Talk:Libertarianism/Archive 37

Significant problems with so-called "left-libertarianism" section
I feel like I'm beating the same drum over and over, but we've got problems here with a really incoherent narrative. I am referring to this section.

Once again, libertarian socialism has on its spectrum everything from anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism to autonomism and council communism. It is simply not a movement of fair-day's-pay-for-a-fair-day's-work unions, centrist/center-left reformists who are just after "improving worklife"; it is not a movement for mere "wealth redistribution." It is not a US Democratic Party election campaign. It is an umbrella term for people who want a radical redistribution of productive power and authority and a radical transformation of the social and economic order. They want a different economic system - not just capitalism with a really great welfare state. They typically contemptuously dismiss, not "affirm" that "belief in self-ownership" and even oppose it strongly. Libertarian socialism is even generally recognized as distinct from 'democratic socialism' in that it's ultimately revolutionary in its purpose.

If there is a kind of "left libertarianism" (perhaps Georgism?) that exists outside of this very broad but distinct category, with definable features, that's great. We should describe it as a separate and distinct phenomenon.

So, whatever "left libertarianism" means (after trying to investigate I confess I honestly haven't got the inkling of a clue), we need to do one of two things - either:

- decouple it from the libertarian socialism, which is only united by the fact that they all say they want capitalism gone and generally have absolutely no moral systems based on principles of private ownership

- stop bowdlerizing the professed views of people who say they wish to wholly eliminate capitalism and abolish private property Finx (talk) 04:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It is a term for people who believe that individual freedom is primary and see the state as an evil. Their writings were adopted by Rothbard, Hess and other modern writers.  We use the terms left and right to distinguish between the original libertarianism and the version developed by these writers.  TFD (talk) 05:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * So, to be clear, does original libertarianism include libertarian socialism-slash-communism or does it not? If it does, then I repeat that we ought to refrain from describing it as a moderate bunch of mild mannered reformists who (although committed to a "belief in self-ownership") want a wee little bit of "wealth redistribution" and "improv[ed] worklife" - as if they think the entrepreneurial John Galts of the world ought to just take more pity on the poor, and be more compassionate and generous. Finx (talk) 07:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I didn't see the movie. But whether or not people are libertarianians is not something to be resolved through discussion, but based on sources.  TFD (talk) 07:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * There's a movie? TFD, I'm not interested at all in "whether or not people are libertarians". I'm interested in not distorting history, misrepresenting facts and warping reality so much that reds come out looking right of Richard Nixon on the political spectrum. You know, the way that the article on abolitionism doesn't say that their goal was to make slavery kinder and more palatable, because to say anything other than the goal being to end slavery is dishonest. Which would you like referenced? The libertarian socialist opinion on ideologies claiming "wealth redistribution" will do the trick? What radical syndicalism means? Denunciation of self-ownership? All of them? If no one's got any idea, and can't make a distinction between the "left" and the other left, I guess I'll remove the section, on the grounds that it's clearly a bunch of nonsense. Finx (talk) 08:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Left-libertarianism includes libertarian socialism/communism, but also capitalist private property with--for lack of a better word--remuneration to the local community through taxation. Please see the Left-libertarianism for a more complete description. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 08:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * In other words, I take that to mean it's a flimsy, useless term with little to no meaning and we should probably avoid it in favor specificity - unless of course this only works with "right-libertarianism" which, in all its infinite complexity, can never be reduced to such pedestrian... one-dimensional language. Finx (talk) 09:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * They made "Who was John Galt?" into a movie. Anyway it is not up to us to correct "distorting history, misrepresenting facts and warping reality",  just to report what reliable sources say.   To be fair, right libertarians, such as Rothbard and Hess, acknowledge the libertarian tradition, which is why they decided to call themselves libertarians and "anarcho-capitalists."  ("Anarcho" is short for anarchist.)  TFD (talk) 09:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I know what "anarcho" means. Like I've said several times already, "reliable sources" say very clearly that libertarian socialists explicitly reject and oppose pretty much everything that section says they propound. Do you want them or no? I'm not buying this argument that you can slather a thin layer of Georgism on top of a giant heap of communists and then describe it as Goergism. It's like saying that the vehicles on the street have one wheel because there's ten thousand cars and one unicycle. The section is total garbage and needs to be clearly and exclusively related to Georgism/Steiner-Vallentyne or removed for being garbage. Finx (talk) 09:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It does not matter what you buy. Someone else might say that you can't slather a thin layer of Emma Goldman on top of the Republican Party platform and call it libertarianism.  But these conversations are more suited to blogs than to article talk pages.  TFD (talk) 09:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The section makes claims which are provably false and I am removing it now. Thank you. Finx (talk) 09:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If you have a strong objection to this, I'll mark it disputed or something more appropriate. I have a vague hunch there's a WP policy somewhere that articles have to be factually accurate or at the very least internally consistent. e.g. if section 1 says thing is black, section 2 probably should not say thing is white. Finx (talk) 09:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Finx, could you please let us know what parts are provably false? I've recently worked on the Left-libertarianism article and I'm fairly certain all the necessary sources are there to support the claims made.  Feel free to add a disputed template, but I've reverted the removal until such a time that the information is proven to be inaccurate.  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

To me it's already very clear that the term "right libertarian" is worse than worthless. It really has no specific meaning, it's really nothing more than a two word sequence. I've sort of left it to the "left libertarians" to decide whether or not the same is true for the term "left libertarians". Perhaps we are seeing that here.  North8000  (talk) 11:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Both terms have specific meanings, even though they may refer to a broad range of libertarians. Right-libertarians are those who value unfettered capitalism and private property without payment to those who are thereby disallowed access.  They typically participate in parliamentary politics and include most of the US libertarians, both neo-classical liberals and anarcho-capitalists.  Left-libertarians, on the other hand, believe there ought to be an egalitarian distribution of natural resources, be that the socialism/communism/syndicalism of traditional anarchism, the more market-oriented but still anticapitalist anarchism associated with folks like Gary Chartier and Charles Johnson, or the Georgist/Steiner-Vallentyne left-libertarianism that values private property, but with the caveat that payment is made to those who would otherwise have access to these resources.  Left-libertarians also typically eschew parliamentary politics in favor of direct action.  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, that particular definition of "right libertarianism" would mean that the most common form of libertarianism in the US is not "right libertarian". Where capitalism and private ownership are tacitly accepted and not a part of a libertarian "platform".  North8000  (talk) 16:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree. US libertarians don't need to explicitly value capitalism for the definition to remain accurate, and it is clear that, in use, the term right-libertarianism refers to exactly these libertarians.  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

MisterDub, as I understand, you want me to reference my claim that libertarian socialism is not describable as Georgism. Since the section on "left-libertarianism" describes it precisely as such, I will provide references to contradict three claims made by that section about libertarian socialists. Should these references verify that:


 * Libertarian socialists are not interested in mere "wealth redistribution"


 * Libertarian socialists are not interested in merely "improving of work"


 * Libertarian socialists are neither "committed to self-ownership" nor do they "affirm the belief in self-ownership"

- would you agree that the section is inappropriate? Finx (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

And just to be clear, if this section clarified that what's being described is non-socialist "egalitarian" trends in libertarianism instead pushing these tendencies on socialists, my objections to it are zero. It's not an excuse that some right wing reference out of several hundred comes from a source that obviously doesn't understand what socialism means. Finx (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Again this is not a blog, and we are not here to determined what should or should not be classified as libertarian. Read the policy on synthesis.  Since you appear to be confused on this subject, I suggest you read up on it before making recommendations.  TFD (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Again, if you'd bothered to read more than two words of anything I said, you'd probably understand by now than I do not care in the slightest "what should or should not be classified as libertarian"; the article is contradicting itself by making VERIFIABLY FALSE STATEMENTS according to reliable sources about the subject it describes, some already cited in the article. I know I'm speaking English and stringing together coherent sentences. What about this do you find so incredibly difficult to understand? Please familiarize yourself with WP policy on verifiability and factual contradictions between sources, and kindly don't waste my time by responding if you haven't read anything I said. Plugging your ears and accusing me of soapboxing doesn't eliminate the factual contradictions from this article. Finx (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You are telling us what libertarian means, and why you don't think it applies to some of the groups listed, i.e., synthesis. This is not the place to discuss whether the experts are wrong.  TFD (talk) 01:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I am telling you that socialists (according to reliable sources) are socialists and not self-ownership-affirming liberal welfare-state capitalists, as described in the section -- because you've got fifty sources saying that socialists are socialists, and one source throwing socialists in with self-ownership-affirming liberal welfare-state capitalists.
 * Do you understand what socialist means? How much explanation is required to figure this out? One source says penguins fly, twenty sources say penguins do not fly. This is not a matter of synthesis. Stop derailing this discussion if you've nothing at all of substance to say because you have trouble distinguishing between synthesis and a factual error. Finx (talk) 01:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You should read "Synthesis", click here and you will be taken there. The purpose of talk pages is not to discuss what we think about topics.  Articles are supposed to explain what sources say.  If we think that the sources for libertarianism are mistaken, confused, etc., it is not our role to correct them.
 * As for your penguin analogy, arguing that penguins cannot be birds because they cannot fly would be an example of synthesis.
 * 01:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Read the page I linked, explaining the difference between synthesis and a factual conflict between sources, and WP policy on what to do when sources disagree. If one source says that this, that, the other, and revolutionary socialists love them some capitalism, that doesn't mean you ignore the 5,000 other sources saying revolutionary socialists want to abolish capitalism. You don't change the part saying Spanish anarcho-syndicalists moved to abolish the capitalist system to say, instead, that they were laissez faire capitalists; you throw out the oddball reference as garbage or, at most, note it as someone's academic dissent. Can somebody with their blood pressure in normal range explain to this master logician why "all B are blue; B is an A; thus all A are blue" does not work in the simplest logical terms? Finx (talk) 01:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As another Leftist libertarian, I can understand why it is so hard to get left or right wing libertarians sorted out. It is because Libertarian is one of the scales of the political compass. Authoritarian at the top, Libertarian at the bottom, Left on the left, Right on the right. Libertarians want "liberty".  Leftist Libertarians want that liberty for individuals, but want companies regulated. Rightist Libertarians want liberty for companies but want individuals regulated.  Centralist libertarians want freedom for both equally.  For example, leftist libertarians may support same sex marriage as that is allowing an individual the freedom to follow their wishes whilst they may stand against a company from having the freedom to pollute.  A right wing Libertarian may have no issue with a company polluting as the market would decide if that action is acceptable but they may have issues with same sex marriage.  Both want less regulation, but not complete anarchism. The Libertarian party in the US is actually extreme right wing but not very libertarian (kind of like how the German Democratic Republic was far from Democratic).  Have a look at http://politicalcompass.org/faq as it explains it pretty well with examples of politicians that occupy the spectrum. Infiltratr (Infiltratr) 02:31, 17 Feburary 2014 (UTC)

Let's try again

 * The article, throughout, complete with references, states that libertarian socialism (run-of-the-mill anarchism, libertarian Marxism/left communism) wants to abolish capitalism and does not share the property-based moral framework of neoliberals/ancaps/etc


 * The article, in the "left-libertarian" section states that the category "left-libertarians" includes libertarian socialists


 * The article, in the "left-libertarian" section clearly states that "left-libertarians" want to maintain and reform, not abolish capitalism and that they are committed to the moral principle of self-ownership


 * Thus, the article is simultaneously claiming that libertarian socialists both do and do not want to abolish capitalism while simultaneously affirming and rejecting propertarian principles

As this is a logical impossibility and a plain-as-day factual contradiction, how do you propose the article should resolve this? Finx (talk) 02:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The section "left libertarianism" does not say that they want to maintain capitalism or that they reject self-ownership. TFD (talk) 02:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, you're really not contributing anything to this until you can improve your reading comprehension. The section says they believe, affirm and are committed to self ownership -- as I've quoted half a dozen times now. That's the problem, as it's contradicted by other sources, and I can provide additional ones. Socialists almost universally do reject self-ownership (duh). It also says that they want "wealth redistribution" and "improving worklife" which is false. As I've said above, they want a revolution for 'productive power redistribution' instead of wealth and 'no bosses' instead of just better working conditions. Finx (talk) 02:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * By the same token, it would be erroneous (whether they're libetarians or not -- once again, I don't give a rat's ass about that) to say that Georgists want a revolution to take possession of all the means of production. It's descriptive one thing (revolutionary anarchism/marxism) which is (apparently) "left-libertarian" but it is not descriptive of Georgism. Is that synthesis too? Finx (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You wrote that the section says, "clearly states that "left-libertarians" want to maintain...capitalism", now you say that the section "is contradicted by other sources." Which is it?  There is no contradiction btw between socialism and self-ownership.  But that is to digress into synthesis, which appears to be the basis of your arguments.  TFD (talk) 03:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, what you're telling me is that you personally believe there is no contradiction between socialism and self-ownership. So far as most of the socialists you're referring to and scholars on the socialist movement, they do believe there is contradiction and say they reject dualism along with moral frameworks based on state legal principles, least of all property. Since you can't digest the most simple, straightforward statements and have done nothing but flood this conversation with irrelevant nonsense, apologies, I will not be reading any more of your worthless, confused posts. Finx (talk) 03:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Gerald Cohen wrote extensively about the importance of self-ownership, and his works are classics for libertarian socialists. Are you saying that he was not really a socialist, or not really a libertarian?  TFD (talk) 03:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Cohen specifically rejected the Lockean concept of self-ownership, which is the way the term is used in this section. Lockean One (talk) 04:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Finx on this one (again, dammit!). This section not only misrepresents socialists, it also grossly misrepresents non-socialist left-libertarians. It's full of statements that appear to describe some strange hybrid of radically different philosophies while grossly misrepresenting each one of them. Lockean One (talk) 03:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, whether or not socialism requires a rejection of Lockean self-ownership (or something very much like it), it's clear that (for one reason or another) most socialists did and presently still do reject it. So, at the very least, we can't jump lump the majority in with the minority and say they all support it. Finx (talk) 04:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Whether or not most socialists reject self-ownership, the point is that libertarian socialists do not. While in your view that may disqualify them as socialists, that is pure synthesis.  (I think it likely that as part of libertarian jargon it is ignored by non-libertarians.)  TFD (talk) 04:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, they practically universally do. Sweet mother of... I offered you references like 30 posts ago. Do you want them or not? It's practically a tenet. I hesitate to say it's 100%, but certainly 99.9%. Finx (talk) 04:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Could you point to the posting - just provide the date. You mentioned that the Democratic Party platform is not libertarian.  I agree, but it is not called libertarian in the article.  TFD (talk) 04:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Libertarian socialists most certainly do (implicitly) reject Lockean self-ownership, as Lockean self-ownership means that individuals own their own labor exclusively, and may therefore trade or sell it as they see fit. Claiming collective ownership of the product of an individual's labor is anti-self-ownership in that sense, and obviously so. Lockean One (talk) 09:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the material about not abolishing capitalism should be removed. Self-ownership is trickier. Please provide the source/s and a quote of the material they are supporting so we can make a determination. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It's more nuanced than that, but they generally reject it very explicitly as a carriage-before-horse reversal that puts social law concepts (property) before moral concepts (e.g. autonomy, self-determination, mutual aid) through what they see as a tortured form of ("me-and-myself") dualism. Depending on who's criticizing it, it can be denounced on the very grounds you describe: stable ownership of MOP being a right of exclusion, labor becomes a product rather than a process and thus people are actually deprived of the direct fruits of their labor (which is obvious, because they sell labor itself - whether or not that's just, moral, derived from rights, etc). Another common criticism is that rights are conferred, not natural and that they are inalienable in the sense that they cannot be transferred, bought or sold like a commodity, pointing to the history that the very idea of natural rights has been used for deeply reactionary purposes, like justifying chattel slavery. David Graeber's "Two notions of liberty revisited - or how to disentangle Liberty and Slavery" (referenced here and here) goes over this in some detail:


 * "Historically, there is a simple—if somewhat disturbing—answer to this. Those who have argued that we are the natural owners of our rights and liberties have been mainly interested in asserting that we should be free to give them away, or even to sell them."


 * Whole article is very much worth reading to get a grasp on what anarchists generally think of self-ownership (i.e. they don't). That said, it's not inconceivable to be a socialist dualist who thinks people own themselves. I'll come back when I have something for libertarian Marxism, but I expect it'll be just as explicit. Finx (talk) 10:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I just read it. To address only what you quote above, the classical liberals he references have not in fact asserted that we should be free to give away or sell our natural rights. A basic understanding of the concept of natural rights would preclude even thinking such a thing was even logically possible. That author is either purposely misrepresenting the views of classical liberals, or he is honestly so confused about them as to think that the term "natural rights" refers to contractual (conferred) rights to material goods or services (very common misconception). Either way, that article is complete bunk. Lockean One (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * My intention was not to get you to agree with him. Whether it's 'bunk' or 'not bunk', we are trying to assess anarchist views, and those are the views of an anarchist. Finx (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * My intention was not to point out that I disagree with him, but to point out that it's unfair and inaccurate to portray all anarchists to be as ignorant as Graeber. Intelligent and knowledgeable anarchists, unlike Graeber, understand the classical liberal concept of natural rights, even if they disagree with it. Lockean One (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, well, thanks for that completely irrelevant assessment, I guess. Finx (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * See Chomsky's 2010 interview. "Self-ownership and self-management by workers and communities is a core commitment of libertarian socialism, especially its anarchosyndicalist wing, as of left Marxism and other left positions.... The idea of owning oneself in this interpretation [right libertarianism] simply a justification for robbing the public and concentrating on one’s own material gain. It’s unfair to Locke to attribute this to him."  So both left and right libertarians support self-ownership but disagree in what it means.  It would be tendentious to say that one side is wrong in its interpretation, that they do not actually support self-ownership and therefore are not libertarians.  That is synthesis, and something to be discussed on blogs.  TFD (talk) 18:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You conveniently left out the part where he says "I’m not sure what you mean by 'self-ownership'", goes on to use it colloquially (i.e. like planes fly and submarines swim, people belong to themselves), and then corrects himself with "I wasn’t sure how you meant the phrase," says he now understands, and then goes on to denounce it. He defends classical liberals and pre-capitalists from appropriation by contemporary capitalists. He is not a pious disciple of John Locke; he believes he's misrepresented, same as Adam Smith and others. I disagree that what you're presenting is synthesis, though. I think this is more like willful distortion when you take quotes out of context and try to misrepresent what someone said. Do you want to read his writings on dualism? Finx (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's like referencing a source that refers to G. Gordon Liddy as a "plumber" to justify an article stating that he and Thomas Crapper did the same thing for a living. Such juvenile word play is good for a pun, but turns Wikipedia articles into massive clusterfucks. Lockean One (talk) 19:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The issue is that they do not hold the same view of self-ownership that you do. Chomsky for example would not agree that rights are alienable, and that to you means he cannot be serious about people owning themselves.  If one cannot trade one's life or one's freedom, how can one be said to own oneself?  After all slave owners who owned slaves were allowed to sell them or kill them.  But it is not up to us to make the call that Chomsky cannot be a libertarian because he does not believe what we do.  TFD (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The issue is that you don't read and keep trying to wedge your opinions into a clear factual inconsistency in this article. You don't read. This makes communication difficult. Nothing -- and I mean nothing -- presently in the article deals with 'self-ownership' as the ability to act or mere self-determination, where you obviously would find support among any group of people, political or not, because it's incontestable. Anarchists talk about that, albeit under different titles like "individual autonomy". This Wikipedia article, however, deals with "self-ownership" exclusively as a property rights claim. So, even if through all this convoluted mess, you could find a single anarchist writer who uttered the words "self-ownership" -- not mockingly -- without having one's arm twisted or misunderstanding the question, it would not matter. It would not matter because most -- and once again, I can provide as many sources as you wish -- rail against self-ownership as it is described here. Therefore, even if Chomsky said he completely, 100% agreed with Rothbard's vision of self-ownership, the ridiculous statements above, about libertarian socialists all affirming, believing and being committed to self-ownership would be still clearly false. See above: just because "B is blue" and "B is an A" does not mean "all A are blue." So, you would be wasting everyone's time. Should you want to expand this article, to explain that there are completely different concepts one could mean by this problem expression, which just happen to sound alike -- please, go ahead and do the work. Otherwise, factual errors need to be removed, if you're done bloviating about how pointing out gross errors and discrepancies in a Wikipedia article belongs on a blog somewhere. Finx (talk) 20:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * All we have is your opinion that libertarian socialists do not support self-ownership and therefore are not libertarians. That's the sort of discussion you should have with like-minded people on blogs.  But it does not help us here, because content is based on sources not the opinions of editors.  TFD (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, thanks to your lenient approach to reading your own references, we're off to a good start on those sources, considering you just provided two of them. Here's a few more:


 * "This concept of liberty is usually termed “self-ownership.” But, to state the obvious, I do not “own” myself, as if were an object somehow separable from my subjectivity — I am myself (see section B.4.2). However, the concept of “self-ownership” is handy for justifying various forms of domination and oppression — for by agreeing (usually under the force of circumstances, we must note) to certain contracts, an individual can “sell” (or rent out) themselves to others (for example, when workers sell their labour power to capitalists on the “free market”). In effect, “self-ownership” becomes the means of justifying treating people as objects — ironically, the very thing the concept was created to stop! As anarchist L. Susan Brown notes, “[a]t the moment an individual ‘sells’ labour power to another, he/she loses self-determination and instead is treated as a subjectless instrument for the fulfilment of another’s will.” [The Politics of Individualism, p. 4]"


 * "So the logic is simple, you cannot really own something unless you can sell it. Self-ownership is one of the cornerstones of laissez-faire capitalist ideology. Therefore, since you own yourself you can sell yourself."


 * "I conclude that socialists must reject self-ownership"




 * "The indicated conclusion is that, for real freedom, or autonomy, to prevail, there have to be restrictions on self-ownership. That is ironical, since it is autonomy that attracts us to self-ownership, through a disastrous misidentification. The very thing that makes the self-ownership thesis attractive should actually make us reject self-ownership. The natural next step is to ask what kind and degree of control over external things a person must have to enjoy autonomy and then to ask whether such control is compatible with socialist equality."




 * So, with that finally put to rest, unless you want more, how do you plan to fix the erroneous statements in the article? Finx (talk) 21:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * And you still seem to be confused about what I'm saying, probably on account of only reading your own posts. My assertion is not that libertarian socialists are not libertarians. My assertion is that socialists are not capitalists -- apparently, a very controversial claim. Finx (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * While it makes your point, I can't help but see the humor in that first quote, where it takes the colloquial expression of someone "selling themselves" so absurdly literally as to imply that what is actually being transferred is ownership of their "self", instead of ownership of the product of their labor. That's some funny stuff there! Lockean One (talk) 22:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * And you are sharing your views with us again, why? Finx (talk) 23:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You post funny shit, I comment that it's funny shit. You'll get over it. Something else that's funny and relevant to the reliability of the source is that it has a socialist complaining that a non-socialist ideology is "handy for justifying various forms of domination and oppression". Seriously. Lockean One (talk) 01:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

{outdent}Those quotes out of context and do not tell the full story. Cohen may have said "I conclude that socialists must reject self-ownership", but that was after arguing that Marx had based socialism on self ownership. the Anarchist FAQ does not deny that people own themselves, it merely questions the interpretation of right-libertarians. (Lockean One, Nozick argued that people have the right to sell themselves into slavery.)

TFD (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * LOL, did I claim otherwise? The quotes above were referring to people accepting a normal job, not selling themselves to slavery. Is it really that hard to comprehend and keep up? Lockean One (talk) 02:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I give up. Forget I said anything. You beautiful people just do your thing. Finx (talk) 10:36, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Finx, I think you may be overstating your case here, but I generally agree that self-ownership is a loaded word for us libertarian socialists. I see Somedifferentstuff has removed this term from the "Left-libertarianism" section (despite it being in the sources)... does this assuage your concerns?  Or, as I previously suggested, would individual sovereignty, autonomy or another word fix this issue?  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * MisterDub, it wasn't in the source which is why I removed it. That source is still being used in the article, have a look for yourself. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not in Chartier's article, but was in other sources: "Over the past few decades, there has been increasing interest in left-libertarianism, which holds (roughly) that agents fully own themselves and that natural resources (land, minerals, air, and the like) belong to everyone in some egalitarian sense."  Vallentyne, Peter; Steiner, Hillel; Otsuka, Michael (2005). "Why Left-Libertarianism Is Not Incoherent, Indeterminate, or Irrelevant: A Reply to Fried". Philosophy and Public Affairs (Blackwell Publishing, Inc.) 33 (2). Retrieved 07/23/2013.  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 00:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * MisterDub, I think we should summarize what the sources say, and the sources say socialists flatly reject the neoliberal interpretation of self-ownership and simply don't focus on or much care about any other kind. Like I tried to explain, most of the confusion stems from conflating the revolutionary/anticapitalist left and the reformist/capitalist "left" which is why you have a section talking about how they aspire to achieve wealth redistribution. Finx (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Do you have a proposal or suggestion? I understand what you're saying, but it doesn't help unless we have something concrete that you (and presumably Somedifferentstuff) will accept.  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I would suggest distinguishing Georgists (and similar) from socialists, if that's what we believe left means according to credible sources. It's a very flimsy term. Go far enough back and someone like Tucker would have been relatively 'right'. Something like "X accept self-ownership [as a property rights claim] and want more equitable distribution or resources under the capitalist system, while Y wants to remove that system and replace it with another". Obviously not phrased like that, but so long as the meaning is clear. I can make and source some small edits, and if they don't stick that's fine. I just wasn't going to bother if no one even sees a problem here. Finx (talk) 22:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I have composed a new lead for the Left-libertarianism article that hopefully resolves the recently expressed issues.

"Left-libertarianism (or left-wing libertarianism) names several related but distinct approaches to politics, society, culture, and political and social theory, which stress both individual freedom and social justice. Left-libertarians simultaneously value leftist commitments to improving worklife, promoting environmental well-being, and wealth redistribution; and the libertarian commitments to just possessory claims, free markets, and diminution or elimination of government power. Unlike right-libertarians, they believe that neither claiming nor mixing one's labor with natural resources is enough to generate full private property rights,  and maintain that natural resources (land, oil, gold, trees) ought to be held in some egalitarian manner, either unowned or owned collectively.

Left-libertarianism can refer generally to three related and overlapping schools of thought:
 * Anti-authoritarian varieties of left-wing politics and, in particular, the socialist movement, usually known as libertarian socialism.
 * The Steiner-Vallentyne school, whose proponents affirm the classical liberal belief in self-ownership, but derive from this idea an egalitarian form of ownership of natural resources.
 * Left-wing market anarchism, which stresses the socially transformative potential of non-aggression and anticapitalist, freed markets."


 * Changes include:
 * Removed self-ownership from list of left-libertarian commitments (aping the changes made by Somedifferentstuff to the summarized section in this article)
 * Changed the wikilink for diminution to point to Minarchism instead of Limited government
 * Removed claim that left-libertarians affirm self-ownership, instead relying on the subsequent statement that they argue against full private property rights
 * Changed the list item detailing the Steiner-Vallentyne school of left-libertarianism to include self-ownership and the derived egalitarian distribution of resources
 * Removed overabundance of citations for the Steiner-Vallentyne school


 * Please let me know what you think. Thanks!  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Much better already, in my opinion, provided it's fair to non-socialists. Finx (talk) 14:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * That statement is obviously not accurate about any one of those three ideologies listed, especially Steiner-Vallentyne left-libs. And especially with "wealth redistribution", which they do not believe in in the normal sense (taking property from one to give to another). It's also not clear in that section that Steiner-Vallentyne left-libertarians do believe in "full private property rights", as long as natural resource appropriation is "paid for" (taxed/society compensated). In other words, they are not socialists. You just can't lump socialists and non-socialists together and try to make those kinds of statements about them and have it be accurate. Like Finx pointed out, they are profoundly different and opposing ideologies. And that section grossly misrepresents them all. Lockean One (talk) 22:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Possibly the term Left Libertarian" has similar problems to the term "Right libertarian" but not as severe.  With "right libertarian" the meanings are so numerous and so ad hoc that it is near-useless. It looks like with "Left Libertarian" there may be a few different meanings.  If so, IMO coverage should acknowledge that it is a term which revers to differing forms of libertarianism, not a form of libertarianism  North8000  (talk) 15:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, except that the term "libertarianism" itself suffers from the same problem: it refers to two different mutually exclusive general ideologies, which should not be confused with each other, while this article purposely confuses them. Lockean One (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that there are some common tenets....do you agree?  But either way I think that we can and should inform rather than conflate them.  I think that we have been sort of doing that (?) Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure there are common tenets on some (social) issues not discussed in this article (civil libertarianism), but the tenets of socialism and classical liberalism referred to in this article are irreconcilably different. Finx had this 100% correct: classical liberals are not socialists and socialists are not classical liberals. And this section, like much of the article, fundamentally misrepresents them both. Lockean One (talk) 23:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The common tenets that I had in mind are prioritizing personal liberty and freedom from coercion.  North8000  (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree they share those tenets to a large degree on non-economic issues not discussed in this article, but on economic issues, those phrases are merely used by each side to refer to radically different tenets. On economic issues, it is merely the terms used to describe their tenets, not the tenets themselves substantively, that they have in common.. Lockean One (talk) 04:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * How about another somewhat more specific one, (prioritizing) reducing government (including in some stands, reducing to zero)?  North8000  (talk) 14:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd say that's in name only, too. Prohibiting private production and wage labor, controlling all means of production, etc are by definition "government" (even if controlled democratically). Those "democratic municipalities", etc, as described by socialists, are (mini) states, just called by another name. With far more "state-like" power over individuals (economically) than any currently existing state. Lockean One (talk) 07:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Articles can be about an underlying topic, about a term, or about a set of topics falling under that term and related enough so that at least at first blush / common usage the are about a topic. (even if not technically the same)  At this article we have a "big tent"  and that is what solved the bonfire 3-4 years ago.   But when you get into strands that advocate government prohibition of all of those things, I'm thinking that maybe those are outside of even that big tent. Possibly, if those narrow exceptions are most commonly known by a different term (e.g. "libertarian xxxxxxx") those few might just have a disambig and link at this article?  North8000  (talk) 13:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. All ideologies should be covered accurately, and that requires such disambiguation. But disambiguation, even within the article, seems to have a lot of opposition here. Equivocation is rampant throughout the article and defended vociferously. Lockean One (talk) 21:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that "disambiguation" can mean three different things.
 * Clear delineation/separation/coverage within the "Libertarianism" article.
 * Removing or drastically minimizing coverage of some strands in the "Libertarianism" article and sending the readers elsewhere for coverage of them.
 * Changing the whole "Libertarianism" article into a disambig page.
 * I think that there is strong support for the delineation under #1. I don't think tat there is support or viability for doing #2 in any big way or for #3.  But my previous comment was probing the idea of doing #2 for a 1-2 very specific cases.  North8000  (talk) 23:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Even #1 would be a huge improvement, but it seems to have a lot of opposition, too. And I agree that #2 is appropriate for a couple of cases, those where the term "libertarian" itself is used to mean something completely different from how it is defined at the top of the article. But either way, this problem simply can't be fixed as long as there is a consensus among active editors to insist on ambiguity, equivocation, and obviously misleading statements. Lockean One (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I assume that you're talking about the left libertarian discussions. I don't have the expertise to have helped there, but I haven't seen any resistance to clarity overall here. I've been a slightly tiny bit moderator here since back when it was still in flames 3-4 years, and I think that there are many watchers here who support clarity and accuracy.  North8000  (talk) 02:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As an example of an insistence on equivocation, ambiguity, synthesis, poor sourcing, and even faulty grammar, multiple attempts to remove, change the wording of, and add clarity to the last sentence in the first paragraph of the lead were strongly opposed. The equivocation is obvious with the definition switch, it synthesizes multiple sources to imply a position not stated in any of them, and the faulty grammar was defended on the basis that "that's the way socialists say it". Yes, that's just a single example, but it's representative of much of the article and makes the point that accuracy, clarity, and Wikipedia policy are trumped by a consensus to preserve such nonsense. And any attempt to discuss such problems on this talk page is derailed with a passion. "Resistance to clarity" is a massive understatement. Lockean One (talk) 11:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well let's actually deal with / discuss that sentence.  I never noticed the debate.  But when I look it it, I see (in summary form) noting the views of strands of libertarianism in areas that they are different / conflict. And, dissecting it, I see about 6 explicit and implicit statements in there:
 * Some libertarian strands are supportive of laissez-faire capitalism
 * Some libertarian strands are supportive private property rights in areas where they differ such as in land and natural resources,
 * Some libertarian strands oppose private property rights in areas where they differ such as in land and natural resources,
 * Some libertarians strands oppose capitalism
 * Some libertarians strands oppose private ownership of the means of production and advocate their common or cooperative ownership and management
 * (vague) Some or all of the latter strands are libertarian socialism
 * What do you see as the problem with the sentence?  North8000  (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, I will try to detail the numerous problems with it:


 * First, the term "libertarian" has a different definition in the second part of the sentence than in the first. The structure, "Some libertarians......, while others....." is a textbook example of fallacious equivocation.


 * Second, the definite article "the" means "particular ones", not "any" (indefinite). Use of the definite article "the" means that the answer to the question "which means of production" has been clearly specified, and the answer is not "any". Socialists in fact oppose private ownership of any means of production, including any not yet built, not just "certain particular specified ones". The fact that socialist propaganda uses the term "the", either due to ignorance, confusion, or fraudulent purposes, is irrelevant. Wikipedia should use correct grammar to accurately state their beliefs (except in quotes), whether they do or not. And while this may seem nit-picky, the improper use of the definite article "the" dramatically changes the meaning of the statement in a way that's misleading, confusing, and/or fraudulent, depending on the motive. Opposing my ownership of a particular shovel, or particular shovels, is very different from opposing my ownership of any shovel at any time.


 * Third, the sentence falsely implies that classical liberals advocate private ownership/oppose worker ownership of (indefinite) means of production. Classical liberals simply do not advocate determining ownership retroactively. or one way or the other. Determination of ownership of a factory is a prerequisite to it's existence, not a consequence. Non-socialists simply do not treat the product of labor, such as a factory, as if it is a natural resource that exists prior to determination of ownership. This concept is semantically dodged by the use of the term "the" instead of "any" as noted above, falsely implying that we're referring to things that "just exist" instead of things that are built for a purpose.


 * Fourth, the phrase "such as in land and natural resources" falsely implies that labor-created property is secondary, when in fact it's the primary difference between classical liberals and socialists. It should read "especially labor-created property" instead.


 * Fifth, the statement falsely implies that laissez-faire capitalism is a tenet of classical liberalism, instead of a consequence of liberty and Locke's labor theory of property. Laissez-faire capitalism, unlike socialism, is not a function of government or the equivalent, it's not a "system" at all in the strict sense of the word ("coordinated scheme") like socialism is. It exists because it is permitted, not because it is chosen politically.


 * I'm sure I haven't adequately explained all the problems with that sentence, but I can clarify if needed. Lockean One (talk) 00:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You are good at this and at precise analysis of and use of the written word. I think that I agree with 95% of everything that you just wrote.  My one quibble is that strands of libertarianism do vary, it is probably an unuseful overreach to call that variation "different definition"   and/or if you do characterize it as that, that IMO what you are pointing out in that area is not a flaw.
 * I think that with your "tenet of classical liberalism" you are pointing to one recurrent problem here, which is attempting to describe Classical liberalism / US style libertarianism through the lens of "left" libertarianism  Specifically, if a tenet of a strand of left libertarian opposes XYZ, and a US strand of libertarianism has no comment on it, those "left" libertarians will tend to mistakenly say that being in favor of XYZ is a tenet of that US libertarianism strand.   This is faulty.   North8000  (talk) 14:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, you nailed it with the "lens" except that I would say "lens" of socialism instead of left-libertarianism, since the latter is commonly used by non-socialists to refer to (classical liberal) libertarian strands who do not use such a lens. But I don't think we have that "quibble" you refer to at all, since I agree fully that libertarians do vary significantly. I was not using the phrase "different definition" to refer to such variation. I was using it to refer to its use by socialists as a synonym for "social anarchism" instead of the philosophy of libertarianism as described by mainstream encyclopedic sources. And given that those are not only different but mutually exclusive and virtually polar opposites, "different definition" seems to be an understatement.


 * Also relevant is the nature of the sources used. The reliable sources, such as Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Britannica, etc., describe libertarianism (including left-libertarianism) clearly in their articles on libertarianism such that it excludes socialists. This is the general case for legitimate encyclopedic sources, including all major widely respected encyclopedias. The sources that use the term libertarian to refer to socialists are obscure biased "questionable sources" (per WP policy), not reliable sources, except as sources for their own beliefs. Certainly when sources directly contradict each other, legitimate encyclopedias should take precedence over obscure biased sources. And note that I'm not referring to statements about the beliefs of socialists supported by those biased sources, such as "some socialists self-identify as libertarians", I'm referring to statements that directly contradict legitimate encyclopedias, such as "some libertarians oppose XYZ" where XYZ is exactly what libertarians universally support, and is in fact what constitutes libertarianism, according to all legitimate encyclopedias. Lockean One (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * More good thoughts. Now to crystallize  something out of it for the article.  Are you essentially saying that libertarian socialist are not libertarian, even by a "big tent" standard?  North8000  (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * That's right, as it pertains to this article. They are anti-libertarian according to the main definition used at the beginning of this article and according to any legitimate encyclopedia's article on libertarianism. They are only "libertarian" according to their own contradictory internal definition (using biased socialist sources), which itself consists of restricting the actions of others (private production, wage labor, etc), anti-libertarian by definition.


 * Also, it seems that many here want to improperly treat the term "libertarian" as if it's a proper noun that should be used by others to refer to anyone who appropriates it, instead of a common noun with a stated definition. This is evidenced by the fact that many seem to consider "self-identification" to be relevant instead of the word's stated definition, predictably resulting in much of the article being logically incoherent. Lockean One (talk) 01:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, regarding potential action items, I guess one would be to remove libertarian socialism from the article, or briefly note it with a link. Aside from the types of arguments that you made, there is the simpler one, which is to go by the noun, which is socialism, not libertarianism.   What do others think?  North8000  (talk) 19:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd say everyone else forgot about this section already and aren't reading it, since there haven't been any comments lately except ours. That would also explain why our recent discussion wasn't derailed. Lockean One (talk) 02:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm only going to be about 1/4 on Wikipedia for the next 6 days. Although there are lots of people complexities and differing thoughts, I don't think that the situation is as bad here as you think.   I'll put it in the edit summary to see if we can get more input.  North8000  (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

"Objectivism" section of this page
The "Objectivism" section of this page has two requests for citations. I do not know how to enter these. The first citation is covered by David Kelley's book The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand and the second citation was originally covered in Leonard Peikoff's lecture series The Philosophy of Objectivism and later by his book Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. If a Wikipedian would be helpful and create those citations for this unskilled reader, the requested citations will have been supplied.174.65.105.116 (talk) 12:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Occupy Movement
I would like the communities thoughts regarding removing the "Occupy Movement" from the Libertarianism page. The Occupy Movement does not represent Libertarian ideology and should not be considered a sub-group. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.170.223.88 (talk) 04:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree. Unless I'm missing something, I don't think that they even self-identify as that.   North8000  (talk) 13:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * From Occupy Wall Street: "David Graeber has argued that the Occupy movement, in its anti-hierarchical and anti-authoritarian consensus-based politics, its refusal to accept the legitimacy of the existing legal and political order, and its embrace of prefigurative politics, has roots in an anarchist political tradition. Sociologist Dana Williams has likewise argued that 'the most immediate inspiration for Occupy is anarchism,' and the LA Times has identified the 'controversial, anarchist-inspired organizational style' as one of the hallmarks of OWS."  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * So they don't self identify themselves or their objectives as libertarian.  They don't even self identify themselves or their objectives as anarchist.    We just have a few authors saying it has some things in common with anarchism, and one saying that it has "roots" in anarchism, whatever that means.   Maybe it would be good to keep it in, I dunno.  But the case for inclusion looks a little weak and is certainly not so strong that you can call those feeling otherwise "ignorance" per your edit summary.    North8000  (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No one said they self-identified as libertarians or anarchists. Occupy Wall Street is merely a contemporary movement that has significant correlations with libertarianism/anarchism, owing to a substantial libertarian/anarchist population, which have been noted by many.  The Tea Party movement is similar, though with respect to neoliberals.  If you're not aware of these facts, you're ignorant.  There's just no other word for it.  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * MisterDub, you are the most variable editor I've ever seen, ranging from friendly and collaborative to out-of-line insults and nastiness towards other editors.  I'll just ascribe the above out of line "ignorance" comments (and your just saying that you  "left Wikipedia because its editors are idiots") to the latter and just ask if we can have the other Misterdub back?   :-)   North8000  (talk) 14:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This isn't the anarchism page. Just because libertarian anarchism is covered doesn't mean anarchism is general should be. Having Occupy here is a joke. Scott Illini (talk) 05:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Remove Libertarian Capitalism subsections?
Looks like a lot of scholars seem to think it's a really bizarre oxymoron. Should we delete all the libertarian capitalist sections, including stuff on Ayn Rand (who despised the new right worse than communists), Hayek, Mises, Ron Paul and all that Austrian heterodox silliness? I'm not sure it meets notability standards. Finx (talk) 03:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You can't be serious.  North8000  (talk) 10:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Took the words right out of my mouth. Finx (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I have no problem removing all references to capitalism in the article. Capitalism obviously isn't a "form of libertarianism", nor is it a tenet of libertarianism. There is no need to mention a specific type of activity people might engage in if free to do so. The Stanford source, among other legitimate sources, does a great job describing libertarianism without mentioning capitalism. You have my vote. Lockean One (talk) 15:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a different (narrower) question than was asked.  North8000  (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right, an oversight on my part. I also agree with removing the rest of the stuff Finx recommended removing. Lockean One (talk) 20:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Done. All discussion of capitalism, Ayn Rand, Hayek, Mises, Ron Paul, and "Austrian heterodox silliness" removed per Finx's suggestion. Lockean One (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Dude, seriously?! Finx quite clearly made this section in retaliation to the above section trying to remove libertarian socialism.  This is not a serious discussion and should be closed as unproductive.  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I did it to illustrate a point. The proposal, of course, is ridiculous. Yet, it's actually on firmer footing that the previous one, considering libertarian socialism is the origin of the label has been far more historically significant. Please, close or delete this discussion at your convenience, along with the even sillier one above. Finx (talk) 23:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Finx, you don't have to convince me (or anyone, really); it's obvious that this section was created to mock the one above. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 23:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * One more revert and we go to WP:ANI. &mdash; goethean 21:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I say go now. MisterDub violated the 3RR rule with disruptive reverts to avoid talk page discussion.
 * Done. &mdash; goethean 22:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Goethean, inre ANI, you're either a liar or profoundly confused. Neither of which would be improved by anything I could say. Lockean One (talk) 22:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Discussing capitalism in the article is completely unnecessary, and much of it is misleading. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, for example, has a very good article on libertarianism without mentioning capitalism. And this article would be greatly improved by removing all discussion of both capitalism and socialism. Your incivility and personal attacks and edit-warring, as well as your refusal to assume good faith have been noted. Lockean One (talk) 22:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm more than happy to talk about this, and actually agree that we could use a reduction in the discussion about capitalism and socialism (though not to the point of deleting relevant material, as you did). As stated previously, a discussion was not occurring.  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * So, your input is to edit war and make personal attacks while refusing to talk about it, then insist you're happy to talk about it while still not actually talking about it. Got it. Lockean One (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What would you like me to say? I said I would support a reduction without mass deletion of relevant material.  Do you have anything to contribute?  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hilarious. If you look at the edit history of this article, Lockean One did a mass deletion without consensus. Calling him irresponsible is appropriate. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Remove Libertarian Socialism subsection?
Please see discussion above and requests for input above and in edit summaries over the last few weeks. Goethean, if you have a rationale (besides your usual behavior towards me) that you haven't elucidated, plus do so. Also we continue to request input on this; none was received for weeks despite explicit inquiries, and the page has 937 watchers. Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It is extremely unfortunate that you continue to comment on contributors rather than on content, despite having been threatened with a block for doing the exact same thing at the exact same article. Please honor WP:AGF.


 * The material that you removed is well-sourcedly related to the subject of the article. Removing the entire section of left-libertarian philosophy leaves this article skewed and unbalanced, giving the reader the false impression that left-libertarian political philosophy does not exist. Thus your removal of the entire section on left-libertarianism is unacceptable. &mdash; goethean 21:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Purposely misrepresenting the positions and editing actions of other editors is uncivil and not constructive. Lockean One (talk) 01:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Quit the spin and crap.  That aside, Left Libertarianism is fully accepted as germane to the article by myself and everybody.   And for years I have fought to keep it in, and in fact me deciding to do so was the catalyst moment of quenching the bonfire here 3-4 years ago.   The discussion was about removal of the libertarian socialism subsection, with the main rationale in the discussion being that it is socialism, not libertarianism.  North8000  (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * No section is going to get removed from anything if you can't speak to editors in a civil manner. Are you going to follow WP:AGF, or shall we take his to another venue? &mdash; goethean 00:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Why don't you stick to the topic. And comments were requested multiple times after a consensus was reached in the discussion and you didn't respond for weeks and then then reverted when I made the edit.  North8000  (talk) 00:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * That doesn't make sense. You want to remove material relating to libertarian socialism from this article because its not libertarianism. Sorry, it just doesn't make any sense. How can a political philosophy called libertarian socialism not be related to libertarianism? It's like removing all mentions of compact cars from the car article, because we've decided that they're not really cars. &mdash; goethean 01:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * LOL, you mean how could a group's self-imposed political label not accurately reflect their actual political beliefs? Big mystery there! Lockean One (talk) 01:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, it should be removed from this article. "Libertarian Socialism" is not left-libertarianism or any other kind of libertarianism according to legitimate reliable sources, and is in fact anti-libertarian according to all legitimate sources as well as the general description at the top of the article. Using biased sources to override what reliable sources say is against Wikipedia's policies and has caused this article to be inaccurate, very poor quality, often logically incoherent, and laughably silly in some parts. Lockean One (talk) 01:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Also "Related to" libertarianism is not really the standard for inclusion of substantial coverage; "Is libertarianism" is. And going by Goethean's analogy, the noun in "compact car" is still "car"; the noun in "libertarian socialism" is "socialism".  North8000  (talk) 12:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It should be kept. It is the original form of libertarianism that Rothbard, Nolan and Hess adapted.  Bascially they accepted the libertarian view of individual freedom, but argued that could only be achieved if private property existed.  Their writings are full of references to these writers, and they even use their anti-statist rhetoric.  Compare with socialism.  We do not airbrush Marx out because member parties of the Socialist International accept private property.
 * Jeff Riggenbach of the Ludwig von Mises Institute explains the connection. "Kropotkin himself played no small part in bringing [the Russian Revolution] about. In the later years of the 19th century, his was one of the most influential of the voices raised in support of the economic absurdity of abolition of private property and the rule of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."  Nonetheless, Peter Kropotkin is one of the half-dozen cases of famous anarchocommunists that I would say are worth a second look if you're seeking candidates for places in the libertarian tradition. I've previously said as much about Rudolf Rocker and Emma Goldman; I say it now about Peter Kropotkin. Not only did Kropotkin awaken pretty quickly to the folly of his early admiration for violence and force, but he was arguably the first to enunciate and systematically defend what has since become one of the key ideas of modern libertarianism."
 * TFD (talk) 14:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * User:The Four Deuces, I hate to ask such a simple question in light of that large amount of information, but IMO (in the context of history here) this is what it really boils down to. In your opinion, is Libertarian Socialism a form of libertarianism? Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 02:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It is the original form and in addition should be included because of its influence on modern U.S. libertarianism. TFD (talk) 02:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks.  North8000  (talk) 02:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I strongly object to the removal of the Libertarian socialism section. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 02:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Long story short, our approach here is that if it is a significant (in sources) form of libertarianism the we include it here. I think that TFD has made a strong enough case that it is a form of libertarianism that I can't see excluding it. I just wish that we could have received this input earlier....the removal was pretty explicitly discussed and then run up the flagpole for the 900+ watchers for a couple of weeks and nobody objected. Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 12:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * TFD made no such case, just an unsupported claim/personal opinion, and misrepresented the views of the writers mentioned. In the quote offered, Jeff Riggenbach considered Kropotkin to be part of the libertarian tradition despite the fact that he was an anarchocommunist, not because of it (hence the word "nonetheless"). And the other writers mentioned also in no way said any such thing. Their "view of individual freedom" was adopted from classical liberalism, not socialism. Their favorable references to anarchocommunists were due to their anti-statism and their (classically) liberal views on certain things, ie despite them being anarchocommunists, not because of it. This is obvious from their writings, including the article TFD linked to above. Lockean One (talk) 17:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Sure the idea of liberty developed from liberalism, but it comes to U.S. libertarians via European libertarians and U.S. individual anarchists. There is nothing in Locke's writings for example about whether morality laws violated freedom.  Wendy McElroy has carefully documented the split between individualist anarchism and anarcho-socislism about the time of the Haymarket riots.  TFD (talk) 17:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * U.S. libertarianism, as described in this article, has existed continually in the U.S. since Locke, although not always called that. And it did indeed come from European libertarians, assuming the term "libertarian" is defined the same standard way, since Locke and many others were European after all. It certainly did not come from socialist ideology. But none of that addresses the issue at hand, it only sidetracks it. And no one is disputing that many socialists are civil libertarians to a large degree on social issues (against morality laws), but this article is about economic libertarianism, not civil libertarianism. --Lockean One (talk) 23:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * If you want to think that the Plymouth and Jamestown colonies were libertarian, that is fine. But it is not what most sources say. Most sources see modern libertarianism as having developed in the 19th century, although it claims precursors including some of Locke/s views.  I think you are confusing the term with liberalism.  TFD (talk) 06:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I was confusing nothing, libertarianism in the normal sense is a continuation of classical liberalism. Lockean One (talk)


 * Lockean One, you are confused. Libertarian socialism is absolutely a type of economic Libertarianism; it's of the socialist variety as opposed to capitalist. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Socialism and capitalism are not "varieties" of libertarianism according to legitimate encyclopedic sources. Considering legitimate encyclopedias to be more reliable sources than socialist propaganda doesn't make me confused. Lockean One (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Lockean One, your arguments may very well be absolutely correct, or absolutely correct within a particular framework. But our standard here has been to lean towards inclusion where there is a substantial argument / sourcing for saying that it is a form of libertarianism. What would you say about the above in the context of that framework?  North8000  (talk) 15:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No one has provided any substantial case for it, only sidetracking/personal opinion at best. No legitimate encyclopedia/unbiased source supports it. And it makes the article self-contradictory and logically incoherent, not to mention just plain laughably absurd in places. Lockean One (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You're substituting your confusion for a valid argument. Nevertheless, you don't have consensus to remove the material. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Complete nonsense. No legitimate unbiased source supports calling "libertarian socialism" a form of libertarianism. And you know it. Lockean One (talk) 18:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Which is another way of saying that some sources do call it that. &mdash; goethean 18:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, biased sources that should not be used to trump legitimate reliable sources, which define libertarianism in a way that logically excludes socialists. Lockean One (talk) 20:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

North8000, if this article is to include "libertarian socialism", it should at least be discussed separately and clearly, instead of being conflated with classical liberalism by switching back and forth between different definitions of "libertarian", even within the same sentence, without even mentioning that different definitions are being used. While separating the articles completely as this section discussed would be the simplest, most straightforward and obvious way to do that, it's not the only way. It could easily be done within this article, as I have suggested before. There is simply no good reason for this article to remain such a basket case of self-contradiction and logical incoherence. Lockean One (talk) 00:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Clarifying what Ayn Rand opposed
I can't believe that someone is trying to prevent my addition of "of that period" to avoid the commonplace misconception that that sentence would  leave with many readers. The current widespread form didn't not exist by that name at her time, and I've seen many readers already have this problem. The fact that many consider it a quandary that someone who condemned libertarianism is held in high esteem for their libertarian views is clear evidence that this clarification is useful. Both of the edit summaries by removers missed this point. The wording (via implication) informs on that. What do folks think about this clarification?  North8000  (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Adding "of that period" does seem odd, since many current libertarians hold the same views she opposed. Why not just clarify which views she opposed instead of saying she opposed libertarianism in general? She opposed anarchism and what she called the "anti-American" foreign policy of some libertarians, so why not just say that? Lockean One (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * If you follow the cited source, it looks like Rand was writing in the 1970s, not in the 40s or 50s. So she's not talking about some very early form of libertarianism. She's talking about the libertarianism of the 1970s. Which is not all that different from today's libertarianism. &mdash; goethean 21:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The problem is two-fold: 1) Rand was talking about contemporaneous libertarianism because that's the only one that existed at the time, and 2) no meaningful gap exists between the libertarianism of which she spoke and modern American libertarianism. To defer her criticisms to the libertarianism "of that period" suggests that she was not referring to the same ideology practiced today, which is original research.  Your edit did not resolve the problem that "many consider it a quandary that someone who condemned libertarianism is held in high esteem for their libertarian views."  To do that would require something like Lockean One proposed above: explaining which policies she disliked and why.  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

"To this day, the Ayn Rand Institue keeps the faith with Rand's libertarian-bashing, carrying on its Web site a page of excerpts from Rand's lectures in which she bad-mouthed libertarians. ... There's also a passage from 1973, in which she called the Libertarian Party a 'cheap attempt at publicity' that would not succeed, and said that libertarians were her 'enemies' and were 'plagiarizing my ideas.'"

- Weiss, Gary (2012). Ayn Rand Nation: The Hidden Struggle for America's Soul


 * I think that clarification, if you want to call it that, is speculative wishful thinking without a source. It's obvious that she was speaking about her contemporaries as she couldn't possibly re-evaluate the new right from the grave. If you can find a reference about Rand speaking more fondly of this ideological camp, instead of just denouncing them bitterly, a clarification might be a good idea. Finx (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I think a simple noting that it was about the libertarianism of the time, which infers / reminds the readers of that limitation, is simplest and best. It does not introduce any additional assertions.  North8000  (talk) 04:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It was unnecessary, and went beyond anything that any source could support. Goethean was right to remove it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, it very obviously does introduce unnecessary assertions. It insinuates that she would have approved of contemporary new-right/neoliberalism under the libertarian banner, which there is absolutely no basis for insinuating. It's like noting that McCarthy disliked the communism "of that period" - a totally ridiculous statement. She denounced libertarians and libertarianism with impressive disgust and said repeatedly that she wants nothing to do with them. If she added "of this time" at the end of one of her tirades, please provide a source. Finx (talk) 10:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that your first four sentence are good arguments. Not so with the last sentence which is pretty bogus. But your first 4 sentences convinced me to drop the idea.    North8000  (talk) 12:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, hello, hello! What a hornet's nest I seem to have stirred up. Yes, I was the one who started this, with my March 4 update replacing the word "libertarianism" with a link to Libertarian Party (United States).

This was what Rand specifically objected to, as the Gary Weiss quote above supports. She did not talk about libertarianism in the 50s or 60s; the first time anyone of my generation heard it was when the party was formed in 1972. That summer before the presidential election, she gave a speech at the Ford Hall Forum, "A Nation's Unity" which she also published in her newsletter, and touched on the candidacy of Sen. George McGovern. Her position was essentially that voters should "hold their noses" and vote for Richard Nixon, who while far from ideal from an Objectivist standpoint (we called her government model minarchism at that time), was far better than McGovern. The Q&A session at the end drew some audience comments about the LP, and she responded with her negative comments, including that the party was just a bunch of "publicity-seekers" who would only make it easier for the socialist McGovern to get elected. ( Fortunately, As it turned out, there was no danger of that.) Surely a transcript of this must exist.

And of course, she must have considered the LP's "big tent" inclusion of anarcho-capitalists and anarcho-communists objectionable (as did I). But there is no reason to believe she objected to classical, generic "libertarianism". We should go back and check the Ayn Rand Institute page cited for this sentence, to see if it gives any specific quotes of what she said that would support the word "libertarianism". Otherwise, I think we should replace my original update which substitutes the LP, which clearly defines specifically what she objected to. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree.  North8000  (talk) 12:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Why not just remove the "Objectivism" section? I don't know why it was put in, but see no reason not to remove it. The only aspects similar to libertarianism are already discussed in the article. Lockean One (talk) 04:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Suggested alternative to perceived equivocation and faulty grammar in lead.
The following statement is a clear case of misleading equivocation (and faulty grammar):


 * "While some libertarians accept laissez-faire capitalism and private property rights, such as in land and natural resources, others oppose capitalism and private ownership of the means of production, instead advocating their common or cooperative ownership and management (see libertarian socialism)."

How about replacing it with something like:


 * "The term libertarianism is also used by some to refer to Libertarian Socialism, which opposes capitalism, wage labor, and private production of goods and services, instead advocating common or cooperative ownership and management of all means of production (see Libertarian Socialism)."

Note that this would fix the equivocation problem (multiple meaning of "libertarianism") as well as the faulty grammar ("the" means of production), and other misleading aspects of the statement previously discussed. Lockean One (talk) 04:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It is not equivocation to say that libertarians may have different views. They are not homonyms as you imply.  You could say though the term is more commonly used in the U.S. to refer to free market libertarians only.  TFD (talk) 04:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is not equivocation merely to say that libertarians may have different views. But the statement above does far more than that. The specific (detailed) meanings of "libertarianism" used by classical liberals and socialists are in fact homonyms, since the meanings are mutually exclusive, not merely subsets of a single meaning. Lockean One (talk) 04:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * But they are. It is the same thing with other ideologies as well.  In France for example liberal normally means neoclassical economics while in the U.S. means Keynesianism, but both are types of liberalism.  TFD (talk) 04:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, the two meanings of the term "liberal" you refer to are widely recognized as effectively homonyms, and often disambiguated for that very reason. But I'm not going to go around in circles with nonsense. If you have no interest in legitimately discussing the proposed change, you should just say so. Lockean One (talk) 05:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

More disruption by user:Lockean One, who is unwilling to acknowledge that Libertarian Socialism is a substantial form of Libertarianism. There needs to come a point when he is no longer welcome to do this. --Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * [Postings deleted. TFD (talk) 10:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)]
 * Obviously, you didn't bother to read my suggested replacement for that statement. It would be helpful if you actually read what I wrote before misrepresenting my statements. I'll assume this is honest confusion on your part instead of deliberate lies. Regardless, your comments about me personally, instead of my proposed article edit, are as irrelevant as they are false. If you would like to delete your uncivil and nonconstructive post above, you can delete this one as well. Lockean One (talk) 10:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Lockean One, I don't think that libertarian socialism, as described in this article (the italics are there because I do not have expertise in it) is in direct conflict with libertarianism. I'm thinking that you are comparing to the common meaning of socialism, i.e. in actual socialist countries and the common meaning in the US, both of which entail or refer to an extremely large and powerful government.  North8000  (talk) 12:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, of course I'm not referring to actual socialist countries (Leninism, Maoism, etc), I'm referring to Libertarian Socialism, as described in this article, which is also (obviously to a lesser extent) in direct conflict with libertarianism, as the term is used by classical liberals (specifically freedom to privately produce and exchange goods and services). The fact that Libertarian Socialism and Leninism have something in common doesn't mean that I have them confused with each other or consider them equivalent (I don't). And it's not necessarily wrong to use the term "libertarianism" differently than classical liberals do, but it is wrong not to clarify that it's being used differently, especially within the same article that discusses classical liberalism. I see no good reason for this article to obscure rather than clarify that difference.


 * But more relevant here is your opinion on (or suggestions for improving) my proposed replacement statement above. I think it would fix all the problems with that statement that I previously pointed out (although I noticed that you already fixed one of them). Lockean One (talk) 13:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * There's a lot to discuss there. It probably would take me a while to make a cohesive response, but if you will forgive some miscellaneous thoughts/ ramblings, here goes:
 * Since no major form of libertarianism has capitalism as a tenet (they merely accept it), I'm happy to see that aspect reduced, but the problem there is in the body of the article, not in the lead.
 * The item that you are calling faulty grammar (the means of production) I see as usefully vague. Your change to "all means of production" made it more specific, but by doing so added an assertion ("all"); I wonder if that's universally true.
 * To me the old way was usefully general (others oppose), your change was to saying the Libertarian Socialists do that.   A logician would say just that you narrowed the statement to a special case (only Libertarian Socialist, and a statement of rejecting all of those things)  But by it's position and inferred wording, as it would be generally read, it reads like (new) statement that the only "libertarians" that reject those things are libertarian socialists.
 * I like your idea "term libertarianism is also used by some to refer to ''Libertarian Socialism" which acknowledges that such is arguable/argued.  But possibly the lead isn't the place for that.
 * Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that the lead is an awkward place for this, but there seems to be much opposition to removing that from the lead entirely. Hence my suggestion to modify it instead.
 * Even if the assertion ("all" means of production) is not universally true, it is true of the relevant groups (LibSocs) discussed in this article, according to the sources cited.
 * While it's true that I narrowed the statement to "only LibSocs", it's also true that that's the only general group discussed in this article that opposes those things, I think, since "LibSoc" itself is a general term referring to a range of groups. But the specific wording could be changed if others disagree.
 * I would say that the "used by some to refer to" is more to indicate a different use than an arguable use, since technically, there is nothing wrong with using any term to mean anything as long as the meaning is clarified.
 * Thanks for your thoughts, and please let me know what changes in wording you would suggest as an improvement or to address any of the above. Lockean One (talk) 00:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The dominant meaning of the world "libertarian" everywhere in the world all through history has been someone who wants to abolish capitalism. Currently, in the US that is not the case. It would make more sense to note the exception, i.e. "the term libertarianism is also used by some to refer to neoliberal capitalism" Finx (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The "dominant meaning" statement pretty much conflicts with every source.    Even amongst strands that want to abolish capitalism.  North8000  (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Not really, if you've done any research at all. Dejacque through Tucker and up to Woodcock, it's meant what it still means everywhere else in the world: anarchist, maybe lefty-Marxist - what the French call 'libertaire'. On from the 70s in the US (5% global population) it's meant Rand and Mises, with the notable exception that reds still use the label, and the back-again double-cognate 'libertarianisme'. Not sure what sources you're reading. Finx (talk) 13:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The meaning used in every major encyclopedia and media outlet on both sides of the pond should be treated as the exception? (Although it is used to mean classical liberalism, not "neoliberal capitalism" or any other economic system or activity). While the meaning used by a tiny fraction of people should be considered the dominant one? Well, at least you agree that the term has different meanings that shouldn't be confused with each other. Lockean One (talk) 23:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Nah, classical liberalism, even of the pre-capitalist sort, for all its market enthusiasm had incredibly strong anticapitalist currents - just see Smith, Jefferson, Humboldt. Even Locke basically argued people ought to be entitled to the fruits of their labor. The world was different and the assumptions were different, but it has precious little in common with the USLP libertarian brand if read through the reasons for those arguments. There's a ton of scholars and historians who say there's not much connection. I've been meaning to dig up the references. Finx (talk) 13:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You're not making any sense here. Of course Locke and classical liberals and the USLP believe that people are entitled to the fruits of their labor, that's the foundation of classical liberalism (and free market capitalism). It is socialists that disagree, and this very article says so explicitly. In the words of Dejacque, "it is not the product of his or her labor that the worker has a right to, but to the satisfaction of his or her needs, whatever may be their nature." How can you be so confused about this? Lockean One (talk) 14:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, Dejacque did say that, and the sentiment is shared by other communists. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists. The idea that workers ought to directly benefit from the fruits of their labor is incompatible with the wage labor system because what's being sold, rather than a product, is the labor itself. At least, that's the anticapitalist argument. You can also look at Smith's reflections on division on labor, what he called the vile maxim of the masters of mankind, etc. Finx (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Still incorrect, the "labor itself" isn't actually changing hands, the product of labor is. That's the whole point of an employment contract, that the product of labor will subsequently belong to the employer instead of the employee, in exchange for wages. And notice how you switched from "entitled to" to "benefit from not being entitled to", an obvious switch from classical liberal ideology to socialist ideology. But none of that changes the fact that the term "libertarianism" is overwhelmingly most often used to refer to classical liberalism, not socialism, and exclusively so by mainstream encyclopedias and media outlets on both sides of the pond. Lockean One (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I've lost track of how many times I've had to try and tactfully convey this to you, but if you take a gander at the header above, you'll notice that the title of the article is not "what Wikipedia user Lockean One believes" - so whatever your personal ideological preferences, they have no bearing on this article. I am describing classical liberals the way they have been described by reputable scholars. Was Adam Smith wrong to describe division of labor as a system that degrades people and turns them into worthless automatons? Was Thomas Jefferson mistaken when he denounced moneyed corporations and "natural" property rights? Did Wilhelm von Humboldt attack the wage labor system in error? Maybe, maybe not. Your personal evaluation of the strength of their arguments is irrelevant, so your soapboxing needs a different venue. May I suggest a debate club? Finx (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Seriously, dude, I was just responding to your sidetracking and soapboxing. Note that you are the one who keeps bringing up side issues instead of staying on topic. Lockean One (talk) 04:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, seriously "dude" - you were responding, for some reason, to my correcting your misunderstanding of what should and what should not be in an encyclopedic article. To be clear, your personal views on whether the brand of libertarianism you identify with falls under "classical liberalism" is filed under "should not" - because we are not editing an article about what you believe. Finx (talk) 04:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Purposely misrepresenting another editor, like you did above, is not civil discourse. Lockean One (talk) 10:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

To both Finx and Lockean One. IMO the only characteristics that can be considered to be "true" libertarianism are the tenets that are in common to all of the significant forms......somewhat along the lines of the first paragraph in the lead. And I do not support trying to characterize anything as the "true" or even "main" form. The choice of criteria for "main" provides directly opposite answers. Current prevalence (or even proponent head count over history) probably points to the ~60,000,00 US practitioners of the US "short form" 1 sentence definition libertarianism. (essentially prioritizing more freedom, and less government, and which is not the more complex USLP definition/platform). If you did a head count of philosophers / scholars over history, I think that you get the opposite result. And so (even though I think that Lockean's view is closer-to-accurate than Finx's) I oppose any efforts. debates to characterize and particular strands of libertarianism as the "true" or "main" type, so IMHO let's drop that debate and move on.


 * With all due respect, it matters very little what you consider to be "true" libertarianism. I haven't made it my goal to evaluate the true-ness of any brand. One thing has been called libertarian for well over a century, all over the world; another thing (in many respects its opposite) has been called libertarianism mainly in the US for several decades. It's pretty clear which one has more cultural and historical weight, to say nothing of its true-ness.


 * You keep throwing out that 60 million (or whatever it is) survey like it's gospel every time someone suggests you are making irrational assertions. Well, the fact that there's seven billion people on the planet aside, if you did a head-count of US residents who thought they should have a national healthcare system instead of a private one, you'd get about 65/70% of the population answering in the affirmative; there's dozens of polls spanning decades to back this up. Obviously, there is some overlap, and that's why you don't draw conclusions based on a single data point. Save us the armchair anthropology and please mind the sources. Finx (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Talk about sidetracking! North8000 was referring to U.S. libertarians, not 65/70% of the US population. Obviously the 60 million (or whatever it is) referred to are part of the 30/35% (or whatever it is) opposed to national healthcare. And we're referring to how the term "libertarianism" is most often used now, not who used it longer. Who used it longer is only relevant for discussing the history of the word use, which isn't the topic of this talk page section. Lockean One (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Finx, you have so many mistakes and false assertions in you post that it would take too long to go through. And you completely misread what I was talking about with the 60,000,000, even though it was stated.   So why don't you just quit with the bungled insults?  North8000  (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If I insulted you, I apologize. I was questioning your competence, not your intentions or your character. Finx (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! The 60 million and the def are from the Boaz source....his "20%" and related definition. Just rough for talk page conversation.   The definition is roughly the lib corner of the Nolan chart.   The main point here is that it is a common meaning, and very short....roughly matching the short list of common tenets of all strands,......not a longer list like the USLP platform, nor does it contain counterpoints to the longer lists of left lib philosophies or platforms. Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 01:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * (The following is bordering on soap-boxing, but I'd like to explain why I think reputable academic sources are needed, whenever possible.) IMHO, it matches all the common strands because, like the Nolan Chart, it's so crude, unscientific, vague and (intentionally or not) misleadingly worded as to be basically completely meaningless. To my knowledge at least, Nolan's chart is not an academic work and no one uses it in that capacity. I think it's obvious why at a glance. It was political creation, it was written by a politician and it has no academic pretenses. Nolan-the-politician, is not Nolan-working-on-his-MS-in-political-science-and-writing-a-groundbreaking-thesis. Just like an aspiring astrophysicist can write science fiction, people with a four-year degree in pol-sci can write political science fiction. This is as perfect an example as any. At best, if you have no prior knowledge of how Nolan's language is deployed and zero assumptions, you don't know what it says: does total economic liberty mean unfettered capitalist authority or civil-war-Catalonia-style anarcho-syndicalism? Who knows. They're polar opposites. The same applies to expressions like small government - on who's terms? At worst, the chart has two giant arrows pointing at its creator's desired conclusion. "Say, friend, do you like freedom?" It's about like surveying people with a questionnaire the tune of - "Do you agree with me or do you smell like farts? Please circle one." Recall that even the Third Reich and the USSR (through the worst years of Stalin's terrors) both adamantly proclaimed themselves to be free and even democratic. Nobody is going voluntarily say they hate freedom. In short, let's not reference garbage or extrapolate conclusions from garbage and project them on other garbage to achieve a garbage synthesis. If Nolan or his chart are included here, it should be for their influence and historic significance, if any. Finx (talk) 04:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * My thoughts on common threads match that of the sourced article, including the first paragraph. On the "freedom" quandary, the answer is simple and in the lead.....essentially that libertarians aren't just in favor of the common thread items, they priortize them. And I'm not promoting the Nolan chart as being an academic work....it's just a few words in a square.  In this case I was using it as a communication device to shorten a post.    It has resonated and become immensely prominent & notable and then guided much because it briefly explains the common form / meaning of libertarianism in the US in the context of the other common US political philosophy terms.   And a part of it's accuracy is it's brevity.  They agree with prioritizing freedom and reducing the power and scope of government.  NOT the big long list of tenets or large complete philosophy that others have or imagine US libertarians have (e.g. prioritizing non-interventionism as the USLP does, or having capitalism as a tenet as the left libertarians imagine they do)    North8000  (talk) 09:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Lockean One, while you have phrased the question of how to modify your proposal to be the replacement, there is also the open question of whether or not it is to be the replacement. Ii think that there are 3 main possibly-contested assertions/changes that are explicitly or implicitly within your proposal:  North8000  (talk) 14:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Significant libertarian strand(s) that reject "capitalism, wage labor, and private production of goods and services," generally all fall under "Libertarian Socialism".
 * 2) Dropping of the statement that some strands of libertarianism "accept laissez-faire capitalism and private property rights, such as in land and natural resources" from the lead.
 * 3) Changing "the means of production" to "all means of production".

I support #1 (just as an observation, not an opinion) and #2. I sort of oppose #3, as I think it changes it from a usefully-vague common term to  more explcit and farther reaching term which is probably not universally accurate. Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 14:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem with "the means of production" is that the word "the" is a definite article which cannot correctly be used to refer to something indefinite (vague). It must refer to something specific. The answer to "which particular one(s) are being referred to" must be specific and known. Socialists oppose the private ownership of any means of production, and the term "the" (definite) cannot be used to mean "any" (indefinite). And it also can't be used to mean "some" (also indefinite), so it's faulty grammar in either case. Lockean One (talk) 14:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I was just giving my opinion on those items in case it is useful. Grammatically, I think that it is OK if it is treating "means of production" as an item, even if the "an item" is wrong. Either way is OK with me.  North8000  (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand, and it would probably be more correct to say "certain" or "most" means of production, and/or a qualifier like "large scale", since there are at least some exceptions, depending on the source. But that's all the more reason not to use the definite article "the". The words "certain" or "most", unlike "the", are terms for vagueness. I'll try to come up with a better proposal for that statement over the next day or two when I have time. Lockean One (talk) 19:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oops, I just realized you were referring to my proposed statement, not the current statement. You're right, the ownership advocated by socialists is monolithic, or as a single unit, in which case the word "the" is OK. Lockean One (talk) 10:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "The means of production" is a widely-used phrase. We will not be changing its usage in the article to appease our local self-appointed expert. If you feel so strongly about it, go jawbone at Talk:Means of production. &mdash; goethean 22:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a widely-used piece of sub-standard semi-literate English, presumably the result of the repetition of propaganda from imperfect translations. Is it the policy of Wikipedia to mimic semi-literate phrases or to use standard English? And your irrelevant claim of ownership of this article is noted. Lockean One (talk) 04:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * See above, my objection to using the definite article "the" does not apply to the monolithic (as a unit) ownership advocated by socialists. It's only faulty grammar to use "the" to refer to private (not as a unit) ownership as in the current article. Lockean One (talk) 10:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia follows reliable sources, not the moronic, incessant trolling of someone who knows nothing of political theory, who adamantly refuses to cite a source, and claims that tens of thousands of scholarly papers use bad grammar. This conversation is absolute idiocy. &mdash; goethean 13:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Writers from Marx to Mises to Friedman used the term "means of production." While it may be sloppiness on their part, it is not our function to correct terminology that is universally accepted.  TFD (talk) 05:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the "sloppy" use of the definite article "the", not the phrase "means of production", but I'm sure you knew that. Lockean One (talk) 10:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Writers from Marx to Mises to Friedman used the term "the means of production." TFD (talk) 15:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "The means of production" is absolutely the correct way to use the term; and I am against making any changes to the current lead. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You should make that argument on the Article (grammar) talk page: "A definite article indicates that its noun is a particular one (or ones) identifiable to the listener. It may be something that the speaker has already mentioned, or it may be something uniquely specified. The definite article in English, for both singular and plural nouns, is the." Lockean One (talk) 10:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Lockean One, you may be right on this, (the "means of production" item) but with 1 for it (you) 1 neutral/slightly against  (me) and everybody else against, I don't think it's going to go anywhere.  North8000  (talk) 12:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Like I pointed out above, that's not really an issue with my proposed statement, and I struck through my previous comments. You were right that collectively owned means of production could be considered a single unit. And "the" could refer only to those particular ones owned collectively, not any that could or might be privately built otherwise. So "the" is grammatically fine for that case, even if vague. I wish I had read your comments about that more carefully to begin with. Lockean One (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

So how about this: ""The term libertarianism is also used by some to refer to Libertarian Socialism, which opposes capitalism, wage labor, and private production of goods and services, instead advocating common or cooperative ownership and management of the means of production (see Libertarian Socialism)." Lockean One (talk) 21:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * How about "Libertarianism includes Libertarian Socialism, which opposes capitalism, wage labor, and private ownership of the means of production, instead advocating common or cooperative ownership."
 * That would falsely imply that they share an ideology instead of just the term. Lockean One (talk) 08:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * They share libertarian ideology and in fact many writers are common to both traditions. TFD (talk) 13:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * LOL, being a classical liberal and a socialist simultaneously is logically impossible. A single writer might write about both, but he can't simultaneously be both. It is the label, not actual ideology, that they share. How difficult can it be to comprehend the difference between "same name" and "same thing"? Lockean One (talk) 21:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Lockean One, I'm assuming that you mean the common meaning of Socialism in the US, and in it's actual implementation countries, both of which mean/involve a large and powerful state. However, there can be a strand (e.g. libertarian socialism) which posits a situation where that socialist ideals can exist without that, and which is consistent with the short list of common tenets of libertarianism.  North8000  (talk) 00:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I was referring Libertarian Socialism. I would not use the general term "socialist" to refer to only some socialists but not others. Libertarian Socialism is not consistent with classical liberalism, and one can not logically be both simultaneously. Lockean One (talk) 10:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * On your first sentence, thanks for the clarification; I was taking a guess on what you meant. On your second sentence, I agree 100%, but that is simply saying the those conflict on certain things. The can still have some common tenets.  Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 14:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but those "certain things" that they conflict on are their major defining tenets. It's not like the reason someone can't simultaneously be both is due to the style of clothing each wears. Anyway, the relevant factor here is what the term "libertarianism" is used to mean by each, and that is not something they have in common. Lockean One (talk) 03:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Lead revert
The revert summary by North8000 says: "That last edit didn't just tweak the edit, it made fundamtal change else where to something unsourced and unsourcable.....undid that piece."

Please explain for clarity how this is a fundamental change. What particularly is controversial, reflecting something un-sourced and un-source-able?

I changed "many" to "some" because "many" is stilted language and not neutral in tone. There is no reference quantifying this type of "libertarian" and concluding "many" as if to imply far more than any other variety. "Advocate capitalism" is an obvious description of the USLP position, and is easily sourced, if there are not sufficient sources in the article. Finx (talk) 12:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Opposing political control over all production isn't the same thing as "advocating capitalism". As has been pointed out many times, capitalism is a consequence, not a tenet, of economic liberalism. Lockean One (talk) 13:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what "political control over all production" means. Your position is that the USLP and similar neoliberal currents do not advocate laissez faire capitalism or private ownership of the means of production? I'm trying to understand what I need to source. Finx (talk) 14:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Of course they don't advocate that, they merely oppose political control of economic activity. Advocating liberty isn't the same as advocating the particular actions of individuals with that liberty. And "political control over all production" is an actual tenet of socialism, isn't it? They just use it as an underlying assumption instead of explicitly stating it. Lockean One (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * No, that's not "a tenet of socialism" and it doesn't make any sense, actually. I'm not sure how private ownership of something is any more or less political than social ownership of something - but I also fail to see how it's relevant to what I asked. I will provide a source that neoliberal capitalism and the USLP brand of libertarianism are pro-capitalist, if that's what is required. Apologies, I didn't realize this was such a contentious claim. Finx (talk) 14:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Private ownership of something is non-political by definition, since the purpose is private, not political. And socialism is political control of production by definition. Are you really unaware of the meanings of the terms "private" and "political"? Also I said nothing of "neoliberal capitalism", but that by definition would actually be, not advocate, capitalism. The term "capitalism" refers to economic activity, not a political philosophy. Lockean One (talk) 14:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Again, you seem to be expressing your personal opinions on the topic, concerning what is apolitical and what isn't. I am not aware of any serious academic consensus stating that the capitalist system or mode of production is somehow apolitical. In fact, it came out of something called "political economy". If you want to debate this topic further and offer your own analysis, a blog or some kind of discussion forum would be more appropriate than Wikipedia.


 * I have added an additional source for the contested claim and reverted your changes, which clearly failed to get consensus above. Finx (talk) 15:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't want to debate anything, and I wasn't stating my personal opinion of anything. And you shouldn't need an academic consensus to know what the terms "private" and "political" mean. And capitalism didn't "come out of something called political economy", that makes no sense. Lockean One (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I suggest you take a quick glance at the articles on Adam Smith or David Ricardo and consider briefly why they were described as "political economists"; that said, please stop using the talk page for your personal soapbox or this will inevitably (once again) end up on the noticeboards. As far as I can tell, no one asked your personal views on the political nature of private ownership. You have been reminded time and again to stop flooding the comments with pet ideological disputes and it's becoming increasing more disruptive. Finx (talk) 15:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Complete nonsense. And your deliberate falsehoods are as irrelevant as they are uncivil. Lockean One (talk) 17:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Private ownership of something is non-political by definition, since the purpose is private, not political.
 * Comedy gold. &mdash; goethean 15:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It actually is pretty funny, the fact that I felt the need to actually state such a thing. Lockean One (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Did you miss the term "hence" in that source? It says exactly what we've been trying to tell you, that capitalism is a consequence, not a tenet, of Rothbardian libertarianism. The "right to unrestricted private property and free exchange" is the tenet, "a system of 'laissez faire capitalism" is the (accepted) consequence of respecting those rights. Lockean One (talk)
 * Do I need to explain what the term "verbatim" means, too? Lockean One (talk) 15:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Again, even if there was any distinction of tenet and consequence, it's a non-issue. That's like arguing that anarcho-syndicalists are not in favor of libertarian socialism/communism, they're merely in favor of a militant labor movement taking over their workplaces and deposing the owners of those of their private property rights, which just happens to lead to socialism/communism. Who cares? Rothbard excplicitly states that anarcho-capitalists (shockingly!) and his brand of libertarianism advocate laissez faire capitalism. Finx (talk) 15:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

To preemptively reply to one common objection, which has been raised before, to say that some people identifying as libertarian are (for lack of better words) neither for nor against capitalism, I would just like to state the obvious. Saying that some people identifying as such are pro-capitalist (obvious and easily sourced, which I have just done) and some are anticapitalist (equally trivial to prove), does not claim that, let's call it, 'third-positionist libertarianism' is conceptually impossible. If, for example, Georgists are not in favor of either position, that would just be yet another group of "some libertarians" - so I see no issue here except contrarianism. Finx (talk) 15:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Except that it's missing the point. Capitalism would exist in a "Georgist state" because it's permitted, not because it is advocated. Same for other classical liberalism strands. Capitalism, unlike socialism, doesn't need to be advocated, planned, or coordinated in order to exist. It only needs to be permitted. Your analysis is analogous to saying that some people advocate short pants while others oppose short pants, missing the point that in reality the former are actually advocating the freedom to wear short pants, and short pants are often worn as a consequence. It's not "short pants vs long pants", it's liberty vs restriction. The fact that some may actually advocate short pants is irrelevant to the point. Lockean One (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I will not be responding to any more of your posts if they veer off into irrelevancy. It is believed by libertarian socialists and mainstream/liberal figures in the social sciences and economics that private property requires coercive enforcement of private property, as through a state. And yet, that has nothing to do with this topic. I don't know how I can express any more clearly, that I just do not care or have time for what you personally believe liberty means. This article is not a diary for your personal ideological views. Finx (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Sure socialists believe private property requires state enforcement, but you are falsely attributing that belief to classical liberals when you say they advocate it rather than accept it. And please stop making false statements about me. Lockean One (talk) 00:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Fortunately, as I've said about a dozen times now, this article is not about you. Finx (talk) 04:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Why don't you say it a dozen more? I'm just so interested in reading your incessant derogatory and false comments about me. Whatever you do, don't focus on content. Focusing on content instead of insulting other editors is just square, man. Lockean One (talk) 05:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * And it's funny that you try to attribute the belief that private property requires a state to the very same libertarians you quote Rothbard (an anarchist) as your source for. Talk about comedy gold! Lockean One (talk) 17:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Back and forth on advocating vs. accepting capitalism
There has been recent aggressive editing to work towards changing "accepting" to "advocating". Looking at this, first, "advocate" is clearly a statement about tenets of strands of libertarianism, not just an observation like some people who are libertarians like kittens or prefer Toyota cars. That said, there is no sourcing for a strand "advocating" capitalism......that is not a plank in libertarian platform. If you have evidence and sourcing for that, produce it and then lets put it in. If not, quit trying to war it in, in direct conflict with not only warring rules but also wp:verifiability. "Accept" is informative, because that is the actual case, is sourced, and accurately provides info via the contrast with strands that reject capitalism.  North8000  (talk) 16:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * This is very simple and clear cut. See reference 13 which I just provided and the talk section above. Rothbard (co-founder of CATO, creator of 'anarcho-capitalism' and one of the chief ideological exponents of the libertarian right) published the following on this matter:


 * "The libertarian favors the right to unrestricted private property and free exchange; hence, a system of 'laissez faire capitalism'"


 * "Advocate" is clearly appropriate, your personal feelings notwithstanding. Do you have any further objections? Finx (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * "Advocate" is both obviously true and well-sourced. The only mystery here is why you are aggressively removing the word. &mdash; goethean 16:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Just to be thorough, here's more references, mostly from CATO-aligned think tanks and institutions waving the libertarian flag as high as possible. Please pick your favorite and I will include it in the article:










 * I see no use in further debating this other than to entertain your and Lockean One's contrarianism, so I think the matter is closed. If you continue reverting this, we need some kind of arbitration or outside opinion. The point is not ambiguous or at all unclear. Finx (talk) 17:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The real question is whether it is included in what the various strands advocate. I think that the 5 references that you gave not only do not support "advocate" but 4 infer the opposite.  .....Himmelstein by saying that defense of it is implied by a tenet, (if it was a tenet, it would not be just implied by a tenet), Boaz by saying that (for Rand) it is a consequence of a libertarian tenet (it it was a tenet, he would not be saying that it is consequence of a tenet).  Miller by saying that it is a derivation of a tenet (if it was a tenet he would not be saying that it is a derivation of a tenet), (in your Himmelstein quote) the subject is missing so I'm not sure what it is referring to.  And Rothbard by saying that it is inferred by or a consequence of libertarian tenets....if it was a tenet, it would not be just inferred by or a consequence of libertarian tenets.  North8000  (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * This is religious obscurantism, plain and simple. Finx (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You've been blowing AGF by two levels, not only failing to do that, but by inventing bad faith. Your supplying of those quotes was nice work on a substantive conversation, but then you broke bad by completely ignoring the arguments made and instead going to name calling. My only goal is to have it accurate.  Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 19:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The sources back up the proposed wording more than sufficiently. North8000's objections are unpersuasive, as is his faux outrage. &mdash; goethean 19:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You offered no arguments. You offered to stomp your feet and demand deference, as usual. You've been camping on this article for years, and I've yet to see anything remotely resembling a contribution. My assumption of good faith had runneth dry. I don't think it matters much if you're that cynical and insincere or that utterly incompetent. Stop jamming up the works with total rubbish objections just to be the contrarian and do something an editor does, like research and reading references. Finx (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * If you want that change retained in there, please provide a source showing that advocating capitalism is a tenet of at least some strand of libertarianism. Not a consequence of, derivation from, result of a tenet, but an actual tenet.  North8000  (talk) 20:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Five reference provided above and obscurantist/contrarian "argument" (as you call it) debunked in the comment section made for you above, which you apparently elected not to read, like a lot of other things. Finx (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * See previous comment, which you ignored. If want that assertion in there, provide a source that directly supports the assertion, not something that takes creative reinterpretation to arrive at the assertion.  North8000  (talk) 21:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I ignored it because it was asinine and contradicted by every secondary and primary source available - all of which say the new right libertarians are proponents of neoliberal capitalism. The fanciful interpretations and magical leaps of mental gymnastics are your own. This article is not your religious shrine. If you can't check the cultist dogma of personal politics at the door, you should find another article which you can approach objectively. Nobody cares, in the slightest if the capitalist advocacy of "anarcho-capitalist" libertarians is a matter of "tenets" or (according to neoliberal dogma) the logical consequence of tenets when all sources explicitly say they advocate capitalism. They advocate unimpeded private property and capitalism. The end. Finx (talk) 21:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Quit the crap with the personal attacks, insults, and bogus accusations (e.g. that I consider the article to be my "religious shrine", "cultist dogma"). If you can't act in a civilized  fashion, you should leave. And my comment was that if you want that assertion in there, you must provide source that directly supports it.  Which part of that was "asinine"?    North8000  (talk) 01:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have never once insulted you personally. I don't know you and your character is not the issue here. I have been consistently patient and considerate toward you; I've extended every courtesy and always given you the benefit of the doubt. We are supposed assume good faith until there is enough evidence to the contrary. So, this is a direct indictment of your ability to contribute to this article, which you have decided to perch yourself atop of several years ago only for the purpose of hammering the party line. All of your efforts are focused on distortion and apologia, whether foot-stomping to demand the removal of socialist history, ban the use of "right libertarian" or insisting anarcho-capitalists are not proponents of capitalism, when every source in the universe says they are. Whether out of blinding religious conviction, malice or spectacular incompetence, your participation here has been detrimental to progress on this page and if you have no regard for the most basic level of intellectual integrity you should leave and let the editors here get on with their work - which, by every indication so far, you have no intention of contributing to. Finx (talk) 02:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Goethean, your claim of OR in the edit summary was false. The content was well sourced, unlike your OR:synthesis version. Lockean One (talk) 01:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't taken part in the edit warring here, but I've followed events. I think Lockean One's edits have been awful and have also been made in a disruptive way; Goethean and other editors have obviously been right to revert him. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Possible solution for lead
While it is certainly true that some libertarians do "advocate capitalism", it is the context that makes the statement as a whole misleading by implying that advocating capitalism defines classical liberal ideology in the same way that opposing capitalism defines socialist ideology. The structure of that sentence "While some X, others Y" is problematic for several reasons: it presents a false dichotomy (that X and Y are the relevant alternatives), it falsely implies that capitalism itself is a political philosophy or system of government, and other reasons discussed previously. If it's that important to reflect some sources that say "some X" and other sources that say "others Y", at the very least the article should avoid synthesizing those sources to create a misleading combined statement (synthesis).

So my suggestion is to eliminate the "While some X, others Y" structure, without necessarily eliminating content. A separate sentence somewhere that says "BTW, some libertarians advocate capitalism" wouldn't be misleading even if it is superfluous. Lockean One (talk) 08:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I think that your analysis is accurate, with the caveat that you are taking for granted and not clarifying that you are basing it on reading "some libertarians do "advocate capitalism"" literally.  I.E.  that that it is saying that some people who are libertarians advocate capitalism,  it is not saying that advocating capitalism is a tenet of their strand of libertarianism.  I think that you have "logician"  in your list of skills and understand the difference.  North8000  (talk) 11:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The only issue here is User:Lockean One's continuing failure to understand that his ideology is an ideology. He thinks that his ideology (right-libertarianism) is the natural order of things. This is a common misunderstanding among undergraduate students who haven't taken philosophy 101 yet. &mdash; goethean 12:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Please be civil and stop making false statements about me. Your incessant falsehoods and personal attacks are disruptive and violate several Wikipedia policies. If you choose to delete your comments above, you may delete this post as well. Lockean One (talk) 21:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, I can't imagine any other reason why you would spend months vandalizing this article and trolling the talk page attempting to delete coverage of left-libertarianism. &mdash; goethean 00:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Please be civil and stop making false statements about me. Your incessant falsehoods and personal attacks are disruptive and violate several Wikipedia policies. If you choose to delete your comments above, you may delete this post as well. Lockean One (talk) 08:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Goethean, why don't you engage on the specifics instead of mis-fire insults and misreads of what Lockean said.  They discussed a reasonable proposal to resolve the issue and rational reasons for it and you baselessly come up with "his ideology is an ideology" out of that.   Then you claim that their editing is "vandalizing" and their talk page discussion are "trolling".  You have crossed far over the line.  North8000  (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Two reasons. One, Lockean One is a vandal and a troll. Those are not serious edits. They are vandalism. They violate WP:POINT. If we had administrators who were worth their salt, we wouldn't have to deal with his idiotic antics any more. Two, no change to the lead is needed. Lockean One has been advocating to remove the coverage of left-lib. He has presented no sources, except for the stunning perfection of his own intuitions. The presentation in this article follows the best sources. Left libertarianism is a type of libertarianism. It's a fact, and all the whining and crying in the world won't change it. Lockean One has done nothing but troll this page with nonsense for months, and you have done nothing but enable him. No change is needed, and no change is going to happen. &mdash; goethean 12:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Please be civil and stop making false statements about me. Your incessant falsehoods and personal attacks are disruptive and violate several Wikipedia policies. If you choose to delete your comments above, you may delete this post as well. Lockean One (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Left libertarianism is going to stay, period. The one in question a few weeks back was libertarian socialism.  Not sure where that should end up, but there is no current impetus for removal.
 * There have been a lot of different versions in on that most-edited lead sentence, but the one that is in there at the moment includes a potential change from the long-standing version.  North8000  (talk) 13:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As usual, your willful opacity makes communication impossible. &mdash; goethean 14:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, you are referring to your continuing denial of the well-established and well-sourced fact that right-libertarians advocate for the capitalist system. Not too much to be done about that. Many, many, high-quality sources were cited by User:Finx to support the term advocate; in response you offered nothing but rhetoric. &mdash; goethean 14:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Or maybe you're talking about something else! Who knows? &mdash; goethean 14:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Please be civil and stop making false statements about other editors. Your incessant falsehoods and personal attacks are disruptive and violate several Wikipedia policies. If you choose to delete your comments above, you may delete this post as well. Lockean One (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll stop pointing out your deep-seated behavioral problems when you start contributing constructively to the Wikipedia project. That means citing sources for your proposed changes to the article rather than blanking large section of well-sourced material. When you blank large sections of well-sourced material, I will call this vandalism, because it is vandalism. &mdash; goethean 16:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Again, please be civil and stop making false statements about me. Your incessant falsehoods and personal attacks are disruptive and violate several Wikipedia policies. If you choose to delete your comments above, you may delete this post as well. Lockean One (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Here &mdash; again &mdash; are the diffs which back up my statements. &mdash; goethean 17:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Again, please be civil and stop making false statements about me. Your incessant falsehoods and personal attacks are disruptive and violate several Wikipedia policies. If you choose to delete your comments above, you may delete this post as well. Lockean One (talk) 18:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

It looks like Goethean is just going to continue insulting instead of discussing. Maybe the others can make sore serious civil efforts. Much of the back-and forth has involved one particular sentence, there have been many different potential new versions of it. I'll try to list them.  North8000  (talk) 17:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * 1) Long-time and last stable version: While some libertarians accept laissez-faire capitalism and private property rights, such as in land and natural resources, others oppose capitalism and private ownership of the means of production, instead advocating their common or cooperative ownership and management
 * 2) Another recent version (Circa March 19th): The term libertarianism is also used by some to refer to Libertarian Socialism, which opposes capitalism, wage labor, and private production of goods and services, in favor of common or cooperative ownership and management of the means of production (see Libertarian Socialism).
 * 3) Another recent version (circa March 19th): While some libertarians advocate laissez-faire capitalism and private property rights, such as in land and natural resources, others wish to abolish capitalism and private ownership of the means of production in favor of common or cooperative ownership and management (see libertarian socialism).


 * # 2 is the result of LockeanOne's obsession with painting socialism as a big government ideology. It has no sources or support.


 * # 3 is the current version. As I just said, User:Finx has provided plenty of sources for the term "advocate". In response, you edit-warred, you provided no sources, and your arguments, if one can call them that, were half-hearted and persuaded no one.


 * In reality, of course, the idea that right-libertarians advocate for capitalism is completely uncontroversial. But in wiki-reality, it is held up as one of three possible options, and edit-warred over fiercely. Why? Just because you don't like it? &mdash; goethean 18:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, please be civil and stop making false statements about other editors. Your incessant falsehoods and personal attacks are disruptive and violate several Wikipedia policies. If you choose to delete your comments above, you may delete this post as well. Lockean One (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Another problem with the current version is that Rothbard is not only (slightly) misrepresented by omitting the "hence, a system of 'laissez faire capitalism'", he also was not using the term "libertarian" the same (equivocating) way that sentence uses it. Another possible solution might be to use the Rothbard quote ("The libertarian favors the right to unrestricted private property and free exchange; hence, a system of 'laissez faire capitalism'"), somewhat as written instead of misconstrued (ie, capitalism as a consequence, as believed by Rothbard and others), if it's considered that important to include it. And the second version you list above as a separate sentence. Lockean One (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That might be a good solution. Of the 5 sources given by Finx, this is the one that sounds the closest to their /the "advocate" assertion....using something closer to or quoted from what the source said (instead of the disputed wiki-editor-created wording) might be a good solution.  North8000  (talk) 19:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, if there is interest in including what Rothbard actually said in that quote. But it's really the "While some X, others Y" structure that is the most misleading and problematic, I think whether that Rothbard quote is (accurately) used or not is more of a personal preference issue than a Wikipedia policy issue. Lockean One (talk) 21:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * On your second sentence, the valid underpinnings of it are that some strands reject capitalism and some (simply) don't.  Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 23:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Origin of the term "libertarian" (in modern usage).
I tried to add some relevant, factual information to this article, but now see that it is protected. I strongly believe this article should give credit to Dean Russell, for suggesting modern usage of the term "libertarian" and also for his influence upon John Hopsers, who in turn had enormous influence upon both the party and the movement of that name. I'd like to compose (brief) text to do so, but don't know how make edits to this "protected" page.

In 1955, Dean Russell wrote a short essay entitled "Who is a Libertarian" (published in "The Freeman"), in which he proposed the term "libertarian" to describe a specific set of views (see excerpt, below). Some time thereafter, the publisher (FEE) issued a small pamphlet with that title and the text of the essay. Here is a URL for the article:


 * Link: Who is a Libertarian

During the early 1960s, Prof. John Hospers often advocated use of the word "libertarian" and distributed copies of this pamphlet at Brooklyn College (where he was faculty advisor for "Students of Objectivism") and elsewhere. (I still have a few of the pamphlets that he handed me!) Below, I have inserted the opening paragraph of Dean Russell's short essay, and also the beginning of the postscript which appeared on the back of the FEE pamphlet.

Hospers also crafted a simple statement of ethical principles (i.e. the "non-agression" or "non-initiaton of force", which later became the LP "pledge") and suggested the term "libertarian" to describe anyone subscribing to such principles -- regardless of whether or not they agreed with Objectivist metaphysics and epistemology. Tripodics (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Opening paragraph of the 1955 essay:
 * Those of us who favor individual freedom with personal responsibility have been unable to agree upon a generally acceptable name for ourselves and our philosophy of liberty. This would be relatively unimportant except for the fact that the opposition will call us by some name, even though we might not desire to be identified by any name at all. Since this is so, we might better select a name with some logic instead of permitting the opposition to saddle us with an epithet.

Text from back of FEE pamphlet:
 * The beliefs which identify a libertarian - as defined by Dean Russell - are not in vogue today. And in their absence grow and thrive the opposite beliefs - label them interventionism, socialism, communism, Fabianism, nazism, fascism, the planned economy, the Welfare State, or whatever.  ...

--Tripodics (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC) (I have obtained permission from FEE to quote this essay, either in full or via excerpts in context.)


 * We would need some coverage of the incident by a secondary source, indicating the incident's importance. &mdash; goethean 16:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * That's a pretty interesting bit of history, though. Page is protected for a week, but could you make your edits in a sandbox? I'll try to find some secondary sources on this. Also, your first link above is seems to be broken. Finx (talk) 16:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The funny thing is that Russell proposed using the (already existing and accurate) term "libertarian" instead of "liberal" because the word "liberal" was corruptly being used by leftists to "identify themselves and their program of more government ownership of property and more controls over persons", and continuing to use the term "liberal" was at best "awkward and subject to misunderstanding." Sound familiar? Lockean One (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You need a secondary source to establish the significance of the article. TFD (talk) 17:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I don't. Did you intent to reply to someone else? Lockean One (talk) 00:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * See Help:Using talk pages. I was replying to the initial posting.  When you post a comment without indenting, as you just did, you are not replying to anyone.  TFD (talk) 01:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I remind user Lockean One that there were people like Sebastien Faure and Joseph Dejacque in the 19th century naming newspapers "Le Libertarie" and that now there are spanish language periodicals named "El Libertario". We are not writing here the "United States wikipedia" but the english language wikipedia. His discussion here is relevant so as to establish the origins of contemporary US usage of the word "libertarian" for right wing pro laissez faire capitalism views but clearly not "for suggesting modern usage of the term "libertarian"".--Eduen (talk) 19:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Eduen, what are your thoughts on the previous question?  Would you consider libertarian socialism to be a form of libertarianism?  North8000  (talk) 20:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The english language major general work on the history of anarchism by the canadian George Woodcock shows the intimate relationship that libertarian socialism has with the word "libertarian". His book from 1962 is called Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements. No pro-capitalist movement is included in that book unless as a political enemy of anarchism. All the political movements there discussed are anti-capitalist. Another more recent work in the english language is [ http://www.amazon.com/Anarchism-Volume-Three-Documentary-Libertarian/dp/1551643367/ref=pd_sim_b_3?ie=UTF8&refRID=178HH875Y6A1F0VKFJJT Anarchism Volume Three: The New Anarchism (1974-2008) (Anarchism: A Documentary History of Libertarian Ideas)] by Robert Graham. I don´t think anything can be more "libertarian" than anarchism-libertarian socialism as far as representing the usage of the word "libertarian" in a worldwide scale. This is why this article has to pay special attention to the US centered use of the word "libertarian" for right wing laissez faire capitalist economics.--Eduen (talk) 23:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * In the U.S., the term "libertarianism" is generally used the same way it is used by mainstream English language media outlets and encyclopedias on both sides of the pond, ie to mean classical liberalism. The "libertarianism" article in Encyclopedia Britannica, for example, defines libertarianism as essentially classical liberalism, as do other major encyclopedias. It's not just the common or normal meaning used by those mainstream sources, it's the exclusive one. And they define libertarianism in a way that logically excludes socialism. Of course the term libertarian has been and is still used by some socialists to describe themselves, but there is no indication in any reliable sources cited in this article that the term has ever been used to any significant extent by non-socialists to refer to socialism. It's a minor alternate meaning at best.


 * And I'm not trying to be rude, but lecturing about this being "English language Wikipedia" instead of "U.S. Wikipedia" because I recognize the "common" meaning of a term to be the same as that used by Encyclopedia Britannica is pretty bizarre. So is assuming that I was ignorant of the historical use of the term libertarian by some socialists to refer to themselves, when this very article takes up a inexplicably huge amount of space just to give examples of it. Lockean One (talk) 12:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Full compilation of sources unambiguously stating that libertarians (in contemporary mainstream American parlance) advocate laissez faire capitalism


































































To and : your insistence on good faith and consideration of your beliefs leads me to believe this is a matter of a basically unimaginable level of editorial incompetence, especially for someone who's been "editing" this particular page for a number of years, so here is a helpful article I've found, called "Internet Research for Beginners: How to Properly Research Facts/Opinions Online". Assuming your intentions are pure, please take some time to read it thoroughly and try a bit of independent research before wasting any more of anyone's time.

I propose adding this to the FAQ above, so that this talk page can function as something other than a blog comment section. Finx (talk) 02:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * If you read the first sentence of the last section, which starts with me saying "While it is certainly true that some libertarians do "advocate capitalism....", hopefully you will agree that nobody is disputing that point, in and of itself. The issue is that it's misleading to portray the difference between classical liberals and socialists as being no more profound than whether they like capitalism. As you yourself have pointed out (I think, correct me if I'm wrong), the difference between those two ideologies is far more profound than that.


 * And as I pointed out in that last section, I don't object to that Rothbard quote being used in the article (and neither does North8000 AFAIK). It's the structure of that particular sentence and its being a misleading synthesis of multiple sources that's the issue. Would you object to Rothbard's quote being used for a separate sentence instead? Lockean One (talk) 04:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * "correct me if I'm wrong" - okay: you're wrong; neoliberal libertarians eagerly advocate capitalism; libertarian socialists want to abolish capitalism; very simple, no bloviation required


 * and yes, I would object strongly to anything that distorts the plain verifiable truth, which is "some libertarians advocate laissez-faire capitalism" Finx (talk) 04:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, maybe I was wrong about that. I thought I remembered you acknowledging that it wasn't that simple, something about "self-ownership", but perhaps that was someone else. My bad. Regardless, it's certainly not that simple. The difference in ideologies is far more profound than that, and involves self-ownership and Locke's theory of property, and is described quite well in some of the sources (without even mentioning capitalism). In addition, capitalism as described by classical liberals is very different from capitalism as described by socialists, so it's still misleading to synthesize those different sources into a single sentence that way.


 * OK, but you're objecting strongly to something that nobody is proposing. My question was whether you would object to that being in a separate sentence instead of combined as a synthesis of radically different sources. Lockean One (talk) 06:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * No, "synthesize" in WP policy does not mean "state directly what every source says precisely or verbatim." Yes, I would object to creative writing and bloviation in place of directly stating a straightforward, verifiable fact. This is not the article for classical liberalism; the article for classical liberalism is over this way. Your musings about socialism belong in a blog's comment section, not here. Please stay on topic, and also you're still misusing indentation. Learn to indent properly, like you were told above and save everyone some time. Better yet, refrain from posting if you have nothing to contribute. Finx (talk) 06:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you can see that that sentence does not "state directly what every source says precisely or verbatim". And I never said WP synthesis meant that. It means "combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". The conclusions implied by that combined statement (by using the "while some...others..." structure) are that classical liberals advocate capitalism in the same ideological sense that socialists oppose it, that their notions of what capitalism consists of are the same, and that the term "libertarian" itself has the same meaning in each case. Those implications are not "explicitly stated" by the sources used, and contradict many of the sources.


 * As far as your "advice": while I'm sure it's a completely altruistic gesture on your part intended to aid me in my effectiveness in convincing others to agree with me, I think I'll pass on it nevertheless. Lockean One (talk) 08:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that a part of the problem is the difference between what the phrase says literally, and it's meaning in that context. What it says literally is that some people who are libertarians advocate capitalism. Of course this is true, just as some libertarians like apple pie. But a meaning in that context is that it is, to a significant, a tenet of some some strnads of libertarianism. I think that this is neither established or correct. I think that it can be solved but a much cleaner, correct, sourcable sentence which also conveys the original intent:   "Some forms of libertarianism reject capitalism, others don't." North8000  (talk) 03:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I think part of the problem is that you believe this page ought to placate your religious convictions instead of saying what all the sources say. Finx (talk) 06:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Another false implication of that sentence is that classical liberals oppose socialism in and of itself, as a mode of production, instead of merely opposing an agenda to abolish capitalism. Worker owned and managed cooperatives are not politically opposed by classical liberals according to any of the sources, and many of them currently exist in the U.S. In fact, the tenets of classical liberalism, as described in all the sources, clearly support the freedom of such enterprises to operate. Perhaps something like "advocate a laissez-faire economy" might be appropriate, since it would correctly include non-capitalist enterprises as well. Lockean One (talk) 12:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Make it a dab page?
The ongoing never-ending controversies indicates something is fundamentally very wrong here. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The concept of an umbrella general "libertarianism" is rarely used in reliable sources. Instead, the term is almost always used in reliable sources to refer to one or another specific type of libertarianism. Yes, there are obscure academic references that try to look at "libertarianism" from 40,000 feet or whatever, but most everyday references in newspapers, magazines, and even most academic books are referring to one or another specific kind of libertarianism. Attempting to describe the topic in general terms when everyone who comes here has a specific topic in mind is why it's so controversial, and why this article has got to be one of the worst and most useless on Wikipedia. So, I'm still convinced that the best content at Libertarianism is the dab page. Personally, I would delete this article, but if there is consensus to keep it I would move it to something like Libertarian philosophies. --B2C 00:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no controversy. Two users don't like what the three dozen sources say and want them to say something different. There is no issue to resolve. Finx (talk) 01:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe if you repeat that enough times someone who doesn't bother to compare it to the text that you are claiming it supports will believe you even though your claim about the references is false. Unless you mean it in its literal pointless ambiguity, I.E. that some people who are libertarians advocate capitalism, which of course, is true, even if it is not a tenent of their form of libertarianism.   North8000  (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Seeing as how the statement has nothing to do with what's a tenet and what's a consequence of tenets, as I've already said, nobody cares and we don't have to consider it. As stupendously asinine as the brand of sophistry you've chosen is, for everyone who isn't employed in professional apologia (considering one could squabble the exact same way about the Third Reich's advocacy of racial purity -- i.e. "nuh-uh, eugenics is a consequence of nativism, not a tenet!!"), we simply don't have to consider it or entertain it and you can stop the soapboxing at your convenience. It's a very simple issue, entirely obvious to anyone disinterested in the subject. You insisted a statement was "unsourced and unsourceable"; I provided 30+ sources proving you wrong. If you want to resolve your objections on the ANI page, we can do that. Finx (talk) 02:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If it was ANI, it would be about your behavior towards editors, not the topic of debate.  North8000  (talk) 02:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I am available to discuss my behavior towards editors whenever you'd like to do so and we can address the matter at your earliest convenience. Please post a noticeboard report on what you perceive as my misbehavior and let me know. I'm prepared to back up everything I've said and explain why I think a topic ban would be the most appropriate course of action, for both you and Lockean One. Finx (talk) 02:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no controversy? 37 pages of talk page archives.  The article is currently locked from being edited.  If there is no controversy here, there is no controversy anywhere.  --B2C 06:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize "controversy" was measured in talk archive pages. I suppose the Sarah Palin article is also pretty controversial with 65 talk pages, along with the Lady Gaga article and its 18 and the Grand Theft Auto IV article, with its 15. Maybe we should turn them into disambiguation pages? The article is currently locked because user Lockean One, who had been the star of several ANI complaints and previously already administratively blocked from editing this article, decided to spam content removal, yet again. There's literally just a couple disruptive editors. Ban them from editing and this will become regular, boring article people try to research and improve. There is nothing unusual or undefinable about this political camp, except for the fact that some obstructionist people who can't put aside their zealous politics refuse to let it have any definable features. What is the point you're trying to make? Nothing you've mentioned has been a case for deletion. Finx (talk) 07:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Please be civil and stop making false statements about other editors. Your incessant falsehoods and personal attacks are disruptive and violate several Wikipedia policies. If you choose to delete your comments above, you may delete this post as well. Lockean One (talk) 13:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * There is no controversy in reliable sources. There are just some editors who have decided to call themselves libertarians and never bother to read Rothbard. Hess, or Nolan, or the history of the Libertarian Party or libertarianism in the U.S.  It would be the same as if editors called themselves Communists but had never heard of Marx or Lenin.  My suggestion is that before editors argue about libertarianism they spend a few minutes reading about the subject.  TFD (talk) 06:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Please be civil and stop making false statements about other editors. Your incessant falsehoods and personal attacks are disruptive and violate several Wikipedia policies. If you choose to delete your comments above, you may delete this post as well. Lockean One (talk) 13:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I propose that we have honest and civil discussions about article content instead of having them constantly disrupted and derailed with personal attacks, falsehoods, misguided and rude lecturing, etc. How about that for a topic ban, since it's already Wikipedia policy? Lockean One (talk) 13:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's dissect and untangle it and move forward
I think that a first step in working on a sentence is that the wording should refer to forms or strands of libertarianism, not people. While I think that the sentence was originally intended to imply that, that is not what it literally says, and I believe that that ambiguity has allowed the process to become much more protracted. Second, we should unbundle "capitalism" and "property rights" (except those endemic to capitalism) Next, there has not been a dispute about the statement on property rights  (of the type not endemic to capitalism); let's presume that there will be a sentence on such. So then it comes down to a statement about capitalism or the converse of capitalism. Now within that, I think that there has been strong but non-unanimous support of the statement about forms of libertarianism that reject capitalism. And so I think that a sentence that puts that into words is:
 * Some forms of libertarianism oppose capitalism and private ownership of the means of production in favor of common or cooperative ownership and management.

Leaving the core of the question any possible addition to that sentence regarding forms of libertarianism that do not oppose capitalism.  North8000  (talk) 11:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Umm... capitalism is private property. It would be nice if you learned something about politic philosophy.  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course capitalism involves private property, but they are not synonyms. More specifically, (and germane to this discussion) there are private property tenets unrelated to capitalism, and capitalism covers more than private property.  North8000  (talk) 16:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Utter nonsense. Please feel free to support anything you've said with reliable sources.  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I am talking about your unsourced assertion that capitalism is private property.  North8000  (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't realize a dictionary was forever out of your reach.
 * capitalism (n):
 * 1. An economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. (Oxford English Dictionary)
 * 2. An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development occurs through the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market. (American Heritage Dictionary) -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * How you feel about factual, verifiable, sourced and appropriate statements is irrelevant. If you remove them from the article because you don't like them, your changes will be reverted. Finx (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Finx, you statement/insult has a false implied premise.   MisterDub, those definitions support the first part of my statement (capitalism involves private property) but not your assertion essentially that "private property" and "capitalism" are synonyms.  North8000  (talk) 22:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The definitions provided above by  define capitalism in terms of private property; they don't equate the two concepts, as he did in the statement, "capitalism is private property".  --B2C 00:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If you have private property, your means of production are controlled privately for profit; you cannot have private property in a socialist society. Conversely, if the individuals of a society are usufructuaries (i.e. private property is not protected), the means of production are operated by the workers.  The presence of private property is not just a feature of capitalism, it is the defining feature.  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, we don't have to deal with that particular branch of idle contrarianism since 32 out of the 32 references above used the word capitalism. Like I said, edit to proselytize and it will be reverted. Finx (talk) 01:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Also agree that "private property" isn't "capitalism", but would add that this is clearly not a legitimate dispute. How can one miss the word "profit" in those definitions of capitalism? Non-profit enterprises are common, own private property, and their property rights are supported by classical liberals in the exact same way as those used for profit (capitalism). Classical liberals support private property rights generally, regardless of how the property is used.


 * Other than that, again, the article should clearly say that the term itself is being used differently compared to the rest of the article. I think it's clear from all the sources Finx posted above that it is the term itself being used differently, not just discussing different "strands". Note how none of those sources are referring to "some libertarians", they are each referring to libertarians in general, as the term is being used by them. Even Chomsky's quote makes that clear (even if he thinks it's odd or "special" to associate the term liberty with being "unbridled". Silly Americans!). Lockean One (talk) 02:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * In academic consensus, capitalism refers to private ownership of the means of production for the purpose of capital accumulation. There are no homonyms. Libertarian refers to pro-capitalists or (traditionally) the anti-state branch of the socialist/anticapitalist movement. It's obvious why someone would simply say "libertarian" once the subject has been established, the same way that anarchist sources, old and new, will refer to "libertarians" and "libertarianism" without qualifiers, except to distinguish from state socialism and authoritarian communist ideologies. Finx (talk) 02:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)