"?

Also, it's not by a "prominent libertarian"

Chomsky: Chomsky's argument about coercion is NOT a definition/description of libertarianism.

Principles: In order for this section to make sense, we need to have a description of what principles ALL libertarians have in common. That isn't what the section is about. We have another definition of libertarianism (by an encyclopedia) that isn't in the definitions section (which is where it should be if it's here at all). Then we've got ANOTHER description of libertarianism by the US Libertarian Party (not quite the same, but still redundant with the other one). Then someone (who?) talks about why libertarianism is "attractive" which has nothing to do with libertarian "principles". Then we have a little bit about how some libertarians want a small social safety net (already described to us), which also has nothing to do with libertarian principles. Then, we have the fourth (!) description of minarchism in the article. Then we've got the third description of the property rights debate. And again, none of this has anything to do with principles. Then we've got Zwolinski's description of libertarianism, again in the wrong section.

In "ethical foundations" we get the fourth description of the property rights debate and the third (I think?) description of "right-libertarianism" and "left-libertarianism". We also get Isaiah Berlin's bit on liberty. Was he a libertarian? how does this relate to libertarianism?

Also, anarcho-capitalism is a type of anarchism, and anarchism is in the list of libertarian philosophies. I don't see how it makes sense to include a sub-category of something when we have the main one already (should we also include Objectivism? It's a type of minarchism).

Finally, I think it makes sense to list the libertarian schools in alphabetical order. byelf2007 (talk) 14 July 2011


 * I think that many of your thoughts make sense. But particularly with this article and it's history, people want to be able to review changes that are made.  A truckload of changes all at once does not allow that.  Please take it more slowly.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I'm going to make an edit every couple of days. byelf2007 (talk) 15 July 2011


 * Cool! BTW, the overview section has been a sort of compromise section during the article's bloodier times. A place to give stuff a higher level place without putting it into the lead. North8000 (talk) 00:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * How is it useful? byelf2007 (talk) 16 July 2011


 * I am not arguing for retaining it, just giving background information. North8000 (talk) 11:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Procedural
Byelf2007, you have some good ideas, but your FOUR deletions of the SAME material, this large amount of consensused, sourced material is brash, to put it mildly. Your edit summary with the third time was "(convince me its useful (discussion); I'm pretty sure the burden is always on someone who wants to include something) ". The first half was IMHO arrogant and not proper, saying that in order for something to be present in Wikipedia, YOU must be convinced its useful, and saying it with your reversion rather than in talk. The second half is incorrect. I think you are confusing it with wp:ver which says that the burden is on the inserter that it be sourced. Indeed, for someone who has just did the same large deletion of long-standing consensused material for the fourth time, three times in one day, with two editors having reverted your deletion, the burden is certainly on you to get a consensus in talk before making a fifth deletion.


 * I wanted an argument for why it should stay. You've provided one, so now we can talk about. But someone changing an edit without an explanation is invalid to me (unless we're talking about a lot of changes at once). byelf2007 (talk) 17 July 2011


 * Cool North8000 (talk) 03:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Merits
First, this is a description by the largest libertarian organization in the world and so it is certainly useful/relevant. Second, this article suffers from lack of weighting by prevalence, and this would make that issue worse rather than better.

Second, addressing your comment


 * "every political philosophy favors X amount of liberty. The disputes between philosophies revolve around which liberties are good and which are bad. "Smaller government" than what? Do all libertarians/Libertarians want a government that is strictly "limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence" and "oppose [all] government bureaucracy and taxes"?? Do liberals/conservatives not "embrace individual responsibility" or "promote private charity" or "tolerate diverse lifestyles" or "defend civil liberties"? "

If you just take it literally (without context or clearly implicit statements) you are correct. But the two huge things where are clearly implicit are advocating placing a much higher / very high priority on these items. And second, saying that a change from the status qou towards these priorities is advocated. As a minor sidebar, on one item, I think "promote private charity" is the PR way of saying "reduce public charity"

Third, your statement "not by a prominent libertarian" is correct, but it's basically a minor, easily fixed heading wording problem that does not call for deletion of the material. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I put an abbreviated version back in under an appropriate heading. North8000 (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * One - saying "this is a description by the largest libertarian organization in the world and so it is certainly useful/relevant" is an appeal to authority, and therefore invalid. Suppose the Libertarian Party said "Libertarianism is the belief that ice cream is awesome"? Would we want to include that just because of where it came from? Two - If there is context to the description, it should be included in the description. Interpreted as is, it's saying things that aren't actually a description of libertarianism. byelf2007 (talk) 17 July 2011


 * North8000 should be aware that we do not conduct original research and that his suggestion is disruptive. If you want articles to be based on OR, then go to the policy pages and persuade editors to change the policy.  It is a waste of everyone's time here to present proposals that violate policy.  TFD (talk) 03:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This is covering what the largest libertarian organization advocates. It is not OR, and does not violates policy.  But byelf2007 makes some good points regarding it's place and context.  North8000 (talk) 03:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC).


 * I concur that it is not OR, but it's still silly. byelf2007 (talk) 17 July 2011
 * I think that this is an important discussion for the article.  From my angle, it's not to argue towards a pre-determined result but to instead to try to figure out what the result should be.   So here are my arguments both for and against inclusion.


 * Against It's placement is in an area which gives definitions of libertarianism. In reality, it is a statement of common tenets of those within the USLP.   Being a political party, right out the box that excludes anarchists.  It also has the flaw that one point "promote private charity" isn't a libertarian objective, only what it implies (reduce government charity) is. In short, this is in a "definition" place, and even the USLP isn't claiming that this is a definition of libertarianism.


 * For Whatever the largest group of libertarians in the world say (more or less speaking for their members) carries weight by definition, not by authority. If it means xxxxx to a huge amount of people, then xxxxx inherently is a (even if one of many) legit working definition.  Second, this article suffers from a lack of weighting and, as awkward as it is, this inject a bit of that in here. We can evolve it later and find a better place for it or even replace it.


 * Comment  We really need to include "common tents" under the definition.   We developed that on the talk page, but we'd need o source it to put it in. North8000 (talk) 14:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It is OR because it is based on a primary source rather than independent sources. Also, the claim that it is "the largest libertarian organization" is a strange argument.  Are libertarians collectivists who need an organization to enforce ideological rigidity?  Note that the Conservative Party of the UK and the Liberal Party of Canada may be the largest conservative and liberal parties in the world, yet are not necessarily the benchmark of those ideologies.  TFD (talk) 14:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I do NOT NOT claim that it is a benchmark, just that it is a statement by the largest organized group of libertarians....nothing more, nothing less. - North8000 (talk)
 * North8000 - I'll tell ya what. How about we include the Libertarian party definition, but ONLY if someone shows that (A) they're defining small-l libertarians, not the party members, and (B) limit the definition to the part that is plausibly correct: [Libertarianism is the advocacy of a government] limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence and is [funded voluntarily]. This is from "They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence." and "oppose government bureaucracy and taxes". Is this an acceptable compromise? byelf2007 (talk) 18 July 2011
 * I just want to do what's best. I went and found an on-line ref of one place where it came from and put it in. Literally, it is a statement of their about what defines one as a libertarian.   I think that they were putting in their vision of the main tenets what small l libertarian means in (the context of the status quo) And I think that your trimming of it is a good idea.  North8000 (talk) 00:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone took out that reference I just added, their comment being that I went thought their "Are you a libertarian" test to get to that page. But you can look back. North8000 (talk) 11:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Minarchism - so which is it?
The question is about libertarian schools of though that advocate retaining limited additionl government functions in place, such as a minimal social safety net. Some posters pointed out that this is a substantial group. Is or isn't this a variant of Minarchism? North8000 (talk) 14:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The purpose of this talk page is to discuss improvements to the article not to discuss the subject in general. What specific change are you recommending and what sources do you have?  TFD (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A specific proposed change and its sourcing is not a requirement for discussing something on the talk page. But the question in general is a good one. The question is that we need to give some place in the article for the material per SeaNozzle in the discussion above. Based on your input (that this fell within Minarchism) I put mention of that in under Minarchism. (just a mention as a 1/2 way solution....they had provided sources etc. from which a more substantial entry could be built)      Now Byelf2007 took it out saying that it isn't within Minarchism. I don't have an opinion either way; my opinion is just that Seanozzle had a valid point that it should be included somewhere in the article. And the question is whether or not that should be put under Minarchism, or as something separate from Minarchism. North8000 (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The definition of minarchism IS what I've said it is. This has been long established (1971). http://www.blackcrayon.com/library/dictionary/?term=minarchism It's not in any controversy. There ARE people who are minarchists except they also want a little social safety net, but they AREN't minarchists. In fact, I don't believe there's a word for what they are, other than libertarian. byelf2007 (talk) 18 July 2011
 * Thanks! North8000 (talk) 11:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * At the top of the this page it says, "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." I am not interested in talking about what libertarianism means to me, how it has changed my life, whom we should expel, etc.  TFD (talk) 00:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

TFD, why don't you lighten up! Assuming / accusing violations about discussion that certainly is germane to improvement of the article certainly isn't that. And your mis-characterizations of the nature of the conversation are just that. Mis-characterizing a discussion of definitions of s terms (Minarchism) that is used in headings in the article as "what libertarianism means to me, how it has changed my life" is certainly way out of line. North8000 (talk) 11:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Branch of Liberalism
Shouldn't libertarianism be presented as a form of liberalism (specifically "economic/market" liberalism) instead of the other way around (classical liberalism being organized under the libertarian header)? Liberalism is a much older school of thought. The term "libertarianism" is a descriptor that arose from the need to differentiate the philosophy from Modern American Liberalism. Thoughts?--Drdak (talk) 14:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever we do, we must start by understanding that, for the majority of our readers, the meaning of liberalism is simply Modern American Liberalism, something that is quite opposite of Libertarianism in many ways. So any use of one-word "liberalism" is confusing at best, and actually would mislead most readers. People who do not live the US do not realize the extent that this is true in the US. I'll bet that 99% of Americans would say that "liberalism" means a larger government (higher revenues [taxes],  expansion of social programs etc. ).  North8000 (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We should use the terminology in scholarly sources, not what the average American believes. TFD (talk) 16:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I doubt that in any current works, that scholars would exclude the US meaning (bigger government) from the meaning of single-word liberalism. And older works would clearly be outdated (wrong) regarding current terminology. 17:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is what the textbook Political ideology today (2001) says, "In American political parlance, right-wingers are 'conservatives', while left-wingers are rather confusingly called 'liberals'." TFD (talk) 16:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ( a sincere thanks, that was informative reading) I think that you made my point.  The term "liberal" has a different meaning in the US than elsewhere.  And so to communicate to readers we must clarify/explain the use of any such terms.  North8000 (talk) 20:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Drdak, i like where you are going with this line of thought. Liberalism has left it's original meaning, but only recently, perhaps it's not to late to reclaim the word with the help of the much ballyhooed RS  Darkstar1st (talk) 00:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Then the US liberals would need new a new name.  :-)   North8000 (talk) 01:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * senator bernie sanders and msnbc host lawrence o'donnell use the word socialist. since their views are to the right of many others using the word liberal, perhaps it is time to remove the negative connotation associated with socialist for it's brief employment by the Nazi's.  Darkstar1st (talk) 07:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Some people, such as Sanders and O'Donnell use terms correctly, while others do not. What is your point?  TFD (talk) 16:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * that everyone to the left of bernie is actually a socialist and incorrectly using the term liberal to describe their own views. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That may be your opinion, but it is not supported by reliable sources. Who are you talking about anyway?  TFD (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * do you have a source claiming liberal is left of socialist?  Darkstar1st (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Taxonomy - take 2
Actually, it's now really names with differentiating attributes, but "taxonomy" sounds better :-)

Common tenets (attributes which do not differentiate between libertarians)


 * Greater personal freedom, especially from government.
 * Reduced government (where "reduce" may include reducing to zero)
 * Enlightenment values:
 * Humanist: centred on the person's place in the world
 * Secular: believe that the polity ought to be ordered by the polity, and not by religious establishments
 * Political: believe philosophy or social action capable of changing the composition of the polity and economy
 * Economical: believe the organisation of social production and the economic relationships between individuals to be a central issue of politics
 * Universality of law: law to not single out or elevate individuals, but rather be universally applicable
 * Centrality of the individual to analysis, and as a grounding example and test case
 * Self ownership (to varying degrees)
 * Individualism

Meanings (here) of terms used

These refer to these terms when they are just adjectives / attributes of followers, not to:  Where they self-identify their politics by this word alone, they should also get a line in the above table.
 * Anarchism, anarchist, anarcho- (prefix) Advocate complete elimination of government
 * Minarchist Advocate reduction but not elimination of government to a certain "night watchman" scope..
 * Deontological vs Consequentialist libertarianism Opposite views on whether prohibition on use of force is categorical.
 * Right/Left (libertarianism): Varying meanings: 1. Make the distinction of proprietarian libertarians (right) vs. those anti-proprietarian on some types of assets (left), 2.consider an initial state of wealth of "big business" to be an unfair or bad condition achieved via un-libertarian means (left) vs. those who don't. (right), 3. Minarchist (right) vs. Anarchist (left), 4. Those proposing change from the status quo in a revolutionary manner. (left)     Few or no libertarians of any type self-identify as "right", some libertarians self-identify as "left"

'''Terms, sects, strands, philosophies covered in the article.... libertarian significance, and are they libertarian?'''

End of editable section. Please free to make any changes (including deletions etc) in the above within the format
 * Libertarian Communist First use of (single word) "libertarian" in a term to refer to a set of political beliefs. Regarding libertarianism, probably a historical note only.
 * Market Liberalism = classical liberalism = libertarianism, but term seldom used.
 * Contractarianism Reflects on one very narrow concept, has no article.
 * Individualist anarchism Seems libertarian, but seems like just a varying concept with varying meanings.
 * Fabianism Not libertarian. But noted for including practitioners of libertarianism.
 * New Left Not libertarian. But noted for including practitioners of libertarianism.
 * Geo-libertarianism Addresses natural resources and wealth based on them. Is libertarian
 * Georgism / Georgists Not libertarian per se, but a cornerstone of Geo-libertarianism which is
 * Austrian economics Not libertarian per se, but a component of various libertarian philosophies

Discussion
Politics would be much simpler if we unjumbled titles. Statists refer themselves to liberals or progressives Right liberals refer to themselves as libertarians Moderates refer to themselves as conservatives It has meshed up over the years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.179.26.134 (talk) 20:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello 74.1779... IMHO you have good thoughts there but maybe ambiguous/unclear. I think that only in the USA statists refer to themselves as liberals. Outside of the USA it looks like "liberal" has a totally different meaning, and close to "libertarian". Agree that "Right liberals" (to whatever extent that term actually exists, and certainly not in the USA)  refer to themselves as libertarians. Once you clarify, please BRD edit the taxonomy. Sincerely, 20:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The issue of neoliberalism
I think this should be dealt with in this article. In the rest of the world and sometimes in the USA, right wing libertarians such as minarchists and anarcho-capitalists are called "neoliberals". Neoliberalism is a term widely used in academia and politics to describe "pro-free maket capitalism" views and so it cannot be ignored here (it is widely used in the UK for example). Neoliberalism is taken by some free-market liberals as an insult but as the name shows it only points out to that those people are a more recent wave of liberals who adhere to neo-classical economics and austrian school instead of the classical economics classical liberalism adhered to. Minarchists in the rest of the world do not call themselves or only sometimes call themselves "libertarian" but mostly they call themselves "liberals". As proof i give you the example of the Liberal International which has inside it pro-free market capitalist parties from around the world and as anyone can see in that article, a lot of parties there call themselves "liberal". And of course as far as anarchism, I could bring a lot of references which show anarchists fighting "neoliberalism".--Eduen (talk) 21:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I can see neoliberalism going in the See Also section unless it can find mention in the history section. I'm not sure how much support you'll find for making neoliberalism its own subsection under the libertarian philosophies section. KLP (talk) 14:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If it is fully explained, then I'm all for it. By "fully explained", it must deal with the fact that in the USA,  the meaning of "liberal" & "liberalism" means "larger government", the opposite of libertarianism regarding size/scope of government. North8000 (talk) 14:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Neoliberalism refers to the modern paradigm followed by most governments and emphasizes free trade, de-regulation, tax cuts, privatization etc. While it shares intellectual origins with right libertarianism (Hayek, Friedman) it is considered distinct. TFD (talk) 16:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

TFD by whom. In the academic reference i showed it is shown to be the same thing. Hayek adviced Augusto Pinochet and continued his academic career. There is neoliberal policies and neoliberal theories that inform them.--Eduen (talk) 22:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * See The Blackwell dictionary of modern social thought for "neoliberalism (conservative liberalism)" and "libertarianism (anarcho-capitalism)" in the section on the "New Right"(p. 436) Two different concepts.  TFD (talk) 23:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Well then I guess you are denying minarchists the label "libertarian" even though they use that label for themselves and minarchists are present in the US "Libertarian Party".--Eduen (talk) 23:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No I am merely pointing out the obvious, that there is a difference between the ideology of the Bush administration, that supported overseas wars, the war on drugs, agricultural subsidies, no child left behind, bank bailouts, NAFTA, CAFTA, stimulus packages, deficits, Guantanamo Bay, and the Patriot Act, and libertarians who opposed them. TFD (talk) 03:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what point you are making. Yes, "Republicanism"/Conservatism/the "Right" (per US definition) often conflict with libertarianism. And Bush (in certain situations, and sometimes called neoconservative) went even more activist/big government than either of them. North8000 (talk) 10:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The question was whether neo-liberalism is the same as libertarianism. My position is that it is not, that mainstream U.S. politicians who follow neo-liberal policies, including Obama, are not libertarians.  TFD (talk) 14:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Taxonomy - take 2
Actually, it's now really names with differentiating attributes, but "taxonomy" sounds better :-) North8000 (talk) 11:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

'''Beginning of editable section. Please free to make any changes (including deletions etc)''' within the format, please follow format

Common tenets (attributes which do not differentiate between libertarians)


 * Greater personal freedom, especially from government.
 * Reduced government (where "reduce" may include reducing to zero)
 * Enlightenment values:
 * Humanist: centred on the person's place in the world
 * Secular: believe that the polity ought to be ordered by the polity, and not by religious establishments
 * Political: believe philosophy or social action capable of changing the composition of the polity and economy
 * Economical: believe the organisation of social production and the economic relationships between individuals to be a central issue of politics
 * Universality of law: law to not single out or elevate individuals, but rather be universally applicable
 * Centrality of the individual to analysis, and as a grounding example and test case
 * Self ownership (to varying degrees)
 * Individualism

Meanings (here) of terms used

These refer to these terms when they are just adjectives / attributes of followers, not to:  Where they self-identify their politics by this word alone, they should also get a line in the above table.
 * Anarchism, anarchist, anarcho- (prefix) Advocate complete elimination of government
 * Minarchist Advocate reduction but not elimination of government to a certain "night watchman" scope..
 * Deontological vs Consequentialist libertarianism Opposite views on whether prohibition on use of force is categorical.
 * Right/Left (libertarianism): Varying meanings: 1. Make the distinction of proprietarian libertarians (right) vs. those anti-proprietarian on some types of assets (left), 2.consider an initial state of wealth of "big business" to be an unfair or bad condition achieved via un-libertarian means (left) vs. those who don't. (right), 3. Minarchist (right) vs. Anarchist (left), 4. Those proposing change from the status quo in a revolutionary manner. (left)     Few or no libertarians of any type self-identify as "right", some libertarians self-identify as "left"

'''Terms, sects, strands, philosophies covered in the article.... libertarian significance, and are they libertarian?'''


 * Libertarian Communist First use of (single word) "libertarian" in a term to refer to a set of political beliefs. Regarding libertarianism, probably a historical note only.
 * Market Liberalism = classical liberalism = libertarianism, but term seldom used.
 * Contractarianism Reflects on one very narrow concept, has no article.
 * Individualist anarchism Seems libertarian, but seems like just a varying concept with varying meanings.
 * Fabianism Not libertarian. But noted for including practitioners of libertarianism.
 * New Left Not libertarian. But noted for including practitioners of libertarianism.
 * Geo-libertarianism Addresses natural resources and wealth based on them. Is libertarian
 * Georgism / Georgists Not libertarian per se, but a cornerstone of Geo-libertarianism which is
 * Austrian economics Not libertarian per se, but a component of various libertarian philosophies

Anarcho-capitalism
Is there consensus in support of Byelf's deletion of the anarcho-capitalism section?BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No strong feelings, but I lean towards keep it in. Many folks here have strong feelings that anarchism is libertarianism.  North8000 (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * remove anarcho-capitalism is neither libertarianism, nor anarchy, rather a mythical middle-ground existing only in the minds of writers.  privately funded police is normally called a monarchy, or tribalism.  anarcho-capitalism tries to add "trade" as a differentiation from anarchy, as if trade could not exist in an anarchy?  the only thing libertarian is the part about reducing the state, except it wants to reduce the state to zero, which rules out the libertarian nightwatchman.  Darkstar1st (talk) 17:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Darkstar, do you mean support the deletion, or support what I said (it was indented under what I said.) Either way is cool, just wondering. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)  Answered (via editing) North8000 (talk) 17:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Should keep. Important part of the development of right-libertarianism.  TFD (talk) 16:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: Anarcho-capitalism is more closely related to libertarianism than anarchism. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 16:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * "anarcho-capitalism is neither libertarianism, nor anarchy" It's both actually (as anarchism is a type of libertarianism). "Important part of the development of right-libertarianism." So? My point is that it's silly to have a section for anarchism and then another for a sub-category of anarchism. In order to be consistent, we'd have to include social anarchism and Objectivism. I think it makes sense to have the "major schools", as in the schools that differ from each other in fundamental ways. "Anarcho-capitalism is more closely related to libertarianism than anarchism." I have no idea what this is supposed to mean: Anarcho-capitalism is a type of anarchism, which is a type of libertarianism, so I guess you'd have to say it's more closely related to anarchism than libertarianism. This is why it belongs in the "schools" section in the anarchism article, but not here. byelf2007 (talk) 21 July 2011
 * A square is a rectangle rhombus. Anarcho capitalist lacks the core tenant needed to be a libertarian, Constitutional limitations on government as well as the elimination of most state functions, it is impossible to have a constitutional anarchy.  Darkstar1st (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Source? The article says "Libertarianism is the political philosophy that holds individual liberty as the organizing principle of society." There are similar definitions elsewhere. There's a long-standing precendent on wikipedia and elsewhere that anarchism is a type of libertarianism. byelf2007 (talk) 21 July 2011
 * is liberty possible with out a minimal state? indeed, until someone bigger takes it from you.  Darkstar1st (talk) 09:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Although not relevant to the article, I think that Darkstar is right that liberty is not possible without some type of state.  For the listed reason, plus the others that come from our main / only example  of a stateless society, Somalia.  Plus, one often argues for more than one will achieve.  Arguing for anarchy might achieve Minarchism as a compromise, arguing for Minarchism might achieve only half that change as a compromise. :-)  But IMHO that does not affect the main question here, one is removal/keeping  that section (on that point Darkstar and byelf2007 agree) and whether or not anarchism (at least without any possibly-disqualifying compounding of the word) should be in the libertarian article. On that last point, my opinion is a yes, and that I would rather not re-open that question.  North8000 (talk) 11:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notwithstanding that Rothbard is a mojor figure of the right-libertarian movement, I'm fairly sure the inclusion is decently sourced. BigK HeX (talk) 02:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you mean "Let's keep it in because the section has good sources?" I don't see why that should matter. By the way, I'm fine with anarcho-capitalism being kept, but only if we include social anarchism and Objectivism as well, as I'd say both are each about equally important to the libertarian movement as anarcho-capitalism. byelf2007 (talk) 23 July 2011
 * How 'bout a sentence for each under anarchism? North8000 (talk) 15:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. byelf2007 (talk) 24 July 2011
 * oppose (for mentioning anarcho-capitalism in anarchism section). As far as anarcho-capitalism there is a big controversy which has most anarchist positions considering that it is not an anarchist position but a radical section of right wing liberalism, anyone that wants to know more about it I can give many sources on that polemic and anyone can also check this wikipedia article "anarchism and anarcho-capitalism". But lets just remember on top that anarchism has always been furiously anti-capitalist). Anarcho-capitalism identifies itself as a form of individualist anarchism (as can be seen in the article "anarcho-capitalism") and so to give it too much visibility within the section on anarchism will be unjustice to other forms of individualist anarchism such as illegalism, anarcho-naturism, mutualism and egoist anarchism (see the article on individualist anarchism where it is clear it is a small section of it with other positions very different in goals).--Eduen (talk) 08:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * remove (for anarcho-capitalism having a whole individual section in this article) that will be too much space given to it. It is too much of a recent position, it is mostly a USA position and anyway the name Murray Rothbard is given his due in "influential liberatian philosophers" section for his influence in the United States.--Eduen (talk) 08:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * remove, section on obscure term only adding to confusion. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Capitslism with no government. So instead of the government enforcing rights and regulations, everyone agrees to it either by cooperation or by private force. Early American pioneers and part of the Wild West where settlers simply claimed land, put up a fence and guarded their land and their gold or crops or whatsoever it may have been, is anarcho capitalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 (talk • contribs) 06:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Anarchism
Any support for removing the anarchism subsection or merging it with the libertarian socialism one? Anarchism and libertarian socialism are pretty much synonyms. Also, the libertarian socialism subsection already refers readers to the anarchism article. I say merge. KLP (talk) 15:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Not following exactly, but my general feeling is to mention them briefly in this article. North8000 (talk) 15:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * As I would have it, the article would still mention anarchism, but within the libertarian socialism subsection. Having both an anarchism subsection and a libertarian socialism subsection seems redundant. KLP (talk) 16:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * remove anarchist want no government, Libertarians(the most widely accepted use of the term), support limited government.   Darkstar1st (talk) 17:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Most widely accepted? KLP (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ya, you were unaware of this wp:policy? Darkstar1st (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If we must maintain special sensitivity to readers from the United States, we definitely ought to emphasize historical and international definitions to make this article as useful to them as possible. As I mentioned in a previous comment, Wikipedia already has an article for Libertarianism in the United States. Perhaps I should start another talk section to gauge interest in making mention of it in the libertarian philosophies section. KLP (talk) 15:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * if we must, shouldn't we want to follow wp:policy?  readers from the United States...emphasize...international definitions  your comment appears to be in conflict with itself?   Darkstar1st (talk) 16:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We should only ever want to follow policies that make sense, when they make sense, and probably only in ways that make sense, but I digress. The best way to demonstrate sensitivity to readers with contemporary, USA-centric perspectives is not to pretend that such perspectives are the only perspectives. Rather, in this case, we ought to present all of the notable definitions and strains of libertarianism because such readers will find such information especially useful. Obviously, readers will go on using whatever words they prefer to describe their philosophies, but at least they'll have the information they need to avoid unintentional confusion. KLP (talk) 18:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I gotta split myself on this. This article has always been confusing / incoherent to the reader (and bloodshed due to lots of people being upset with it) because it fails to focus based on predominance. Single word "libertarian" does have a main meaning based on overwhelming usage, which the article fails to convey.  And a theme of Darkstar has always been to try to solve that problem.  But that said, where I disagree with Darkstar is that if, for example, taxonomically, anarchy can be considered a  form of libertarianism, lets put a couple sentences on it here to explain that (what better place to do that?) rather than completely excluding it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * PS I'll be gone for 4-5 days. North8000 (talk) 19:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * agreed, a few lines to explain would be better than the current anarchism section. @KLP, yes, since this is an english article, we are to write it according to the most widely accepted version of Libertarian known to the english speaking audience.  since the vast majority of such exist in the usa, the def should reflect such.  Darkstar1st (talk) 19:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, we already have Libertarianism in the United States. KLP (talk) 13:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * keep According to this article: "Libertarianism is the political philosophy that holds individual liberty as the organizing principle of society." This can apply to anarchists. "Anarchism and libertarian socialism are pretty much synonyms." No--just because most anarchists are social anarchists, anarchism is not inherently collectivistic (see "anarchism" article). Finally, some of the subsections are compatible with each other (individualism and self-ownership are pretty broad), so I see no reason why we need to merge them. byelf2007 (talk)


 * Socialism does not necessarily oppose individualism nor is it synonymous with collectivism. KLP (talk) 13:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. What I meant is "Anarchism is not necessarily socialistic." I also never said "Socialism necessarily opposes individualism." It boils down to this: are there anarchists who are not socialists? The answer is yes. byelf2007 (talk) 19 August 2011


 * byelf2007. individualist anarchism is mostly a socialist position since it critiques capitalism (mutualism is market socialism, egoist stirnerism justifies theft and expropriation and so there are stirnerist communists like insurrectionary anarchists and post-left anarchy. Oscar Wilde in the essay The Soul of Man under Socialism argued that socialism and the elimination of private property was the way to achieve individualism. It is clear that when Wilde means "individualism" he means sovereignty over one´s spirit and body and this does´t have to imply liberal Lockean Propertarianism. And so famous beggars and vagabonds such as the stirnerist Biofilo Panclasta and cynic philosopher Diogenes of Sinope clearly were individualists and maybe in some sense even more individualistic than Murray Rothbard or Friedrich Hayek). And since individualist anarchism is minoritarian within anarchism (majoritarian tendencies in history and in contemporary times are anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism) then Anarchism can very well said to be a part of socialism.

On the other hand uninformed US readers and US neo-liberals should be informed in this article that "libertarian" in the rest of the world and for a long time and in some sections of the US, is used as synomym for "anarchist" and so many organizations, some with articles in english wikipedia such as the french anarcho-communist Alternative Libertaire, use "libertarian" in this way.--Eduen (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the use of synomym in the rest of the world of "libertarian" and "anarchist" could be dealt on in the section on Libertarian Socialism.--Eduen (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism All I'm saying is that not all anarchists are socialists. Therefore, we should not merge "anarchism" and "libertarian socialism." Do you think anarcho-capitalists exist? byelf2007 (talk) 19 August 2011


 * As far as "anarcho"-capitalism prominent US anarchist Bob Black said the following "Let “Type 2(anarchism)” refer to anarcho-capitalism...For present purposes let’s disregard the Type 2, free-market anarchists who seem to have no noticeable presence except in the United States, and even there they have little dialog with, and less influence over the rest of us.)" The issue of anarcho-capitalism denied by most anarchists as not being an anarchist position but a right wing liberal position should be remembered. Nevertheless even if we were to include anarcho-capitalism within anarchism and in the section it itself says it belongs, individualist anarchism; even there it is a minoritarian and US centered position as Bob Black points out. In the rest of the world individualist anarchism is associated with free love and intentional communities enthusiasts hippie types, nietzschetianism and stirnerism, freethinking militant atheism, naturist nudism, bohemian artists and poets like Oscar Wilde, illegalist thieves, and insurrectionary anarchist propaganda by the deed. All these people might seem more lifestyle oriented (see lifestyle anarchism) a less economics and socialistic than anarcho-communists and anarcho-syndicalists who concentrate on the "class struggle" but when they touch the economic problem they have tendeded to agree with stirnerism, mutualism and even anarcho-communism. So anarcho-capitalism means like less than 1 per cent or less of anarchism. Wikipedia should not overemphasize minoritarian positions such as those and for that reason if anarcho-capitalism is dealt with in this article it should´t be in the anarchism section--Eduen (talk) 21:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Anarchism is usually defined as the political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful. This applies to anarcho-capitalists. Your whole argument appears to be "But they're so unlike 99% of anarchists." Does that mean they aren't anarchists? Should we argue that Objectivists aren't actually minarchists because they are "So unlike most minarchists"? And what does it matter what one guy (Bob Black) says about this? There is a type of political philosophy called anarchism. Anarcho-capitalists are anarchists. Anarcho-capitalism is not compatible with any form of socialism. Therefore, we should not merge anarchism and libertarian socialism. byelf2007 (talk) 19 August 2011


 * Oof. Folks, let's try and keep this section to a continuous format. I'm having trouble following along. @byelf2007, the solution to the conflict you present is simply that, despite it's name, anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism, but rather a form of minarchism. Indeed, it's a very controversial topic on the Wikipedia, but it has no place in this article. Rather, readers can learn more about it as they read on about anarchism. KLP (talk) 04:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Anarcho-capitalists oppose the state. Minarchists favor the state. Therefore, anarcho-capitalism is not a type of minarchism. You both insist anarchism is inherently socialistic/collectivistic (as in anti-authority), but the anarchism article says that there is no near-universally agreed definition and that the most common definition is opposition to the state (which includes anarcho-capitalists). If you don't think "anarchism" means "the political philosophy which opposes the existence of states", then what is the name that political philosophy? Would you agree that it exists? byelf2007 (talk) 20 August 2011


 * "opposition to the state" on itself doesn´t make one an anarchist. Otherwise feudal lords and current mexican and colombian drug traffickers would be anarchists. What the position of Murray Rothbard is closest to is minarchism and it shares the same intelectual and political space and tradition. Rothbardism is minarchism radicalized and so anarcho-capitalists exist within the Libertarian Party and not in US anarchist federations like NEFAC. Rothbard is mainly indebted to minarchist austrian economics such as Ludwig von Mises, the positions of right wing liberal Ayn Rand and the so called Old Right (United States) and nothing to people like Godwin, Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Emma Goldman or Errico Malatesta. All anarchism has been opposed to capitalism since the beginning and until today and so anarchism and neoliberalism are political enemies.--Eduen (talk) 03:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "opposition to the state on itself doesn´t make one an anarchist." Well, according to this website's article on "anarchism", that is what is most commonly thought of as anarchism. "Otherwise feudal lords and current mexican and colombian drug traffickers would be anarchists." This is a red herring. I don't even know what you're trying to say here. Feudal lords are a part of feudalism which is an economic system compatible with a stateless society and a state society. Drug traffickers might be anarchists who are breaking the law, or they might support the existence of the state, but still justify their drug trafficking on the grounds that said drugs should be legal. "Rothbardism" is not "anarco-capitalism", so I don't know why you bring that up. Just because Rothbard coined the term doesn't mean he thought of the idea, and even if he did there are anarcho-capitalists who disagree with some of Rothbard's political views. "All anarchism has been opposed to capitalism since the beginning" This depends on your definition of anarchism. If you want to argue that anarchism means "no rulers" as opposed to "no state", then you can make THOSE arguments and I am happy to hear you out. Otherwise, you are simply asserting something. byelf2007 (talk) 21 August 2011


 * To the extent that anarcho-capitalists would allow employers to have dominion over their employees and landlords over their tenants, ancaps qualify as minarchists of the mini-est kind. Ancaps simply prefer a society full of many tiny dictatorships or oligarchies. Otherwise, an anarcho-capitalist society would have no basis to enforce capitalistic property claims. Anarchist opposition to the state, on the other hand, necessarily implies opposition to capitalism. But this discussion goes beyond the scope of the article. Anarcho-capitalism exists and, despite not actually qualifying as anarchism, is related to it. If readers follow the links to anarchism, they'll inevitably discover anarcho-capitalism. That should assuage your concerns. KLP (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * To the extent that minarchism, by definition, includes support of a state, and anarcho-capitalism opposes it, no, anarcho-capitalists are not, at all, by definition, minarchists, and not even the "mini-est" kind. "Anarchist opposition to the state, on the other hand, necessarily implies opposition to capitalism." Where is your evidence? You're just making an assertion. "That should assuage your concerns." No, it wouldn't, because I contend that anarchism isn't necessarily social/socialist/collectivist/communalist. I will say it again: if you want to merge anarchism and libertarian socialism, you have to make a case for why anarchism is "no rulers" and not "no state". The "anarchism" page on this website currently says that there is no near-universally agreed upon definition for the term AND that currently the most common definition is "no state" and NOT "no rulers". If you can convince people that that should be changed to "historically has meant 'no rulers', but recently is commonly understood as 'no state' " THEN we can merge the articles, but you can't do that before you get this change, because if you made this change without the other, the anarchist article would be inconsistent. Again, you need to make arguments for why anarchism should be understood as "no rulers"--assertion doesn't cut it. byelf2007 (talk) 22 August 2011


 * I have to make no such case because the issue is beyond the scope of the article. And I don't see why merging the anarchism and libertarian socialism subsections would conflict with the controversial assertion that anarcho-capitalism qualifies as anarchism. Anarchism gets its association to libertarianism via libertarian socialism. Merging the subsections would reflect this relationship. Anarcho-capitalism gets its association to libertarianism via Murray Rothbard and his contributions to contemporary American libertarianism, and the article already reflects this relationship. Indeed, we can explicitly draw an association between anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism via libertarian socialism via anarchism, but, when you consider that this article already mentions anarcho-capitalism elsewhere, and that readers will encounter anarcho-capitalism when they follow a link to anarchism, doing so would only serve as needless cruft. KLP (talk) 14:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If you merge the anarchism and libertarian socialism subsections, then the implication is that all anarchists are socialist. Yes, all libertarian socialists are anarchists, but not all anarchists are libertarian socialists. Either we get rid of the libertarian socialism subsection altogether (because we already have an anarchism subsection), or we keep the libertarian socialism subsection (because there are a lot of libertarian socialists). I don't care which. I also don't think we should merge them simply because they are compatible (we've already got individualism and self-ownership, which are both compatible with all the other subsections). However, I'm open to having all the subsections be mutually exclusive (this might make more sense because I'm pretty sure individualism and self-ownership are requisites of libertarianism). byelf2007 (talk) 23 August 2011


 * The wording already present in the libertarian socialism subsection should dispel your concerns about such an implication: "The term libertarian socialism is used by some socialists to differentiate their philosophy from state socialism or by some as a synonym for anarchism."


 * "Political philosophies commonly described as libertarian socialist include most varieties of anarchism (especially anarchist communism, anarchist collectivism, anarcho-syndicalism, mutualism ) as well as autonomism, communalism, participism, some versions of "utopian socialism" and individualist anarchism..."


 * I added the emphasis. So, we should keep the libertarian socialism subsection, at least for the reasons you present, and remove or merge the anarchism subsection. Those who identify as anarchists but not libertarian socialists, or even socialists, receive ample coverage in this article. KLP (talk) 03:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that anarchism receives ample coverage in the article is irrelevant. It is a form of libertarianism. It therefore deserves a subsection if there are any subsections in the article. byelf2007 (talk) 24 August 2011

Back on topic, we have one motion each to merge, keep, and remove. I remain convinced that merging the anarchism subsection into libertarian socialism one would serve readers best. Thoughts? KLP (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

"Right-libertarianism and neoliberalism" section
I propose creating a "right-libertarianism and neoliberalism" section" section and there talking about minarchism and its more radical version "anarcho"-capitalism. It clearly belongs there and not anywhere else. After all both share this right wing "austrian economics" and so spend a lot of time with conservatives, members of the Republican Party and this US "Tea Party Movement" and so never find themselves even close to people like anarcho-communists and anarcho-syndicalists who tend to be closer to libertarian marxists and radical ecologists. I think this is the way I propose not to confuse the uninformed reader. As far as the term neoliberalism because of its popularity outside the USA in order to talk about minarchism and related positions. Also the term "liberal" is also very popular in order to refer to people like Friedrich Von Hayek, Milton Friedman and Murray Rothbard. Sometimes i have found references to "neoliberalism" used in this way even in US references. I can bring all these references very easily from non-US sources and I think references in the english language itself shouldn´t be too hard to find.--Eduen (talk) 22:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

It was as easy as this. I typed in google search the words "neoliberal murray rothbard" and the first thing that I got is this nice rigorous Norwegian academic article called "What is neoliberalism" and the following sentence "Economic liberalism and neoliberalism should, in our view, be held separate from liberalism in general, which we understand, along with the Oxford English Dictionary (1989), rather broadly as a political ideology which is “[f]avourable to constitutional changes and legal or administrative reforms tending in the direction of freedom or democracy”. The same dictionary describes neoliberalism also, which is said to be “a modified or revived form of traditional liberalism, [especially] one based on belief in free market capitalism and the rights of the individual” (Oxford English Dictionary 1989a)." The issue shouldn´t be more clear and it comes from an english language dictionary. This definition fits both for minarchism and anarcho-capitalism. This article, as anyone can see, is not a statement of personal philosophy but rahter an analysis of existing bibliography on the subject of neoliberalism.

The same article continues and so it includes both minarchism and anarcho-capitalism under the same political space: "Another dimension within liberal thought Ryan (1993:296-297; cf. also Kymlicka 2002:53-165) describes is the more recent conflict between „liberalism‟ (or „liberal egalitarianism‟) on one hand, and „libertarianism‟ on the other. This dimension overlaps to a degree with the division between classical and modern liberalism, but not entirely so. One might perhaps perceive of libertarianism as a radicalised variety of classical liberalism, at least as this position has been expressed by for instance Robert Nozick (1974) and Murray Rothbard ([1962/1970] 2004), and liberal egalitarianism as a more systematic or theoretical restatement of modern liberalism (cf. especially Rawls 1971; Ackerman 1980). " So the minarchist Nozick is joined with Rothbard as expressing a "a radicalised variety of classical liberalism".

If there are any doubts the article states the following "In his article, we can therefore see the concept of neoliberalism in a more mature state, compared to the expositions given by Cros and Nawroth. Under ver Eecke‟s understanding, neoliberalism is not a description of any kind of recent contributions to liberal theory, but rather a concept reserved for a particular kind of liberalism, which is marked by a radical commitment to laissez-faire economic policies. Among the proponents of such policies one finds some of the more uncompromising classical liberals such as Mises and Hayek, monetarists and other economists bent on establishing and preserving what they perceive of as „free markets‟ such as Friedman, and finally also those libertarians whose much-repeated insistence on individual liberty issues in a demand for a minimal or practically non-existent state, like Nozick and Rothbard." So they clearly belong together and not anywhere else.

And so the part called "right libertarianism" accounts for the US use of the word while the "neoliberalism" makes reference to the label both Hayek and Rothbard get in the rest of the world. I think this is both fair as far as regional differences and accurate conceptually.--Eduen (talk) 23:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC) --Eduen (talk) 23:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * We'd have a lot of explaining to do, which is fine. In the USA, (the largest group of English WP readers) the common meaning of anything with "liberal" or "liberalism" in it is expansion of government, the opposite of libertarianism. And "right" means the opposite of libertarianism on social issues.  North8000 (talk) 23:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, it seems that "right libertarian" has so many meanings that it is not a useful word, and also a word that libertarians do not self-identify as.
 * What do you think? North8000 (talk) 23:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * 1. We should have a "right-libertarianism" section instead of a "neoliberalism" section beacuse one could be a neoliberal and also not a libertarian (it "stresses the efficiency of private enterprise", so you could be a neoliberal who opposes legal abortion, wants a draft, wants alcohol illegal, etc). 2. I agree we should have the section because it's good to distinguish capitalist libertarians and non-capitalist libertarians, but, to reiterate, anarcho-capitalism is both anarchist and capitalist, so we shouldn't say in the anarchism section "they're all anti-market" and/or "anarcho-capitalists aren't really anarchists; they're an extreme form of minarchism." byelf2007 (talk) 24 August 2011

byelf2007 "anarcho"-capitalism is less than one percent of all anarchism which is entirely anti-capitalist and most anarchist either ignore it or deny it is an anarchist position. I am aware for example that there are atheist christians but they don´t deserve too much space in the christianity article since is clear the overwhelming majority of christians belive and have believed in a God. The same goes for "anarcho-capitalism" since most anarchists are and were strong anti-capitalists and that includes individualist anarchism. That is the reason anarchists end up collaborating with marxists and radical environmentalists most of the time while "anarcho"-capitalism belongs with minarchism and from what i have read the US Libertarian Party is composed of minarchists and a smaller wing of "anarcho"-capitalists.

And as far as the issue of "right-libertarianism" we should take notice of what those people call themselves but the term and the wikipedia article with that name exists for a good taxonomical reason. I know for example Francisco Franco and Hitler didn´t call themselves "dictators" but they deserve that label for good reasons. US neoliberals clearly belong in right wing politics and so in the United States they tend to be in the right wing Republican Party. Also the minarchist economist Friedrich Hayek for a good reason did not give advice to governments such as Cuba or the Soviet Union or Scandinavian social democrat ones but gave advice to the right wing dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet in Chile who was notorious for murdering communists as well as neoliberal policies such as deregulation of markets and privatization.

As far as neoliberalism it is clearly a synomymous term of right wing libertarianism. Neoliberals or as they tend to call themselves in the rest of the world "liberals" tend to go for civil libertarianism but as their main concentration tend to be economics, they end up in right wing parties alongside conservatives and the religious right. People like Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher were conservatives on social and civil issues but neoliberals in economics. The main leaders of the right wing in the world tend to be that way as a matter of fact and economic neoliberalism is a main feature of right wing politics worldwide but of course "pure" neoliberals such as those who belong to parties of the Liberal International go for civil libertarianism and neoliberal economics.--Eduen (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I suggest those interested to check the wikipedia articles called "Right-libertarianism" and "neoliberalism". I really didn´t invent those term as anyone can see there. They include some good references also that we could perhaps bring here.--Eduen (talk) 23:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Eduen, again, it doesn't matter if anarcho-capitalists are only 1% of anarchists. What matters is what the definition of anarchism is. According to this site's "anarchism" article, the most commonly accepted definition is "opposition to the state". If that is the correct definition, then anarcho-capitalists are anarchists. As for your "atheist Christians" example, again, it depends on what the definition of "Christianity" is. You cannot act as though anarchism has a certain definition without first getting it explicitly established. If you want an anarchism subsection that describes anarchism as libertarian socialism instead of opposition to the state, then you NEED to first establish that anarchism is "no rulers" instead of "no state" (which is definitely possible); if you want anarcho-capitalism to be described as a form of minarchism, then you NEED to establish that minarchism is "the non-aggression principle and capitalism" instead of "A state limited to..." (no way this is possible, as minarchism has always been defined as such). Saying that anarcho-capitalists aren't anarchists because 99% of anarchists are anti-capitalism makes as much sense as claiming that minarchists aren't capitalist because 99% of capitalists are anti-minarchism, or that Mormons aren't really Christian because 99% of Christians don't believe in the Book of Mormon, etc. byelf2007 (talk) 24 August 2011

I do not propose saying that "anarcho"-capitalism is a form of minarchism. I clearly stated that it is better to create a section called "right libertarianism and neoliberalism" and to put anarcho-capitalism there alongside its closest ideological position which is clearly neoliberal minarchism. Both share this "austrian school economics" after all. And even if we were to accept "anarcho"-capitalism as a part of anarchism why should we privilege that particular recent position within anarchism and not other similar recent ones such as anarcho-primitivism, post-left anarchy or post-anarchism or older ones such as anarcho-pacifism, anarcho-naturism or christian anarchism or insurrectionary anarchism. People from those currents have also called themselves "libertarian".

On this article we only need a brief description of anarchism and to include anarcho-capitalism there is to mislead readers to think an important section of it is pro-capitalism, which of course is not the case; and also to privilege one small particular position among others for no good reason besides the personal preference of User:byelf2007 is not fair either from the point of view of history or from that of contemporary reality. anarcho-capitalism in neoliberal economics is important mainly for the influence of Rothbard and so if it s to be mentioned in this article at all it has to be there for the many reasons I and others have given here.--Eduen (talk) 19:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * To include anarcho-capitalism in the anarchism section is NOT to mislead readers because it IS a form of anarchism. It would only be misleading if we said something like "about one-third of anarchists are anarcho-capitalists". If fact, we should mention that capitalists are a very small minority in anarchism. Why not have anarcho-capitalism mentioned in both the "anarchism" and "right-libertarian" sections? (we already have compatible subsections) byelf2007 (talk) 25 August 2011


 * Eduen, you are much more knowledgeable than me on the the main topic here and so I will not attempt to comment on it. I'm assuming that you live outside of the US.   My main point is that any content that associates "liberal" with "libertarian" must explain that it is using the outside-of-the-US meaning of "liberal"  because "liberal" in the US overwhelmingly means "larger government".   Ditto for "Right" which in the USA overwhelmingly means (includes)  "Social Conservative.  Lastly, I still think "right libertarian" is a useless word with respect to identifying any strain/philosophy of libertarianism.  It seems that the only use of it is by authors to try to organize their books, and each use has a different meaning.  I might be wrong, but I submit that as a possibility. North8000 (talk) 20:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * More specificaly, from the "taxonomy" section above: Right/Left (libertarianism): Varying meanings: 1. Make the distinction of proprietarian libertarians (right) vs. those anti-proprietarian on some types of assets (left), 2.consider an initial state of wealth of "big business" to be an unfair or bad condition achieved via un-libertarian means (left) vs. those who don't. (right), 3. Minarchist (right) vs. Anarchist (left), 4. Those proposing change from the status quo in a revolutionary manner. (left) Few or no libertarians of any type self-identify as "right", some libertarians self-identify as "left" North8000 (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It is clear the clarification of the exception of the US usage of libertarian is needed maybe in the introduction to the "schools of thought" section. As far as right libertarianism it will be necessary a clarification as far as the US usage for both US and non US readers (even if less than the US readers, the native english speakers of the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand deserve consideration since we are speaking about millions of such speakers on top of the many more non-native english speakers who come to english wikipedia). It is clear one the one hand minarchism (Hayek, Milton Friedman) and "anarcho-capitalism" (Rothbard) and on the other hand libertarian socialism (incluiding libertarian marxism, anarchism and other smaller schools such as libertarian "utopian" socialism such as Charles Fourier) deserve the right and left separation mainly because of the important issue of pro-capitalism vs. anti-capitalism even if they might agree on civil libertarianism up to a certain point. For example there is a school of thought in Australia called the Sydney Libertarians and all of it has only bad things to say about capitalism. Even in the USA itself there still exists in New York City the Libertarian Book Club which from mid-20th century up until today it has defended libertarian socialist ideas as can be seen here where they are explicit about their rejection of right wing libertarianism. They state the following "The Anarchist Forum is a project of the Libertarian Book Club (LBC), New York City's oldest continuously active anarchist institution, founded by Jewish and Italian exiles from fascist Europe in 1946. We are not right-wing, capital-L Libertarians. We are left-wing anarchists. When LBC was founded, the word "libertarian" had not yet been co-opted by the free-market right, and was basically a synonym for "anti-authoritarian" or "anarchist." We stubbornly refuse to surrender the name."Libertarian Book Club. Now of course in the US people like that have to go through those clarifications. In the rest of the world "libertarian" alludes to libertarian anti-capitalism. And so I am also motivated for this inclusion of non US visions out of this Wikipedia concern regarding US bias. (See Systemic bias)--Eduen (talk) 21:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

More on this issue. There are two well referenced english wikipedia articles of importance on this issue. These are Libertarian conservatism and Libertarian Republican. And a referenced affirmation on the article called "Libertarian Republican" says "anarcho-capitalist" "Economist and philosopher Murray Rothbard (until the 1950s)" belonged to the Republican Party just as another anarcho-capitalist Karl Hess who on top as his article shows, was a speechwriter for Republican Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater. Clearly anarchism has as much relationship with "anarcho-capitalism" as with fascism and maoism. We could only be giving misleading information to uninformed readers if we didn´t show "anarcho-capitalism" is a right wing philosophy which has its closest links with conservatism and neoliberalism. If anarchism is anti-state or critical of the state like minarchism and "anarcho"-capitalism, anarchism also is anti-parlamentarist like fascism and anarchism is also anti-capitalist as maoism. Definitely deeper links such as those I have given here have to be accounted for but in the end they should show how ridiculously simplistic is the definition of anarchism User:byelf2007 has and wishes this enciclopedia to adopt. We should definitely do better than that.--Eduen (talk) 23:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Individualism and self-ownership
I think we should get rid of the individualism and self-ownership subsections. Individualism and self-ownership are compatible (or requisite) with libertarianism, but I don't think that technically makes them "libertarian philosophies" so much as "libertarian ethical positions". Also, neither are listed in the "libertarianism by form" page. Also, (this is a minor point) I'm not even sure if you should call them "libertarian ethical positions" because it implies they are necessarily a derivative of libertarianism, and that they could not have been conceived of were it not for libertarianism. I also think it's confusing to have a mix of ethical positions and actual political philosophies. byelf2007 (talk) 23 August 2011


 * Perhaps they should just go in See Also? KLP (talk) 03:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Good idea. byelf2007 (talk) 24 August 2011


 * When you mentioned "Individualism and self-ownership are compatible (or requisite) with libertarianism," those are two very different things.  "Compatible" would make it nearly irrelevant to the article, but "requisite" means it is at least an attribute of libertarianism which would mean it should be in the article, even if not a philosophy or ethical position.  BTW I tend to read the latter two terms rather loosely to mean any of a number of tenets, beliefs, priorities, philosophies, components etc. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 00:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

right libertarian is individual and self ownership left libertarian is collective and common ownership A left libertarian would favor a non-capital common ownership of a cooperative. Basically no money, no investment, no profit, where everyone works together to produce what they need. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 (talk • contribs) 06:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

simplified.
In the US libertarian is just another word for classic liberalism or right wing liberalism since liberalism is already used by modern liberals. But there is a true form of right wing libertarianism which is a radical form of classic liberalism such as miniarchism and anarcho capitalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 (talk • contribs) 06:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Sounds like some good thoughts, but trying create and introduce here such categorical statements makes things more complicated rather than simplify. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

"The" vs. "a" dustup
Agree with Byelf2007 that it should be "the" but in my case for a different reason. North8000 (talk) 21:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Rather silly thing to war over. In order to use "the", you'd basically require a broad consensus in sources that libertarianism is the one single philosophy in the history of man that upholds some ideal of "liberty".  IMO, that's a pretty silly claim to try to make.  It should be "a" for this rather obvious reason. BigK HeX (talk) 03:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * My reason would be based on "main conveyed meaning" rather than the pure-logical-dissection-driven approach which you are using.....by the latter I'd have to agree with your choice of word, but by the former IMHO "the" is more accurate. But on your first sentence, by common meaning, "a" is a statement that there are other significant ones that hold individual liberty as the organizing principle of society which one could claim would also have to meet that overly high hurdle for inclusion that you posited.  North8000 (talk) 11:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In order to say that there are others (and that should mean others of significance) they would need to hold individual liberty as the organizing principle of society, not just think similarly.
 * Lets settle this in talk. Not a huge deal, and I have not participated in editing.  But if folks try to settle this by a edit war ganging up on Byelf2007, that would be a bigger deal forcing me to.  So lets settle it in talk.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * There is nothing for anyone other than Byelf to settle. And unless Byelf is going to strongly source his claim that libertarianism is "the" ONLY such philosophy in the history of man, he should drop his silly attempt to get this in via edit warring.  BigK HeX (talk) 22:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I said "The only philosophy in the history of man"??? Do you consider hyperbole constructive? Byelf2007 (talk) 10 September 2011


 * This is a pretty lame thing to fight over, and this is probably destined for the lamest edit wars page, but here are my two cents: I think 'the' is probably better, per what North8000 has said.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  22:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the 'a' does not necessarily define libertarianism as one of several ideologies with similar views... Rather, it merely defines it as an ideology. Perhaps something like "Libertarianism is a political philosophy; it holds individual liberty as the organizing principle of society." would work as a compromise.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  23:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I lean towards 'the" but could live with "a". North8000 (talk) 00:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That implies there is another political philosophy which holds individual liberty as the organizing principle of society. If so, what is it? The current classical liberalism definition doesn't quite match that. If there is, then this would be the appropriate starting sentence. Byelf2007 (talk) 10 September 2011

Definition
The Stanford site says that libertarianism is "the moral view that agents initially fully own themselves" and ALSO that it "can be understood as a basic moral principle". This means that it is, in effect, saying: "Libertarianism is the moral view which holds that the idea of agents initially fully owning themselves is a basic moral principle." Furthermore, because libertarianism is a political philosophy (applying to society), it is also, in effect, saying: "Libertarianism is the political philosophy that holds that the idea of agents initially fully owning themselves is the basic moral principle of society." I'm fine with this being our definition, but it is cumbersome.

What, then, would be a simpler definition? The idea of agents initially fully owning themselves is just another way of saying that agents have total liberty until they violate someone else's liberty (it doesn't say "agents always fully own themselves" as this would imply you could never punish/imprison someone regardless of their actions). Therefore, this can be re-worded (without losing any meaning) as: "Libertarianism is the political philosophy that holds the individual liberty as the basic moral principle of society." Byelf2007 (talk) 20 September 2011


 * I'm cool with the current lead. If someone has what they feel is a better idea, I'm also cool with looking at that.    The lead should be high level summary statements of what's in the article.  Sincerely,  North8000 (talk) 00:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * We need sources for the definitions provided. If you have a better definition that the one provided in the article then please provide it for discussion.  TFD (talk) 00:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

173.52.212.151's edits
I have taken 173.52.212.151's sources to The reliable sources notice board. I believe them to be a mixture of unacceptable (Wikipedia is not a reliable source), primary/original research, and inadequate citation (I can't find the reference in a 400 page work without a page number: it isn't verifiable). In addition, the material 173.52.212.151 is adding is not appropriate per WP:LEDE, as it is an exposition of the Criticisms section. Do other editors concur with this assessment? Fifelfoo (talk) 01:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Take a look at http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/tje as a source.--S. Rich (talk) 01:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Slab quotes from primary sources, "Jefferson wrote:" can be sourced from a variety of source books and scholarly editions. It doesn't make the primary source any more reliable. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Slab quotes"? I don't see the term in WP:G.--S. Rich (talk) 01:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur. His edit warring is not helping his case.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  01:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * From the IP's edits: "Jefferson wrote: 'Experience declares that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to...the general prey of the rich on the poor.' [7] 'I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.'[8] 'Aristocrats fear the people, and wish to transfer all power to the higher classes of society.' [9] 'Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains.' [10]"
 * They aren't citing signed scholars in a scholarly tertiary, they're citing Jefferson repeatedly to synthesise a point from original research. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted to the pre-IP edit war version. Certainly the WP:CIRCULAR edits are improper. (And they had a POV tint.) And if The Jefferson Encyclopedia could be used, that would work. The New Yorker is WP:RS, but opinionated. But trying to sort out what was good v bad v ugly was too much. Time to start over from the pre-IP version. --S. Rich (talk) 02:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

They were also adding article content to the LEDE; which is a big no no. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I strongly agree. These edits have many many problems. North8000 (talk) 11:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Libertarian philosopher/theorists
I suggest that Friedrich von Hayek, the author of “The Road to Serfdom” (1944) be included under 'Philosophers influential to libertarianism' and in 'Category: Libertarian theorists'.

'The Road to Serfdom is among the most influential and popular expositions of market libertarianism and remains a popular and influential work in contemporary discourse, selling over two million copies, and remaining a best-seller.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_To_Serfdom Peaceandlonglife (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Byelf2007 (talk) 10 September 2011


 * Sounds good. North8000 (talk) 13:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Fsol (talk) 08:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

New website: libertarianism.org
Just launched, libertarianism.org is a possible source of material for this article. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it is a project of the CATO Institute and fails rs. However, it may provide links to rs articles.  TFD (talk) 17:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. I did not mean as a direct source - as a source of sources, if you will. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * failed rs how specifically? which other .org is excluded from rs on it's namesake article in wp?   Darkstar1st (talk) 03:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a good question. A CATO website on Libertarianism isn't a reliable source for an article about libertarianism? --Paul (talk) 04:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The site disclaims editorial responsibility rather prominently, "None of the views expressed at Libertarianism.org should be taken to represent the position of the Cato Institute or its scholars." and has no publication information for itself. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

A suggestion towards a clearer article
I think this article does not present libertarianism accurately enough. We see as main libertarian philosophies, movements that are really minoritary.

I propose: We scrap Anarchism and Geolibertarianism as main libertarian philosophies, as they are found in right/left libertarianism. Geolibertarianism is a form of Minarchism. Anarchism is a form of left libertarianism.

We divide the left/right libertarianisms into their main parts: Libertarian Marxists and Anarchists for left libertarianism; Minarchism, Anarcho-capitalism and Geolibertarianism for right libertarianism. --Fsol (talk) 06:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * a step in the right direction, please proceed with the edits. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Great and needed effort. But please see my comment below regarding right/left. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Organize "Libertarian philosophies" Dialectically?
Perhaps the best way to organize the various libertarian philosophies would be in a dialectical fashion. Something along the lines of: Thoughts? EPM (talk) 12:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Anarchism vs. Minarchism
 * Left-libertarianism vs. Right libertarianism
 * Deontological libertarianism vs. Consequentialist libertarianism
 * ...and so forth


 * Very good idea! I fully support that. --Fsol (talk) 12:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This goes to grounding. is this the presentation which occurs in the highest quality reliable sources?  If not, I'd suggest it is dangerously synthetic to present the article as a series of philosophical dialectics. User:Fifelfoo (talk) 12:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it's great that you are thinking of such things and making such an effort. However I agree that it is probably too synthetic. Also on the second point, it appears that "right libertarianism" is just a two word sequence that has been used by various authors and people to describe widely varying things but that it has no consistent meaning to identify any strand of libertarianism or group of libertarian philosophies. And that the term "left libertarianism" also has this problem but to a lesser extent. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Definitely, right libertarianism is a vague term used to describe very different groups. However, maybe it's a good idea to maintain some sort of differentiation in order clear up the distinction with libertarian socialism. The "right" one recognizes authority in private property, however the "left" one condemns authority wherever it comes from. And other such distinctions. Maybe it's a good idea not to call them "right" and "left", the terms Capitalist (recognize private property) and Socialist (deny private property) could be used, especially since both sides use the terms to define themselves. What do you think? --Fsol (talk) 13:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

--


 * All good points here. In regards to the presentation as being "too synthetic" or even "dangerously synthetic", then I agree to the extent that using the term "dialectical" was probably a poor choice of words. I was simply coming from the perspective that libertarianism is not a monolithic philosophy and that there are indeed "opposing tendencies" in libertarian philosophy, (which perhaps would have been a better way of putting it!) So basically,I was suggesting that the article be structured in such a way as to acknowledge these fundamental tensions and bring them to the forefront. (Though I suppose there is also the danger of going to the other extreme and presenting the "tensions" in such a way as being "mutually exclusive", thereby becoming "too analytic"! ...so, a little balance might be in order...)


 * In regards to the left/right distinction in libertarianism, I agree that these do not represent two separate coherent bodies of thought. I think they're more like "family resemblances". Furthermore, I get the impression that this type of distinction might come more from those who identify themselves as left-libertarians, and that those whom left-libertarians identify as "right libertarians" would be more likely to just see themselves as plain old "libertarians" and see self-described "left libertarians" as just being incoherent, incosistent, and just downright confused! Nevertheless, this opposing tendency does exist in libertarianism, (hence why we have separate articles for them on Wikipedia already).


 * In regards to the distinction between "libertarian capitalists" and "libertarian socialists", these seem to typically coincide with "right" and "left" libertarianism, respectively, but not always. For example, geolibertarianism, green libertarianism, and left libertarianism of the Vallentyne persuasion have what you might call a "libertarian socialist" perspective when it comes to land and natural resources, but a more "libertarian capitalist" persective when it comes to goods that are actually products of human labor. So perhaps a separate dichotomy between "libertarian capitalism" and "libertarian socialism" would be appropriate, (though acknowledging significant overlap with "right" and "left" libertarianism, respectively).
 * Thoughts? EPM (talk) 14:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think that the article needs to be less confusing, although it has improved. On the "right left" topic, I think that the pair of terms has been used to differentiate in several different independent areas/variables and thus has no consistent meaning:


 * 1) Make the distinction of proprietarian libertarians (right) vs. those anti-proprietarian on some types of assets (left)
 * 2) Consider an initial state of wealth of "big business" to be an unfair or bad condition achieved via un-libertarian means (left) vs. those who don't. (right)
 * 3) Minarchist (right) vs. Anarchist (left)
 * 4) Those proposing change from the status quo in a revolutionary manner (left) vs. those who don't (right)
 * 5) Capitalist vs. anti-capitalist

Also agree that nobody identifies themselves as "right libertarian" but many identify themselves as "left libertarian". I suspect that a part of this is that those who many identify as "right" are probably more prevalent. Also, in the USA, both of those terms are oxymorons, because the common type (single-word) of libertarianism is in direct conflict with major portions of both "right" and "left" philosophies (USA meanings) in different areas. In the USA, "left" means bigger government on social issues, and "right" means social conservatism and a more powerful government on security issues, all of these being in direct conflict with the common USA meaning of libertarianism. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Very good. So, we agree to drop the left/right distinction and add other distinctions.


 * I propose to use the following distinctions:


 * proprietarian / anti-proprietarian (where we should mention al sorts of variations like those mentioned by EPM in regards to geolibertarians and others all the way to socialist libertarians)
 * Deontological libertarianism / Consequentialist libertarianism
 * Anarchism / Minarchism (mentioning anarco-capitalism as a form of anarchism)


 * We could add the distinctions about initial wealth of "big business" and the revolutionary means. However since many libertarian writers don't even treat these subjects, wouldn't it be better not to mention them as main distinctions? Also, if you agree they're not main distinctions, we could write a separate paragraph about all the smaller distinctions, thus leaving a more central place for major distinctions? --Fsol (talk) 22:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that sounds good. I only mentioned those things to make the point about the right/left terminology rather than to say that they are major distinctions.   As a side note, I think that (as you have proposed) we need to call these philosophies rather than groups.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In regards to the "proprietarian / anti-proprietarian" distinction, would it be better to say non-proprietarian instead? Anti-proprietarianism could be a be type of non-proprietarianism but not the other way around, right? In other words, something could be "not-A" without necessarily being "anti-A", (or "against-A"), but something could not be "anti-A" without being "not-A", correct? EPM (talk) 14:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You are right, non-proprietarian is much better. --Fsol (talk) 14:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Expansion ideas
One picture that has slowly emerged is that "right libertarian" and "left libertarian" divisions have no consistent meaning as. So I think that it is good that they are now mostly gone from the article. Nevertheless, I think we need to cover those terms if only to explain that they have no consistent meaning via explaining the multiple varying uses of those terms.

I submit that it would also be good to cover something along the lines of libertarianism in the world today. (where is it, who's doing it etc.)  The sections on parties, organizations, publications are good partial coverage of this. I don't know if it is sourcable, but there are few things that I've slowly learned here:

I don't know if any or all of this is accurate and sourcable, but it does seem to explain many things. North8000 (talk) 13:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a preference / inclination held by a large amount of people who are not a part of any libertarian organization, publication, think tank or party. In fact they may have political affiliation with parties which have some tenets in direct opposition to libertarianism.
 * One thing I've learned here is that in some ways the USA meaning of "liberal/liberalism" is directly opposite the meaning of that term outside of the USA. (I'm from the USA) In the USA, "liberal" includes seeing a larger government as the answer to most problems. It appears that outside of the USA, the meaning of "liberal" is much closer to "libertarian".  This may be indeed why there seem to be fewer simply "libertarians" outside of the USA.  Those folks have a major party which is more closely aligned with their libertarian views, even if they do not use that word, whereas in the USA, there is no major party so-aligned. Also, in the USA, if one looks at the agenda of the Tea Party Movement, it is mostly libertarian, especially by the notable absence of the social conservative agenda from the agenda of this movement that has a lot of conservatives in it and behind it. (don't bother to try to learn anything from the TPM article, it's a total train wreck)  I don't know if this is true or sourcable, but it seems to explain some confusing things.


 * I can personally confirm (and it would be easy to find a source) that in Europe, liberalism means what libertarianism means in the USA. However I'm afraid the term liberalism was slowly perverted in US culture, because its initial meaning was what we now call libertarianism. Rothbard has a great article on this. Also it's a great idea to re-write and add stuff to this article. It's a pity it wasn't better structured in the first place. --Fsol (talk) 14:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * North8000: If you think the Tea Party is absent of a social conservative agenda, then you haven't paid much attention to it. That may have been true in the first few months of its existence, but it quickly became overrun by people calling for a "Christian Nation," and opposing LGBT rights, among other things.  Bryonmorrigan (talk) 14:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Fsol, cool. IMHO it would be cool if you could put something like that in. Maybe in a cautious way, like "according to Rothbard, ......"
 * I could, but it's a really widespread distinction not something particular to Rothbard. Should we mention it in the intro of the article? --Fsol (talk) 07:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Bryonmorrigan, my gut feel is that those folks are in the TPM and trying to gain traction for those agendas, but I've not seen those things in TPM agendas etc.. Mostly because I think that folks within the TPM are divided on social conservative issues, but united on prioritization on lower taxes, less government, and lowering the deficit.  Also, arguably the most prominent person in the TPM (Ron Paul) is a libertarian. Maybe just some mention of some degree of libertarian presence in the TPM might be good. North8000 (talk) 16:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the most prominent political candidate associated with the Tea Party is Michelle Bachmann...who is about as much of a "Libertarian" as Osama bin Laden.  Ron Paul was the ideological grandfather of the movement, but they left him long ago with their visions of Christian Nationalism.   The Tea Party should only be mentioned if a sufficient counter is also presented stating that many of the prominent social conservative issues that have come to dominate it are incompatible with Libertarianism.  --Bryonmorrigan (talk) 16:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * While popular usage of the term "liberal" does vary between the U.S. and Europe, that does not mean that liberal in Europe has the same meaning as libertarian in the U.S. TFD (talk) 17:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Bryonmorrigan, I'd rather not get into trying to characterize the TPM. that's a tough one with even the highest intentions, and impossible when there are people who's main goal is to make it look good or bad. (not saying that's the case here, but that is what has so far wrecked the TPM article) Is there some minor statement regarding libertarianism in the TPM that you would be comfortable with without getting further into the TPM?
 * TFD, I don't have the knowledge about liberalism in Europe to respond to that. I was just thinking that the similarity (if actually the case) and related consequences might be relevant to this article. North8000 (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that a section on right and left libertarianism should be added, along with the inconsistent uses of these terms, (and perhaps how some libertarians certainly wouldn't even accept this distinction, while some may accept it). EPM (talk) 23:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that most libertarians would reject these labels. But since some authors use them I think they should be covered here, even if to just show that they do not have consistent meanings. North8000 (talk) 03:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

NPOV
Big problem with this article as it seems more focused on the right-wing conception of libertarianism, popular in the US today, than all other concerns. I just read the introduction and it indicates that entirely. If somebody new to the subject read it, there's no way they'd be associating libertarianism with the far-left and anti-capitalism (which it is, and where it originated), which it is associated with as much as it's associated with the far right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.43.214 (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * What area were you thinking about? What I see is a lot of material on the items in common to all strands of libertarianism, and then pretty balanced coverage of the specific philosophies.   Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The introduction has a quote from Roderick Long, a left-libertarian anarchist: "Philosopher Roderick T. Long defines libertarianism as 'any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals', whether 'voluntary association' takes the form of the free market or of communal co-operatives" It seems to me that that quote makes plenty of room for "far-left/anti-capitalistic" strains of libertarianian thought. EPM (talk) 17:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

On the order of distinctions
May I suggest that the deontological/consequentialist distinction be listed first. This would seem to be the logical starting point since this distinction demonstrates *how* libertarians justify their views on things like property, anarchism, minarchism, etc. EPM (talk) 23:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find problems classifying the various libertarian socialisms and anarchisms in terms of this divide. Most simply declare a normative ethical position based on the class analysis present in historical materialism.  This also indicates that sourcing the ethical position of these libertarians will be far more difficult than sourcing the ethical positions of libertarians for whom ethical justifications are a central part of their ideology. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with your points. However, I wasn't actually suggesting sub-dividing the various schools of libertarian thought along deontological/consequential lines. I was only suggesting that since one of the sections was on the deontological/consequentialist distinction, it just seemed sensible (to me anyways!) to list that section first since that's a distinction about how libertarians go about justifying their claims, (I suspect some libertarians utilize both approaches). All the other distinctions have to do with the actual claims themselves. Basically, I was only suggesting that we switch around the sections that are already in the article. That's all :-) EPM (talk) 04:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "i reckon this order goes from most important to least" is not an adequate argument for weighting or structure. Where's your magisterial secondary source or scholarly tertiary source supporting this? Fifelfoo (talk) 07:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have an argument, not 'hey someone else made an argument, so it must be true' and it's the very next sentence in the edit description: "consequentialist/deontological is definitely the most important because it determines the standard for determining what is/isn't moral" That's pretty straight forward. Basically, it's an ethical distinction as opposed to a political distinction. And I'm pretty much undecided on which should go second. Byelf2007 (talk) 8 November 2011
 * One could argue that the sequence has no formal significance and minor informal significance North8000 (talk) 11:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point. It also happens to currently be alphabetical. Byelf2007 (talk) 8 November 2011
 * I'd suggest you go read WP:WEIGHT about now. We don't weight or structure articles based on personal beliefs.  I'm happy with an alphabetical ordering if you can't locate a HQRS that discusses this. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This conversation doesn't indicate consensus around alphabetical ordering; it indicates that Byelf2007 ought to go look for the highest quality sources for the ordering and coverage of contradictions or distinctions within libertarianism. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of Sourcing
Would Byelf2007 like to go back and cite this diff full of highly argumentative and analytical claims, all of which need citation to a high quality reliable source. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey Byell2007, take it easy....that's a lot of big changes really fast. North8000 (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll make some edits to it. I think it'll make it acceptable. Byelf2007 (talk) 8 November 2011


 * Partisan political screeds from non-notable thinkers are not adequate sourcing. This article needs to be sourced from scholarly sources, and, from major accounts by partisan authors who have been considered fundamentally influential by scholars.  In particular, one of the sources you cited had a disclaimer on its first page that no editorial responsibility was taken for the work. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * We have a reliable sourcing policy, please do go read it. In particular the sources you're citing are not reliable for anything as no editorial control was exerted. On top of that they're unsuitable for this article, as they are immediately involved, ie WP:PRIMARY. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Please edit only the parts you object to. Byelf2007 (talk) 8 November 2011


 * Due to your prolific editing, it is impossible to specifically revert you because of the limitations of wikipedia. Your addition of uncited content—effectively original research—is just as problematic.  I suggest you revise your own edits to bring them in line with policy as you chose to revert me. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and deleted all the links in the statism distinction section. You can do whatever you want with it. Byelf2007 (talk) 8 November 2011


 * On 7 November we had a perfectly good section. That section cited a large number of scholarly tertiary sources.  You could have gone into the history, found the section, and copied and pasted it.  Fifelfoo (talk) 03:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * On your being prolific: It is great that you're deeply interested in editing this article.  But this article is highly controversial, and the scoping and weighting are the result of an exhaustive consensus process.  Slow edits, clearly defined and differentiated, and heavily discussed is the best way forward.  The slower you edit, the more likely your edits will "stick," and the more likely other editors will feel very very happy about your contributions. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Byelf2007, on the whole you do excellent work and have added a lot of clarity and cleanup to this article, but I'm also uncomfortable with such a large amount of major edits at once, doubly so for a large amount of deletions. North8000 (talk) 02:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Mmkay. :) Byelf2007 (talk) 9 November 2011


 * You can't change the claim cited to a citation unless you go out and read for yourself the texts cited; you did this here in this diff in the first three paragraphs. Please be a little more careful about citations! :) Fifelfoo (talk) 03:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I've done a yearly cull of sourcing; deleting sources from the last cull that stood without revision. In addition I've deleted material cited against involved primaries, and material which is not reliable at or, or reliable for a scholarly article.  I've noted peacocking, and enforced the conception of a scholarly journal as a peer-reviewed journal (via Ulrich's).  Please note the sources that lack full citations and especially those that lack page numbers.  Please also note that stitching together ideas from involved primaries is original research by synthesis.  Fifelfoo (talk) 09:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Definition of "state"
I think it's better for this matter to be discussed here by all those who have an opinion and the consensus (whatever it is) should then be reflected in the article. The question apparently is (Byelf2007 please correct me if I miss represent your view) which one of these two definitions of the state is more suitable:

- "an organisation that has a monopoly on the use of force"

- "an organisation that practices institutionalised coercion under the claim it is legitimate"

The two definitions are not mutually exclusive. In order to practice institutionalised coercion, an organisation requires a monopoly on the use of force. However, one is maybe better than the other in expressing the nature of the state. So what do you guys think? --Fsol (talk) 08:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Go read high quality scholarly sources from academics who specifically mention libertarianism while defining the state. We don't make arguments from whole cloth; we rely upon what scholars say. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Taxonomy - take 2
Actually, it's now really names with differentiating attributes, but "taxonomy" sounds better :-) North8000
 * This might be of some interest...Our Family: A Possible Taxonomy Xerographica (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What a good piece! Couple of side notes: Maybe a little undue on BHL, and one must understand that it's using the non-USA definition of liberalism. North8000 (talk) 11:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

'''Beginning of editable section. Please free to make any changes (including deletions etc)''' within the format, please follow format

Common tenets (attributes which do not differentiate between libertarians)


 * Greater personal freedom, especially from government.
 * I disagree. This is the right wing variation on libertarianism.  Left wing libertarianism places an equal emphasis on freedom from corporate power and the privations of poverty.  Both are perspectives on libertarianism that should be discussed.
 * I could understand freedom from corporate power. But (given that everyone wants people to be free from poverty) what political action would your putative as-stated-left-wing-libertarianism advocate to accomplish this? If it is greater government intervention, that is by definition the opposite of libertarianism.  Sincerely,  North8000.


 * Reduced government (where "reduce" may include reducing to zero)
 * Enlightenment values:
 * Humanist: centred on the person's place in the world
 * Secular: believe that the polity ought to be ordered by the polity, and not by religious establishments
 * Political: believe philosophy or social action capable of changing the composition of the polity and economy
 * Economical: believe the organisation of social production and the economic relationships between individuals to be a central issue of politics
 * Universality of law: law to not single out or elevate individuals, but rather be universally applicable
 * Centrality of the individual to analysis, and as a grounding example and test case
 * Self ownership (to varying degrees)
 * Individualism

Meanings (here) of terms used

These refer to these terms when they are just adjectives / attributes of followers, not to:  Where they self-identify their politics by this word alone, they should also get a line in the above table.
 * Anarchism, anarchist, anarcho- (prefix) Advocate complete elimination of government
 * Minarchist Advocate reduction but not elimination of government to a certain "night watchman" scope..
 * Deontological vs Consequentialist libertarianism Opposite views on whether prohibition on use of force is categorical.
 * Right/Left (libertarianism): Varying meanings: 1. Make the distinction of proprietarian libertarians (right) vs. those anti-proprietarian on some types of assets (left), 2.consider an initial state of wealth of "big business" to be an unfair or bad condition achieved via un-libertarian means (left) vs. those who don't. (right), 3. Minarchist (right) vs. Anarchist (left), 4. Those proposing change from the status quo in a revolutionary manner. (left)     Few or no libertarians of any type self-identify as "right", some libertarians self-identify as "left"

'''Terms, sects, strands, philosophies covered in the article.... libertarian significance, and are they libertarian?'''


 * Libertarian Communist First use of (single word) "libertarian" in a term to refer to a set of political beliefs. Regarding libertarianism, probably a historical note only.
 * Market Liberalism = classical liberalism = libertarianism, but term seldom used.
 * Contractarianism Reflects on one very narrow concept, has no article.
 * Individualist anarchism Seems libertarian, but seems like just a varying concept with varying meanings.
 * Fabianism Not libertarian. But noted for including practitioners of libertarianism.
 * New Left Not libertarian. But noted for including practitioners of libertarianism.
 * Geo-libertarianism Addresses natural resources and wealth based on them. Is libertarian
 * Georgism / Georgists Not libertarian per se, but a cornerstone of Geo-libertarianism which is
 * Austrian economics Not libertarian per se, but a component of various libertarian philosophies

Tagging
Right now a few sections have the carpet-bombed look. What is the way out of this? North8000 (talk) 12:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Citing works correctly the first time helps; as does writing content from scholarly sources instead of writing down one's own thoughts and then deep text searching with google to back them up. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I know. My question was more to open a discussion on a specific plan to resolve this.    I.E. try to source what's in there, or possibly untag a few an non-disputed items which might be good summaries from sources, remove the material, revert to an older version of those sections etc. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm more than happy to accord Byelf some time to complete his work, but if his intention is to leave work half-done, I'll be pushing to revert to an older stable version soon. I don't really see how he plans to finish this work quickly as he has been highly active (and, working in a uncommented, haphazard fashion, I must say) on quite a number of articles in the past 4 days or so.  BigK HeX (talk) 23:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm most strongly concerned by universal assertions being cited to single commentators books, when I'm aware that those commentators were developing theory rather than reviewing the state of theory. I'm deeply concerned by the citations being to a raw author and title, and not to a particular published edition and page.
 * Many of the older citations with problems are missing a few vital elements of the citation: the publisher's location (if the publisher is American, we can readily assume what academic pressures informed the press, or what populist biases; etc.), page number. Sometimes the year of the work is missing.  These are relatively easy to fill in for someone who pokes at books, amazon, the second hand sellers, and worldcat and the academic/deposit libraries hard enough.
 * Finally, the quality of sourcing on this article is still below "A-class" in most instances. The writing has had a history of being driven by people making stuff up; then deep text searching google to back it up.  It is impossible to tell if this kind of writing is correctly WEIGHTED as the ideas are cited to the scholar who developed them, and not to a "review" of the literature.  But yet we've got a bunch of scholarly tertiaries and field reviews, and the scholarly journals are full of academic libertarians. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that this article does need some higher level summarization in order to be intelligible. (I'm, NOT talking about any particular edits, just in general.) Often that level of summary / big picture stuff comes only from a less-scholarly source, albeit used in the article only when it is not controversial. North8000 (talk) 11:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Overall, I'm open to most of the possibilities of a way out of this, including a 1-2 month reversion of specific sections. North8000 (talk) 11:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of the tagged sections are from months ago. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, make that I'm open to a 1-5 month reversion of specific sections. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I think we have too many tags
I think we have too many tags....I've never seen an article with this many tags. Many of these are on undisputed summaries of what is in the sources, and this article needs that type of thing. Maybe starting a BRD process to untag some of those one at at time might be a partial way out? In addition to reversions of others to previous versions? North8000 (talk) 11:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, now my tagging comment has been tagged by Darkstar. :-) North8000 (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * A summary of a non-notable, or unreliable source; or a summary of a source that claims to represent all of libertarianism; or a summary of a primary source as if that source in itself is a suitable demonstration of the source's influence isn't on. We're not here to summarise Mises; but to summarise the considered scholarly appreciations of Mises, etc. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 100% agree that that is the objective, but not that that is a criteria for insertion.  And even if it were the criteria for insertion, there is a not a standard to have to prove that latter process has been done in order to make an insertion; Wp:ver is the standard there. I don't have any dispute in mind, just looking for a way forward.   Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I've just redone three of the tagged references. The easy button worked quite well. (IOW, it was "relatively easy to fill in" and complete the citation as opposed to simply, and repeatedly, tagging. (And creating a perverse sea of blue.)) But here is my bigger point: In my third edit, I saw that the url to the Z Magazine gave us the proper online magazine article and proper quotation. Accordingly, tagging that reference as "full" and "page needed" was unreasonable. What is the WP:Point of all these tags? Not article improvement in that WP:TC says "The goal is an improved article, not a tagged article."--S. Rich (talk) 16:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I have a lot of respect for Fifelfoo (who did the tagging) but I disagree with him on the quantity of tagging here. We did recently have a lot of very rapid editing that was light on sourcing and possibly that triggered it, but the tagging extends beyond that. North8000 (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Totally agree, this is just ridiculous. It's so tagged it becomes completely unreadable. Is there any alternative? --Fsol (talk) 17:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Fifelfoo could earn more respect by actually completing the references that he's tagged.--S. Rich (talk) 17:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This article has had years, since 2003, of very rapid editing that was light on sourcing and full of OR. We have some very good sources like Long.  And then we have a morass of edit-warred in partisan sources from non-scholars reflecting on their own traditions.  After having edited through the concerted POV pushing on this article I'm extremely reluctant to play with other people's citations.  I'm not here to clean up people's OR messes, such as using this highly partisan text from 1970 (The Market for Liberty) to make an argument from scratch.  This is OR from Primary sources.  We should be using subsequent reviews, summaries and appreciations of anarcho-capitalism, preferably those conducted by the scholarly and not the partisan press.  The last time I put in a solid eight hours gnoming these fucking appalling citations; it was edited warred out of existence. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Fifelfoo, so what's the solution? Would you agree that as it is tagged now, the section is messy and unreadable? --Fsol (talk) 21:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think a fair bit of vicious pruning is needed for OR from primary. On top of that citations missing technical data (publisher, year) need filling in. Most page neededs have been without pages for a year or more—I propose we delete the text they support as unverifiable due to an inability for editors to read 400pg books to find the conceit. But, I'm an involved editor, even though I support this article covering all libertarianisms at a top level summary and providing adequate attention to the current US political party, I have personal views. I'd suggest bringing sources to talk prior to deletion? This would clear most tags and leave us with the best supported content. Fifelfoo_m (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * we could also move tags within the ref itself so they only appear in the footnotesFifelfoo_m (talk) 22:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

We are all pushing the WP:POLE, and I'm trying to stay out of the POV fight as to the merits of Libertarianism. But I see that these tags, many of which are redundant or inapplicable, do not improve the article. E.g, they divert attention from the goal of making the article helpful to the reader. I'm doing my share by checking LOC, WorldCat, Amazon, etc. IOT fill out the citations. When I've gotten the publisher data, etc., I've removed the "full" tag and substituted or left the "page" tag. So I encourage other editors to contribute.--S. Rich (talk) 00:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Your excellent work has inspired me to help too. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Just as an example to other editors, fixing three citations to "verifiability" standards took an hour: diff. Edit warring and OR insertion is terribly, terribly destructive of citation quality, and sourcing quality.  These citations, btw, aren't up to FA standard yet, they'd need their i's dotted and their t's crossed. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don;t think that there have been edit wars or POV wars, or even big content disputes here for the last 14 months. North8000 (talk) 02:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm remembering the extensive and heated discussions regarding personal definitions, versus the definitions found in high quality reliable sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, whatever one calls it, there was certainly a lot of grief here during the phase that ended about 14 months ago. I think each participant characterized it their own way.  But I think that the core argument is that the coverage of the common/prevalent meaning/practice  of libertarianism was not evident in the article.  Many of the folks concerned about that saw the remedy as removal of other forms (such as anarchism).  We still have the challenge of covering forest and not just the trees.  If that includes sources that reliable but not scholarly making uncontested summaries, then I think we should include those.  From what I have seen the scholarly sources are covering the philosophies more so than the "practice of libertarianism in the world today"  which also needs coverage. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Good work Fsol for moving ref quality tags within the refs! Fifelfoo (talk) 08:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

There should be an American Libertarian Wiki
Cuase free market, property rights, individualism & very limited government is what it means in the USA but on this page you dont know if its socialist, marxist or what. ChesterTheWorm (talk) 09:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC) ChesterTheWorm
 * Agree that this (the largest libertarian (by that name) practice in the world) really doesn't get explained / gets lost in the article. We have been wrestling with that issue for a long time.  But, this being the top level libertarianism article, a topic of that prominence also need to be covered here. North8000 (talk) 11:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * the top results on google for libertarian and libertarianism is Libertarian Party (United States) Darkstar1st (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Miscited
Appears to be this website is a rather stupid and unhappy citation of this portion of Anarchism : from theory to practice as noted by Srich32977 in their edit. I'm just noting it here so as not to interrupt their in use edit of the article. (And also to establish a way to bring bad sources to the article community for processing). Fifelfoo (talk) 00:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Again US right liberal bias on this article
For recent editors of this article who have reinstated a US bias on this subject let me tell you that I was neither born in the United States, nor do I live there and so the people from the United Kingdom, Australia and even Canada are familiar with a more complex and less US centric situation than the one that this article presents in the section entitled "Twentieth century" and of course those of non-english speaking countries also. In most of the world those who hear the word libertarian tend to associate that word with anarchist and libertarian socialist movements. Since this bias has returned I have to bring back my old arguments for recent editors uninformed on the use of the word "libertarian" outside the United States since the 19th century until today.

On the use of "libertarian" in the english speaking world in the sense of anti-state socialism I want you to consider for example an important overview on the history of anarchism written by the canadian George Woodcock called [ http://www.amazon.com/Anarchism-history-libertarian-ideas-movements/dp/B0006AXTWU Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements] (1962) in which no pro-capitalist ideology is treated and not even within the context of criticism, but actually radical anti-capitalists like Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, the First International, etc are dealt with. It was re edited on the 1970s. The wikipedia article Libertarian League reports the use of the word libertarian within a US context in the period treated on this section. I says that it was "The first Libertarian League was founded in Los Angeles in 1920. Although mainly anarchist its membership included people from many different political perspectives with the over-riding principle of "equal freedom" and liberty in all aspects of life. It mainly supported co-operative forms of socialism but small businesses. Reflecting the times it was particularly concerned with opposing prohibition and militarism. From 1922 to 1924 it published a journal called The Libertarian. The organisation was unable to maintain its broad coalition of different views and it broke up in the 1930s. REcently the US organization which called itself NEFAC has changed its name to and so this contemporary use of the word "libertarian" in the US also has to be considered.

The second Libertarian League was founded in New York City in 1954 as a political organisation building on the Libertarian Book Club. Members included Sam Dolgoff, Russell Blackwell, Dave Van Ronk, Enrico Arrigoni, and Murray Bookchin. This league had a narrower political focus than the first, promoting anarchism and syndicalism. Its central principle, stated in its journal Views and Comments, was "equal freedom for all in a free socialist society". Branches of the League opened in a number of other American cities, including Detroit and San Francisco, but it lacked an organisational focus and never managed to establish a presence amongst other anarchist and syndicalist organisations. It was dissolved at the end of the 1960s.". It might be argued that the NYC Libertarian League article is not well sourced but it will be easy for me to bring realiable mentions of that organization since I have seen them, for example one mentioned in information I researched one of the members of that organization, the italian american stirnerist Enrico Arrigoni.

Now it might be true that in google if you write the word "libertarian" you get the USA Libertarian Party first and then you get neoliberal websites. But now if anyone writes on google the word "libertario" on the first page you get the links for the venezuelan anarchist newspaper "El Libertario" which is strongly anti-capitalist even going as far as accusing Hugo Chavez of helping capitalist penetration inside Venezuela and denouncing multinational corporations. You also get a link to a spanish publication called "Socialismo Libertario", a website called "Portal Libertario OACA" which is also strongly anticapitalist and advocating workers rights and class war. If one writes "el libertario" one gets the previously mentioned venezuelan anarchist newspaper, a link to the Argentine Libertarian Federation which was founded in October 1935 with the name of the Anarcho-Communist Federation of Argentina and that since 1985 it has been publishing the political journal El Libertario. If anyone wants to find anything pro-capitalism in the FLA one can very well go to their website. El Libertario from Argentina was first published in 1933 and before it was called "Accion Libertaria" ("libertarian action"). In the seventies there was an argentinian anarchist organization called Resistencia Libertaria and if anyone wants to doubt it was a socialist organization can very well go to this english language article about it called "Resistencia Libertaria: Anarchist Opposition to the Last Argentine Dictatorship" written by Chuck W. Morse.

In the french language the situation is similar if one consideres that the Anarchist Federation (France) which is also strongly anticapitalist and for class war has a radio station called Radio Libertaire in which all kinds of capitalist abuses are denounced. That organization with about 60 groups nationwide also publishes Le Monde Libertaire. Another french organization called Alternative libertaire is explicit about being for anarcho-communism.

But it happens that Alternative Libertarie is a member of an international federation of similar organizations called International Libertarian Solidarity in which anything pro-capitalist is considered an enemy. International Libertarian Solidarity has as members organizations from Argentina, Brazil, Czech Republic, France, Ireland, Italy, Italy, Lebanon, Mexico, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, South Africa, Uruguay and from the United States and Canada the North Eastern Federation of Anarchist Communists.

It is possible that all this might surprise one or more USA citizens or residents present here but in the rest of the world this is something rather trivial actually and the International Libertarian Solidarity organizations all are active and propagandizing in those countries today about class war and anticapitalism. Also let´s remember the widespread word libertarian communism and the british website http://libcom.org/ which dedicates itself on that.--Eduen (talk) 08:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Quick aside on the section title. In the US, "right liberal" is a conflict of terms. North8000 (talk) 22:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Eduen, I partially disagree with your overall assertion of undue bias, but that is secondary. What is more important is somebody as intelligent-on-the-topic as you ready to really discuss this here and sort this out, which is what this article has sorely needed for eons. So, thank you!  If you would indulge me, what would you say to the following argument.  (It's "sourcing" is an attempted integration from 100's of sources, much of it through what what brilliant people have said here, so I guess one could call it "unsourced", but this is just a discussion on a talk page.)  In the US, about 5%-15% of the population would describe their political philosophy as being somewhat Libertarian.    That's 15-45 million people.  They're not in the USLP, and seldom or never vote Libertarian. (BTW, that describes me).  And in the US, "libertarian" means "Less government, greater personal freedom, and place a high priority on achieving those things".  All of the esoteric libertarian philosophical stuff is irrelevant to them; the one sentence pretty much describes what libertarianism is to them.    In the US, "liberal" means advocating bigger government, especially on taxing & non-military spending and social legislation to effect US-liberal-type objectives.   Outside of the US, liberalism means something totally different, including an emphasis on personal freedom, including from government. So, speaking for the bigger numbers, the bulk of the folks with that philosophy in the US call themselves libertarians, and the bulk of the people outside of the US with that philosophy call themselves liberals. And so, for the rest of the world, the meaning of libertarian is exactly as you describe it. But, the bulk of the people in the world who call themselves libertarians are the described 15-45 million Americans who's ideology is fully described by one sentence:  "Less government, greater personal freedom, and place a high priority on achieving those things". Both wp:due/undue and the concept of writing a useful article says that we must cover that.  So, both in the past and now, those folks have come to this article and say "there's nothing in the article really covering mainstream libertarianism. Even the US stuff seems to be just about esoteric/unusual philosophies."  So, even now, the article fails to cover mainstream US libertarianism ! !   Conversely, what you just wrote is absolutely true, and definition of the main meanings of libertarianism that is right for the US is going to be wrong for the rest of the world.  The other big dichotomy, is that in the US, libertarianism is mostly usefully described as a general ideology ("less government, more freedom, and a high priority on achieving that") whereas in the rest of the world libertarianism is best described via more detailed philosophies and more specialized movements as you describe. SO, this isn't just a situation of which country gets more air time, it's a situation where the terms has fundamentally different mainstream meanings inside and outside of the US, and so what is correct for one is in ERROR for the other.


 * I think that this article needs to do both. And to do so, it will probably need to cover all of the above, with context provided when the situation is different in the US vs elsewhere. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * this is tyhe english version of wikipedia, most english wp searches originate in the usa, most in the usa click on lpusa.org when searched in google. wp suggest we use the most commonly understood version for our langauge.  the article is actually biased in the other direction to cover topics like libertarian socialism the polar opposite of lpusa.   Darkstar1st (talk) 14:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Eduen. North8000 says that libertarianism means, ""Less government, greater personal freedom, and place a high priority on achieving those things".  That of course is exactly what the libertarians described by Woodcock advocated.  Murray Rothbard promoted that view by calling himself an anarcho-capitalist, using anarchist symbolism and referring to anarchist/libertarian writers.  WP:DISAMBIG says, "Where the primary topic of a term is a general topic that can be divided into subtopics... the unqualified title should contain an article about the general topic rather than a disambiguation page".  Compare with liberalism, which as Northstar North8000 points out is used to refer to different forms of liberalism in different countries.  The main article is about the broad concept.  TFD (talk) 15:49, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure what we should do with that. The first decision/question: is the scope of the "broad concept" prioritization of greater personal person freedom (and thus less government) or is it everything that is (primarily) called libertarianism? (the former would, I think, include non-US liberalism.)    Second, either way I don't see how we would have an article unless we get into the particulars and variations. North8000 (talk) 17:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * North8000, the error of your argument is that you think libertarianism is two different concepts rather than a single concept with different varieties. Rothbard chose the word "libertarian" because he accepted the values of libertarianism, even if it lead him to different conclusions.  Similarly, New Dealers chose the name "liberal" because that was the tradition to which they belonged, even if it lead them to different conclusions from 19th century liberals.  TFD (talk) 23:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I was asking your opinion on those questions rather than expressing an opinion. Unless you think that my questions themselves are faulty (e.g. with false premises) I'd be interesed in your thoughts on that. North8000 (talk) 01:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

To this particular argument "this is tyhe english version of wikipedia, most english wp searches originate in the usa, most in the usa click on lpusa.org when searched in google. wp suggest we use the most commonly understood version for our langauge.  the article is actually biased in the other direction to cover topics like libertarian socialism the polar opposite of lpusa."

This is the version of wikipedia in the english language. Yet this doesn´t mean it has to adjust to the particular views of the country with the biggest english speaking population or a census type argument on the majority of wikipedia users which is higly problematic on its reliability, but with the meaning and use of the concept in general. And as I tried to show, there has been and there is also people in the United States who call themselves libertarians and who are anti-capitalists.

There is also a problem with this argument: "In the US, "liberal" means advocating bigger government, especially on taxing & non-military spending and social legislation to effect US-liberal-type objectives.  Outside of the US, liberalism means something totally different, including an emphasis on personal freedom, including from government. So, speaking for the bigger numbers, the bulk of the folks with that philosophy in the US call themselves libertarians, and the bulk of the people outside of the US with that philosophy call themselves liberals."

An emphasis on personal freedom is mostly associated with two political philosophies. Liberalism and anarchism. Yes, yet there is a strong tendency in the parlamentary left to advocate and defend civil liberties and for example in Italy the right to divorce was actually supported strongly by the Italian Communist Party. Also social democracy in places like latin america and europe tends to support abortion rights and LGBT rights more so than the right wing parties. The right to have access to abortion in Mexico City was introduced by the centre left party which calls itself Party of the Democratic Revolution and was opposed by the pro-free market party PAN. So what seems to me is that some people in the liberal right wing do put an emphasis on economics and so can stand being in a right wing party influenced by the religious right in order to advance their particular economic views in support of deregulated capitalism. This also happens in the US Republican Party.

That is the reason I find problematic the argument that outside the US most people who support personal freedom call themselves "liberals". But also in the USA most people who are activists in pro abortion rights, LGBT rights and secularism tend to vote for the centre-left Democratic party and not for the more pro deregulated capitalism party called "Republican Party" since this party is highly associated with the religious conservative right.

Libertarianism is well defined bradly in the introduction of this article as having mainly to do with personal liberty and freedom of association but this article has to show that there is both a "left wing" and a "right wing" interpretation of libertarianism and a pro-capitalist libertarianism and a anti-capitalist libertarianism. This is also visible in the question of individualism where there is pro-capitalist and anti-capitalist views. Of course this is a difference of definitions on concepts like freedom, individual, and liberty and so you cannot expect every person who is for individual freedom to agree with the particular views of John Locke and his economic emphasis on private property which are most popular in the anglo atlantic world. In places like Italy and France individualism also comes from strong local humanistic, libertine and semi-aristocratic traditions that often come in contradiction with anglo liberal views and these also happen to be influential in places like latin america and which have also been influential in the United States in humanistic oriented libertarians and individualists such as Ralph Waldo Emerson. This also explains the long and big line of thought associated with libertarian socialism.

So hopefully we can come to a good consensus which is in agreement with actual historical and contemporary use of the words libertarian and libertarianism and not in agreement with the specific liking of any side of the users of the words.--Eduen (talk) 03:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Eduen, thank you so much for that. Continuing the history of the article, the talk page is the place to go if you really want to learn about libertarianism.
 * I think that the picture is becoming clearer and clearer. The prevalent meaning of "libertarianism" is different in the US vs. the rest of the English-speaking world.   (and, as a sidebar, two terms that may or may not have an actual meaning somewhere (vs. 20 meanings which  = meaningless) ("right liberarian" and  "left libertarian") are oxymorons in the US.  And another related term "liberal" has, in some respects, a very different (and sometimes directly opposite) meaning in the US than in the rest of the English-speaking world.   I have no argument with 95% of what Eduen wrote. My response on the other "5%" follows.   I think that the answer is simple. We can't have one meaning "prevail" over the other; we need to cover them both and explain where they apply. North8000 (talk) 14:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * There are not two different meanings, merely that libertarians disagree over how to achieve objectives. TFD (talk) 19:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This article used to be well balanced in my opinion not too long ago but the section "Twentieth century" mainly only presents a US neoliberal view of things.


 * The consequential vs. deontological distinction is not a feature at all of anarchist thought and so I suggest this should be linked only to liberal and neoliberal philosophies and not to "libertarianism" in general.


 * Naming the US Libertarian Party and the US liberal thinker Roderick Long in the Introduction to this article gives undue balance to those particular views which I tried to show are not a feature of what is mostly called libertarianism outside the US. Those having the pro-capitalist positions like those of the US Libertarian Party, outside the US are mostly considered political enemies by anarchists and libertarian socialists and there is rarely any space of encounter and convergence between them. It seems that neoliberals inside and outside the US mostly collaborate with conservatives while libertarian socialists do meet more often with non-stalinist marxists and sometimes with left wing social democrats. This important distinction has to be shown to the uninforemd reader so as to not present an exagerated unified "libertarianism" and so it is more honest to prepare the uninformed reader from the introduction onwards that this is a subject with a huge conflict and so that he shouldn´t expect an easy quick definition of everything around the issue of libertarianism.--Eduen (talk) 05:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Responding to TFD, I didn't mean to imply conflicting views, I just meant the range of people who name their philosophy "libertarian". In the US, "libertarian" includes the large group of people who has no specialized libertarian philosophy other than simply simply wanting to place a high priority on maximizing freedom and reducing government. They are typically not in the USLP, and may never vote for USLP candidates. It appears that they are the largest group in the world that self-identifies as "libertarian".     It sounds like that most of their counterparts outside of the US call themselves "liberals" rather than "libertarians".  So, by the people numbers, outside of the US, "libertarian" generally means what Eduen says. North8000 (talk) 15:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Euden, briefly, what I am proposing is covering all of the above, identified as such. When one gets to the more detailed philosophies, the US situation is less the gorilla in the living room, and wp:due/undue could point more towards what you are saying.   But when it comes to movements/people who identify "libertarian" aslo an important part of their philosophy, the 10's of millions of folks that I describe in the US are the gorilla in the living room and that topic needs to be covered. This is missing from the article and I believe sour cable. North8000 (talk) 15:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you referring to people who vaguely accept the views of Rothbard, Nolan and the Libertarian Party? See David Nolan.  They consciously identified with the same political tradition of left-libertarianism.  Or are you referring to neoliberalism, a theory of lower taxes and government services and deregulation, but supports "free trade" agreements, corporate subsidies, bank bailouts, stimulus packages and a minimal welfare state?  TFD (talk) 15:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to people who place a priority on greater personal freedom and less government, and consider those to be the important and defining tenets of libertarianism, end-of-story. The don't know who Rothbard, Nolan or any other libertarian philosopher is, and a majority of them don't know what the platform of the USLP is. And they would tend to be divided on some of those other topics/questions that you pose.  Since in the US "liberal" means "bigger government", they would oppose being called anything with the word "liberal" in it. They would consider themselves to be half at conflict with the US "right" and half at conflict with the US "left" and so would say that "right-libertarian" and "left-libertarian" are oxymorons.  North8000 (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The terms "left" and "right" do not refer to where they fall in the political spectrum but their position within libertarian ideology. You should know who Murray Rothbard and David Nolan were if you want to talk about modern libertarianism in the United States - they are the main founders and theorists.  TFD (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If you say that I should be familiar with them I would agree with you. But the idea that 20% of Americans have a philosophy that is (in US terminology) socially liberal and fiscally conservative, in other words significantly in conflict with both (by US meanings) the conservative and liberal viewpoints, but well aligned with libertarian tenets, and that 2/3 of them call that philosophy "libertarian" is a significant state of affairs and meaning of the term in its own right. North8000 (talk) 17:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

"Since in the US "liberal" means "bigger government", they would oppose being called anything with the word "liberal" in it. They would consider themselves to be half at conflict with the US "right" and half at conflict with the US "left" and so would say that "right-libertarian" and "left-libertarian" are oxymorons."


 * I guess I will have to trust you on that. As far as other parts of the world there is people who are for depenalization of all types of sex relationships between adults be them BDSM or homosexual and legalization of drugs and who tend to cosmopolitanism but who nevertheless reject the label liberal since there is a strong association everywhere of that word with neoliberalism and deregulated capitalism. And so in countries like the Netherlands and Scandinavia there is both strong welfare states and redistribution of wealth but as we known in the Netherlands marihuana can be purchased in coffee shops and most people tend to be in these countries irreligious. So libertarian socialists can be sexual libertines and be for legalization of drugs but tend to have anti-authoritarian criticisms of capitalism mainly because they see capitalism means hierarchy in the form of boss/employee relationships, excessive working hours, the creation of an economic oligarchy and the domination of commercialism in most spaces of social life. And so for example the word libertarian communism is something that has existed at least since the late 19th century.


 * As I read about Murray Rothbard he appears to be a radical neoliberal economist (more radical for example than Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek) and David Nolan is a militant of a liberal party which I guess only in the USA it can call itself "libertarian" but in places outside the US it tends to be called "liberal". There is even a world association of such parties called the Liberal International and as one can see there many of those parties call themselves "liberal". So it seems that many people outside the US can say they are libertarians and libertines and also anti-liberal or non-liberal since liberalism has gained an association with neoliberal economics.


 * I propose informing readers of this article about this situation. And as far as english speaking users of wikipedia in the United Kingdom there is the Liberal Democrats who actually have good representation in parliament, in Canada there is a Liberal Party (which is the governing party I think) and in Australia there is a Liberal Party of Australia.--Eduen (talk) 04:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * American libertarians claim to be part of libertarianism. See for example Roderick T. Long's talk to the Mises Institute (which backs Ron Paul).  "A new political spectrum...  was beginning to form: one with state-socialism on the left and conservatism on the right, with former libertarians gravitating toward one side or the other according to temperament."  TFD (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the tens of millions of US "vague libertarians" that I describe make any such claim. North8000 (talk) 13:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that underneath all of this we are having a "what do we do?" discussion. Possible a real rosetta stone that is resolution to the issues and (previously) strife that this article has had for years. I'm going to throw out an idea that is really only 30.000' view vague at this point. The stuff that I've been talking about is not heavily related to the detailed philosphies, philosophers, academics etc, and does not need to influence those areas. (As a sidebar, the article has gotten really short for such a big topic). So, get the philosphies section expanded with the balance that Eduen and others are seeking. I'll build a small section on the "US vague libertarians" that I am describing. I know that that is sourceable. And possibly (if we agree and its sourcable) a mention explaining that "liberal" has a different meaning in US vs. everywhere else, and many core tenets of non-US liberalism are sometimes to considered to be somewhat libertarian? North8000 (talk) 13:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Another way of thinking about the problem is in terms of criticisms. At the top of the article it says..."This article is about the political philosophy". Yet...look at how sparse the section on the criticism of libertarianism is. It's so sparse because this entire article on libertarianism is a criticism of libertarianism. In order to fix this article on libertarianism you first need to fix the article on the criticism of libertarianism. The bottom line is that if there are no criticisms of libertarianism (in the "broad" sense) then it's not noteworthy enough a philosophy to warrant its own article.

For example, my own personal political philosophy, pragmatarianism, is not noteworthy enough to warrant its own wikipedia article...yet it has more critiques than libertarianism (in the "broad" sense) does...libertarian critique of pragmatarianism...anarcho-capitalist critique of pragmatarianism. Xerographica (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't understand your overall point. But as a side note, I raised the question about taking out or fixing the the header "This article is about the political philosophy" because it which is narrower than  than the scope of the article and topic, but folks said that such is just disambiguation, not a statement of scope of the article so I dropped the conversation. North8000 (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmmm...perhaps if you tried to work on the criticism of libertarianism article then you might understand my overall point. Maybe my point is not valid...but at worst you would have improved a page that could use quite a bit of attention. Xerographica (talk) 00:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I agree with the criticisms which why I'm a "reduce but don't eliminate government" libertarian. But I don' know if I'd be the best person to try to build the "criticisms" article.   Also, doesn't the title sort of make it inherently POV / one sided? ?

I agree with the clarification of the particular meaning that the word liberal has in the US vs. the rest of the world.--Eduen (talk) 08:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to try to build the sections I described about 6 posts back. I think that this fills a lone-time hole in the article and may also defuse some of the big topics of debate of the rest of the article. I'll eventually also try to remove or modify the "about the .....philosophy" header which I now see is not as benign as I was told it was. I urge folks who see issues with the philosophies sections to start (carefully) editing, mostly by adding material. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)