Talk:Libertarianism/Archive 33

Can we at least agree... ?
We have multiple sections with overlapping conversations, and I'd like to consolidate this and see if everyone is at least on the same page on one thing: can we at least agree that there is too much information about anarchism and a dearth of information about right-libertarianism/LGL (limited government libertarianism) in this article? I see this issue as divided by whether there are multiple meanings of libertarianism or there are multiple ideologies that fall under the category of libertarianism. Either way, though, it seems like nearly the same approach should be used:


 * If there are multiple meanings, anarchism already has its commonly named article and this one ought to cover right-libertarianism/LGL primarily. The term's history will explain its connection with anarchism and a SeeAlso link will permit readers to easily find additional information thereof.
 * If there are multiple ideologies under the name libertarianism, much of the history of anarchism needs to be in this article, but it ought to be summarized as a content fork and, hence, greatly reduced. This trimming will leave more room for information on right-libertarianism/LGL.

Does this seem an accurate assessment of the situation? And if so, aren't we all in agreement that the coverage of anarchism needs to be reduced and that of right-libertarianism/LGL expanded? I'm hoping we can stop talking past each other and work together to improve this article. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Considering the best known, most popular version of libertarianism is pro-property, but that there is little evidence anyone describes themselves as a "[right-libertarina]], I'd say a majority of libertarians also agree with this statement that was removed. I'm sure I can find more updated statements on this idea (from early Feb 2012 version). Maybe someday we'll find a good ref that says "the majority":
 * However, many libertarians reject being described as either "left" or "right." (refs made visible)
 * Duncan Watts, Understanding American government and politics: a guide for A2 politics students, 2nd Revised edition, Manchester University Press, 16 March 2006, p 246 IBN 978-0719073274: "Libertarians feel that neither left nor right can be trusted to defend the rights of individuals."
 * Leonard Read rejected these terms as "authoritarian". Neither Left Nor Right, The Freeman, February 1998, Vol. 48 No. 2.
 * Walter Block rejected the labels being even in making differentiations between libertarians who were largely pro-property. Author "Libertarianism is unique; it belongs neither to the right nor the left," Journal of Libertarian Studies, Volume 22 (2010): 127–70.
 * Sheldon Richman writes about this in Libertarianism: Left or Right?, Future of Freedom Foundation's "Freedom Daily," June 2007. "Is libertarianism of the Left or of the Right? We often avoid this question with a resounding 'Neither!'" He also points out that left and right were "first used in the French Legislative Assembly after the revolution of 1789. In that context those who sat on the right side of the assembly were steadfast supporters of the dethroned monarchy and aristocracy — the ancien régime — (and hence were conservatives) while those who sat on the left opposed its reinstatement (and hence were radicals). It should follow from this that libertarians, or classical liberals, would sit on the left."
 * So I think stripping much of the article of excessive sectarianism is important; but removing poorly sourced material will probably take care of most of that. CarolMooreDC 20:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear Carol, Watts is a high school textbook and not an appropriate source for any kind of claim (see who Watts cites, perhaps?). With the other sources, some are problematic in a WEIGHT debate, as they're advocacy not field reviews, but some of them could certainly elucidate points on the topic (which is weighty from Woodcock and Long).  We really shouldn't be using British high school textbooks.  Fifelfoo (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * So you are saying Manchester University Press publications are not WP:RS?? Please take it to WP:RSN. CarolMooreDC 18:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that giving less space to anarchism in this article is appropriate. We actually decided that but forgot. I think that the main reason for this is that anarchism has an article. Also, "anarchism" not "libertarianism" is the most common name for anarchism. But we should still cover (here) that anarchism is historically and taxonomically libertarianism, we just don't need to cover the details here. North8000 (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Is it really a radical position that the article should just proportionally cover the history of the term and its usage? Yes, the propertarian/whatever-you-want-to-call-it strain needs to be described more thoroughly. Yes, it has its own (much narrower) history. For that matter, it also needs much more of a labor focus, but for some reason nobody's pushing for that. Yes, I think duplicate information that can be found in the anarchism article should be kept to a minimum of blurbs and quick summaries with internal links to where one can read more about it. No, I do not think this is weight issue. At all. Nor do I agree with the ridiculous, unsubstantiated claim that the "best known, most popular version of libertarianism is pro-property." The rebranding of libertarianism along neoliberal/pro-business lines is localized in the US, and mostly trails from the 70s on. There is no sensible reason why the mainstream meaning for 5% of the world population should dictate the meaning for the other 95%, sweeping away over a century of history. Finx (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * On your first sentence, not only is it not radical, it is a good idea.  I did not mean to imply otherwise. I agree that we should cover the history because, over the long term, anarchism IS in the the history of libertarianism.   But, the meaning for those practicing it should be the meaning of those practicing it, for US strands and others. North8000 (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * North8000 and Finx, I think we are in agreement. CarolMooreDC, I'm not wedded to that terminology; I merely use it in the Talk pages so everyone understands what I'm saying.  It appears that we agree, but I want to make sure... do you think this article needs less anarchism and more pro-property libertarianism?  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, except that IMHO "pro-property" is not a useful/valid name for the strand that you are referring to. North8000 (talk) 21:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * May I take a guess at / ask why your are using "pro-property" as an identifier for a strand that doesn't even have pro/anti-property on its radar screen? That is that some strands are anti-property and they view any strand that is not anti-property  as being "pro-property".   Probably a more logically precise term would be "not anti-property" North8000 (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Being one of those, you calling me a "pro-property" libertarian to me sounds like calling me a "pro-dog" libertarian. I'd say.....well yeah, I like dogs, but it has nothing to do with what I would consider to be my libertarian beliefs. North8000 (talk) 21:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Again, I'm merely trying to relate to people on this Talk page. In this case, CarolMooreDC stated that "the best known, most popular version of libertarianism is pro-property." -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Cool! North8000 (talk) 21:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Would pro/anti-capitalist be better? I too refer to it on talk pages as right/propertarian/neoliberal, but I don't mean it to be pejorative. I really personally don't care what it's called so long as the difference is clear. It is almost 180-turnaround concerning labor relations and capitalism though, so it isn't a minor point. If the 'propertarian/non-propertarian' section is removed, for example, what should it be replaced with? Finx (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, that was just my two cents on the topic, not directed at your post specifically. Finx (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "Pro-property" is definitely not pejorative, but I think misleads the readers instead of informing them. "Right" would be disputed at best, because libertarians are in direct opposition to the right on many matters North8000 (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Some people are absurdly obsessed with the distant past and who said what during the first international, or whatever. What we have to provide more info on is what is happening today both in the article and in related articles that detail various movements. CarolMooreDC 02:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

No, MisterDub, in relation to your suggestion of the 14th, we can't agree this, as it fails to reflect the weight suggested by a number of the most significant field reviews. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Your input is much appreciated, but it appears consensus supports the reduction of anarchism in this article per WP:UCN. I think now we ought to nail down how we're going to accomplish this.  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we're talking about about acknowledging anarchism's rightful place and rightful importance here but leaving the bulk details to coverage in the anarchism article. North8000 (talk) 19:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Show me your sources. WP:UCN doesn't over ride the fact that this is a topic covered by scholarly research and the appropriate sources for the common name are the scholarly works.  Please do show me your sources, because you're playing games to avoid WEIGHT and WP:V. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * To clarify my opinion -- I'm in favor of reduction for length and wordiness -- not for weight. All the pertinent topics, but less detail. --Finx (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

On matters of due weight, property and appropriation
I keep harping on this, because I think it matters for future rewrites and revisions. We keep coming back to the same few claims --

Claim: Maybe libertarianism was once anti-capitalist but that's ancient history, because it's been pro-capitalist for a long time

Therefore, this should be the central focus of the article, with a modest tip of the hat its humble and now anachronistic origins

Take a look at Woodcock's account of libertarian movements -- it's written in 1962. Why does he not mention this apparently prominent new strain of neoliberal-themed libertarianism? Where are the references to H.L. Mencken self-identifying as a libertarian? How about Albert Jay Nock? Searching through their works, the few mentions I've come across all come from the Mises Institute or similar posthumously tacking on the label.

Claim: Contemporary libertarianism in its best-known/most-popular/most-relevant/most-active version champions private-property and/or neoliberal/propertarian libertarianism has been embraced by the whole world and is no longer a mainly American phenomenon

Therefore, this should be the central focus of the article, with a modest tip of the hat its humble and now anachronistic origins

Okay, so let's go over the 'evidence' --

Seems an awful lot of writers categorically disagree in one way or another. Also, there's no shortage of contemporary anti-capitalist groups self-identifying as libertarian (libcom, ALF, CLM, AL, LWG, CLJP).

So, it seems the left has not abandoned libertarianism, in spite of Rothbard's claims that "[his] side had captured a crucial word from the enemy". And yet this "words change, get over it" argument keeps popping up constantly.

Claim: There's too much emphasis on capitalism and property and it really doesn't matter much/at-all; it's not a central tenet

Therefore, property/labor-relations distinctions should be de-emphasized

It's kind of a pivotal point. If the word was synonymous with anarchism, then it seems odd to trivialize it when a movement centrally focused on dismantling the capitalist system becomes the proudest champion of unbridled capitalism. If there are, for lack of a better word, 'property-agnostic' strains -- great, let's document that. But I struggle to think of any libertarian figure who didn't have explicit views on private property or labor relations, even if she/he didn't fixate on them above all else.

In summary, it's not an archaic use of the word, it's not ancient history and it does matter. Can we quit trying to standardize libertarianism along the lines of what it means to Ron Paul? Obviously, this isn't just a homonym that can be cleared up with a disambiguation page, along the lines of "did you mean orange-the-fruit or orange-the-color." Still, the world does not revolve around US electoral politics or think tanks, and there are present, paramount divisions between neoliberal and traditional libertarianism. They matter, haven't gone away and the word doesn not belong (historically or presently) to the neoliberal camp or its more radical ultra-capitalist counterparts. --Finx (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd quibble on a few small items but overall agree. And, for discussion here, I find your "property-agnostic" term to be very useful.
 * I espouse what might be considered the "middle-of'the-road view regarding the article which is:
 * Cover all currently or historically significant strands. And not as through the "lens" of another strand
 * Less depth on Anarchism ONLY because 1. it has its own article  2. "Anarchism" (not libertarianism) is the common name for it.
 * Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree, and to be clear I think Rothbard, for example, should be presented according to Rothbard, and not according to libertarian socialists, outside of any criticism section, should it be deemed necessary. Finx (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I still disagree with the notion that capitalist libertarianism is a phenomenon confined to America (when the platforms of numerous self-identified libertarian parties and groups outside North America clearly reflect the classical-liberal strand), but I too agree with North8000: coverage of all variants through their own lens. Also, we should do our best to equalize said coverage as well, or else we're going to have the same fight all over again. Furthermore, I do think that we need to do a better, more articulate job of emphasizing our commonalities in the intro and/or lead (such as maximized liberty in all sectors of life, however each of us may define that, along with minimal or no government). --Adam9389 (talk) 11:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not totally confined, but extremely marginal -- in that sense -- most places except NA and, like mentioned above, to a lesser extent the UK -- rather than the default definition. Notice, for example, how Argentina's PL (presently struggling to meet their 4000-member quota for 2013) has to qualify "liberal libertarian party." That's mainly so people don't go -- "what are you smoking?" To be perfectly fair to the anarchists, it's a tall order for any anti-political-party ideology to form political parties. It's like having a "people who hate people club." :) --Finx (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Other than a term (common US libertarianism is best described as capitalism-agnostic = capitalism-accepting, but not "capitalist") I agree with both of you. North8000 (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It sounds like we're making good progress here (thanks, everyone!). Now maybe we can discuss exactly how we're going to reduce the coverage of anarchism and increase that of capitalism-agnostic libertarianism.  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * If there's solid reference(s), probably warrants a mention in the lead -- something like "some libertarians neither explicitly oppose nor support private property rights." I'm still not entirely clear on what that would mean, though... --Finx (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * FWIW I wasn't pushing for an explicit mention of capitalism-agnostic strands, just that we "do no harm" ....i.e. don't assign unwarranted terms. North8000 (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

While I think you are over-dramatizing anyone's intentions in trying to balance the article, let me say this re: Listing of refs, comments that don't really clarify what is or is not best known: Shall report my own at some point. CarolMooreDC 22:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Chomsky (2 refs) already mentioned* e Chomsky. New Delhi, India: Penguin Books. pp. 200. ISBN 0143029916.
 * Fernández, Frank (2001). Already mentioned
 * Lilley, Sasha (2010). Mentions Europe only
 * Rhonheimer, Martin. “Therefore, in some aspects they are closer to what in America is called a libertarian, without, however, sharing the anarchical traits of many libertarians..”: Ambiuguous meaning
 * Castells, Manuel : "Libertarian" has a different meaning in the European and in the American context.” Not defined what; Europe only
 * Mayer, Margit; Schatzschneider, John Ely only contrasts with Europe
 * Pleyers, Geoffrey (2010). Libertarian youth doesn’t say where or how many.


 * Re: Now maybe we can discuss exactly how we're going to reduce the coverage of anarchism and increase that of capitalism-agnostic libertarianism. OK, I'm going to have to BOLD this since people aren't paying attention: Remove the worst WP:OR material and then see if there's WP:UNDUE or not. I know it takes work of following links (or finding them on Books google - or finding out if they are findable at all) and reading material... well, enough withering female commentary :-) CarolMooreDC 18:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's my personal opinion, so far as the 'capitalism-agnostic' thing, because I don't think it takes a great leap of imagination and it's been said by many people, which I can cite if necessary. Being 'capitalism-agnostic' is kind of like being 'somewhat-pregnant' -- either you're okay with existing property rights and the power systems that emerge from them or you aren't. If you're okay with them, that means any dissolution or devolution of state power is a transfer of power to the corporate systems, which are essentially totalitarian in nature. In the case of most of the individualists the modern US libertarians want to grab as their ideological ancestors, an abolition of limited liability was advocated -- which had been conveniently forgotten. In other words, they wanted to abolish the corporation -- what today we call a business. That's from the right. If a 'libertarian' ideology wants to keep limited liability, it's just a blatant transfer of power away from individuals and over to a neo-feudalist plutocratic elite. That's why there's friction here, if you're wondering.
 * And as far as the bolded part -- I'm paying attention -- forgive me if I have the wrong idea, but it seems disingenuous. If your edit summaries and comments are any indication you seem to think anything left of Nock, with the exception of Déjacque, which doesn't explicitly repeat "libertarian" a million times should be removed as original research. This is simply not the case. We've established that libertarian socialism and communism are libertarian. By all means, remove the bad references (there's plenty of them), but a reference does not need to repeat "libertarian" constantly to be about the libertarian movement. Finx (talk) 00:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Population of Europe: 740,000,000; population of South America: 378,000,000; population of US 314,000,000; you tell me what should be considered "better known" Finx (talk) 00:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe you haven't heard, but we aren't supposed to spend a lot of time theorizing about - or misrepresenting - what others views are in light of one's own political positions. Since I naively used my Real Name when I set up an account you can google me and see if you can figure out what I think about anything. (Hint, I'm an independent female and do not follow any males' leads, though I do have my favorites. But I don't think we're supposed to discuss that here. For all I know some people here actually may be National anarchists (Yuk) good at hiding their agendas.  But I'm not going to spend a lot of time trying to prove it one way or the other. :-) CarolMooreDC 00:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to personalize this, question your values or your integrity. It's beside the point, but I think we're both committed feminists. What I'm saying is that if we can't conclusively state one way or another what's 'most-popular/well-known' (though I think there's much more evidence on one side), let's not say anything at all -- except for maybe pointing out the that different scholars and sources offer different views. Finx (talk) 00:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I have a problem with the either-or attitude, either the "right" or somewhat more the "left" must dominate the article. But if one is doing so, I will usually argue for the opposite view to bring balance. Having researched the topic more, I think one can say that there is more of a trend to one perspective in the US and more towards the other in Europe. I'll worry about the rest of the world another time. And one can certainly do better than the muddle of the fourth paragraph; and of course the sentence Some political scholars assert that in most countries the terms "libertarian" and "libertarianism" are synonymous with left anarchism with four refs when a similar sentence on "libertarianism without an adjective" has had its supporting material removed.
 * Something else with quasi-reliable sources even way back then that got removed from the older version. That is that there are a lot of "left libertarians" who actually are mostly pro-property but are more open to communalism and/or don't like copyright laws and/or have some nits about who should gain ownership of virgin and/or unused land and/or like the left side of the French Assembly, or are Sam Konkin or Roderick Long or are just feminists or libertines. They have a Alliance of the Libertarian Left whose website lists a lot of non-rightie people/sites. In short, yes, that fact does help muddy the waters on what a "left libertariani" is. (And is a good reason to use "libertarian socialism" more often.) Needs to be made clear somewhere eventually...(No proposal at the moment.) [Added later: Libertarian Left by Sheldon Richman • February 3, 2011 is a really good example.]
 * But after a couple of hours of research I get pretty disgusted with all these male authors analyzing ad finitum economic differences in divisive terms like left or right while the apparatchik statists consolidate their perks and privileges.
 * And I have a big problem with WP:OR, especially if it is overly POV. I really don't want to do much more than summarize a few interesting things I found in next section and then try to finish off the other article I'm in middle of. And as I've said before, maybe while taking a break, come here and slash some wp:or for fun :-0 CarolMooreDC 04:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Some refs of interest
People might check out; you can tell what I was searching by reading google links. Obviously there are a trillion search combinations that could be searched. Anyway, they are organized roughly by topic but not sectioned off, except last three that I must admit had me laughing.


 * Glimpses of Europe - (Classical lib) "Libertarianism is the foundation of European democracy" ...From page 146
 * Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich von Hayek were major European "libertarians" (according to authors more than selves) philsophers. See their articles and Karl Popper - The Formative Years, 1902-1945
 * The Executive's Compass:Business and the Good Society, talks generally about Charles Sumner, 19th century Europeans as non-adjectived "libertarians"
 * From Bakunin to Lacan: Anti-Authoritarianism and the Dislocation of Power, Saul Newman, 2001, yaps a lot about post-structuralism and anarchism. Of particular interest: p 11: “Libertarianism is a philosophy “which cuts across both the left and right, and which informs the radical, anti-authoritarian elements of both...although certain aspects of the libertarian tradition appeal to those of the left - if “left” or “right” still means anything today - libertarianism is, more often than not, considerd a right wing philosophy in the sense that it idealizes free market individualism and wants to liberate society from the oppressive burden of the welfare state and its taxes. This cannot easily be dismissed. It must be remembered that anarchists also saw the states as a burden on the natural functioning of society, and they would be equally suspicious of welfare...” Plus p:44-45 long section on non-adjectived libertarianism that runs into anarchism; a lot on post-structuralism
 * Redemption and Utopia: Jewish Libertarian Thought in Central Europe : a Study in Elective Affinity about unusual combination of religious and non-religious thought and illuminates the common assumptions that united such seemingly disparate figures as Martin Buber, Kafka, Walter Benjamin and Georg Lukacs. New to me.
 * Couple of books described FREEDOM OF PRESS as non-adjectived libertarianism in both Europe and US
 * Wolff definition in 2000 version of Concise Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy; didn't study if text has changed.
 * Wilburn R. Miller, editor, The Social History of Crime and Punishment in America: An Encyclopedia, Sage Publications, 2012, p. 1006-1008, Quite a bit to say about "left" and "Right" libertarianism. Check it out
 * Libertarianism: What Everyone Needs to Know, Jason Brennan, Oxford University Press, 2013. Written in (too?) simple english. He describes 3 different kinds of libertarianism: classical liberal, hard libertarian (rothbard et al) and "Neoclassical liberal" - i.e., himself and his don't smash the welfare state too fast buddies?? "Jason Brennan is Assistant Professor of Ethics, Economics, and Public Policy at Georgetown University. He is the author of The Ethics of Voting and co-author of A Brief History of Liberty. He also writes for the popular blog Bleeding Heart Libertarians."
 * Three books whose authors are Terrified That “Right” Libertarians Could Become More Popular in Europe. (It's bad enough their welfare states are totally collapsing as righties predicted.):
 * Radical Right in Western Europe: p 26-27
 * Selling the Free Market: The Rhetoric of Economic Correctness: oh my god, it's Dangerous “unreconstructed” libertarianism, off beat social and economic views that are popular among young people
 * Mobilizing Resentment: Conservative Resurgence From The John Birch Society To The Promise Keepers. How those darned libertarians who aren't either left or right and support materialism and self-indulgence could become popular while opposing taxes!! (What will happen to the corporate state??) Enough fun... pleasant dreams! CarolMooreDC 07:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

General thoughts on more coherent article

 * Reading Roderick Long's paper (top page 2 of PDF) I see that after his definition he says: "This definition draws the boundaries of libertarians rather more expansively than is customary, and includes under the libertarian aegis a number of conflicting positions."  It's a good spirit to maintain throughout the article and perhaps should be the main definition and then have a spectrum of definitions after it.
 * Spectrums (or similar words) rather dichotomies (as in Philosophy section) should be encouraged, assuming we can find refs describing differences as them. In most cases they do in fact exist. (Lefties have far greater spectrum of definitions of private property than non-adjectived libertarians, per my hopefully memorable underpants example.)
 * Philosophy section does need further expansion on what are the similar philosophical and/or practical positions of all libertarians, per earlier draft, though not necessarily most of that content.
 * And I'm all for somehow saying that those self-styled "libertarians" who call for foreign wars; laws restricting or federal control of too much of this, that and the other; using police/military force vs secessionists; legalizing only marijuana; and whatever else that involves state action and are particularly offensive are NOT libertarians. (My major engagement with Libertarian Party last 15 years seems to be driving those types out; think Irv Rubin and Wayne Allyn Root.)
 * I'm sure there's other stuff, but wanted to end on a positive note. CarolMooreDC 19:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Lead
I am trying to structure the lead to provide a more accurate analysis which is not shaped by the US definition of libertarianism (many of the sources in the lead, such as stanford encyclopedia, are US based). Therefore it is not written in proper context and violats NPOV. North800, I see from your talk page that you identify as a propertarian libertarian, which could affect judgement. The intro is all over the place. Please let me continue and voice in any concerns, thanks.--JTBX (talk) 12:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The lead is a careful balance worked out by many people over many years. I'm not amenable to your approach of a massive unilateral re-write.  Please propose individual changes here.   Or else small BRD edits spread over time.  North8000 (talk) 13:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * PS your assuming bad faith imagination about my my efforts here is totally wrong.   If you will look at the history here you will see that in my 2 1/2 active years here I have been the middle of the road stabilizer here.  And that has included resisting efforts to pull the article to either extreme. North8000 (talk) 13:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Please don't assume bad faith, just because someone has propertarian leanings. What problems do you have with the lead more specifically? Finx (talk) 21:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW, adding "proprietarian" to US libertarianism, indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of the bulk of US libertarianism which can be FULLY described by four words: "less government, more freedom"  END OF DEFINITION.    Most of them tacitly accept the existence of automobiles, rights to own property, the existence of some amount of government under any scenario, and cute puppies, but those four things are not a part of their libertarian definition and agenda. North8000 (talk)
 * I don't really feel like repeating the last discussion we had on the malapropism of 'less government,' how those two words don't make any sense together, how privatizing power systems and transferring state authority to unaccountable private bureaucracies was rarely considered reducing them by anybody, or how the history doesn't really stand up to that assertion. I didn't mean to offend with the term. I was agreeing with your previous post. Finx (talk) 07:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Just as clarification, North8000, left-libertarians view right-libertarianism as propertarian; it's not a misunderstanding, but an important distinction between the two, whether or not it's explicitly included in the right-libertarian's platform.
 * JTBX, I agree that this article needs work, but since anarchism/non-US libertarianism already has an article, most of the information herein should pertain to the US definition (although I think we could do better distinguishing the two in the lead). Do you have any particular changes in mind?  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * IMHO "right libertarian" has so many and so ad hoc meanings that it is a useless term so I can't make much out of that first sentence.  Other than saying that a strand is not defined by the view/lens of another strand. North8000 (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Folks have said that there's much that doesn't fall under either of those (US style and anarchism) and that is hopefully covered and to-be-covered here. North8000 (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I disagree: there are plenty of accounts distinguishing between right- and left-libertarianism that clearly agree on the differences, as I've illustrated previously. The point I was trying to make, however, is that calling US libertarianism propertarian isn't a misunderstanding; it's an assessment made by many and doesn't need to be chastised on a Talk page.  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry if anything I said sounded like chastising. I intended it for two purposes (to try to provide useful info, and with respect to article content) and neither of them was intended to be within even 100 miles of being chastising. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's just me, but some of the language you use (e.g. "fundamental misunderstanding," "corrupted the term 'liberal'") does come across in that regard. Not a big deal; probably just a personal peeve.  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Just reiterating, I said that we Americans have corrupted the word "liberal". I don't think I ever said or hinted that any editors have done so. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that Americans have also corrupted libertarianism, as it is appears in these article disputes. But again, the fact is that libertarian, even here in the UK as I took my politics classes and in the rest of Europe and much of the world, refers to anarcho-socialist currents. The clarification should be made in the lead, especially as the word itself was coined by an anarcho-communist and that this definition preceeds concoctions of wealthy US elites in the 1950s-1970s.--JTBX (talk) 12:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

This is the lead I put forward (work in progress, has a couple of repetitions:

Libertarianism is the group of political philosophies which advocate minimizing authority and coercion and emphasize freedom, liberty, and voluntary association. Libertarians generally advocate a society with a greatly reduced state or no state at all.

Libertarianism can be traced to the the 18th century where it was used by Enlightenment thinkers to assert their ideas of free will from theological determinism. In 1857, French anarchist Joseph Déjacque coined the term from the cognate libertaire to distinguish his libertarian communist approach from mutualism. It then began to be used in the 19th century by socialists who advocated a non-state and self-managed, democratic socialism. Libertarian socialists used the term to differentiate their views, which emphasized the importance of individual liberty, advocated the elimination of unjustified hierarchy, including capitalism and the state, from statist socialist currents. As such, "libertarian" and "libertarianism" has historically been associated and synonymous with left anarchism or anti-statist currents of socialism.

In the United States libertarianism was adopted as a term to identify right-wing populist and free market currents with anti-goverment stances, a phenomenon originating and popularised from the 1970s when the US Libertarian Party was formed. While anti-statist, American libertarianism argues in favour of capitalist relations and of private property as one of its founding doctrines. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy for example, defines libertarianism as the moral view that agents initially fully own themselves and have certain moral powers to acquire property rights in external things. Scholars have tried to provide an overall definition, for example George Woodcock, author of a history of libertarianism, defines it as the philosophy that fundamentally doubts authority and advocates transforming society by reform or revolution. Libertarian philosopher Roderick 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. According to the U.S. Libertarian Party, libertarianism is the advocacy of a government that is funded voluntarily and limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence.

Some scholars express disapproval of free-market capitalists calling themselves libertarians, particularly from the historical context, as it deliberately confuses to try and appeal to popular concerns. Left libertarians argue that private property and business rule is the ultimate tyranny, as goverment has atleast some limited democratic function. Likewise, many libertarian capitalists disapprove of socialists calling themselves "libertarian." In the United States, where the meaning of liberalism has parted significantly from classical liberalism, classical liberalism has largely been renamed to libertarianism and is associated with "economically conservative" and "socially liberal" political views (going by the common meanings of "conservative" and "liberal" in the United States).

Libertarian schools of thought differ over the degree to which the state should be reduced. Anarchistic schools advocate complete elimination of the state. Minarchists advocate a state which is limited to protecting its citizens from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud. Some schools accept public assistance for the poor. Additionally, some schools are supportive of private property rights in the ownership of unappropriated land and natural resources while others reject such private ownership and often support common ownership instead (libertarian socialism). This has not occurred in other parts of the world, and so the common meaning outside the USA has continued to lean more toward anarchism or anti-statist strands of the socialist movement.


 * Guess you haven't read much of the arguments below. Also see what your teachers missed: Libertarianism in the United Kingdom. These quotes from Journalist Jason Walsh at the Guardian, 2005 of relevance, where he admits that the form of libertarianism he disapproves of is the rapidly growing form in UK:
 * ... One of the fastest growing political currents in Britain and America today is libertarianism. Its growth can be seen most clearly on the internet, but demands for "freedom" are being made in the real world also.
 * For those of you reading this who think "libertarian" politics are solely concerned with civil liberties or remember that libertarianism was once a synonym for anarchism - a form of communist politics, incidentally - do try and keep up.
 * Libertarianism is the ideology of free-market capitalism and individual rights, the dogma of minimal state and maximum profits.
 * And, of course, the right to bear arms...
 * ...However, in 2006, after a decade of New Labour's increasingly authoritarian policies, from pointless bans on smoking and hunting with hounds, to the biometric identity cards soon to be demanded by a police officer near you, the message of the libertarian thinktanks, such as the Cato Institute and the Adam Smith Institute, is beginning to command attention in the UK....

Mr. Walsh also claims there is "no substantial libertarian critique of corporations". He hasn't notice a great deal of libertarian work on rights of groups of individuals (including corporations) as here. Now, corps do receive some special govt legal protections, as does government and many classes of groups of people, and libertarians think those should be abolished, as discussed with this Rodrick Long article at Cato.org. (OF course it is another those "left libertarian" more pro-property than not essays.) Note that other libertarians have written that "corporations" of all types can exist without govt protection merely by having a contract limiting liability of specified office holders/employees of the corporation that all buyers from and sellers to the corporation must sign. All stuff that needs to be worked into the article. FYI CarolMooreDC 13:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Mutualism mischaracterized
From "Propertarian / non-propertarian distinction" section:


 * "Some libertarians, such as mutualists, argue that while property rights are currently valid and defined"

Uh, no. Mutualists simply oppose private property. It's plain-as-day and well-referenced in the main article. They're okay with markets -- not private ownership of the means of production. Also, links to "Mutualism (biology)" -- not going to bother fixing it, because that whole paragraph needs to be rewritten.

Also, the lib-soc side generally doesn't argue "liberty is the absence of any form of authority" -- they believe authority should be dismantled if it can't be justified. I don't think many would oppose a parent's authority over a toddler who refuses to take her medication, for example. Reference doesn't support the claim.

If there's no objections, I'll just rewrite the passage. How does this fit into the other changes planned? --Finx (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Regarding this specific paragraph, I don't even see any reference to mutualism in the ref'd article so I think it can be cut out now. Did I miss something? There may be a couple other useable points of interest. I assume WP:RS is not an issue. A lot of other equally questionable sources used in the article; and there usually is a bit more leeway in articles about "fringie" topics. CarolMooreDC 17:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Analysis of WP:OR in First International section
Below I outline WP:OR problems with exposition in general and refs in particular. Overall the average reader will have NO IDEA what this section has to do with libertarianism, even if they look at the refs. (And having looked at them I only have a faint idea: mutualists/anarchists, some of whom called selves libertarians, or someone called libertarians, split with Marx et al after it?)

What is needed is a paragraph briefly summarizing what happened and why this matters to libertarianism, assuming it really does. If it did, wouldn't two or three refs be all that's needed to tell the story, as opposed to what looks like a WP:Synth of various sources? What relation should that NEW paragraph (or maybe two) have to next two sections - which also look to me like they are chock full of easily removed WP:OR and WP:Undue? If people don’t want to cut their own work, others will.

Note that I google searched all these refs and put in links where found them, which we always should do. Where there is no link, perhaps because page missing from preview, please quote relevant passages.


 * “Main article: International Workingmen's Association”:one external link to a communist libertarian library does not make this a “main article”. Oh, and turns out that’s the actual name of First International?? Let's really confuse the readers.
 * Paragraph 1:
 * Breunig, Charles (1977). The Age of Revolution and Reaction, 1789–1850: Context from book that doesnt seem to mention libertarianism.
 * Blin, Arnaud (2007). The History of Terrorism: Could not find book. Need quote showing libertarianism mentioned at all or just “Proudhon was there”


 * Paragraph 2: Finally getting to point on Mutualists vs. Marxists
 * Dodson, Edward (2002). The Discovery of First Principles: Volume 2. Here Just says Thomas Paine was what we today would call a libertarian; nothing on Marx as libertarian
 * Thomas, Paul (1985). (Two separate page refs.) Karl Marx and the Anarchists. “Libertarian” is mentioned a few times in book and here first international and libertarian on same page, but let’s see quotation in the ref that makes clear that it supports points made.


 * Paragraph 3: Bakunin’s a libertarian too? And were these federalist socialists libertarians? Or is that Proudhon again?
 * Bak, Jn`os (1991). Liberty and Socialism. Mentions First International couple times here here. Enough to support a section as opposed to a paragraph?

Paragraph 4:
 *  Mothers and Daughters  p. 140 not in preview; otherwise search mentions a woman read Prodhoun, nothing on libertarianism.here
 * Graham, Robert Anarchism Need to verify with quotes it’s got something about libertarians and the first international

We can do better, folks. CarolMooreDC 18:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Carol, I think that you are operating several levels above me regarding the depth of research and analysis that you are laying out, to the point where the main points of what you are advocating ares not as clear to some of us as they are to you. Could you clarify? North8000 (talk) 12:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * V If someone asks for verification of what source says, especially when there is no link,reads:
 * When there is dispute about whether a piece of text is fully supported by a given source, direct quotes and other relevant details from the source should be provided to other editors as a courtesy. Do not violate the source's copyright when doing so.
 * WP:No_original_research lead reads:
 * To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.
 * No_original_research reads in part, please read whole thing:
 * Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article.
 * And of course there's V because of WP:Undue or WP:PAGEDECIDE. CarolMooreDC 13:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Controlling self and not tagging this section for the moment, but obviously it is the second example of why I tagged whole article per below (the first being the removed Propaganda deed section). CarolMooreDC 19:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Have removed it since no one responded to defend or correct the WP:OR. CarolMooreDC 07:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Framework to move forward
In order to distill some things out of this dialog without getting too mired down (trying to write the whole article on the talk page) & before we run out of gas, may I suggest that we just decide on the debated points, document and use those decisions as a guide, and then handle the specifics via gradual article editing?

One observation is that I don't think that we have the typical situation here of folks wanting to POV the article one way or the other. Instead, I think that most folks want to have an accurate, informative, balanced article. But the tough part is that "libertarianism" means different things in different places and at different times. Even some other closely related words (e.g. liberalism, anarchism) have dramatically different meanings in different places. And so what many folks sincerely think to be the "accurate" view is in fact a parochial view in ways that (here, far more than on a typical topic) vary far more than objectives views vary on a typical article. And this isn't just geographic. I would argue that even confining ourselves to scholarly works (which focus on the various strands, philosophical and meanings over time) can be very parochial, missing a basic look at what the definition of 30,000,000 people in the US who call themselves libertarians is.

Is this a pretty good list of the contended points? And is this a pretty good summary of what we came up with on them?


 * Degree of coverage of anarchism Anarchism is significant in the history of libertarianism.   Also, although proponents might be smaller in number, (roughly speaking) for folks outside of the US it is associated with and a part of the definition of the term "libertarianism".   Finally, anarchism is taxonomically falls within libertarianism.  On the flip side, "anarchism", not "libertarianism" is the common name for anarchism.    Also anarchism has its own name and its own article.  So, in this article anarchism in relation to libertarianism is to be covered, but substantial coverage of anarchism is to be left to the anarchism article.  And so the amount of anarchism coverage in this article is to be slightly reduced from it's current amount as of Feb 18th 2013, and certainly not increased.


 * Coverage of "Short form" libertarianism Regarding numbers of libertarians the "gorilla in the living room" is the "short form" of libertarianism, which is prioritizing reduction of government and increase of freedom, with the common tenets of it limited to those two things. Perhaps 30,000,000 people in the USA self-identify as libertarians this way and even more than that in the USA vote this way. For a variety for factors (lack of a name, relative newness of it/less coverage in the history, mistake of trying to fit its round peg into the square holes of complete philosophies......i.e. the mistake of saying that "libertarian" includes only complete philosophies) this has seemed to "get lost" in the libertarian article.  I think that concern over this has been the biggest cause of concern here over the years.  This needs to get fully covered.


 * Lens of coverage of strands Care should be take that a strand is not covered (in the voice of Wikipedia) through the lens of a different strand or viewpoint.  This does not intend to exclude viewpoints attributed for context.


 * Quality of sources WP:rs credentials, and expertise and objectivity with respect to the topic at hand all matter.  This can be a scholar or a simply a good observer.


 * Summarization vs. OR Accepted summarizaiton can overlap with an unusually rigorous & literal interpretation of wp:nor.   This article needs some summarization to be informative.  Apply a stricter standard when the summarization itself is challenged.


 * We want an informative article We want to cover the various meanings, not have a tussle between them.

North8000 (talk) 13:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The list and the summaries are pretty good. I still want to point out the fact that numerous capitalist libertarian groups exist not just in North America (including Canada which is not the U.S.), but also in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and I think there was even Costa Rica and Russia. I mean, it's not like these parties were founded by American infiltrators or something, and I highly doubt these people would have used the word "libertarian" for their classical liberal platforms if no one around them knew what the hell they were talking about. There's also International Society for Individual Liberty and Interlibertarians. Therefore, again, let's be careful about how we use the whole "this brand of libertarianism only in the USA" bit in the article. I'll start hunting for sources if you want, but one might as well just rip them off of those pages. However, we are making progress and at this point, my biggest problem would have to be the lead. It's still too abstract and, considering how high-traffic this article is, I really want to better articulate the concept to lay-people who briefly stop by but have no real intention of reading through the whole article. The lead doesn't give anyone any solid clue as to what libertarianism is; it just sort of disjointedly lists a few vague concepts (that damn near everyone would claim to support), attempting to point people to other articles that they would have to read through in order to get any idea whatsoever. Look, I know that the different libertarian factions are not so different to where we cannot come to an agreement on what a better lead should look like. So, for example, though we may define liberty-versus-authority differently (i.e., freedom from government, freedom from corporations, etc.), would anyone disagree that libertarianism entails the maximization of liberty (and free choice, we could add that) in all sectors of life coupled with minimal government or a stateless society entirely ? Yes, we disagree on the details of what that statement means exactly, but would any libertarian faction challenge that statement in and of itself? We could also emphasize that libertarianism places liberty as its highest political value/priority, as opposed to, say, conservatism which emphasizes tradition or stability, or egalitarianism, which upholds the enforcement of equality as its highest priority. --Adam9389 (talk), 11:32, 18 February 2013
 * Agree 100%. BTW, when I keep talking about it in the US, I only do that because that's the only one I am confident in my knowledge about, and it's my attempt to assign a noun "US style" to "2 item" or "short form" libertarianism.  (Prioritizing reducing government, increasing freedom, end of list)  (BTW, most of those holding these tenets in the US are accepting of motherhood, capitalism, apple pie, private ownership of property, food, retaining some limited amount of government, and cute puppies, but do not define the strand by any of those 7 things.)   So, despite how I sound, I did not mean to imply that the USA has a monopoly on such. North8000 (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * My list is of sort of "disputed" items.   Is there anything from your post that should be incorporated into it? North8000 (talk) 18:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't think so, unless anybody does in fact dispute it. I think the whole "libertarianism in the USA" squabble is more or less over. My concern was simply that I didn't want to see something in the article (i.e., capitalist libertarians are only in the U.S.) that clearly is not true. And there's really nothing more I can say about it beyond the sum of all the points I've already made on this talk page. Like I said, the lead is what I feel stronger about, but I'm not sure anyone is going to have a problem with those characterizations of libertarianism (which I have retroactively italicized above), so I wouldn't count it as disputed until/unless it actually gets disputed. --Adam9389 (talk), 18:58, 18 February 2013

Ok, I'll bite: North8000: may I suggest that we just decide on the debated points, document and use those decisions as a guide, and then handle the specifics via gradual article editing?
 * CM: Can't hurt.

North8000: Is this a pretty good list of the contended points? And is this a pretty good summary of what we came up with on them?
 * CM: will add any that later occur to me.


 * North8000: Degree of coverage of anarchism Anarchism is significant in the history of libertarianism.  ... On the flip side, "anarchism", not "libertarianism" is the common name for anarchism. ... And so the amount of anarchism coverage in this article is to be slightly reduced from it's current amount as of Feb 18th 2013, and certainly not increased.
 * CM: I'd say majorly reduced. When sources clearly relating anarchism/anarcho-capitalism to libertarianism are used without WP:Synth or WP:Undue, go for it. But sources just throwing in the word "libertarian" as an adjective to do not add up to libertarianism, be it Wayne Allyn Root or some left anarchist or other.


 * North8000: Coverage of "Short form" libertarianism Regarding numbers of libertarians... Perhaps 30,000,000 people in the USA self-identify as libertarians... This needs to get fully covered.
 * CM: Check! plus a lot of people all over the world which I think proper sourcing can show.


 * North8000Lens of coverage of strands
 * CM: check


 * North8000Quality of sources
 * CM: check including contemporary journalists and high quality opinionators.


 * North8000Summarization vs. OR ... Apply a stricter standard when the summarization itself is challenged.
 * CM: check, per policy. Please read and comment on Analysis of WP:OR in First International section above.


 * North8000We want an informative article We want to cover the various meanings, not have a tussle between them.
 * CM: Hallelujah! CarolMooreDC 13:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

RE::*North8000Summarization vs. OR ... Apply a stricter standard when the summarization itself is challenged.
 * CM: check, per policy. Please read and comment on Analysis of WP:OR in First International section above.
 * Agree with you 100% there, but IMHO it's not very clear what changes you are saying should be made. North8000 (talk) 15:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Moved your entry down since I hate being interrupted :-) Anyway, as I said in first sentence of second paragraph of Analysis of WP:OR in First International section: "What is needed is a paragraph briefly summarizing what happened and why this matters to libertarianism, assuming it really does." Ie one without all the WP:Undue, tenuous referencing or straight out WP:OR and WP:Undue. Even if everyone of my questions was answered, it's doubtful that the First International/AKA  International Workingmen's Association event deserves more than a short paragraph. Don't worry, I'll be happy to cut it, and most of the same section on the same grounds, when I get a chance. And hopefully find a reference or two that just tells what happens as opposed to stringing a bunch together. CarolMooreDC 18:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Cool. North8000 (talk) 19:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

"Anarchism is significant in the history of libertarianism." Really weak. I don't know why it's so hard for people to focus on tenets rather than words. Classical liberalism is the history of limited government libertarianism (LGL). When it comes to weight based on significance and influence...Adam Smith, J.S. Mill, Herbert Spencer et al. should be given 10 paragraphs for every one word given to anarchists. All the Nobel Prize winning libertarians (Hayek, Friedman, Buchanan, Smith, Ostrom) have far more in common with classical liberals than they do with some footnote anarchists. But in case you missed it, anarchism in this article does not stay in the footnotes. As soon as Carolmooredc gets distracted (again) by some shiny new article the anarchists will run roughshod over this article while North somehow continues to believe that he's maintaining a good and a fair balance. Yeah, pointless rant. Never mind. --Xerographica (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC) Never mind my never mind. I do have a point, and it's a good one, but I'm sure it will be ignored as usual. --Xerographica (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Sarcasm doesn't help clarify matters. I don't even get it and I'm mentioned. This article (and other maintenance onces) has been distracting me from another project that's still totally in draft form off wiki, but I am getting there with it... Then I'll take a fun break and clean this one up ;-) CarolMooreDC 22:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Per WP:STRIKE, it is proper to make comments without markup. Guidance says:
 * "When editing regular Wikipedia articles, just make your changes and do not mark them up in any special way.
 * When editing your own previous remarks in talk pages, it is sometimes appropriate to mark up deleted or inserted material."
 * Strikeout is used to retract or correct previous statements. It can be seen as disingenuous to post original material as stricken. – S. Rich (talk) 00:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Moreover, per WP:TPO, "It is still common to simply delete...rants about the article subject (as opposed to its treatment in the article)...." As the admittedly "pointless rant" above closes with PA as to North & Carolmooredc, it should be deleted outright. – S. Rich (talk) 01:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Please note, my comments (above) were made by me because the original posting was done in strikeout typeface. The strikeout was removed here:  after my comments were made. – S. Rich (talk) 02:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Xerographica, I suspect that you are are kindred spirit with most of the folks here, but your wild approach sure makes a mess out of things. The best to you either way. :-)  North8000 (talk) 01:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

As I understand it, nobody has taken issue with the above framework, except that Carolmooredc has advocated a large reduction in the amount of anarchist material (vs. small) compared to the present state. I seem to remember that Carol is or was an anarchist, which would make this statement a sign of her being an ultimate Wikipedian. Nevertheless, I would observe that "slight reduction compared to the present" might be the "middle of the road" for participants here, especially taking a multi-month view.

If there is a sort of consensus for this, I would like to say that the above summary is a pseudo-consensused guide for the forward direction of this article. Not something that can be quoted as a categorical binding decision, but something that we have decided should have strong influence on the direction of the article. Any objections? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * CarolMooreDC's "balance" is the reason I joined Wikipedia in the first place... Talk:Libertarianism/Archive_16
 * LOL...consensus! Sheesh...if we were any good at collective action the anarchists wouldn't be peeing all over our page. Uh, are Torch and Carol anarchists trying to promote their favorite authors? Or closet anarchists? Or just really really stubborn editors, who, despite your completely logical explanations...fail to acknowledge the simple distinction between anarchism and libertarianism? --97.93.109.174 (talk) 15:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * History will keep repeating itself until there's a consensus to turn this into a DAB page. --Xerographica (talk) 02:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Xerographica, even though I would guess that you are a kindred spirit with most of the folks here, you are so erratic and rude that you are self-defeating. You remind me of the Monty Python suicide squad.  They shoot themselves while pursuing their quest.   :-)   Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I was certainly rude then, how am I being rude now? If you guys are not going to do anything significantly different, then why would you expect the weight problems with this article to be resolved?  --Xerographica (talk) 02:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know what User:X means by "significantly different." I.e., like get around to taking out all the poorly sourced and/or WP:OR which itself will bring article into balance; plus re-add some of the material removed for POV reasons and add more refs where there may be any debate? Others can feel free to start. I'm just trying to finish off this one dang article cause I have about 6 now that are 80% new (or totally re-written) and must start finishing them off before start something new, even when a whole philosophy is being seriously distorted.
 * What I wrote at that old posting linked above by Anon IP is what I've tried to say here a few times: Ddd1600 wrote: We want to look good. We want to come as as not "extreme". We want Ron Paul to sound more credible, Sorry, the purpose of Wikipedia is NOT to make some political faction look good. Your POV and your personal attacks really make it questionable whether you should be editing this article at all and I will mull that over in next few days. Libertarianism means many things to many people and any one faction trying to enforce their view, especially with little discussion of WP:RS, really is working against wikipedia policies.
 * Also, technically I am a libertarian decentralist (have bunch of good refs on that an that's the 3rd in line almost finished article putting up). So I don't care if people are anarchists or minarchists in their communities/cities/counties or belong to one or more networks or confederations (replacing most centralized nation states which were brought together by force), as long as they don't force it on any one else. (With various qualifications regarding individual rights I won't go into here). CarolMooreDC 15:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * North8000 and CarolMooreDC: the rantings and sarcasm aside, Xerographica does make an excellent point regarding libertarianism's ideological history and origins along with the tenets of famous libertarians. Minarchist libertarianism is classical liberalism and the history of those ideas are one and the same. Even the Libertarianism sidebar clearly and correctly points out the Age of Enlightenment as a source of these ideas. And yet, reading through this article, it's as if the Enlightenment ideas and classical liberalism itself was lucky to get even a tiny paragraph's mention. The complete absence of the ideas of Adam Smith, Frederic Bastiat, John Stuart Mill, and Herbert Spencer, of all people, is particularly egregious. Perhaps it's difficult because these people predated the word "libertarian," but the ideas are the same even if the wording has changed (which is an inevitable phenomenon of history). Ayn Rand, for instance, explicitly denied the characterization "libertarian," yet she is properly mentioned because of the indisputable influence her ideas have had on the philosophic development of libertarianism. --Adam9389 (talk), 10:11, 24 February 2013


 * If you look you'll see at the top of the history I put an expansion box reading This section requires expansion with: information on who describes these ideas or individuals as "libertaran".  All that is needed is to use sources that identify all these people's ideas as forerunners of libertarianism or as libertarianism. Right now there is a lot of WP:OR of the editor picking a source that describes their ideas without that source saying they were libertarian. Someone has to do the work or else we are left with all the work done by previous editors and crabbing about it is not enough. I have done some work and intend to do more, but I have to try to keep to my schedule as well (while putting out fires on other long-term articles (not to mention dealing with deranged troll vandals). So feel free to do find sources regarding Adam Smith, Frederic Bastiat, John Stuart Mill, and Herbert Spencer. CarolMooreDC 17:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Wrap up on framework at the beginning of this thread
The items at the top have been open for 10 days. There have subsequent discussions on more specific topics. I think that there have been no objections or even suggested changes to the points on the top. (Except Carol in a sidebar advocated a larger reduction in anarchism material). Are there any objections to considering that we have decided that the article should be be guided or influenced by those? (Or some firmer statement)? North8000 (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * support, including Carol's sidebar. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Just remember, I'm looking for appropriate balance via refs, not eliminating material just for ideological reasons. Also, I was chomping at bit to get going by Verizon is screwed up in my neighborhood and internet connection may keep going down til Monday (grrrr) so held up a bit longer... CarolMooreDC 17:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Carol, i didnt read your sidebar to mean remove for ideological reasons, did i miss something? Darkstar1st (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I personally support and prefer Carol's "larger reduction in anarchism material" sidebar, but am not considering to be in the "list" at the moment. North8000 (talk) 17:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I hope you are not trying to bring back this article to the US centric bias towards neoliberal right wing economics. For new users who have come to this discussion i suggest to check this long explanation of the use of the word "libertarian" outside the US. As i check the article "libertarianism in the United States" US neoliberal economics advocates only started to use the word "libertarian" to describe themselves in the 1950s while anarchists have been using the word "libertarian" since the mid 19th century. So this is the main reason why there is this ammount of anarchist information and taking out more information will not be making justice to the concept of "libertarianism".--Eduen (talk) 02:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I am only "trying" to find and have us decide on the middle of the road instead of eternal tug of wars towards one way or the other. North8000 (talk) 02:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Let´s remember that we are contributing here to english language wikipedia and not to US wikipedia.--Eduen (talk) 02:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * [insert]True. But also that includes being influenced by current prevalence on a world scale and preponderance of coverage in sources. And this thread is to try to find the balance between all of that. North8000 (talk)


 * And let's remember we can't fill an article up with poor sourced and WP:OR interpretations of sources twisted so they say what we want to say and then put in long WP:Undue paragraphs based on this "sourcing." Long talk page discussions and consensus do NOT excuse violations of policy. Side tracked by a few things but if you read above, I do intend to clean out such violations soon. CarolMooreDC 02:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Forced/Free rider problem
Rich, Rubin and SPECIFICO are making and/or supporting edits on the free rider problem and the forced rider problem which do not reflect what the reliable sources have to say about the topics... Talk:Forced_rider_problem. But I might be wrong. It would be great if any outside editors could evaluate how well their edits match the reliable sources. Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 16:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * See WP:CANVASS. You're overdoing the "relevant" project, but an article talk page is inappropriate.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * From the policy...
 * However, canvassing — which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion towards one side of a debate — is considered inappropriate.
 * Please explain how posting this section on the libertarianism talk page is going to influence the outcome towards my side of the debate. --Xerographica (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It may not be a violation of that section, but if you look at WP:CANVASS, it does not mention article talk pages. only WikiProject talk pages. We can argue WP:CAMPAIGNING; only those familiar with your comments would recognize that you think you are lying when you write "I might be wrong".  And, although we've both done far worse, your initial statement is not neutral.  I don't know why you selected this article; if you can explain that, perhaps it might become clear why you think this is a relevant, as opposed to indiscriminate, post.  In terms of the four critera:
 * Limited posting ←→ Mass posting; not excessive in number, but it seems arbitrary
 * Neutral ←→ Biased; toward biased
 * Nonpartizan ←→ Partizan; probably toward nonpartizan
 * Open ←→ Secret; it's on Wikipedia, so it can't be too secret, and you've edited the article and talk page before, so people familiar with you would expect it. Lean toward open, though.
 * In summary, it's not an example of an appropriate post, although it only marginally meets the criteria for being inappropriate. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

It is an inappropriate posting. Completely off-topic – nothing in it pertains to this article page. It asserts that certain contributors are making disruptive edits to other articles to the extent that such other edits do not comply with RS. Coupled with the fact that other similar postings (on other talk pages) complain about harassment, it is not in the spirit of NPA. If I were not one of the alleged harassers, I would collapse top / collapse bottom  this thread as off-topic IAW WP:TPO. Accordingly, I ask other editors to do so. – S. Rich (talk) 00:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Libertarian / anarcho-socialist / syndicalist
Contrary to the claim of some Usonians (the proper English word for people of the United States), so-called "right libertarianism" is a complete evasion of the etymology and history of the word libertarian.

Libertarian is the anglicization of the French word libertaire, created in 1857 by Joseph Déjacque, the French anarchist and socialist activist and writer, in opposition to liberal. The word could have been imported unchanged ― as doctrinaire was ― but it was not: the word libertaire does not exist in English, and the Oxford English Dictionary gives libertarian as its' only English counterpart. Online translation engines also translate libertaire into English as libertarian. Larousse defines libertaire as "Partisan de la liberté absolue, anarchiste", or in English "Proponent of absolute freedom, anarchist".

Therefore the real originator of libertarianism was Déjacque, not Dean Russell or Murray Rothbard. Déjacque was a genuine anarchist, i.e. a socialist, and therefore libertarianism is an inherently anarchist ideology that belongs (just like fascism) on the left. This appears to be clearly understood outside the US and Canada, so if not for the Usonians' well-renowned self-centred ignorance about the world outside their borders people everywhere in the Anglosphere would understand the word properly; and no one would have even the slightest reason to be confused about what libertarian means.

Real libertarians are socialists who follow Déjacque, people like Lysander Spooner, Benjamin Tucker, Ferdinando Sacco, Bartolomeo Vanzetti ― yes, that Sacco and Vanzetti ― and Noam Chomsky. Suprised to see Spooner and Tucker in the same list as the Sacco, Vanzetti and Chomsky? Spooner advocated anarchist socialism and Tucker was a member of the socialist First International. "We are libertarian", Vanzetti wrote in 1927, distinguishing his and Sacco's brand of socialism from that of the social democrats, socialists, communists, etc. Those people had the identity libertarian long before Russell and Rothbard's attempt to steal their identity.

To be crystal clear: If one accepts that there is such a thing as libertarianism that is not socialist, one endorses the identity theft attempted by Russell and Rothbard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epikuro57 (talk • contribs) 13:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to take you seriously, but the "Usonians" thing makes it difficult. Thanks for making my day though with that. Really. --Adam9389 (talk) 10:17, 24 February 2013


 * Really. Epikuro, just quit with the euphemisms and say "Them freakos stole our private property - the word libertarianism." ho ho ho CarolMooreDC 17:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Stop trying to steal Usonian from Frank Lloyd Wright. Words should only be used to mean what they meant originally and should never be adapted or allowed to morph! Ehusman (talk) 19:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I did use the word Usonian properly, as found in the Oxford English Dictionary Definition of Usonian, i.e. "a native or inhabitant of the United States", as opposed to a native or inhabitant of America, which the OED defines as the land mass comprising North and South America, i.e. a continent, not a country. Wright didn't create the word, James Duff Law ― who was properly ashamed by the misuse of "American" ― created it.  FYI Wright thought Usonia a fine name for the US.


 * I would not say they stole "our" identity since I'm not remotely libertarian ― I'm no anarchist. I'm a liberal, in the proper (i.e. original) meaning of that word.--Epikuro57 (talk) 04:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, words do get adapted and morphed - that's why we have disambiguation with the best known use being the main article. Unless of course one wants to be encyclopedic and detail similar uses that may have some minor variations, as in this article. (Although I guess objectivist materialist determinists might think that economics determines everything; but isn't determinism the opposite of free will?) However, Wikieditors should not be doing it without WP:RS on wikipedia. CarolMooreDC 19:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Rothbard never claimed to have invented libertarianism, but claimed to be in the tradition of libertarianism, i.e., the people identified by Epikuro57. It could be that Rothbard was closer to them than Chomsky is.  But clearly Chomsky and Rothbard had significant differences which for want of better description could be called left and right libertarianism.  TFD (talk) 03:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * We do have excellent coverage of Left-libertarianism including market-anarchist types like Rothbard, Samuel Edward Konkin III, Chris Matthew Sciabarra, Roderick T. Long, Sheldon Richman, etc. Both Long and Richman (who edited the venerable free market periodical, The Freeman) are emphatic about the “left” label. The labels are quite complicated and our articles reflect that. Jason from nyc (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You totally missed my point. What you call "Left-libertarianism" is libertarianism, period.  The other so-called libertarianism is a fraud, and so is everyone who claims to be such a "libertarian".--Epikuro57 (talk) 04:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

This is a side issue. Sections above (and in the archives) are better focused on article improvement. I recommend that interested editors not be diverted by this topic. – S. Rich (talk) 04:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Libertarianism sidebar
One thing after another, isn't it? -- I must have missed something. What happened to the color scheme and stylization in the sidebar? --Adam9389 (talk) 12:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, from my experience anyhow, V • T • E at the bottom of the sidebar is obscure,§ the first of which (V[iew]) links to Template:Libertarianism sidebar  whose history tab links to the recent change,.
 * § And argued more generally at [2] (per A7 and 4T there). --Thomasmeeks (talk) 21:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I reverted it since no discussion at talk and I couldn't figure out what they were talking about at the discussion. Color bars don't seem excessive. I started thread here. CarolMooreDC 00:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion now active on that talk page. CarolMooreDC 15:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Rewriting sections so about libertarianism
Just did it with Mutualism. Just a note on "Egoist anarchism". Egoist anarchism actually mentions libertarianism (and assumedly the refs to too?) a couple times. None of that is in this article. A search of Max Stirner and libertarian actually shows some returns. Frankly, I don't give a darn about that philosophy and would be just as happy to delete the whole thing as WP:OR. Feel free to rewrite it in case I get disgusted and do so. CarolMooreDC 07:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Going back to actual historical order
 * Beefed up Age of Englightenment. Need something on Jefferson there, and betrayal of libertarian traditions that led to individual anarchism/libertarianism.
 * Did "Early individualist anarchism" sections next. Stirner just had a couple passing mentions related to libertarianism, not worth a whole section (which I suspect was someone's attempt to make individualist anarchists look "egotistic" anyway; except found a bunch on Stirner's influence on libertarian communists in Individualist anarchism in Europe, so others should opine on his importance.) Also cut some WP:Undue. Frankly there's a lot of chronological overlap with European - and that section has less refs to libertarianism than the actual wiki article on the topic. A real mess - shame on whoever! Will play with a bit more today offline and revisit soon.
 * Cut whole Organize Labor per the above since no one willing to find any refs linking to libertarianism.
 * Did just a little more clean out of Libertarian communism. CarolMooreDC 15:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Carol, just so you know that there is appreciation in the silence. I've been reading every post. The depth and amount of your work makes it hard for a mere mortal to do much more than that. North8000 (talk) 19:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I keep visualizing that someday someone will pay me $2 for every one of my 22431 edits :-) But then the addictive high is reward in itself :-) CarolMooreDC 19:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, per my edit summary, I merged disparate/confusing sections on various kinds of left libertarianism (per lead) and Modern American libertarianism (per temporary general description that is not "right-liberarianism" which is NOT a descriptor used by anyone who holds to such libertarian views). I removed unsourced material, refs that don’t mention libertarianism and/or not WP:RS from "left" sections, as well as excessive WP:Undue. I'll next removed any I find from remaining sections.
 * Also I removed the paragraph about punk rock movement etc because didn't come up in my search of that source on books.google. However, many other mentions of "libertarian" did show up if someone wants to go through it.REF: Paul McLaughlin, Anarchism and Authority, Ashgate, 2007, isbn = 0-7546-6196-2
 * If "left libertarianism" section is not very coherent, it only reflects what was relevant and I'm sure others can make it more so or I shall when get a chance. More on Bookchin (who has written a great deal and is influential) and Chomsky (who hasn't written much on topic and may be overly influential) would be helpful.
 * Next I'll deal with problems like this "right-libertarian" label issue which is not a label anyone applies to themselves, but only has been used by lazy people used to the left-right spectrum, including per removed material previously in article. As well as the removed material on the current popularity of which views and removed material describing libertarian views that unite libertarians, as well as - and before - those which divide them; hopefully written better than last time. Plus other good stuff. Still a work in progress. CarolMooreDC 07:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * CarolMooreDC, first of all, thanks for all your work! Things have been pretty busy for me here (new job) so I haven't been around much lately.  I am pretty well experienced with Bookchin and Chomsky (full disclosure: I am a Social Ecologist), so I will hit that "Left libertarianism" section when I get a chance.  One comment about the left-right distinction though: I don't know of anyone who identifies as either a right- or left-libertarian.  For example, Bookchin's philosophy is Social Ecology (the economic system is called Communalism, with a capital C), Chomsky is more of a traditional libertarian/anarchist/anarcho-syndicalist, and Roderick Long identifies as a bleeding heart libertarian; the left- and right- prefixes are really post-hoc classifications, not anything anyone identifies as.  My point here is that, if we aren't going to use right-libertarian because no one self-identifies as that, then this logic should apply equally to left-libertarianism.  I don't much care either way, but we ought to be consistent.  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for comment. Once I saw the article was getting 4000 hits a day I knew I better get cracking and ignore for now some 20 hits a day articles.
 * For now I figured I'd stick all the lefties under Left-libertarianism and see what people wanted to do. In the Left-libertarianism article there are a few people mentioned who I have seen using that phrase (Vallyntne and Otsuka for example) to describe their views. And within L-L there is a spectrum of ideas on property and resources, including a number mostly pro-property. (See http://praxeology.net/all-left.htm which has own definition and probably put a lot of people who don't self-identify thusly on the list - like me - but many of them do. Top google searches show those types.)
 * I am putting together all the material I've collected in last couple years, plus new searches, to improve current content or fill in various blanks and hopefully one of them will have a good quote to explain relationship between all the lefties! :-) CarolMooreDC 00:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * @MisterDub.    I've been pretty strong on minimizing the use of the term "right libertarian" because I've seen enough to know that people don't self-identify by that term, and also that it has no consistent meaning.   I've kind of gone "hands of" on the term left libertarianism, figuring that folks that know that better than I would be better to steer the ship on that.   So I have been "inconsistent" figuring that that is the best thing to do.   I'm very open to what you are saying to also minimize the use of the term "left libertarian(ism)" if folks think so. North8000 (talk) 00:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please check out Left-libertarianism which has ref'd material. It just needs to mention all the other varieties. Maybe I'll do that later and see if objections arise. Also, I put the question there: Talk:Left-libertarianism. CarolMooreDC 13:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Fixing the lead
I've already made an adjustment. If anyone has issue with it, this is the place. Fact is, the lead has not given any real solid definition, just a small and vague elaboration (Oh, well, we like individual liberty, political freedom, voluntary association, yata-yata-yata; but you must click on those to hopefully find out just what the hell we're talking about). Plus, I'll be damned if there's any so-called libertarian on here who disputes the new characterization in the lead. --Adam9389 (talk) 11:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good, although I'd call it "improving" not "fixing". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I just meant another step toward that goal. --Adam9389 (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * FYI, watching, if not commenting, as once again sidetracked by nonsense. Will be back soon. See my snazzy new signature graph I stole from someone else so feel free to use it :-) CarolMooreDC &#x1f5fd; 03:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Analysis of WP:OR in "Organized Labor" section
I've put missing info tag here since obviously there are sources, but the whole section is WP:OR related to libertarianism.


 * REf: Resolutions from the St. Imier Congress, in Anarchism: A Documentary History of Libertarian Ideas, Vol. 1, p. 100 -says what specifically about first international and libertarian ideas?
 * 1 May 1886 strike/8hour day info and refs: Which specifically mentions centrality of "libertarian" ideas, actions, etc to these events and why is it NOT WP:Undue to have one big and one small paragraph on them?

The Spanish Workers Federation - the [Confederación Nacional del Trabajo]] - International Workers Association Where does it say anything about libertarianism except the title of Woodcok's book: Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements (1962)??? Wayne Root's The Conscience of a Libertarian mentions libertarian in the title, but that doesn't mean it's a book about what most libertarians would call "libertarianism."

Again, make it relevant to topic of this article and eliminate WP:OR/WP:Undue. The Libertarian communism section was easier to deal with because it actually had some relevant material, though still a lot of repetition, pov pushing.

Also both individualist anarchism sections are way too long and probably can be cut quite a bit just by finding out if their references make mention of libertarianism. Lack of comment on any other poorly sourced WP:OR/Undue section does not imply approval for that section. Other jobs for another all nighter. CarolMooreDC 08:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * No offense, but speaking of WP:OR and POV pushing, I'm still waiting for you to produce a census, study or academic paper to give some tiny little shred of credence to your own personal conjectures on what "most libertarians" think. Woodcock's book is the authoritative source on pre-neoliberal libertarian history. CNT/FAI/IWA all 'matter' and are pertinent to the topic. If neoliberals like root are significant to the neoliberal parties self-identifying as 'libertarian' then they're pertinent too. I know I'm not the only one who's said that a source doesn't need to repeat the word libertarian a hundred times to be about libertarianism -- and here it's right in the title. This is silly, silly silliness. Finx (talk) 09:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are talking to me, you have to be more specific. What kind of info have I put in that you do not think is properly ref'd? What do you want new and ref'd in what section? I'm intending to get back here soon, so please do tell. CarolMooreDC &#x1f5fd; 21:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * From what I've read so far, everything you've put in is well sourced and well written. That's not what I'm saying, though. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your earlier comment, but you seem to want to remove references to CNT/FAI/IWA, which I think is completely unreasonable. Finx (talk) 07:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * CNT is still there because it had a ref that pretty solidly connected it to libertarianism, the Bookchin material. There may be a bit more he wrote that mentioned the other groups and just seemed a bit confusing and/or undue to me, but go to the ref and you can re-add it if you think it relevant. CarolMooreDC &#x1f5fd; 07:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Large expansion of Anarchism material?
We recently had a thorough discussion open for a long time and decided that the anarchism material should not be expanded and possibly reduced. There were many reason given, but one important one is that Anarchism has a separate article and that that article would be the most suitable place for more in-depth coverage of Anarchism. I believe that Euden's recent set of edits today represents a large expansion in the Anarchism material. North8000 (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I find that just looking at refs to see if they are explicitly related to "libertarianism" tends to take care of the WP:Undue. That's easy and I might do soon, unless you beat me too it.
 * Unfortunately, with my fooling around on other articles, I now have a real world article deadline looming that will keep me busy for another week so more constructive editing has to be put off. Feel free to go back to older versions and put back some of the good stuff that's missing - even with some better beefed up refs - which I intend to do. Good places to look are these versions: March 2011; Jan 2012 before Byelf2007's massive rewrites; some of the good refs I came up with last couple months in talk page archives (which I have copied in my research files and will look at if not used properly).  go for it! CarolMooreDC &#x1f5fd; 16:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I reverted it to yesterday. North8000 (talk) 19:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, an expansion of the anarchist material is contradictory to the consensus decision made earlier. Thanks for watching this, North8000!  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Let's clarify that such material can be added if it is properly sourced to a ref discussion libertarianism, truly contributes new and important info and isn't WP:Undue/POV pushing. A quick review of what was added showed maybe one thing that might be OK and all those grounds, but frankly I don't have the energy to work on it. But if the editor who put it in figured out what it was (I've forgotten already) and put it in properly, I'd defend the edit. CarolMooreDC &#x1f5fd;
 * Yes, agree, certainly. It's just that large amount of big anarchism-expanding edits bundled together makes it hard to deal with  and collectively  went against the decision. North8000 (talk) 21:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem. Just wanted to make clear this isn't attempt to ban all such info from article as some have charged previously. CarolMooreDC &#x1f5fd; 00:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Encyclopædia Britannica
I'm surprised my source-add to the lead is the first time Encyclopædia Britannica has been cited until now. Its 'Libertarianism' page is quite extensive. I'd recommend it for anybody who is finding themselves running dry on legitimate sources, especially those dealing with libertarianism's history, origins, and classical liberal philosophic connections. --Adam9389 22:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Mutualism section
Thanks to CarolMooreDC (I think) and no thanks to me (since I vanished after promising to fix the section), I think the parts on mutualism are now much better. I fixed some grammatical/spelling errors and an apparent word omission, made it clear it's a socialist school of thought (which is uncontroversial, and Proudhon also clearly self-identified as a socialist), added some more explanation to put it into context and another source.

How is this separate from the "left-libertarianism" section below, again? The structure is still pretty confusing. It should at least be called "libertarian socialism" instead (which includes market-ish crap, collectivism, communism and such alike) with a brief summary of tendencies, in my humble opinion. And with so much objection here to using the term "right-libertarian," you'd think someone would object to the converse. Ooh, I'll do it... Boo! Finx (talk) 10:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with Lib Socialism instead and just put that left-lib as placeholder. I'm happy to let the lib socialists fight that one out unless I notice some overwhelming pattern of refs saying otherwise. With mutualism, I basically just left things that were sourced. However, problems remain with your edits and other sourcing:
 * I think there's a problem with moving up just one source calling him a libertarian socialist to the forefront, even if you identified that one person. Unless you can find a source saying he called himself one using that phrase, not just those words in different contexts.
 * Also obviously a lot of individualist/left market libs do like some of what he says which may be one reason for the sentence:  Mutualism has been retrospectively characterized as ideologically situated between individualist and collectivist forms of anarchism. Of course, that sentence has four refs and who knows which of those actually say it. So the section still needs work and feel free to do it so I don't have to :-)
 * So at this point I don't think Mutualism belongs under libertarian socialism. CarolMooreDC &#x1f5fd;


 * Concerning the Proudhon quote -- his own wikipedia page has a reference to Proudhon, Pierre-Joseph. 'Oeuvres Complètes' (Lacroix edition), volume 17, pages 188-9 where he's quoted as saying "We are socialists"; I believe the libertarian label came later with Déjacque in lieu of anarchist. Finx (talk) 07:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Responding on "with so much objection here to using the term "right-libertarian," you'd think someone would object to the converse.", as the one who most often objects to use of the term "right libertarian" (as being a term with no consistent meaning and thus useless) I haven't been as sure that left libertarian is such, and have left it to others who know better than I to weigh in on that.   Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It's fine. I just think the same reasoning applies though. Everyone thinks they're the 'true' and only libertarians without needing to apply additional labels, whether they agree with them or not. Finx (talk) 07:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Finx, I agree 100% and have leveled a similar objection in the "Rewriting sections so about libertarianism" section on this Talk page. I don't understand the fuss over using the right- or left- prefixes; it seems to be more of an issue with personal identification than with any academic treatment of the subject.  In any case, I am getting a computer this week to replace my dead one at home and am hoping I will have time to work on the article, especially the "Left-libertarianism" section, this weekend.  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

"Right libertarianism" term again

 * The wikipedia objection would have to be the lack of WP:RS showing anyone of note identifies themselves as a "right libertarian" (as I know from working on that article and not finding such a self-identification except a couple self-published nobodies using the term). In using the term it is therefore necessary to say a) that it is a phrase some have used to describe pro-property libertarians and b) that is a phrase which often is used pejoratively by people who do not like pro-property libertarians (a point I can illustrate with a number of refs haven't gotten around to using yet). It is not in itself an ideology.
 * The objections to the term "right libertarian" from most libertarians is that it is in fact pejorative and is so often used to refer to authoritarian statists of some kind or other. The many libertarians who were formerly liberals, democrats, independents, anarchists, etc. and who have an abhorrence of "right wing" authoritarianism and/or cultural conservatism and/or corporate statism/mercantilism and/or warmongering neocon infiltrators should be easy to understand.
 * Obviously a number of largely pro-market/property libertarians don't mind being called left libertarians, per the Alliance of Libertarian Left website (which came out on top when I searched "left libertarian" by the way). A lot of us leave our names on the website even if we don't describe ourselves thusly since it's an innocuous grouping. But if you had a right libertarians site listing us we'd have a fit and demand to be taken off. Understand the objection now?? CarolMooreDC &#x1f5fd; 02:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Do you have evidence that the term is a pejorative? From my study, it is merely a means of distinguishing one group of libertarians from another.  So, no... I still don't understand the objection.  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that another problem is that the term "right libertarian" has no consistent meaning, and so it confuses rather than distinguishes. North8000 (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I still disagree with that claim. Every paper I've read that explains this distinction does so along property lines, so I'm not sure where you get the idea that these terms don't have consistent meanings.  Could you please provide sources?  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Those who use the term usually imbue it with their own knowledge and interpretations of libertarianism, either as a general term or to describe a person who themselves would never self-describe as right. Therefore a libertarian oriented conservatives who thinks "right" means old right will have a different interpretation that The Economist that looks mostly at economics or an Agorist who means and Lib Party person or an Alliance of the Libertarian Left person who might mean someone who has slightly different views of property than they do or a libertarian communist who despises all property and would be happy to push a button to evaporate everyone who believes in any kind of property rights beside toothbrushes and undies (to use an amusing extreme example). So not only that it is NOT a self-identifier has to be made clear, and that many libertarians reject the description, but the bias of each person using the term also has to be briefly made clear when they use it. Yet another job to be done. CarolMooreDC &#x1f5fd; 20:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Could you please provide sources? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

It's sort of reversed to ask for sources that address a faulty assertion (that there is a consistent meaning to "right-libertarian")  But a look at the diversity of meanings in the sources in the right-libertarian article does give a good indication. North8000 (talk) 15:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Could you provide sources that a there is a consistent meaning besides being generally pro-property? One that can't be shown inaccurate by examples from a variety of other sources? Did you look at Right-libertarianism? After much search I could not find anyone who referred to "right libertarianism" as an ideology or any non-self published work of note where anyone self-described themselves thusly. Can you find any?

I will keep my eye open for some WP:RS that makes the larger point about different interpretations of "right-libertarianism" in which case ref'ing various examples might be worth while.

As for "libertarians reject the description", here's material removed from earlier versions I will reinsert with a few more things found:
 * However, many libertarians reject being described as either "left" or "right." (REF)
 * Duncan Watts, Understanding American government and politics: a guide for A2 politics students, 2nd Revised edition, Manchester University Press, 16 March 2006, p 246 IBN 978-0719073274: "Libertarians feel that neither left nor right can be trusted to defend the rights of individuals."
 * Leonard Read rejected these terms as "authoritarian". Neither Left Nor Right, The Freeman, February 1998, Vol. 48 No. 2.
 * Walter Block rejected the labels being even in making differentiations between libertarians who were largely pro-property. Author "Libertarianism is unique; it belongs neither to the right nor the left," Journal of Libertarian Studies, Volume 22 (2010): 127–70.
 * Sheldon Richman writes about this in Libertarianism: Left or Right?, Future of Freedom Foundation's "Freedom Daily," June 2007. "Is libertarianism of the Left or of the Right? We often avoid this question with a resounding 'Neither!'" He also points out that left and right were "first used in the French Legislative Assembly after the revolution of 1789. In that context those who sat on the right side of the assembly were steadfast supporters of the dethroned monarchy and aristocracy — the ancien régime — (and hence were conservatives) while those who sat on the left opposed its reinstatement (and hence were radicals). It should follow from this that libertarians, or classical liberals, would sit on the left."

Are you saying you do think it's an actual "ideology" and refs to prove it? CarolMooreDC &#x1f5fd; 15:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * North8000, this is not reversed: you and CarolMooreDC are claiming that left- and right-libertarianism aren't coherent, meaningful terms and the onus is upon you to support this assertion. I've already presented sources that illustrate how these are consistent terms (on January 23), but these were apparently ignored.
 * CarolMooreDC, you asked, "Could you provide sources that a there is a consistent meaning besides being generally pro-property?" and I really have to take issue with the italicized part. It appears you know that the terms in question differ along property lines and are setting up an impossible task.  In any case, the sources...


 * Mark Bevir - Encyclopedia of Political Theory: right-libertarianism "sanctifies entitlements in natural resources and approves of the distributive outcome of the free play of these entitlements" (as opposed to LL, which "seeks to correct the distribution that naturally follows from unequal holdings, reflecting an egalitarian concern").


 * "Where the two differ is with respect to ownership of external resources. Left libertarians deny the idea that entitlements over unowned natural resources may be unilaterally acquired, subject only to a weak condition of nonharm (i.e. a weak version of the Lockean proviso).  They view the world in its initial moral state as unowned, with all people having equal an [sic] claim to it.  Those who acquire private exclusive control of resources and land are required to duly compensate those who thereby have been denied access to resources."


 * Peter Vallentyne - "Libertarianism": in "right-libertarianism" unowned natural resources "may be appropriated by the first person who discovers them, mixes her labor with them, or merely claims them--without the consent of others, and with little or no payment to them." He contrasts this with left-libertarianism where such "unappropriated natural resources belong to everyone in some egalitarian manner."


 * Lawrence and Charlotte Becker - Encyclopedia of Ethics: "right-libertarianism" most often refers to the political position that because natural resources are originally unowned, they therefore may be appropriated at-will by private parties without the consent of, or owing to, others.


 * Samuel Edward Konkin III - New Libertarian Manifesto: defines "right-libertarianism" as an: "activist, organization, publication or tendency which supports parliamentarianism exclusively as a strategy for reducing or abolishing the state, typically opposes counter-economics, either opposes the Libertarian Party or works to drag it right and prefers coalitions with supposedly 'free-market' conservatives."


 * Peter Marshall - Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism: "The different schools of anarchism have also engaged in sectarian disputes, the most sustained being that between the individualists and the communists. Social anarchists, who wish to abolish the State and Capital, have nothing but contempt for the right-wing libertarians who wish to get rid of the State in order to achieve an unfettered laissez-faire in the economy."


 * As for the sources you've mentioned, CarolMooreDC... they're not quite what you've made them out to be:


 * Sheldon Richman - Libertarianism: Left or Right?: "Is libertarianism of the Left or of the Right? We often avoid this question with a resounding 'Neither!' Given how these terms are used today, this response is understandable. But it is unsatisfying when viewed historically.


 * In fact, libertarianism is planted squarely on the Left, as I will try to demonstrate here."


 * Here, you can see Richman not saying that Libertarianism is outside of the left-right spectrum, but that, owing to its history, it is a leftist ideology.


 * Leonard Read: "Such, I fear, is the case with 'left' and 'right' when used by libertarians who, I hope to demonstrate, are neither left nor right in the accepted parlance of our day." (emphasis added)


 * Read is not talking about left- and right-libertarianism, but associating libertarianism with either the left or right. "In the accepted parlance of our day," left and right have both become associated with statist views, hence we libertarians are neither.  This doesn't have any relation to the terms left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism.


 * Walter Block:


 * "I end with a plea to both my right and left wing libertarian colleagues: In Oliver Cromwell's elegant words, 'I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken,"... I do not mean mistaken in some jot or tittle of what I have criticized above. As far as these things go, I am as likely to be mistaken about any of these specifics as are those I criticize. What I am talking about is what I see as a burgeoning schism within the libertarian movement, between left and right wing libertarians. Each is moving toward the position, as I see it, of excluding the other, or removing themselves from the other. That would be a tragic mistake. Both are in error in this regard."


 * Here, Block is not rejecting the labels of right- and left-libertarian, but is pleading for cooperation between common factions within libertarianism.


 * Now, maybe this won't amount to anything because we seem to be calling right-libertarianism "Modern American libertarianism" at the moment, which is fine by me. I just want to put to bed this notion that we can't use the terms left- and right-libertarianism because they aren't consistent or because no one self-identifies as such.  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it's kind of funny how claims of third-positionism always seem to come from the extreme ultra-right. I'm not sure how noteworthy it is, except to say that some reject the label, but whatever. I'm fine with whatever, so long as it's consistent. If there's no "right" there's no "left" etc... Finx (talk) 23:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * [Insert]: Snide comments not helpful. Anyway, unfortunately, we don't get to decide on consistency, the WP:RS do, and they are all over the place. I do note that Libertarian socialism gets a lot more hits (google search/books google) than "left libertarianism" (and a lot of those are pro-property left libs). So doesn't libertarian socialism seem to be larger category? Yet, there is a category for "left libertarianism" which includes libertarian socialism. Maybe we need an Libertarianism Wikiproject discussion or study group or something to figure this out because it's confusing in all three related articles, which have both overlaps and distinct differences. Words words words... (Where's icon for pulling out hair.) CarolMooreDC &#x1f5fd; 03:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I have been advocating minimizing the use of the "right libertarianism" term. I have not done so with "left libertarianism" only to leave that question to those who know it better than I.  The term "left libertarianism" seems to have less problems than  the term  "right libertarianism", but my silence is more to leave it to the folks that know better than I. North8000 (talk) 02:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)o


 * MrD wrote: North8000, this is not reversed: you and CarolMooreDC are claiming that left- and right-libertarianism aren't coherent, meaningful terms and the onus is upon you to support this assertion.
 * CM replies: Our assertion is more like: Right-libertarianism is not an ideology, it is a term which some people use to describe some (not all) pro-property positions. Per Wikipedia WP:RS policy It's OK to make it clear it is a term used when a WP:RS uses it, per the ones you listed, but it should not be then used by us to describe organizing that NO WP:RS describes thusly or if it is clear the libertarian individual or group rejects the term, either explicitly or through general failure to use it to describe their views. It's like saying we can say "all libertarians are anarchists" because SOME WP:RS say they are.
 * As for "left libertarian", given the leftist failure to opine, I do think Libertarian socialist is better because historically they called selves socialist libertarians first and because today there ARE a lot of mostly pro-property libertarians who describe themselves as "left libertarian" and it always would be necessary to say which left libertarian we were talking about. This distinction used to be in the article, will be put back in, and is in Left_libertarianism. (Note that Konkin's "counter-economics" is his version of pro-property direct action in rejecting contact with any statist organization/business and has nothing to do with standard left-right analysis.)
 * As for the "rejection" quotes, let me re-read them and comment as I go:
 * MrD wrote:Sheldon Richman - Libertarianism: Left or Right?: "Is libertarianism of the Left or of the Right? We often avoid this question with a resounding 'Neither!'..."
 * CM replies: He's talking about a lot of libertarians today. I guess adding his personal view on what it has been historically and what it should be today confuses the issue.
 * MrD wrote:Leonard Read: "Such, I fear, is the case with 'left' and 'right' when used by libertarians who, I hope to demonstrate, are neither left nor right in the accepted parlance of our day." (emphasis added) Read is not talking about left- and right-libertarianism, but associating libertarianism with either the left or right. "In the accepted parlance of our day," left and right have both become associated with statist views, hence we libertarians are neither.  This doesn't have any relation to the terms left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism.
 * CM replies: Leonard Read's new link is here. The point is he's rejecting being called left or right at all; so it's ok to mention he rejects right, especially when you quote him. Richard Ebeling has a 50 years later commentary on the article here which doubtless makes same quotable comments making the same point.
 * MrD wrote: Walter Block: "I end with a plea to both my right and left wing libertarian colleagues: In Oliver Cromwell's elegant words, 'I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken,"... I do not mean mistaken in some jot or tittle of what I have criticized above. As far as these things go, I am as likely to be mistaken about any of these specifics as are those I criticize. What I am talking about is what I see as a burgeoning schism within the libertarian movement, between left and right wing libertarians. Each is moving toward the position, as I see it, of excluding the other, or removing themselves from the other. That would be a tragic mistake. Both are in error in this regard." :Here, Block is not rejecting the labels of right- and left-libertarian, but is pleading for cooperation between common factions within libertarianism.
 * CM replies: The "left" he is talking about is not communists but largely pro-property people like Rodrick Long and Charles Johnson who promote anarchism; may have a slightly different view of who should own resources, but hardly a socialist view; are skeptical of copyright; promote voluntary affirmative action, and such like. He's identifying a left and right within pro-property libertarianism only and rejects both terms. THus his title "Libertarianism is unique; it belongs neither to the right nor the left". So my use per his title is proper. (Of course, he may actually THINK he's talking about libertarian Marxists and just be unaware there are such things. A more thorough reading might clarify that.)
 * MrD: Now, maybe this won't amount to anything because we seem to be calling right-libertarianism "Modern American libertarianism" at the moment, which is fine by me. I just want to put to bed this notion that we can't use the terms left- and right-libertarianism because they aren't consistent or because no one self-identifies as such.
 * CM replies: "Modern American libertarianism" is a place holder til I can get enough refs to call it what it is, a debate I won't open up here. (Hint, today and through much of history some people almost always use Socialist or Left or Marxist with libertarianism; others rarely do. I can't be the only one to have noticed!)
 * And again, the point is per Wikipedia WP:RS policy It's OK to make it clear it is a term used when a WP:RS uses it, per the ones you listed, but it should not be then used by us to describe organizing that NO WP:RS describes thusly or if it is clear the libertarian individual or group rejects the term, either explicitly or through general failure to use it to describe their views. It's like saying we can say "all libertarians are anarchists" because SOME WP:RS say they are. CarolMooreDC &#x1f5fd; 03:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The article also uses the term "left anarchism" multiple times in the article, it has the same negative connotation as right-libertarianism for right-wingers. Anarchism has historically always been left-wing aside from 1 ideology that insists on calling itself anarchist eventhough the other anarchists are strongly opposed to it. Even if you were to accept that anarcho-capitalism is indeed a form of anarchism, it is 1 ideology, as opposed to all the other anarchist tendencies being left-wing. So to refer to "left-anarchism" is definately not a Neutral POV. --Voidkom (talk) 21:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think that there is anybody arguing for keeping or maximizing the use of the "left" terminology. Long story short, I think that it is just waiting for folks who have expertise in opinions on "left" libertarianism to weigh in on it. North8000 (talk) 21:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

so as not to fall in systemic bias
This article is about to fall in Systemic bias from the amount of information on the US. Hopefully we can make it not deserving of this banner

--Eduen (talk) 07:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you be more specific about that assertion? North8000 (talk) 11:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And yet somehow it's not systemic bias when the anarchists hijack the article and try to erase the classical liberal elements so integral to libertarianism's history? It's a two-way street, pal. --Adam9389 22:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think most anarchists will readily admit their classical liberal roots. Maybe you're confusing classical liberalism and neoliberalism. Finx (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

We decided to cover all strands. Regarding Anarchism, IMO since the common name for anarchism is "anarchism" not "libertarianism", and since there is an Anarchism article, for (only) those reasons we decided that anarchism coverage would be shorter / more limited in this article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Again, 95%+ of material was cut because sources did not refer to libertarianism at all. If no one can find material about non-US countries that does, it is not an excuse to put a tag on. CarolMooreDC &#x1f5fd; 03:42, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Nolan chart
I thought that the Nolan chart was in here, but I can't find it even in history. Maybe I'm losing my mind. That new chart is also nice, but the Nolan chart is simple and notable. North8000 (talk) 00:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * They both look amateurish and top one smacks of original research. I just put in something better. Forgot to encourage editor to see talk. CarolMooreDC &#x1f5fd; 03:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Simple, notable and also wrong. Most anarchists would pee themselves laughing at Nolan's definition of 'economic liberty.' Finx (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Obviously it belongs in the libertarianism-without-adjectives (currently called american) section. I've never been too excited about it because it doesn't mention military noninterventionism. CarolMooreDC &#x1f5fd; 13:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

IP comments
you guys act like youve changed so much, its the same as 6 months ago with words in different order... i cant see a single cited source that says anarchism and libertarianism are one in the same or even close. i see you guys TRYING to draw a connection, but using cited sources that can only speak on anarchism... is this supposed to fool people? there is clearly a confusing element about the choices youve made in declaring your sources.... -DVC CAMPUS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.235.7.5 (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC) EDIT:combining two words together doesnt mean they are the same... just because i can say democratic communism doesnt mean democracy is communism and vice versa... please understand this concept! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.235.7.5 (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that the response is "see the last 2 1/2 years of this talk page."  We have tried to take a compromise approach that is also sourced and valid. North8000 (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I took out most or all of the material that did not address both anarchism and a version of libertarianism. Most versions of libertarianism have anarchist and very small government/quasi-government factions. CarolMooreDC &#x1f5fd; 20:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Just reminding you, yet again, that anarchism is a version (used to be the version) of libertarianism and doesn't need the word 'libertarian' repeatedly plastered across it to prove this, since there are plenty of sources to explain that the two were used interchangeably. Finx (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

sourced?? puuuuuhhleeeeeez buddy i can clearly go to your anarchism section of the libertarian page and see not a single credible source that says ANYTHING bout libertarian, you guys link a couple of 100% anarchist book and somehow that explains that there is a link between the two?? how about some of what YOURE smoking!! lmao! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.235.7.5 (talk) 16:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * To clarify, in the history section I took out the poorly sourced material. Haven't gotten back up to the anarchism/minarhism debate mostly because there are lots of good sources on that so even if current ones aren't the best, at least the text is not misleading. Suggest better sources to be constructive. I'm just distracted by other things myself right now. CarolMooreDC &#x1f5fd; 21:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

--IP comment 2== this topic is completely highjacked and there is zero chance it will ever not be disputed because of a few extremely challenged people insisting on removing credible sources which have been used to show a different side to the false anarchism post and including a section that makes libertarians seem like they are related to anarchism which is one of the most ignorant things ive ever heard in my life.

this has me really doubting the legitimacy of wikipedia, if a source gets taken down that is a solid source, but the ones left alone have nothing to do with the section at all... its sad and pathetic, really. you guys have no shame, and clearly no education, to leave cited sources up that dont even have relevance yet you take down other peoples sources that DO have relevance.... RIP wikipedia, once valued for open source knowledge now just drowned out by infite power-tripping nutcases.

ive yet to get a response on why you guys leave 2 sources that are in no way sources. im talking specifically about [47] and [48] and are solely about anarchism... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.235.7.5 (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * 192, there are folks here on both sides of the debate that you are weighing in on. And over the years we have worked out a compromise which is sort of "middle of the road" on that topic.  (Not that it is perfect or "done" or couldn't be improved)   Your rants that imply that anarchists have taken over the article are contrary to what you would find out if you took even 5 minutes to read some of the talk page discussions.  Your comments are very accusatory and insulting. If you aren't going truly discuss this, please stop. North8000 (talk) 12:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Here, I'll provide a source. Happy to do it for the hundredth time:


 * One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, ‘our side,’ had captured a crucial word from the enemy... ‘Libertarians’... had long been simply a polite word for left-wing (sic) anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over... --


 * Now that it's been sourced, for the hundredth time, in the words of the founder of "right-libertarianism" no less, it would be much appreciated if we stop littering the talk page with this absolute nonsense and move on to something constructive -- since this topic is obviously closed for debate for anyone who's even bothered look at the article or any portion of the last several years of discussion. Finx (talk) 22:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The issue is not did a lot of left wingers use it originally, the issue is what do sources describe when as "libertarianism" and does the libertarianism need an "adjective" to describe itself. Obviously there is a competition over the term and that needs to be stated, including using the Rothbard quote. CarolMooreDC &#x1f5fd; 13:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Anarchist–minarchist distinction
This is a HUGE problem that you people refuse to address... After looking at the sources cited that should be proving that anarchism is related to libertarianism, the only sources are books on anarchism... I'm not sure what kind of medications you guys are taking, but there is NOT ONE SOURCE LISTED in this section that even comes CLOSE to linking libertarianism to anarchism... i will continue to dispute this article until the problem is address..

You people dismiss any change that anyone else makes based on the fact that you guys have had a "2.5 year long debate" honestly I'm disgusted that you guys have been talking about this for 2.5 years and STILL CANNOT PROVIDE A SINGLE SOURCE that links libertarianism with anarchism...

a really aggravating and pathetic attempt to source this section. all the books are solely and completely about anarchism (without mention of libertarianism, this is not an anarchism page. this is libertarianism page. and if you read or cite a source that ACTUALLY talks about LIBERTARIANS SPECIFICALLY believing in NO government I will stop disputing this article but YOU WILL NOT. But all I've seen from your guys 2.5 years of "discussion" is a bunch of yes-men agreeing with one another and nothing changing at all.

on the other hand, i have provided direct links to one of the most influential figures in the libertarian party quoted saying libertarianism is NOT anarchism, but it gets edited/censored/deleted because I wasn't here 2.5 years ago to join in on your useless debate?? or because in your guys fantasy land libertarianism is anarchism??

In my opinion this feels like a rewrite of my political party, and it's almost on a level that a federal agency would be operating on. You guys are attempting to highjack a political party and I'm not gonna let it fly without credible sources. PERIOD. even if i must VPN to dispute.. this page WILL be disputed. EDIT: In fact, I now have a new homepage just to make sure that it's either disputed so people know about your deception, or becomes even remotely accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.235.7.1 (talk) 02:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This is similar to the previous thread. Fleshing out my previous response... I think that the response is "see the last 2 1/2 years of this talk page."  Adding to that, yours is the concern expressed by many people here, and others have said the opposite.  (Most did it in a more polite and engaged manner than you.)  We have tried to take a compromise approach that is also sourced and valid. North8000 (talk) 19:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The sources in the article are crappy. The reason is it is well known they exist in the article Minarchism, but no one has adequately mined them, including myself. Thus deleting that section can be seen as vandalism. (Unfortunately, I'm too busy always working on one conflict where liberty and property rights are denied. Some examples from other quick searches:
 * Search "libertarianism minarchism anarchism" on books google
 * libertarianism minarchism anarchism on scholar google
 * R. Long and T. Machan (eds.), Anarchism/Minarchism: Is Government Part of a Free Country? United Kingdom: Ashgate Press, 2007.
 * Just for starters. CarolMooreDC &#x1f5fd; 21:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Libertarianism sidebar (again)
Seriously, guys. Why do people keep screwing with the sidebar? What is wrong with the color scheme? How about we leave it the way it was until somebody comes up with a better alternative instead of just eliminating it altogether. --Adam9389 (talk) 22:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Discuss at sidebar talk page where those who futz with it tend to hang... It is frustrating. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd;  13:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Bad article
It's beyond dispute that "libertarian" is a term whose etymology - in a political context - dates back to anarchists, and has for a hundred years been synonymous with that tendency.

By stretching the term to accommodate a few capitalists who truly only have a presence online, you've made it pretty much meaningless. Libertarian, according to this article, includes people who both support the state, AND those oppose it. It includes capitalists, and it includes communists. Apparently, the only thing you need to be a libertarian is to "support free will," whatever that means.

By giving in to a small minority's OPEN AND OBVIOUS redefining of a word, you've made this article - and the concepts behind it - completely unintelligible. Please, re-edit this and remove any mention of American "libertarians," or at the very least confine them to a small footnote, because in the scope of it all, that's all they really are.

76.104.138.63 (talk) 03:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)John


 * This has been debate ad nauseum. Please see the above and/or the archives. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd;  13:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, a compromise developed over years between folks with views at opposite "extremes" on the question, with yours (76.104.138.63's) being one of those. North8000 (talk) 15:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

"Libertarianism" meaning, context and definition
Wikipedia articles are suppossed to convey a worldwide view of the subject (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias)

But "libertarianism" here is mostly only taken from the USA point of view since Rothbard in the 50's, which is self-admittedly a distortion:

''“One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, ‘our side,’ had captured a crucial word from the enemy. . . ‘Libertarians’. . . had long been simply a polite word for left-wing [sic!] anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over. . .” (The Betrayal of the American Right, p. 83)''

In most non-english languajes the world keeps the left-anarchist aception: https://www.google.com.ar/search?q=libertarios&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=es-419&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=rs-5UZmxPMaB0QGE6YC4BQ&biw=1600&bih=725&sei=sM-5UeO-GtOt4APQ7IGYDA which is collectivist-syndicalist-communist.

This article, and the category, quotes all mises-like sources which are austrian/classical liberal and not libertarian. libertarianism does not start with Locke; that is liberalism. Libertarianism starts with Proudhon, and was only started to use by USA right-wing very recently in history, while in the rest of 95% of the world is still a left-anarchist word. And this is the denotation that shpuld be referred in a worldwide wikipedia page. See French article for reference: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertaire

This article requires a complete rewrite with sourcing from the w. --190.49.244.157 (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It covers both, as it should. And about every week we get someone from one or the other end of the spectrum saying that it should focus on their end of the spectrum. North8000 (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * No, it is covering just one primarily and the other as an afterthought, which should be historically and world-wise exactly the opposite. "Libertarianism" is not based on Locke "god-given rights" or the "age of elightement" morals. The history of the use does not even go there. Mises did not call himself a libertarian and the US revolution was not libertarian but classical liberal, same as minarchy as reduced government role and opposition to taxes. For this ideology there is already: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism "It shares a number of beliefs with other belief systems belonging to liberalism, advocating civil liberties and political freedom, limited government, rule of law, and belief in free market" ; how is the definition of US "libertarianism" different? --190.49.244.157 (talk) 14:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, as to why this is undesirable and repealed by wikipedia guidelines, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias --190.49.244.157 (talk) 14:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Quite the opposite, it follows the common usage of the term and coverage in sources. The approach is to cover all strands, except with less emphasis on those whose more common name is anarchism.   North8000 (talk) 14:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we should create a new article for "American Libertarianism", although I don't know what the distinction between Objectivism, the American Libertarian Party and "American Libertarianism" would be.67.176.100.125 (talk) 14:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)+
 * Quite possibly, but I don't see how that should affect this (the top level) article where the approach (worked out over 3 years) is cover all strands, with less emphasis on those whose more common name is anarchism. North8000 (talk) 14:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Nobody is questioning the approach which correctly includes both minarchism and anarchism. What's contested is the systemic neutrality of this top level article.  "Libertarianism" clearly means different things in America than it does in the rest of the world.67.176.100.125 (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Nolan, Rothbard and others drew on both libertarian and neo-classical liberal sources. TFD (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * To promote a classical liberal philosophy. Just because they learned a thing or two from actual Libertarians doesn't make their arguments defining of or even relevant to Libertarianism (at least not as the term is most widely-used).67.176.100.125 (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that Rothbard, Mises and company would be a better fit for an "American Libertarianism" article. That would remove the systemic neutrality objections, while maintaining an inclusive approach to both minarchism and anarchism (Georgism could stay, for example, as a minarchist-Libertarian school of thought which is not Socialist.).67.176.100.125 (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * AnonIP 67.176.100.125: If you are brand new you should look at policies I left on your talk page, starting with put your new sections at end of the page, not beginning. Also note that there is a whole Category:Left-libertarianism so that perspective is hardly ignored. There also is Libertarianism in the United States. Yes, more is needed from around the world. Feel free to find sources and put them in the article, noting WP:reliable sources. And please avoid WP:Edit warring which can get one blocked from editing. Thanks. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd;  15:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am brand new, and I thought that's what I was doing... perhaps you've confused me with the IP which created the new section? If we already have an article on "Libertarianism in the United States", then what's the defense of the systemic bias in this article?67.176.100.125 (talk) 15:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that the section order now goes from April 9, 2013 to April 3, 2013. Am I misunderstanding you, or should you ban yourself? Seems like a pretty childish move to apply rules in such a discriminatory fashion.67.176.100.125 (talk) 16:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

In the above posts, I see an argument that the common US style libertarianism isn't "real" libertarianism, and a vague / unexplained claim that the article is non-neutral. To me it looks like you don't like that the article IS neutral, and covers all strands without declaring that the US style isn't "real" libertarianism, or for including the US style which you don't consider to be "real" libertarianism. If not, the what are you saying is non-neutral? North8000 (talk) 15:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the "US style libertarianism" is quite distinct from "Libertarianism" as the term is most-widely used, yet "US style libertarianism" forms the basis of the article. In fact, why should the US be mentioned at all, if we're not going to mention the multitude of nations which use the term in a completely different manner?  I see that the original post to this section explained the case for systemic bias within this article quite well already.67.176.100.125 (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's make it clear, editing wikipedia is about What Sources Say not what editors think. Bring us sources, we can discuss them. Keep discussing your opinions and we'll just hide the whole thread as irrelevant WP:Soapbox. And if pro-property libertarians have captured libertarianism from the left and that's the way it's used in most reliable sources, so be it. The world isn't fair and wikipedia reflects reliable sources in the world, not idealists in their abodes. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd;  15:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, here's a source: "But you see, "libertarian" has a special meaning in the United States. The United States is off the spectrum of the main tradition in this respect: what's called "libertarianism" here is unbridled capitalism. Now, that's always been opposed in the European libertarian tradition, where every anarchist has been a socialist—because the point is, if you have unbridled capitalism, you have all kinds of authority: you have extreme authority."-Noam Chomsky, Professor of Linguistics at MIT.
 * http://www.distantocean.com/2008/04/chomsky-on-libe.html
 * So, now what is your defense against the systemic bias in this article? Remember to use a source, because, "The world isn't fair and wikipedia reflects reliable sources in the world, not idealists in their..." conservative think-tanks.67.176.100.125 (talk) 16:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Chomsky is already mentioned in the article. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd;  16:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This quote is not meant for inclusion, but rather to further illustrate the systemic bias of the article. Is there any reason why we shouldn't edit the article, remove the US bias and references to the US, with the exception of a note indicating that the word has multiple meanings in the US and a link to "Libertarianism in the United States"?67.176.100.125 (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You can't be serious posing it that way. North8000 (talk) 17:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Chomsky, who as a Linguist is an excellent source on the topic, says, "..."libertarian" has a special meaning in the United States. The United States is off the spectrum of the main tradition...", which substantiates the claim: this article contains systemic bias.  Since Libertarianism in the United States is far removed from the traditional and contemporary usage of the term, this article should not contain such a focus on the US.  As someone else pointed out above, there is already an article for that:  Libertarianism in the United States.  So I ask again, is there any reason why we shouldn't edit the article, remove the US bias and references to the US, with the exception of a note indicating that the word has multiple meanings in the US and a link to "Libertarianism in the United States"?67.176.100.125 (talk) 17:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Given the nature of this dispute and the lack of defense against it, may we now safely add the overcoverage template to this article?67.176.100.125 (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, one of the many many the reason why is that about 30 editors have been working on this (including all of the thoughts and questions which you are raising, plus the same from the other end of the spectrum, and had many immense debates on that) for many years, and through an immense amount of work have developed this. Which is to cover all strands of libertarianism. And so that is why you don't get a green light to gut / remake all of that work and the entire article to your liking. Which means that normal editing practices apply, including proposing discussing controversial edit is individually and specifically to get consensus. North8000 (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm proposing and discussing the edit here, individually and specifically to get consensus. Unless the "about 30 editors" are intending to publish a print edition of wikipedia, I don't understand why the existence of previous work and edits should preclude those in the future.  The proposal isn't to limit the number of "strands of libertarianism", but rather to limit the systemic bias in this article, pursuant to the wikipolicy originally linked in this thread. While there has been no counter to this proposal so far, I recognize that perhaps more stakeholders will weigh in, given more time.  Thus, I suggest adding the overpost tag.  Is there any objection to this step?67.176.100.125 (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not a proposal of a specific edit, it's your characterization of what you want to do. North8000 (talk) 18:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It is a proposal for a specific edit (One to remove US bias from the article by removing references to the US and US libertarianism, with the exception of a note proclaiming that the term has different meanings in the US, and a link to Libertarianism in the US.). I'm avoiding imposing my characterization of what that would look like, since as you say, edits should be consensus-based.  I understand that you've had this debate before, and that the de facto conclusion was to retain the bias, contrary to wikipedia policy and objectives.  What I don't understand is why this conclusion was reached, though one might infer that from your inability to reproduce a closing argument here, this conclusion was reached when one side of the debate simply became exhausted.  Is there any objective reason, therefore, why the overpost template should not be included in the article now, in order to draw more voices to the table, that a consensus which does not violate wikipedia policy and objectives may be reached?67.176.100.125 (talk) 18:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Please see years of Talk page archives on why this idea has been shot down over and over. (Just like the idea that all anarchism should be removed and that all left/communist/socialist anarchists calling themselves libertarian should be removed.) CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd;  19:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per CarolMooreDC and above and extensive discussions in archives. North8000 (talk) 19:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. IP, we already have in the article the facts you are presenting here. And, full disclosure, I am a libertarian in the traditional sense of the word and so my bias is the same as your own.  Despite our convictions, however, libertarianism is popularly known as a pro-capitalist, pro-government (insofar as it only protects human rights) ideology, and not only in the USA.  As sources illustrate, this modern libertarianism is becoming popular in other countries as well, though it is still mostly confined to Western cultures.  As the parent article for libertarianism, it is our duty to present this information here.  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * My interest is in preserving the integrity of WP, not advancing a particular opinion. After reviewing the archives, I didn't find anything which would lead one to conclude this matter has been settled. I did find quite a bit of evidence of discrimination in the removal of sources and content. (Did I miss something in specific any of you could quote from the archives?)  Again, what's under contest is not the inclusion of minarchism, nor the balance between minarchism and anarchism, but the systemic regional bias within the article, which may also be extended to the double-standard being used for sources (see:  Wikipedia:WikiProject_Libertarianism). For example, it appears that sources which contradict Objectivist opinions have been removed for being opinions, for lack of neutrality and mostly for North8000's personal inability to verify. At the same time, at least the first 4 sources on the page remain in a gross double-standard (probably more). In the archived talks and edits, it is clear that North8000 consistently frames this dispute as arising between radicals at both ends of a spectrum, whereas in actuality, the dispute is between: those who wish to remove an egregious, corporate-backed coi (Cato, Mises, et al.) which is only substantiated by sourcing opinions and coi propaganda, rather than contemporary and historical primary sources. The article is so biased that "Libertarian Capitalism" even redirects to it.  I agree with the OP:  despite the three years "30 editors" have put into this article, it desperately needs some very critical attention. WP can be better than this.67.176.100.125 (talk) 13:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * IP, perhaps, then, I am confused as to what you are proposing. I think we ought to include Objectivism here, as well as add more reliable sources and remove ones that do not meet reliability standards.  I think the best way to do this, though, is to edit the article and provide these sources, instead of using the talk page to goad others into unsourced edits.  I agree this article needs work&mdash;sorry, everyone... I'll get to that "Left-Libertarianism" section eventually&mdash;but I'm not sure exactly what you're suggesting as an improvement.  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * A little good faith would be nice. I'm not trying to "goad" anyone into anything.  Rather, as suggested by your peers, I am using the talk page in an attempt to build consensus before editing from my POV alone, which from the archives has resulted in endless edit wars.  What's specifically proposed (which you objected to, evidently without reading) is:
 * 1. Tag the article with the overpost tag, or a dispute tag, or anything else to attract as many minds and voices to the revision as possible, that this revision may be less contested moving forward.
 * 2. Use "Libertarianism in the US" and "Libertarian Capitalism" to house the systemic US bias on this topic, with an easy to find note explaining the difference.
 * So much of the debate within the archives is centered around semantics. It took years for American editors to begin to realize that they were using different definitions entirely. Now, instead of removing the US systemic bias, it is rather imposed upon the article, to the point that "Libertarian Capitalism" redirects to "Libertarianism".67.176.100.125 (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if I appeared hostile with my choice of words; I assure you I am operating under good faith and did read the entire conversation (though perhaps my retention has suffered due to sleep deprivation). I very much appreciate the straightforward manner in which you've outlined your proposals in this latest post.  As for item #1, perhaps I just have no faith that this will accomplish anything.  I think&mdash;if you'll excuse the cliché&mdash;we need to be the change we want, and not simply throw a flag hoping others will take the initiative.  That said, I won't fight the placement of these tags.
 * Could you please elaborate as to item #2? I know you've said you want to cover both minarchism and anarchism here, which I am taking to mean both anarchism and the pro-capitalist, classical liberalism valued by the Cato and Mises Institutes, etc., so I'm not quite certain exactly what this "systemic US bias" you want removed is.  It seems to me that the best way to make this a more worldly article is to add reliable sources for the non-US definition (what you and I would probably consider the "True" definition), instead of removing supported content referring to the US one.  I mean to improve this article by doing exactly this, but have been extremely busy with real life and have not yet had the time to devote to such an undertaking.  You assistance would be greatly appreciated!  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. For all the reasons stated above. Just providing additional back-up. --Adam9389 (talk) 21:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Statistics of millennial generation
Someone added a source about political leanings mostly for those in the UK, but with a brief mention of USA. The problem is the source states that "[y]oung Britons have turned liberal, both socially and economically" and "have turned strikingly liberal, in a classical sense", whereas it was cast here as a popular resurgence in libertarianism. Nor is there in this source any mention of wealth redistribution or support for social programs by USians. The closest the article comes to claiming this is: "Some polls hint that young Americans are more inclined than their elders to think that the government ought to do more." For now, I've left this material in, but I find it completely irrelevant to libertarianism and think it really ought to be removed entirely. Maybe you folks will think that the mention of classical liberalism is enough to make a necessary assumption that this is the same libertarianism popular in the USA (which is why, for now, I've placed it in the section for "Modern libertarianism"). In any case, it definitely doesn't belong in the lead, and probably needs to be rewritten so it accurately reflects what is in the article. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree. Also it's very confusing and IMO and so does more harm than good. North8000 (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Also I'd already used the source in the sentence above in Modern Lib section and it better reflected relevance to this article than what that editor put in. CarolMooreDC - talk to me &#x1f5fd;  17:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah... I missed that. Thanks for catching it!  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs)

The Neoliberalism pejorative
About the same time I noticed that Simon Critchley was quote on "the pseudo-libertarianism of contemporary neo-liberalism" I ran into another quote on libertarianism being called neoliberalism. And looking at that article, it's obvious that like "right libertarianism" it may be more a pejorative term than an actual philosophy, except as mentioned here or there in the past. (See discussion here and short list of 5 refs calling it pejorative: Another article to clean up?) Anyway, a paragraph on the topic, and the use of term itself, might be in order. CarolMooreDC - talk to me &#x1f5fd;  13:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Neoliberal is a widely accepted term for the modern economic paradigm that emerged in the late 1970s. What else would you call it?  TFD (talk) 13:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't deny it is used, but more as a negative descriptor. And I found a number of solid sources that say so. So it's more a matter of making it clear that while the term is used by some in describing libertarianism, it is not one used by, and is doubtless rejected by, libertarians. Just to be accurate. But just one of many many issues in the article. CarolMooreDC - talk to me &#x1f5fd;  13:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As with any other term, some users will associate negative connotations and other users will associate positive. Nonetheless it is clearly defined and widely-used term and it's not for us obscure the term with a gratuitous overlay of social, economic, or political opinions here.  SPECIFICO  talk  14:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not like saying "let's gossip about a bunch of dirt we've heard about on crappy sources about some BLP and maybe someday source it properly for the article." This is noting there's something we have to cover with reliable sources at some point. CarolMooreDC - talk to me &#x1f5fd;  14:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Libertarianism and neoliberalism as defined in their articles are two distinct things. Neoliberalism uses rhetoric from Hayek but supports interventionism, non-tariff barriers to trade, state subsidies of industry and agriculture, a minimal welfare state, etc.  TFD (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Just need good sources that say that in both. But unwatched Neoliberalism cause trying to reduce my activity here not increase it and already burned out by topic. But will look at soon do have a better overview now. CarolMooreDC - talk to me &#x1f5fd;  15:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Neoliberalism is indeed a widely used term in politics and academia. One of the most cited contemporary social scientists, the human geographer David Harvey even wrote A brief history of neoliberalism in 2005. Neoliberalism and right wing libertarianism are clearly the same thing, namely free market laizzes faire capitalism. Critchley is clearly putting forward the left wing libertarian opinion that capitalism is inherently authoritarian since it justifies class division and hierarchy in the workplace as well as an economic oligarchy in the economy. Now of course the problem here is that in the rest of the world economic liberalism tends to refer to what mostly only in the US is called economic "libertarianism". I don´t know where user TFD get this idea that neoliberalism supports a "minimal welfare state" but neoliberalism everywhere is associated with cuts and elimination of the welfare state. Even if Hayek and Rothbard might have some differences both are clearly neoliberals but Rothbard is a neoliberal of a very radical kind. This good source puts it as follows: "Normative Neo-Liberalism: Rand and Rothbard" by David F. B. Tucker which is a chapter of a book called Essay on Liberalism Looking Left and Right. As such right libertarianism can be considered a synomymous word with neoliberalism and the word "neoliberalism" is used so much and even in book titles that in can hardly be considered too much of an "insult" word anymore.--Eduen (talk) 05:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The Ludwig von Mises Institute is described by Harvey as a neoliberal insitution (A brief history of neoliberalism. Pg. 106). If that is included within that label then that clearly will include Murray Rothbard as neoliberalism and "anarcho" capitalism as neoliberalism also.--Eduen (talk) 05:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The point is that a number of WP:RS identify it as a phrase used in last 30+ years more by critics of certain views than by those who hold the views themselves. See just a few of them here. For example, "whore" and "bitch" are terms used by misogynists frequently to describe women who are "too" sexually free or "too" freely outspoken, but that doesn't mean freedom loving women typically describe themselves that way; though kidding around with friends they probably do so more than any libertarian would to call themselves a "neoliberal". CarolMooreDC - talk to me &#x1f5fd;   13:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In addition to the above it would be (unnecessary) confusing terminology to use (given that the common meaning liberalism varies so greatly).  The current use is limited to an attributed comment and no big deal. North8000 (talk) 14:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * CarolMooreDC, that's because there is no better word to describe people who hold these propertarian values. The reason these terms come from critics is because they (the terms) were essentially hijacked from leftists to refer to authoritarian ideologies.  We anarchists can't just say libertarian anymore because people will think we are in favor of nightwatchman states and capitalism; we have to specify that we are left-libertarians, not the pro-capitalist right-libertarians that have become popular in the West.  And we can't call US conservatives conservative because they aren't conservative by any other definition; they are neoliberal.  US libertarians are labeled as such as well because they share the same pro-business/pro-property/pro-capitalism fetish as the US conservatives.  This is why philosopher and anarchist Simon Critchley says "contemporary anarchism can be seen as a powerful critique of the pseudo-libertarianism of contemporary neo-liberalism": anarchism is now tasked with responding to those who identify as libertarians, but are clearly not (from a worldly/historical/academic standpoint), and who would rather defend the oppression of capitalism.  The prominence of US/Western-based terminology is also the reason for the NPOV claims on this article.  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Misterdub, we want this article to be informative and not biased.  Maybe a slight reduction in the amount of coverage of the anarchism strand, because it's primary name is anarchism and there is an Anarchism article, but even that is only intended to be a slight reduction.  I have a lot of respect for your opinion.   Do you think that this article is biased?  And if so, could you give any specifics on why / how?  North8000 (talk) 16:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW, I think that there is one thing that you do not understand about US libertarianism.  For most of the approx 60,000,000 "vague" libertarians here, it is a one sentence definition: prioritizing: more freedom, smaller government, less intrusive government. For them it is NOT a lengthier philosophy with views on property, natural resources etc.  North8000 (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * North8000, I wouldn't say I think this article is biased per se, but that it needs improvements, including better differentiating right-libertarianism from left-libertarianism. As of now, the article tends to read from a US perspective and claim that right-libertarianism is libertarianism (without adjectives) or "modern libertarianism," as if anarchism/left-libertarianism is some kind of bastard child, and not the real McCoy.  Note that I am not calling for the removal of right-libertarian material, but merely presenting it in its historically accurate context.  It may be, as you said, that there is a non-philosophical libertarianism, a vague political affiliation that is distinct from the philosophy, but again, that would need to be placed into proper context.  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * (added later) I see what you are saying. At the core of it is that US style libertarianism is described as just (one word) libertarianism,  and the that seems to make it sound like it's the "real" libertarianism.   But that is entirely unintentional, and arises from thee is not other commonly used term to describe US libertarianism.  Without repeating them all,  "Right libertarian" has LOTS of problems.  Perhaps we could remedy it by being more explanatory, and using terms in context. E.G. "in the USA, the common meaning of "libertarianism is...." North8000 (talk) 23:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What are the LOTS of problems? TFD (talk) 00:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The first is that it has so many different meanings, mostly ad hoc,  that it has no meaning.  The second is that none of those meanings correspond to the most common form (the one-sentence for) of US libertarianism. The third is it is seldom or never used by the people that one might be trying to identify with it (common US libertarians).  Fourth is that, for common US libertarians, "right" would substantially conflict with their core libertarian beliefs and fifth .....also making it sort of a a pejorative to them.   North8000 (talk) 00:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Most words used to describe political ideologies can have more than one meaning. Take the word "liberal" for example.  Were you aware that the word means different things in the U.S. and France?  But we do not just throw up our arms and despair of writing a number of articles about liberalism.  BTW Murray Rothbard himself coined the term "New Right" to describe his group.  But whether or not you are right-wing, you are less left-wing than Noam Chomsky, would you not agree?  TFD (talk) 01:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * For the first half of your post the answer is yes and I agree. That's what we're trying to do here.  For the second half of your post, I'd have to ask which continent's common meanings of "right" and "left" you mean.   In the USA, "right" means mostly smaller and less government, (except in a few areas) and "left" means (mostly) advocating expansion of government. North8000 (talk) 01:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That is not what "left" and "right" mean. Rather they are the positions most commonly associated with left and right today, not only in the U.S.  TFD (talk) 02:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed. And I'd go so far as to say that they aren't even commonly associated with Left and Right today, except with Conservative propaganda, as you will not find any American Left-Wingers saying that they advocate "expansion of government". It's a strawman argument created by uneducated and deliberately deceitful Conservative talk-show hosts, in order to "re-define" the political spectrum to fit their "narrative".  The American Right-Wing is extremely Authoritarian and favors the "expansion of government" when it comes to cultural issues, usually as a means to enforce Judeo-Christian "morality" and/or preserve the racial makeup of the demographics(anti-LGBT legislation, anti-Muslim legislation, anti-Immigration, "blue laws", etc.), whereas American Left-Wingers tend to be more "Libertarian" or "Small Government" on those same issues.  It's a propaganda line that needs to be confronted and ridiculed wherever it rears its ugly head, as it has no relation whatsoever with the current or historical meanings of those terms.  The.  End.  -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  14:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * To TFD & Bryonmorrigan. Without debating what the terms should mean, what I'm telling you is what they do mean in USA. The relevant-here point here is that they have varying meanings. To Bryonmorrigan, you are wrong saying that "you will not find any American Left-Wingers saying that they advocate "expansion of government"".....they would say that, albeit not quite that directly.  They'd say "increased (tax) revenues"  and "expansion of programs and needed regulation".  You are right that in the US conservatism sometimes means advocating expansion of government (and the examples you gave are correct) which is  why I said "mostly" North8000 (talk) 18:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * North8000, there is a difference between underlying beliefs systems and specific policies advanced to achieve them. Hence progressives and conservatives both opposed the bank bailouts.  In the 1930s, both the left and right opposed the New Deal.  TFD (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm more trying to impart a useful-to-non-US-folks fact (that "liberal" means something completely different in the US compared to Europe)than debate anything.  I've seen (European) sources also write this to the effect of "you wouldn't believe what "liberal" means in the USA;  there it actually means advocating expansion of government" North8000 (talk) 18:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We are discussing the terms "left" and "right", not "liberal." TFD (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I conflated "left" and "liberal" because in the US (common meanings) they are synonyms. I think we're going to run out of indents here. :-) North8000 (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Neither left nor liberal has ever meant larger government: left means liberal because that's where the liberals sat; right means conservative because that's where the conservatives sat; liberal, more or less, meant natural rights, the social contract, secularism, and private property; and conservative meant those who wanted to conserve the absolute power of the monarchy, religious privilege, and the feudal system. In the USA, liberal/left has come to be associated with social democracy, whereas conservative/right is now associated with neoliberalism (the US libertarians are the classical liberals). Of course, there's also the differences between conservative, paleoconservative, and neoconservative to take into account. In any case, relating bipartisan politics to the size of government is an incredibly naïve view. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We're talking about two different things. You are talking about the meanings on a world scale, and in a range of venues (historical, academic) and of course are correct on that. I'm talking about the very different common (synonymous) meanings of "liberal" and "left" in the USA and IMO I'm correct on that. North8000 (talk) 11:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In the United States, socialists and communists, who are not liberals, are considered to be more left-wing than liberals, the same as in the rest of the world. The only difference in US usage of left and right is that the terms are applied to groups that would not necessarily be described as such in the rest of the world.  That has to do with the extremely narrow range of mainstream ideologies in the US.  But even in the rest of world, the Republicans would be seen as more right-wing than the Democrats.  TFD (talk) 14:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly, TFD... the USA's political spectrum doesn't really go anywhere outside of liberalism. North8000, that is still a very narrow interpretation of what liberal and conservative mean in the USA.  The Nolan chart is a good example and shows that left and right (in US terms) both want more government influence, just in different dimensions (one social, the other economic).  Characterizing one side as wanting more government sounds to me like bipartisan propaganda.  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * One of the best articles I've read regarding how (US) Libertarian "small government" is incompatible with (US) Conservative notions was written in response to Rick Santorum's anti-Libertarian statements. It's from the Libertarian Cato Institute, and should be required reading for anyone espousing the idea that Conservatism=Small Government.  It's here:  -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  16:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I pretty much agree with all of what TFD has said (in context) and most of what Bryonmorrigan has said. My main point is choosing terminology that communicates rather than confuses, and that requires that understanding that certain words have very different common meanings within English Wikipedia readers.  I oversimplified when I said that in the US the term liberal/left generally means advocating expanded government.  It's really more like liberal/left wants bigger government in 2/3 of the areas and smaller government in 1/3 of the areas, right/conservative  wants smaller government in 2/3 of the areas and bigger government in 1/3 of the areas.  North8000 (talk) 18:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Again you have it backwards. The terms left and right have nothing at all to do with increasing or decreasing government.  One can be left-wing and oppose welfare, government-owned enterprises, regulation, taxes, deficits, etc., and one can be right-wing and support those things. TFD (talk) 20:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, we're just repeating ourselves, 95% agreeing while (literally) talking different languages which makes the other 5% confusing/elusive. You keep repeating the world scale definition, I keep agreeing with you and then keep saying that the word has a different common meaning in the USA.     Thanks for all of the info.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You are probably following the Cleon Skousen definition - he saw extreme right as no government and extreme left as absolute government. Of course none of that makes any sense when applied to the 17th, 18th or 19th century, when the Right supported absolute monarchy and the left supported limited government.  TFD (talk) 21:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * North8000, no we are not talking about the worldly definition anymore. I thought we made it quite clear by constantly qualifying our statements with "in the USA," where appropriate.  We are talking the exact same language and liberal and conservative still have nothing to do with the size of a government.  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * To both of you, thanks for the info. I learn things from both of you as you are both intelligent people. You passed up the opportunity to learn something from me regarding some common meanings of certain words in the USA. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Dude... I've lived in the USA my whole life; I am not ignorant of what these terms mean here. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Me too.  Just because some people (usually Conservatives with no education beyond high school) believe in that silly Left/Right "definition", it doesn't mean that anyone should take it seriously as a "valid" viewpoint.  Some people think President Bush orchestrated the 9/11 attacks, and some people believe that President Obama is a "secret Muslim" born in Kenya.  Those "theories" are on the same level as the Big/Small gov't scale.  -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  22:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * MisterDub and TFD, thanks for the conversation. Bryonmorrigan, that last post was pretty ridiculous and rude. Comparing one side's view in a discussion about the local meaning of a term to ridiculous conspiracy theories. You are in the wrong place with that crap. North8000 (talk) 01:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There are no "sides" in this discussion. There are (1) the actual definition of terms; and (2) propaganda.  And speaking of the "wrong place" for some "crap"....Propaganda has no business on Wikipedia, and propaganda that is just as ludicrous as wacky conspiracy theories is deserving of nothing but ridicule.  -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  12:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In fact it is a conspiracy theory, it comes right out of Cleon Skousen. You can read his article "What is Left? What is Right?"  His books have recently been re-published with introductions by Glenn Beck.  To him the Left, which included the Rockefellers and monarchists, planned to establish a "New World Order" with world government, and the Federal Reserve Bank, the Council of Foreign Relations and David Rockefeller were all part of it.  TFD (talk) 16:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * TFD and MisterDub, this could be an interesting & useful conversation to carry on further if you wish to (here or somewhere else). If not not. North8000 (talk) 17:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Why not then have one sentence saying that in the U.S. the term "libertarianism" is sometimes used to refer to smaller government? TFD (talk) 23:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Eduen, neoliberalism has not eliminated the welfare state, it has merely reduced benefits. Ironically it may even have increased the size of the welfare state because of severely higher unemployment and other social problems it causes. You say that Rothbard was a "neoliberal of a very radical kind." But that radical difference is sufficient to say that his worldview is different from that of the Clinton administration. Rothbard and the neoliberals came out ot the same tradition, but diverge on numerous issues, such as spending on the coercive powers of the state and government protection of industry. Neoliberal institutions in turn have marginalized him. Also, Harvey's reference to the LvMI in passing as "neoliberal" is not sufficient to establish US right-wing libertarianism as neoliberal. He says nothing else about it or any of the figures of libertarianism - does not even use the word. The article he cites, "Confiscatory Deflation: The Case of Argentina", by Joseph Salerno, criticizes neoliberal policies. TFD (talk) 22:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Just to point out only thing really relevant here would be discussion of reliable sources that talk about libertarianism as being example/etc of neoliberalism, like the one we have. But also some denying it for balance. I haven't even looked for any myself. Busy busy busy in the real world...... CarolMooreDC - talk to me &#x1f5fd;  18:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Well. If governments have not eliminated all of the welfare state it is because of popular opinion who really doesn´t want that and do rely on that to survive. As such the particular political ideas of Murray Rothbard can be said to be very fringe and impopular as compared to Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek yet Rothbard is just a more radical version of these two thinkers as far as promoting laizzes faire capitalism clearly unite them all alongside a civil libertarianism on issues such as sex and drugs. I will suggest to exit for a minute a sort of US centrism on this issue and you will have to face these facts. Hayek, Friedman and Rothbard are what we in the rest of the world call "liberals" and the "neoliberal" label has in it pointing out that these are recent theorists of liberalism as compared to 19th and 18th century theorists such as John Locke and Adam Smith (both of which are mentioned in this article as early influences in contemporary laisses faire capitalist liberalism or as you call it "libertarianism"). In wikipedia for example there is also an article called "Neo-Marxism" and it just deals with more recent or contemporary marxist intellectuals. The "neo" here is meant to indicate that just as in "neoliberalism" and as you might know there is also something called "neofascism". Almost like saying new liberalism, new marxism and new fascism as compared to old or original liberalism, marxism and fascism.

So i am forced to remind you that we are not writing here US wikipedia (and even less so "US libertarian wikipedia") but english language wikipedia.--Eduen (talk) 07:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Jeez, I have to breakdown and write that short paragraph and at least there will be something substantive to discuss ;-) Also, remember that this is an article about libertarianism, not socialism so long footnote quotes from easily linked sources talking about socialism are really off topic and should be removed. at this diff starting with "The economic principles of Modern Socialism are a logical deduction ..." CarolMooreDC - talk to me &#x1f5fd;  09:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * That information is clearly very relevant to this article since it shows a line of connection between the previously mentioned Adam Smith and the first US individualist anarchist Josiah Warren as described by the most influential US individualist anarchist Benjamin Tucker himself. Warren and Tucker were clearly libertarian socialists and as such libertarians and so that is why they are included here in this article. They were already named here and i am only providing a genealogy of american libertarianism.--Eduen (talk) 02:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * First, http://theanarchistlibrary.org/ which is anonymous writings is questionable as a source, though I cut such sources some slack on my first pass through removing material that didn't even mention libertarianism in relevant context. The article in question - http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/benjamin-tucker-individual-liberty - does mention libertarianism repeatedly and summarizing what it says directly about it is fine. But 189 word quote in a footnote about socialism that do not seem to be directly related to the article  just invites 200 and 250 word footnotes about capitalism or Georgism or whatever that doesn't mention libertarianism. That's why we have WP:Original research policy (not to mention WP:Undue), to avoid long tangents unrelated to the direct topic. CarolMooreDC - talk to me &#x1f5fd;   03:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You have to realize that libertarianism is traditionally associated with socialism; anarchists represented the libertarian side of socialism, Marx and his followers represented the authoritarian side. I don't see any particular problem with the addition of this information, other than there were some grammar issues, now corrected.  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Rothbard, Karl Hess and others while adopting Austrian neoclassical liberalism, also drew on American anarchists, such as Emma Goldman, hence the names "libertarian" and "anarcho-capitalist." It may be that in reality they are merely an extreme form of neoliberalism, but there are significant differences.  Neoliberals do not want to abolish welfare, but instead think that it should be as restricted as possible so as not to discourage people from working.  Hence Clinton said it is a hand up, not a hand out.  Even under classical liberalism, which abolished outside welfare relief, there were workhouses.  TFD (talk) 14:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)