Talk:Libertarianism/Archive 40

minority viewpoint, obscure sources
Although some present-day libertarians advocate laissez-faire capitalism and strong private property rights is the text supported by the source? The passage given does not mention such. the use of weasel word "some" incorrectly imply a minority viewpoint. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedia of Capitalism, Hussain, Syed B.


 * It seems that the whole point of that phrase is to provide a misleading contrast, in order to avoid properly contrasting "cooperative management" (democratic political control) of all means of production with "individual autonomy, freedom of association, and the primacy of individual judgement." It's also misleading in the sense that it implies that economic liberals oppose worker owned means of production, instead of just opposing prohibitions on alternatives. It implicitly uses the socialist assumption that "the means of production" is somehow bizarrely singular, ie that socialist production and private production cannot exist simultaneously, so a choice must be made between them. The article falsely projects that assumption onto economic liberals, as if the difference between them and socialists consists of making that choice differently, instead of whether such a choice is made at all.


 * This whole article seems to be based on a fundamental miscomprehension of economic liberalism throughout, as if the two things it's describing are socialism and "economic liberalism as misunderstood by socialists". And it does so by synthesizing bits and pieces from sources that don't themselves describe economic liberalism the same way as a whole.


 * This has all been discussed repeatedly in the archives, but it's clear that this article (and related ones) will never be reformed as long as the current group of editors controlling it are doing so. The only results are off-point lecturing and "what elephant?" I predict just more of the same here. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Blue Eyes Cryin, I'd like to know what parts of the article give you the impression that economic liberals oppose workers' cooperatives, or that the means of production is, and can only be, singular; I don't see that as the case. — MisterDub (talk &#124; contribs) 15:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I was obviously referring to the same sentence as Darkstar1st, but I didn't say that it gave me that impression, I said that it implied that (not the same thing), as has been discussed in the archives already. But if I could ask you for a straight answer to a couple of questions: Is the word "the" in front of "means of production" in that sentence intended to mean "all"? And if so, why is the word "the" used instead of "all" in light of the fact that the sentence is in WP's voice (not in quotes)? Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 18:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think "the means of production" means "all means of production", unless I'm misunderstanding the context. An usufructuary who prefers individualist modes of production can have access to the means of production in a manner similar to that of private property (except for ground rent charged by absentee owners and the capture of surplus value by capitalists).  One can also have access to the means of production through social modes of production, and these two modes of production can coexist, at least according to some (e.g. anarchists without adjectives).  — MisterDub (talk &#124; contribs) 18:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The context of my question was obviously "seek to abolish capitalism and private ownership of the means of production..." in which it's implicit by the term "abolish" that "all" are being referred to. So my first question isn't really a question, only my second one is: Why not say "all"? Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 00:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It would be quite reasonable, based on the facts presented, to assume that US-style libertarianism is a minority viewpoint, with the US accounting for 5% of world population. As it stands, the article makes no claim one way or the other because "some" is true for both "few" and "most." So far as sources, there's plenty. About a dozen was pulled from the lead just to make it manageable, and there's more down below explaining how US laissez faire types basically inverted the word. fi (talk) 11:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Darkstar1st, the quoted text states that "[t]hose who maintain that capitalism is a excellent economic system, unfairly maligned, with little or no need for corrective government policy, are generally known as libertarians." Granted, this source doesn't explicitly mention private property, but it does associate libertarians with laissez-faire capitalism.  I'm not sure how strong the source is, but honestly, I don't think this claim even needs one; the fact that modern American libertarians support laissez-faire capitalism and private property should be obvious from the rest of the article, and I doubt anyone would challenge such common knowledge.  — MisterDub (talk &#124; contribs) 15:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * i agree, perhaps we could simply remove the weaselly Although some present-day and simply add the quoted text above? Darkstar1st (talk) 17:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think the edit is an improvement.  — MisterDub (talk &#124; contribs) 18:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Grammatical errors aside, in what sense is making a completely unsubstantiated claim an improvement? I can easily find a reference for another part of the world that says something to the tune of "non-Marxist communists are generally known as libertarians." More importantly, the claim doesn't even follow from the reference. Just because members of group A are generally known as B doesn't mean that most B are A. Assuming most jugglers are circus workers, it doesn't naturally follow that most circus workers are jugglers. I'm reverting this as OR, until someone can source that "generally" the libsoc/libcom (as in the French cognate libertaire) numbers are fewer than the other. Presently, there is not one reference suggesting so. fi (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If "some" is the issue, by the way, there's plenty of ways to rephrase that without making assumptions one way or the other. There's a dozen ways to just say: "[indeterminate amount of libertarians] are [libsoc] while [indeterminate amount of libertarians] are [laissez faire capitalist]." As I see it, this is a non-issue. fi (talk) 22:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I think this speaks to the heart of the issue on this page: the preponderance of English sources speak of libertarianism as a resurgence of classical liberalism. Peter Marshall, for example, writes that these libertarians only oppose the state because they are "capitalists first and foremost." (Marshall p. 564)  The recent work of Brian Doherty entitled Radicals for Capitalism also speaks of "modern American libertarianism" in the sense of individualism and capitalism. One could look at almost any other modern, English-language source on libertarianism or political theory to confirm that it is largely seen as a philosophy of extreme laissez-faire capitalism.  I agree that the word generally could be removed or improved, but yes, I still think the edit was an improvement over the editorialized "Although some present-day libertarians...".  — MisterDub (talk &#124; contribs) 22:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The word some isn't the only issue, as "Although..." is rather editorialized. I'm open to alternate suggestions for improvement, but I do agree that this needs work.  — MisterDub (talk &#124; contribs) 22:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm not seeing a demographic study; I'm not seeing a comparison of rank-and-file participation in communist/socialist organizations against laissez capitalist ones; I'm not seeing "libertaire" (or any other cognate) used in the way described here; I'm not even seeing a global Tea Party movement described in any section. So, I'll ask again: in what way are editors' unsourced hunches and assumptions an improvement to a neutral statement? We're all well aware that "libertarian" in the parlance of the American news cycle doesn't mean CNT and that says absolutely nothing for the assumption that most libertarians are supporters of capitalist labor relations. In fact, it would make more sense to assume the converse, as 5% of the world's population appears to use the word to mean basically the opposite of what it means to the other 95%. The reason that hasn't been done, to my knowledge, is it would still be OR, at best.


 * I don't have any suggestions, because I don't see what the problem is in the first place; but assuming that there's a problem, my only suggestion would be not to make stuff up. It doesn't take an expert logician to spot the error in saying that just because most dogs growl, most things that growl are dogs. fi (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Of course you don't see any demographic study discussing how many libertarians are socialists or capitalists; most English-language sources on libertarianism never mention socialism except to dismiss it. — MisterDub (talk &#124; contribs) 00:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And the relevance of that is what, exactly? Like I said already: by your "Google-it" approach to research, the troll article should just be a blurry image macro in impact font and a link to 4chan. Why do you think marketing and blogspam are any different? The point is to extract pertinent information from useful sources, not just to tally up the spammiest. The serious references on this page are surprisingly sparse for an article of this size, and the most authoritative texts are still books by actual honest-to-god historians like Graham and Woodcock. Surprisingly, they make no mention of what's now called libertarian on American television. So, on one hand, we have several decades of a vigorous PR campaign that changed the meaning for a country with 1/20th of the world's population and, on the other, we have nearing two centuries of historical record and the remaining vast majority of the world. Do a Google image search real quick for libertaire, libertario, либертарный, etc... what do you see? Pictures of Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard? There's no studies or serious academic sources? Well, too bad. Guess we'll just have to do what everyone else does and post our dubious claims with zero supporting evidence to facebook, twitter and tumblr instead. fi (talk) 01:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * First off, this is the English-language Wikipedia. Secondly, I posted a whole slew of reliable secondary and tertiary sources in the "Update" of my RfC post, and you'll notice that there was only one English-language (tertiary) source that even mentions libertarian socialism; all the rest, again (and again and again and again), speak of libertarianism only in the context of radical capitalism.  But don't let sources guide your conduct here... it's not like they have anything to do with Wikipedia policy.  — MisterDub (talk &#124; contribs) 02:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If sources guided policy, we wouldn't be having this conversation. This is the English language Wikipedia, describing a global political philosophy, with European roots, and a worldwide popular movement with over 160 years of history. If French, Italian, Russian, Greek, Mexican, South American, etc, libertarians don't interest you (to say nothing of American reds who don't have a network of billionaire-bankrolled PR offices), this may be the article you were looking for. If you have no sources to offer that support the "libertarians generally support capitalism" claim made above I do not wish to continue this childishness any further. fi (talk) 02:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I can agree that this conversation is pointless. — MisterDub (talk &#124; contribs) 15:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * fi, the source cited uses those exact terms


 * Darkstar1st (talk) 00:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Please read the comments above yours and try to understand what they mean. I have already tried explaining this with analogies little children should be able to understand and I do not want to have to act out what a propositional fallacy is with hand puppets. fi (talk) 13:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Although some present-day libertarians advocate laissez-faire capitalism is not supported by the source which reads, capitalism is a excellent...generally known as libertarians. no explanation required, rather we need a RS to support the passage, or it should be improved to match the source currently cited. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It is very much supported by all the sources in the article that certain people identifying as "libertarians" want to abolish capitalism while certain other people identifying as "libertarians" revere and exalt capitalism as the highest form of liberty. Your earlier edit, however (stating that most belong to the latter category), was not supported by any sources in the article, least of all the one you chose. I do not know how I can explain any clearer why this is so.


 * If, on the other hand, as your latest edit implies, you are skeptical that there are advocates for laissez faire capitalism calling themselves libertarians, here is a more complete list of references confirming that they do, indeed, exist:




































































 * So, now that we've established that there are pro and anti capitalist libertarians, the matter is why it wouldn't be appropriate to just say that. If you would like to declare that either the former group (which we have clearly established does exist) or the latter group (which we have also established exists) is more numerous than the other, please provide an appropriate reference comparing their ranks. fi (talk) 22:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Even a prominent US "libertarian" academic such as Roderick T. Long recognizes the following tendencies within "libertarianism". He says: "Currently there are three disparate movements that qualify as libertarian by my definition. Two of them i have already mentioned: Libertarian Capitalism and Libertarian Socialism. A third I shall call Libertarian Populism" (pg. 304) Long also mentions how to US right libertarians "comes as as surprise...to learn that socialist critics of centralized power have been using the term "libertarian" for at least as long as their capitalist counterparts have"...Libertarian socialists often repay the favour as though "libertarian" has always designated a purely socialist movement" (pg. 305) So Long reports on the controversy and how there are two positions who can be said to be part of libertarianism and who use the label for themselves. It also reports how to many libertarian socialists calling themselves just "libertarian" is taken as something banal and without the need for too much explanation. But what Roderick Long does not report is how Joseph Déjacque even published a newspaper called Le Libertaire already in New York in the mid 19th century. So the uses of libertarian as a socialist view in the US itself go as far back as then.--Eduen (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I just honestly cannot believe how much time, over and over, has been sunk into justifying that:
 * some self-described libertarians advocate extreme capitalism
 * some self-described libertarians advocate abolition of capitalism
 * therefore: some "libertarians" belong to the former group, while some "libertarians" belong to the latter
 * I'm at a loss. It just seems like these debates ought to be put to rest after two minutes skimming the article's footnotes and references, but yet here we are, once again, arguing about whether there's enough citations to verify that the sky is blue and water is wet, while wildly speculative claims about demographics apparently don't merit the same kind of skepticism. fi (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Your being "at a loss" might be explained by noting that your conclusion above doesn't logically follow from the premises you stated. You dropped the "self-described" part, invalidating your conclusion. The logical conclusion is that some "advocates of extreme capitalism" describe themselves as libertarians and some "advocates of abolishing capitalism" describe themselves as libertarians. And you seem to be forgetting that neither minority group gets to define the term (society as a whole does), and that peoples' description of themselves is often mistaken and dishonest. The idea that Wikipedia should adopt the "self-descriptions" of political advocates as definitions for terms (in WP's voice) is absurd. That absurdity hasn't been justified, it's been ignored by those seeking to retain it. May peace be with you. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 21:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It seems to me the reason for this is the fact that the US happens to be a very self centered unit in its discussions because most of the countries in the American continent are non english speaking and also because of the US being a country of 300 million persons which will make it appear that it is having the main discussions on a topic due to the volume that they can acquire because of this national population i just mentioned. In Europe, where small countries with small populations is the rule, for example academics are more accustomed to dealing with literature in other languages besides their own one as well as english language literature. In Latin america academics will deal with literature in spanish and english equally and in the southern cone they will also deal with portuguese literature. In Asia, besides reading in one´s own language, they will also read english language literature but sometimes also french, chinese, arabic and japanese. So even the US academic Roderick T. Long accounts for the fact of the surprise and shock of his co-nationals in finding about that it is different in the rest of the world and that they are posessing an exceptional view on things on this matter. Anyway, there is a whole big discussion on american exceptionalism in politology and sociology and so this article in particular has to be constantly watched in order that it will not fall on Systemic bias.--Eduen (talk) 23:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Clarification needed about 'some present-day libertarians'?
Although some present-day libertarians advocate cited source confirms exactly what is stated and no intelligible reason was giving on the talk page for doubting the existence of pro-capitalist libertarians.
 * The citation was NOT doubting the existence, quite the opposite. from the source: ...Those who maintain that capitalism is a excellent economic system, unfairly maligned, with little or no need for corrective government policy, are generally known as libertarians.
 * The same editor also reverted an edit closer to the sourced verbiage:  Modern Libertarians generally support capitalism and strong private property rights unsourced / OR.
 * The entirety of this editors contributions are to this article and talk. i would ask the editor to work on other articles a bit and see if the others here can find a solution. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * There is a dispute over a section. The disputed bit reads as follows:
 * Although some present-day libertarians advocate laissez-faire capitalism and strong private property rights, such as in land, infrastructure and natural resources, others, notably libertarian socialists, seek to abolish capitalism and private ownership of the means of production in favor of their common or cooperative ownership and management.
 * This appears to be twisting the citations. The citation to Hussain supports the statement "Libertarians advocate laissez-faire capitalism and strong private property rights".  It is twisting it to say "Although some present-day libertarians advocate laissez-faire capitalism and strong private property rights".  Some of the groups people that Long is talking about do not appear to be libertarian, even though someone uses "-libertarian" as part of their description.  It reminds me of the way that "democratic republics" are/were murderous dictatorships like the German Democratic Republic or the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.  --  Toddy1 (talk) 14:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Toddy1, please read the thread above this one. You have added nothing new to the discussion and I've read all of these citations because I personally added them all when someone was insisting USLP-style libertarianism was ambivalent toward free market capitalism. I've already explained the logical error and I'm not going to repeat myself again. TL;DR: 5% of the world's population has an esoteric definition for the world "libertarian" which is basically the opposite of what it means to the other 95%. It would make the most sense to say that a diminutive minority of "libertarians" advocate capitalism while the vast majority of "libertarians" want to abolish it, however there is insufficient direct evidence to make that assessment conclusively without a reliable source. For lack of any way to compare rank and file, it makes sense to say "[indeterminate number] are A while [indeterminate number] are opposite of A." How that's said or what words are used doesn't matter to me at all so long as POV warriors don't go making stuff up. Here's a quick example of making stuff up: "citation says most foos are bars, therefore bars are generally foos." Obvious nonsense after thinking about it for two seconds. Time to move on. fi (talk) 15:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Toddy1, please read the thread above this one. You have added nothing new to the discussion and I've read all of these citations because I personally added them all when someone was insisting USLP-style libertarianism was ambivalent toward free market capitalism. I've already explained the logical error and I'm not going to repeat myself again. TL;DR: 5% of the world's population has an esoteric definition for the world "libertarian" which is basically the opposite of what it means to the other 95%. It would make the most sense to say that a diminutive minority of "libertarians" advocate capitalism while the vast majority of "libertarians" want to abolish it, however there is insufficient direct evidence to make that assessment conclusively without a reliable source. For lack of any way to compare rank and file, it makes sense to say "[indeterminate number] are A while [indeterminate number] are opposite of A." How that's said or what words are used doesn't matter to me at all so long as POV warriors don't go making stuff up. Here's a quick example of making stuff up: "citation says most foos are bars, therefore bars are generally foos." Obvious nonsense after thinking about it for two seconds. Time to move on. fi (talk) 15:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Why not replace it with the text from the FAQ, like:


 * "Right-libertarianism refers to those libertarian ideologies that extoll private property without recompense paid by the owner to the local community, and includes anarcho-capitalism and laissez-faire, minarchist liberalism. This is contrasted with left-libertarianism, which either rejects private property, or accepts it only under the condition that the local community is compensated for the exclusionary effects thereof (e.g. a land value tax). Left-libertarianism includes libertarian socialism, left-wing market anarchism, and geolibertarianism."


 * BTW the lead should ideally be free of citations, as mentioned in the manual of style at Manual_of_Style/Lead_section --Mrjulesd (talk)  18:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Sounds more or less alright to me, for a quick and dirty summary, and I agree about citations in the lead. The problem is, everything -- no matter how mundane and indisputable -- tends to be met with objection and demands of word-for-word citations, even when the article is already saturated with them. If it says that Kropotkin had a beard, someone will shout it down as vile propaganda. Meanwhile, if a convenient POV can be crammed into the narrative, then a source saying "balloons are generally round" can be taken as incontrovertible verification that round things are generally balloons. At this point, I am 100% in favor of any narrative that just doesn't make arbitrary stuff up... Some people want a night watchman state; some people want no state. Some people want capitalism; some people want no capitalism. Seems pretty straightforward, whichever way one decides to say it. fi (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * So the term "right-libertarian" should be used to describe people who don't self-identify as such, but the term "libertarian" should be used to describe outspoken opponents of individual liberty, autonomy, freedom of association, and the primacy of individual judgement on the basis that they call themselves libertarians in their political propaganda? And adopt the absurd socialist narrative describing the difference between socialists and non-socialists? And if anyone disagrees, they should just read that political propaganda (or the biased sources based on it) over and over again to inform themselves? Nice try. May peace be with you. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:FORUM and WP:SOAP. This is a place to discuss the article, not a place for editors to debate their personal political opinions on socialism or the USLP. fi (talk) 19:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Your bullying tactics and false accusations are irrelevant. May peace be with you. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * My "bullying tactics" begin and end with pointing out that articles shouldn't be started with trivially obvious propositional fallacies. If I wholly and passionately agreed with your personal political views, whatever they are, that still wouldn't make what's being argued here any less ridiculous. Take any arbitrary premise (e.g. "my big toe itches") and take any arbitrary conclusions (e.g. "therefore it's going to rain"). That's roughly what you, Darkstar1st and Toddy1 are arguing above. That doesn't even get to be called unsound. It's just invalid. It may rain or it may not, but it certainly doesn't follow from the premises. So, I don't have to make any value judgments on your politics to conclude that your statements are objectively, provably wrong. fi (talk) 20:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Finx. Please stop posting straw man arguments.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you read anything above? This is literally the only argument offered so far: people who like devolution and laissez faire capitalism are generally called libertarians, therefore libertarians generally like devolution and laissez faire capitalism. Where is the straw? I mean, to be fair, I left out some off-topic soapboxing about how much you all hate socialists. If that's a critical part of the argument, please continue... fi (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If my statements were provably wrong, you would prove them wrong instead of using bullying tactics and making false accusations. May peace be with you. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * there is an ongoing dispute about the citation, the tag must be restored until the dispute is settled. fi plz self revert your removal of the tag Darkstar1st (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There is already a tag, which I had not removed, if you'd bothered to look; I see nothing even remotely resembling "an ongoing dispute" -- just a halfhearted attempt at a laughably fallacious argument that no one wants to elaborate on; also, there's an ongoing ANI topic to have have you banned from the site (in case you haven't noticed) to which you may want to direct your attention. So far as this here, I have nothing to more to say. The objection is just literally incoherent and it's not getting any clearer, so I am removing myself from the issue... assuming that there is one which someone can maybe, eventually explain intelligibly. fi (talk) 14:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

tag removed without consensus or resolution
i suggest the editor self revert until an agreement can be reached. the main problem is the source states, generally known as libertarians, the current version distorts the passage into the weasel word some Darkstar1st (talk) 10:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not what is happening. You're looking only at the first half of the sentence when you need to see it in its entirety. The reason it says some is because this is the article's lead section which is required to give an overview of the article. In other words, some libertarians support capitalism (e.g. anarcho capitalists) while others do not (e.g. libertarian socialists). There is no problem with the sentence, although it may be helpful to move all of the sources to the end of the sentence which I would not object to. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 07:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Just to add to the above, that sentence is self-contradictory in another way: It says Libertarian Socialists seek to abolish private ownership of means of production, then effectively says that they advocate their ownership by non-governmental entities (private ownership by definition). The difference between the two is actually whether anyone is free to own means of production or only socialist entities can own them (monopoly), not whether the ownership is "private" or not. (And yes, I know that socialist literature does not use the term "private" to refer to their type of non-governmental ownership, or use the term "monopoly" to refer to their type of exclusive ownership of all means of production, so no need to point that out to me). Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 06:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

edit warring
the same editor that removed the tag without discussion has reinserted the weasel word by reverting another editor with the summary, unexplained. this entire section has explained why the passage should be improved. i suggest the editor self revert his revert of the discussed changes. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The free will stuff seems wrong in the lead
I worry that someone might get the wrong idea from the fourth paragraph of this article that political libertarianism has something to do with libertarianism about free will. For instance, there are citations to the effect that libertarianism grew out of an Enlightenment conception of freedom. But most of the Enlightenment thinkers who cared about freedom and influenced contemporary libertarians were compatibilists, not libertarians, about free will. Other than sharing a name, the two ideas seem completely unrelated. They don't even seem to share an etymology, so why bring up libertarianism about free will at all?2601:B:C580:2D9:CAF7:33FF:FE77:D800 (talk) 14:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It actually says that libertarianism originally meant belief in free will, not that libertarianism developed out of that idea. Ironically, American libertarianism is influenced by Calvinism, which rejected free will.  TFD (talk) 16:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I would like to elevate the importance of the concept of freedom of association to the topic of libertarianism perhaps even to definition.

Libertarianism is the political belief that freedom of association is the primary social and collective principle of social organization for a free society. This would include not only personal associations but also economic associations. Together these two categories would distinguish libertarians from political conservatives and political neo-liberals that for the most part only support one category of freedom of association but not the other.

As the primary social and collective principle of a free society, all other social rights and principles would have to be compatible with freedom of assocation for a society to remain free. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howardpearce (talk • contribs) 00:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Has it been tested in reality ?
This is a long article of an -ism few have any knowledge of, unlike for instance The mentioned ones has been tested atleast once somewhere in history, but has libertarism been used as the basic political system in any nation ever ? Are there any political party anywhere on Earth (or has been) of any significance ? Wouldn't libetarism fully inserted in a nation end up in anarchy or civil war anarchy ? I'm not very fond of 35% of my wages goes to taxes, but I would like the police to help me, if my car is stolen etc. And I'm surely glad for the 65% of my wages which I maintain. Especially when watching historical films I sooner think that I (and all other) get quite much out of the taxes after all. And if I earned much more I wouldn't care much to pay even 50% or more. Are my thoughts about taxes anti-libertanian ? Wondering Boeing720 (talk) 00:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * liberalism
 * conservatism
 * socialism
 * communism
 * social democracy
 * national socialism or nazism
 * fascism
 * feodalism
 * This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Wikipedia Talk page guidelines state: "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article." Abierma3 (talk) 07:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Libertarianism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120716203439/http://www.libertarianism.org/ex-3.html to http://www.libertarianism.org/ex-3.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Libertarianism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120328170104/http://www.br-online.de/bayern/einst-und-jetzt/die-bayerische-revolution-191819-DID1221045814026/muenchner-revolution-erste-raeterepublik-toller-landauer-muehsam-ID1221496411667.xml to http://www.br-online.de/bayern/einst-und-jetzt/die-bayerische-revolution-191819-DID1221045814026/muenchner-revolution-erste-raeterepublik-toller-landauer-muehsam-ID1221496411667.xml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Question regarding Volunteering
Volunteering does not necessarily bring any economic benefits to GNP or GDP and is more popular with Marxist ideologies than capitalist enterprising theories.--WindWalk55555 (talk) 11:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Why is classical liberalism placed under Libertarianism?
Anarchism/Libertarianism was a reaction to capitalism, and now Mises & CATO camps think they can revise history? Even Murray Rothbard admits there's no such thing as anarcho-capitalism. I don't understand why these CATO/Mises sources are accepted, they are but a footnote in anarchism/libertarianism as a whole. Yet, right wing libertarianism and "classical liberalism" take up an absurd amount of this page. Care to explain how expansion of property and business via government, aka colonialism in the New World, is "libertarian"? It was a horror show of genocide (of the natives), slavery (property), stealing land and & resources, women/wives as property, etc.

And why is Ayn Rand under "Prominent currents"? She should be located under criticism of libertarianism, particularly right wing libertarianism. She considered conservative libertarians a mockery of philosophy and ideology and "wannabe hippies".C1918081 (talk) 09:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * It is not the role of Wikipedia editors to decide matters of undue weight based on personal feelings about a political ideology. If you believe there are distortions here, or that libertarianism of the neoliberal variety is over-represented, it would probably be best to address specific points, with references where needed. I think two things are very much open questions, because there is clear disagreement between sources: 1 - to what extent, if any, did classical liberalism influence libsoc/libcom anarchism (and similar); 2 - to what extent, if any, did classical liberalism influence Mises/CATO/USLP-styled libertarianism. I think you'll find several good sources arguing that anarchism has its roots in classical liberalism, despite Adam Smith having been canonized as some kind of capitalist saint. There is also significant disagreement on how much neoliberalism draws from those traditions. As for Rand, while she made her contempt for those libertarians very clear, many of them do seem to be influenced by her nonetheless. fi (talk) 04:41, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


 * According to WP policies, this should be determined by reputable tertiary sources. Reputable encyclopedias usually do not mention socialism in their articles on libertarianism, nor do they use the term "libertarianism" to refer to socialism. Nor does it seem anyone else does, except for socialists themselves, which hardly constitutes legitimacy. The term obviously means "advocate of liberty", not "advocate of imposing a particular economic system" or "advocate of prohibiting some undesired economic activity". Imposing and prohibiting are generally authoritarian, not libertarian, ideas, by definition. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 13:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 one external links on Libertarianism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121104040047/http://www.progress.org/archive/fold251.htm to http://www.progress.org/archive/fold251.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120105095946/http://www.iaf-ifa.org/principles/english.html to http://www.iaf-ifa.org/principles/english.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120204155505/http://libertarian-labyrinth.org/warren/1stAmAnarch.pdf to http://libertarian-labyrinth.org/warren/1stAmAnarch.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160214200513/http://www.againstallauthority.org/NativeAmericanAnarchism.html to http://www.againstallauthority.org/NativeAmericanAnarchism.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110723130358/http://www.acracia.org/1-23a58lainsumision.pdf to http://www.acracia.org/1-23a58lainsumision.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110723130358/http://www.acracia.org/1-23a58lainsumision.pdf to http://www.acracia.org/1-23a58lainsumision.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090225212442/http://ytak.club.fr:80/natytak.html to http://ytak.club.fr/natytak.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150908072801/http://recollectionbooks.com/siml/library/illegalistsDougImrie.htm to http://recollectionbooks.com/siml/library/illegalistsDougImrie.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721040723/http://www.tesisenxarxa.net/TESIS_UdG/AVAILABLE/TDX...//txdr1de2.pdf to http://www.tesisenxarxa.net/TESIS_UdG/AVAILABLE/TDX.../
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160214200513/http://www.againstallauthority.org/NativeAmericanAnarchism.html to http://www.againstallauthority.org/NativeAmericanAnarchism.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060526224800/http://www.acracia.org/xdiez.html to http://www.acracia.org/xdiez.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150317210356/http://www.progress.org/views/editorials/geoism-explained/ to http://www.progress.org/views/editorials/geoism-explained/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121104040047/http://www.progress.org/archive/fold251.htm to http://www.progress.org/archive/fold251.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140524005404/http://lysanderspooner.org:80/intellect/contents.htm to http://lysanderspooner.org/intellect/contents.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150128133151/http://www.bradspangler.com/blog/archives/473 to http://bradspangler.com/blog/archives/473

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

FAQ's
The purpose of the FAQ section on this talk page seems to be to pass off contested assertions as if they were settled facts, rather than answer questions people are actually asking. Any verifiable record of anyone even asking those questions here? Any real reason to have it, other than as an attempt to prevent honest discussion of those assertions? Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 13:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I think it may indicating what the settled discussions have concluded. If you want to reopen those, then that's reasonable, but on many settled issues, you'll get a similar response. I actually think it's fairly nice to indicate them on the talk page so clearly as usually settled talk page issues are not as clear or easy to find. I do think it should be dated, and linked to it if it is settled. I.E. it should be referenced if so. q (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * No, those discussions were not settled. I participated in many of them and have reviewed the archives over several years. Those who disagreed were systematically blocked, threatened with being banned, bullied until they gave up, etc in order to maintain a consensus that contradicts reliable tertiary sources, including those cited in this article, as well as Wikipedia policy, in favor of biased primary sources. Several attempts over several years at honest discussion have all been systematically derailed. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Cleanup for Neutrality, Clarity, etc
I've tried to clean up the article a bit. A lot of statements with a POV, and statements that hide behind the idea of "some" or "many" of these people believe X. Not trying to demonstrably change the article, but add a lot of clarity. It is a really challenging article to read, and I understand the topic fairly well. I can't imagine how anyone else would be able to parse it with so much backtracking, and broad statements. q (talk) 17:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC):


 * That's putting it mildly. Any reader capable of understanding it will immediately notice the obvious contradictions and bias. I gave up trying to reform this and similar articles, since blatantly obvious fraud and bias is preferable to hidden fraud and bias. BTW, you missed the "Objectivism" section in your clean up :). Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 21:20, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I didn't miss it, I considered it, and ultimately didn't decide what to do with it. I don't think it belongs, but I was trying to take some measured actions to start, and even then, you can see I've made a lot of edits to try and help. q (talk) 03:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, libertarianism has been taken and redefined by every political philosophy and doctrine, until it is useless as a political entity for liberty. I called myself libertarian for 40 years before the Republican Party decided they should be called libertarian too. Bunco man (talk) 03:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


 * That's a good point, and one I've brought up before. This term, like any term, is certainly useless if "self-identification" is used as a substitute for an actual objective definition. An encyclopedia article needs to clearly and unambiguously define the term, which in this case requires separation of the article into at least two different articles (or at least separate sections) with the term defined separately for each. A single article switching back and forth between different definitions (using weasel words like "some" and "others" to obfuscate the fact that it's actually switching definitions, not merely referring to different examples of the same definition) is a basket case. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 16:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Branas-Garza's comment on this article
Dr. Branas-Garza has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

"I would recommend 2 completely different persons to revise this entry. They know much more than me in this topic.

- A philosopher with experience in economic experiments: Fernando Aguiar 

- An economist with some taste for philosophy: Bertil Tungodden 

Please write them. Best, pablo"

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Branas-Garza has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:


 * Reference : Branas-Garza, Pablo & Coulson, Mark & Kernohan, David & Oyediran, Olusegun & Rivas, M. Fernanda, 2014. "Reciprocal beliefs and out-group cooperation: evidence from a public good game," MPRA Paper 62377, University Library of Munich, Germany.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 21:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Unproductive discussion moved from below
Most libertarians who identify with a libertarian party today are minarchist. I suggest we correct the weight to reflect such. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * What does weight have to do with it? TFD (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:WEIGHT. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 23:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * What does WP:WEIGHT have to do with it? TFD (talk) 23:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Fully explained in WP:WEIGHT. That's why I linked to it. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 04:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You need to explain how WP:WEIGHT supports to your conclusions. My reading of the policy is that it does not support it.  TFD (talk) 05:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope, I have no such need. Nor have I stated any conclusions. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 05:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, Darkstar1st did. He wrote, "Most libertarians who identify with a libertarian party today are minarchist. I suggest we correct the weight to reflect such."  My question was, "What does weight have to do with it?` If you have formed no conclusions on his statement, this discussion appears unproductive.  TFD (talk) 06:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Repeating your question to me is certainly unproductive, since you've had my answer from the start. It hasn't changed. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 07:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Well I hope you explain it better in the proposed RfC. TFD (talk) 07:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Then you'll be disappointed, if by "it" you mean your question above. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 07:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

By "it" I was referring to Darkstar1st's statement, not my question. TFD (talk) 07:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * So you hope I'll "explain better" something that I never explained to begin with? Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 08:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Is this arguing going to degenerate further? I rather not have to report this or anything, but I will, if it gets to that. Scientific Alan 2  (What have I said?)  (What have I done?)  08:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Degeneracy moved out of the way so it doesn't derail the section. If anyone objects, it's easy enough to undo. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 09:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed RFC concerning weight
Most libertarians who identify with a libertarian party today are minarchist. I suggest we correct the weight to reflect such. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * What does weight have to do with it? TFD (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:WEIGHT. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 23:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Unproductive discussion moved to collapsed section above to avoid derailment of this section. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 09:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I mean all three of these very different movements
The very source used to introduce LibSoc makes the case against inclusion: ''It might be protested that LibCap, LibSoc and LibPop are too different from one another to be treated as aspects of a single point of view. But they do share a common—or at least an overlapping—intellectual ancestry.'' Wikipedia is not served by combining 3 different articles. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Reputable encyclopedias, such as Encyclopedia Britannica, don't use the term "libertarianism" to mean any of those, they use it to mean advocate of liberty or classical liberalism. By that common definition, libertarianism itself doesn't advocate prohibiting either public or private production of goods and services. This article absurdly treats modes of production as if the choice between them must be made politically rather than chosen freely by individuals. Even if such a notion is supported by certain biased primary sources, it directly contradicts the whole concept of libertarianism as described in reputable tertiary sources. This article should not be devoted to political groups advocating or opposing capitalism or socialism, while ignoring the concept of liberty entirely. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 11:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * BTW, I believe the author of that source is Roderick T. Long, incorrectly cited in the article as Joseph W. Long. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 12:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Blue Eyes Cryin, many political terms can have different meanings and this is an issue that we need to resolve according to disambiguation. The EB article says, "As liberalism became increasingly associated with government intervention in the economy and social-welfare programs, some classical liberals abandoned the old term and began to call themselves “libertarians.”"  So their definition is neo-classical liberalism.  We should have an article about that which would be separate from this one.  We could then decide what to name the two articles.  We need to avoid confusing the two concepts in one article.  Hess, Nolan, and Rothbard for example are minor figures in the EB article.  [Note:  the EB article glosses over the fact that the opponents of social liberalism also rejected the classical liberal orthodoxy, most significantly by rejecting the labor theory of value and assigning value to entrepreneurship.]  TFD (talk) 23:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

The Social History of Crime and Punishment in America: An Encyclopedia (5 Volume Set) 1st Edition
the 5th source is an unknown encyclopedia which supports the inclusion of ...abolish capitalism and private ownership of the means of production in favor of their common or cooperative ownership and management Darkstar1st (talk) 17:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Where do you get the idea that the encyclopedia advocates that? TFD (talk) 07:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * because it is cited as the source after that text? Darkstar1st (talk) 13:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry I misunderstood you. It says that one version of libertarianism is socialist libertarianism.  What do you mean by "ùnknown encyclopedia?"  Are you challenging it as a reliable source?  TFD (talk) 14:02, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * no problem. the source is an encyclopedia few people own in its 1st edition. yes. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

the first paragraph is heavily biased towards one particular type of libertarianism
"Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a political philosophy that upholds liberty through self-ownership and the non-aggression principle[1] as its principal objectives. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association, and the primacy of individual judgment."

This paragraph describes right-libertarianism. The concept of self ownership and the non-aggression principle are not major components of left-libertarianism. The second sentence is okay, except maybe for the individual judgement part, since some forms of libertarian are collectivist and "individual judgement" is not a major theme of collectivist libertarianism and is substituted with opposition to hierarchy and support for direct democracy.

This is just as biased as if it said "Libertarian is a political philosophy which upholds opposition to political and economic hierarchies as its principal objectives, libertarians seek to emphasize the primacy of collective decision making."

Since this first paragraph is supposed to represent all libertarianism, not just right-libertarianism, I recommend we either make it more general and remove the mentions of specific right-libertarian concepts like the NAP and self-ownership(which is mostly a classically liberal/right libertarian idea and not left-libertarian) or break it up so that it describes right-libertarianism and left-libertarianism separate. Any ideas? If this doesn't get any replies I'll just write something myself, but I'd appreciate discussion and input here before I change anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.39.210.166 (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The above is incorrect. It is an attempt by the so-called left-libertarianism to change the definition of libertarianism. This is an on-going political issue. Buncoshark 19:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I notice that the long-standing lead was replaced with text sourced to the Libertarian Party of the United States. That is only a reliable source for the opinions of that party and is not a reliable source for this article.  I will put back the earlier version of the lead.  TFD (talk) 00:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Alright, thanks. The new lead is much better. Buncoshark, left-libertarianism is far older than right-libertarianism and wanting to make the lead represent both philosophies accurately is not "redefining" anything. I'm assuming by the way you say "so called" left-libertarianism that you disagree with it as a philosophy, but that doesn't matter, this is wikipedia, not your own private blog. Left-libertarianism is an ongoing political school of thought just as significant as right-libertarianism and we should describe its ideas accurately. The NAP and self ownership are not left-lib concepts, they are exclusive to right-libertarianism, and thus should not be in the lead. It says as much on the wikipedia page for it, the NAP was developed by Ayn Rand and then adopted by right-libertarians. 16:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.39.210.166 (talk)
 * Actually, that is incorrect. The thought that libertarianism started out as an entity of the left was created by the left in the 1960s. This has been disproved but the left won't accept the information. Buncoshark 22:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Nolan, Rothbard and Hess were not left-wing, although their colleagues in Young Americans for Freedom accused them. TFD (talk) 00:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not even sure how to respond to this. Bakunin, Proudhon, and Kropotkin weren't leftwing? They were socialists. They opposed private property and supported worker control. One of the people who popularized the usage of the term in a political sense is Joseph Déjacque, a french anarchocommunist. Is anarchocommunism not leftwing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.39.210.166 (talk) 05:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Do right-libertarianism and left-libertarianism have anything in common other than the name? Dimadick (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. Nolan, Rothbard and Hess were impressed with libertarian socialist views on freedom and government, and adopted terminology and symbols from them.  Where they disagreed was on property, which of course puts them at opposite sides of the U.S. political spectrum.  OTOH, libertarianism is also used as a synonym in the U.S. for laissez-faire liberalism.  TFD (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * This absolutely should be changed to reflect the totality of libertarianism. While the term is identified primarily with right-wing libertarianism in the United States nowadays, that does not reflect the historic roots of the ideology. And as far as I can tell this Wikipedia article is supposed to reflect more than just the American bias. --Adilawar (talk) 11:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The Center For a Stateless Society, which describes itself as "A Left Market Anarchist Think Tank & Media Center" asserts that "left-libertarianism" today most commonly refers to those who "combine a belief in self-ownership and the non-aggression principle with left-wing views on the limited extent to which individuals can remove property from the common and acquire unlimited rights of disposal over it simply by mixing their labor with it." So, I think it is entirely justifiable to include self-ownership and non-aggression in the leader. TBSchemer (talk) 17:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * So called "non agression principle" is mostly something talked about only in US right wing libertarian sources and spaces. Within Anarchist and other libertarian socialist places that concept is not used at all. The wikipedia article on it is, as they say in the US, "as american as apple pie".--Eduen (talk) 03:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * while the link says "To the general public these days, “left-libertarian” is more apt to call to mind," it also acknowledges the "oldest and broadest usage of “left-libertarian,” and perhaps most familiar to those in the anarchist movement at large...includes pretty much the whole non-statist, horizontalist or decentralist Left...." Certainly libertarianism can be narrowly defined to refer to the followers of Nolan, Rothbard and Hess, but per disambiguation, this artcle is about the general topic.  TFD (talk) 08:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Left-Libertarian does not exist outside of books
The reason why so many arrive here confused is the common usage of the term refers to the modern practicing Libertarians. WP:Weight directs us to include tiny minorities in tiny amounts. There are no current Left-Libertarian parties active or politicians or party members. The vast majority of citations found in modern periodicals and books refer exclusively to what some call right-libertarian or US Libertarian. I suggest we remove much of the material devoted to the tiny minority. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * In the US Libertarian has a different, and recently different meaning. If we consider weight as in historical time, US Libertarianism is by far the smallest. So it ends up being a question about perspective more than anything. If you were to organize the article as a history of, you would end up having non-stop pages on Left-Libertarianism up until the 20th century, in which case you'd then have both Left and Right Libertarianism discussed. q (talk) 23:31, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Not according to the Libertarian Party, most if not all of world's current libertarian parties are the low tax less government type. Historical libertarianism should have it's own section or page. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The US Libertarian Party cannot be considered a neutral source of reference support on this issue. In the rest of the world advocates of laissez fair capitalism tend to call themselves "liberals" and are also called "liberals" or "neoliberals" by others. They even have an international of such parties called Liberal International and for a good reason is not called "libertarian international". As such this is why the sections on "right libertarianism" are centered on the US while the sections on left libertarianism deal with other continents as well. This particular usage of "libertarianism" is another case of "american exceptionalism" and it exists mostly in a provincial US centered worldview. Still user Darkstar can well go improve the article "Libertarianism in the United States" if that kind of libertarianism is what he knows about best. I have to remind him/her that we are not editing "US wikipedia" but english language wikipedia.--Eduen (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you read the wrong link? Asia, Africa, Europe, South America are included in Libertarian Party. Here is an expanded list of the same: List_of_libertarian_political_parties. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not possible to understand the U.S. Libertarian Party without understanding the development of libertarianism and its point of departure from the main branch. Nolan, Hess and Rothbard all considered themselves in the libertarian tradition and adopted their name, symbols and about individualism and anti-government rhetoric.  And then there is the 19th century U.S. libertarianism of Spooner which stands half way between traditional libertarianism and the U.S. Libertarian Party.  Note that liberalism and socialism contain different trends, yet we do not airbrush out those that do not reflect our personal views.  Anyway, with Johnson, the Libertarian Party appears to moving away from libertarian ideology into mainstream right-wing liberalism.  TFD (talk) 07:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Most, if not all NON-US libertarians in a political party identify as minarchist, according to the articles above. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Which articles above? TFD (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * libertarian party and List_of_libertarian_political_parties Darkstar1st (talk) 17:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources for other Wikipedia articles. TFD (talk) 21:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Almost none of those "libertarian parties" parties that user darkstar has actual presence in national legislatures in those countries. On the other hand the parties of the Liberal International are almost all in national legislatures as can be seen in the wikipedia article on that and some are even in government.--Eduen (talk) 07:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Eduen, You appear to have confused to similarly spelled, much different philosophies. Liberal International links to Liberalism not libertarian Darkstar1st (talk) 21:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Again. What you call in the US "libertarianism"/laissez faire capitalism outside of it tends to be called and calls itself "economic liberalism", "classical liberalism" or "neoliberalism". It is amazing to see someone like you who talks a lot in this forum to say this thing.--Eduen (talk) 04:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Abolish capitalism
The source makes no such claim, I suggest we strike Abolish capitalism. ''Libertarianism is committed to full self-ownership. A distinction can be made, however, between right-libertarianism and left-libertarianism, depending on the stance taken on how natural resources can be owned'' Vallentyne, Peter Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That source uses the term "left-libertarianism" in the normal sense of the term, ie to refer to a variety of non-socialist libertarians. It does not use the term to refer to socialists, and clearly does not support that sentence. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 17:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The Stanford article says, "This entry is on libertarianism in the narrower sense of the moral view that agents initially fully own themselves and have certain moral powers to acquire property rights in external things." Note too that is a different concept from the one covered in EB.  This article is about libertarianism in the broader sense.  First we need to resolve disambiguation. TFD (talk) 05:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That article also defines libertarianism "in the most general sense" which is also non-socialist. Regardless, the cited source does not support that sentence. That sentence is supported mainly by biased primary sources, which should only be used as sources for themselves, not general definitive statements. Especially not statements that contradict reputable tertiary sources. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 08:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, we need to resolve the disambiguation issue before moving on. What definition of libertarianism do you think this article should be about?  TFD (talk) 05:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Obviously the definition used by reputable encyclopedias and dictionaries. That could include both general and narrower senses since they don't contradict each other. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 13:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As I said above, different sources can use the same term with different meanings. Similarly, the same topic can have different terms used to describe it.  Per disambiguation, we need to select one of them to be the topic of this article.  TFD (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree, as is obvious from my last post above. A definition can be general without being ambiguous or self-contradictory. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * how natural resources can be owned does not imply abolish capitalism, if we all so agree, would someone remove the text. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Coming back to old discussions. I remind you that the article Libertarianism in the United States exists if you want an article with only deals with the US centric sense of libertarianism as laissez faire capitalism and the history of the US Libertarian Party. Here we have to deal with a worldwide sense of the word, not the particular one which the americans are most familiar with.--Eduen (talk) 04:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The words abolish capitalism are original research. Please provide the passage in the existing source supporting such, or a new source, or remove the text. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Eduen, as was asked of you in those past discussions, since when is Encyclopedia Britannica "US centric"? And as was pointed out to you in those past discussions, nobody is suggesting that this article should be "US centric". The objection is to self-contradictory and misleading statements in the article. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 12:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Since 1911, when it was acquired by U.S. owners and decided to concentrate on the U.S. market. TFD (talk)
 * OK, maybe that could be argued. But it remains the case that the "US centric" assertion regarding the term "libertarianism" is just that: an assertion. One that's repeated by many and demonstrated by none. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 15:45, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Liberal and conservative also have different meanings in the U.S. than in the rest of the world. We resolve that through disambiguation, i.e., having different articles with different names.  No one however has answered my question about U.S. libertarianism.  Does it refer to the ideology developed by Nolan, Hess and Rothbard, with roots in Spooner and represented by the Libertarian Party, or does it refer to the individualistic liberalism exemplified by Grover Cleveland and Reagan?  TFD (talk) 16:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Both. And Geolibertarianism, S-V, etc. Those all use the same general concept of libertarianism, only the details (and degrees) are different. The problem is with switching back and forth between mutually exclusive definitions. And I agree with your solution, and have suggested it myself in the past. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 16:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

We already have the article Liberalism in the United States, which is the broad topic article. TFD (talk) 06:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, and I still agree with you that this article needs disambiguation. Presumably, classical liberals don't want to be conflated with socialists and socialists don't want to be conflated with classical liberals. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 16:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Just a reminder that we've been through this before and I provided about thirty or thirty-five references to back up the statement. These were deemed excessive, but if you remove anything on libsoc/libcom aiming to abolish capitalism, I will revert and happily put one back in, like Kropotkin's. fi (talk) 17:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Please provide a passage from any source that claims libertarians seek to abolish capitalism. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * By the way, this line of argument is disingenuous. If you're this unfamiliar with what libertarian has meant for nearly two centuries (which I really don't think you are), please at least skim the articles on libertarian socialism and libertarian communism before trying to edit this one further. If, on the other hand, this isn't just a contrarian put on and you're genuinely this confused, despite hanging around this topic for a few years, WP:COMPETENCE applies. fi (talk) 17:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * page 150 of Anarchism: A Collection of Revolutionary Writings makes no such claim. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * First of all, I don't owe you a citation at all, as we've got two major articles that I linked just above packed with references backing up libsoc anticapitalism, but yes, it does say that. Look again. This will be my last post in this thread. fi (talk) 18:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Failure to adopt a view =/= unfamiliar or confused about that view. That line of argument is disingenuous. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 18:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a forum to proselytize your political views. It is a matter of historic record that libertarian socialists and libertarian communists have wanted to abolish capital and private property for over 150 years. fi (talk) 18:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from misrepresenting other editors. Nobody here has said anything contrary to your statement above. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 18:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have returned three references to the lead explicitly stating that libertarian socialists (please do consider reading at least the lead to that article) want to abolish capitalism, in addition to a reference that was already in this article's lead, explicitly stating that libertarian socialists want to abolish capitalism. I consider this matter closed. If you, or the other libertarian, remove these references again, just to revive this obviously disingenuous trolling, I will continue this discussion on the noticeboards. Thank you. fi (talk) 19:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The sentence in question does not just say that "libertarian socialists want to abolish capitalism" nor has anyone here disputed that they do, nor is that why the sentence is in dispute. Please refrain from misrepresenting, insulting, and bullying other editors. And I've uncollapsed this section. Your posts are the ones way off topic here, but you can delete them without collapsing the whole section. Derailing this discussion with such posts that ignore or misrepresent what others are saying is why it gets rehashed over and over. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 06:08, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The sentence in question does not just say that "libertarian socialists want to abolish capitalism" nor has anyone here disputed that they do, nor is that why the sentence is in dispute. Please refrain from misrepresenting, insulting, and bullying other editors. And I've uncollapsed this section. Your posts are the ones way off topic here, but you can delete them without collapsing the whole section. Derailing this discussion with such posts that ignore or misrepresent what others are saying is why it gets rehashed over and over. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 06:08, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

generally known as libertarians
not some, generally, so reads the citation supporting that statement. I attempted to remove the weasel word and was reverted. perhaps the editor will review the citation and self revert. ''In the modern world, political ideologies are largely defined by their attitude towards capitalism. Marxists want to overthrow it, liberals to curtail it extensively, conservatives to curtail it moderately. Those who maintain that capitalism is a excellent economic system, unfairly maligned, with little or no need for corrective government policy, are generally known as libertarians.'' (talk) 14:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Its really simple. There is a divide between left and right wing libertarianism, and the article goes at great length to discuss the different political philosophies this entails. The lead summaries the rest of the article, and should be consistent.  --Jules  (Mrjulesd) 15:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, "generally" is correct according to reputable tertiary sources. The solution is obvious when sources contradict each other: use reputable tertiary sources for definitive statements and biased primary sources only as sources on themselves. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 11:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * --Jules, simple indeed. the source reads generally, the article reads: some. Darkstar1st (talk) 00:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Again you're missing it. The source actually says that "Those who maintain that capitalism is a excellent economic system, unfairly maligned, with little or no need for corrective government policy, are generally known as libertarians", in other words that terminology of libertarian is generally used for them; not that libertarians generally advocate those things. There is a subtle difference that you might be able to see. --Jules  (Mrjulesd) 16:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The other reputable tertiary sources cited certainly do support "libertarians generally advocate..." Encyclopedia Britannica, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and other reputable encyclopedias clearly say that libertarians generally advocate economic liberalism, private property rights, etc. Darkstar1st, why not just cite a better, more reputable source with your edit? Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 19:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree more widely read sources exist, I simply deleted a weasel word some without adding generally. Perhaps the editor would be willing to self-revert? Darkstar1st (talk) 20:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * In general, libertarianism has been rendered useless through redefinition of the term by the political left and right. This article proves this to be true. I started with the libertarian movement in 1975 and dropped calling myself one in 2014. No one knows what we mean by libertarian anymore. Hell, even hard-core Republicans (Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, etc.) call themselves libertarian. I went to voluntaryism and sure enough the right and left have followed suit. Bunco man (talk) 20:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Not true at all, the term has been used by many groups and people over history but the definition has not changed and the parties platform has rarely changed. If you are a Voluntaryist or anarcho-capitalist why you called you're self a Libertarian in the first place is because Murray Rothbard hi-jacked the term. But if you look at Classical Liberalism which is suppose to be essentially synonymous with Libertarianism (even Rothbard admitted that) than they do not go together. Classical Liberalism calls for a Federal Government, Ancaps call to abolish it. There not the same. Also to correct you Rand Paul is the only one who embraced the term "Libertarian". Cruz and Bush just said they have a Libertarian "Streak" in them. LuckyLag360 (talk) 16:40, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, AnCap and classical liberalism are different, but they share the same core ideology, and the same fundamental concept of libertarianism: self-ownership, economic liberty, etc. The difference is in other details, not what the term "libertarian" itself means. The reason the term is ambiguous (to say the least) in this article is because it's also used to refer to socialist ideology, resulting in the same term being used to refer to mutually exclusive concepts, and switching back and forth between them. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 21:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Objectivism within Strains of Libertarianism
Objectivism doesn't belong because it explicitly denies it's part of Libertarianism, and disagrees with Libertariainism. If you think it's still valuable, and needs to be a part of the page, it should go within a different section. Like Criticisms. It is an impossible read to call it a current, and then have it be a complete explaination why it isn't Libertarianism, and disagrees with it. q (talk) 19:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * After further reading I agree with you it should not be included. LuckyLag360 (talk) 21:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Center-libertarianism
Since Eduen's assessments of the sources, which found them less than reliable, apparently made all previous claims that the "Center-libertarianism" section was reliably sourced obsolete, I have implemented the consensus and removed that section. Huon (talk) 00:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * There was no consensus. It became obsolete because a lack of consensus was met and you had given up on it apparently until today. LuckyLag360 (talk) 00:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I have undone your archiving of the above discussion. It is still an ongoing matter: sourcing for the section is inadequate. Do not archive discussions to try to bury this fact. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 01:08, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * It was not ongoing but thats fine. Also how are they inadequate? LuckyLag360 (talk) 01:10, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I have explained in detail above how those sources either are blatantly unreliable (lack of author information and of any indication of editorial oversight) or do not back up any of the content they are cited for. I was waiting for additional editors to weigh in. Regarding consensus, I by now count Drmies (for example here, and some of those sources were just re-added by LuckyLag360), Eduen on this talk page, and now - unless I misunderstand his "sourcing for the section is inadequate" comment, Jules in general agreement with my assessment of the quality of the references. So we have four editors who think the sources are inadequate, and one who disagrees. That's a pretty strong consensus, particularly since that one editor never provided a convincing rationale for reliability and did not address, despite repeated requests, the fact that four of those sources don't say what they're cited for, reliable or no. Huon (talk) 01:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * LuckyLag360 has shuffled the sources around a bit. They do not support the content they are now cited for either. Huon (talk) 01:35, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * LuckyLag360: The Manifesto of "Centrist Libertarian Americanism" is self-published and therefore not reliable. The other web-sites again seem like blog-like sites with little in the way of verifiability . The other sources merely flit with the idea that self-described libertarians may allay with social-liberal doctrines in addition to conservative doctrines, and therefore are not consistent with how the section is written, and is already covered by left-libertarianism. Basically just re-read the above criticism and answer the points raised. If you are unable to do so you should accept that this section is not within policy. --Jules  (Mrjulesd) 01:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Defiantly. In the morning I will re-read every point given and reply thoroughly for Huon and anyone else interested. LuckyLag360 (talk) 02:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't have the time to go through each one of Huon's points individually, but at the very least their comments present a coherent argument. What I did look at was http://libertariancentrism.com/, and there is no way that counts as a reliable source. It is not even clear who or what it represents. It seems to be run by one single person called "Centrist", and judging from the total absence of any info about the people running it, and from the ungrammaticality of various pages ("Both left and right of libertarianism has attacked us claiming we are statist and fascist. Both untrue as we believe in a decentralized Government with a constitutional democratic-republic. Which ofcourse would be the opposite of a statist and fascist)", I deduce that there is no (decent) editorial oversight whatsoever. Drmies (talk) 14:35, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Centrist Libertarianism
There are attempts to remove/censor Centrist Libertarianism on the article page. First a lack of third party sources was the "reason" for removing the section. But it has multiple sources from different sites. There is no reason to remove a legit wing of the Libertarian movement that has main stream focus on it. LuckyLag360 (talk) 23:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


 * You may want to take a look at WP:Identifying reliable sources. Those sources were not reliable by Wikipedia's standards; most were the websites of supposedly Centrist-Libertarian organizations or opinion pieces, not subject to meaningful editorial oversight. Huon (talk) 22:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * But they meet Wikipedia standards are they are reliable, Please tell me exactly how they dont? LuckyLag360 (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Let's go through the sources in order:
 * How'd we come about? is obviously not an independent source. It's an "about us" page by an organization that claims the mantle of liberal centrism, with no indication of meaningful editorial oversight or fact-checking. In fact, I can't even tell who the author is.
 * Gary Johnson and the Rise of Libertarian Centrism is an opinion piece (note the use of "I" written by someone who self-identifies as a Libertarian). It's by far the best of those references, but the amount of editorial oversight opinion pieces are subject to is still lacking. It also contradicts the very sentence it's cited for.
 * What we believe? is another page from the same organization as the first source.
 * LibertyNewsNet, despite the name, is not a reputable news organization. Just the previous article to the one cited here argues that "Trump a puppet for Clinton!" It's a three-person group blog, less than two months old, and there's no indication that the involved persons have any journalistic experience or credentials.
 * Finally, Here’s What a Jesse Ventura Presidency Would Look Like is written by Jesse Ventura himself, clearly not an independent source, and just as clearly Ventura can write on whatever he likes, with no editorial oversight whatsoever. Besides, it does not say Ventura is a Libertarian Centrist nor mentions Libertarian center-libertarianism (or just "center") at all.
 * Those are all the sources. One is almost-useful, the others not at all. Particularly in comparison with the kinds of sources used for the other brands of libertarianism, that's clearly inappropriate. I'll remove the content again. Huon (talk) 20:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)|


 * Regardless of you're opinion on the sources they meet the Verifiability standards where it states quote

"The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings:   The type of the work (some examples include a document, an article, or a book)    The creator of the work (for example, the writer)    The publisher of the work (for example, Oxford University Press)    All three can affect reliability."

Note the difference in you're example of ! vs ? on the Trump a Puppet for Clinton. Misquoting titles in order to gain support for a consensus is very dishonest. Also please to do not edit war, Wait until a consensus is met, you are not the lone arbitrator of Wikipedia. LuckyLag360 (talk) 20:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Fun fact: Google maintains a cache of pages. When I looked at the page less than an hour ago and copy-pasted the title, it still had an exclamation mark. Now the title is changed and I get accused of being "very dishonest". I think that's a very curious coincidence. You have not addressed any of my concerns regarding those sources; merely copy-pasting parts of WP:Verifiability without explaining how they affect these specific sources is not helpful. Huon (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Thats interesting I've always seen a ? there. Also I did address it. I quoted the policy. It states "The type of the work (some examples include a document, an article, or a book)". Which all the sources qualify as ether an article, document or book. LuckyLag360 (talk) 20:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Also you're cache is from October 17th. It clearly has had a ? since at least October 18th. So my point stands that you're using an old title today in order to gain support. You're opinion on whether that is a bad article or not is irreverent to the discussion because that is not the sourced article. You've attempted to discredit them but again its very dishonest. Stick to the actual sourced information.LuckyLag360 (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I really do not appreciate being accused of lying. That was the default cache available on Google. You are welcome to come up with a cached version of the page that pre-dates my edit and has a question mark; then you can accuse me of dishonesty. Otherwise, I'd appreciate it if you assumed good faith. Also, yes, the type of the work can affect reliability. Not all sources are equally reliable. "About us" pages, for example, are not reliable at all (and I wouldn't consider them "articles" either). You also have not addressed the issue of the sources disagreeing with what you cite them for, which would make the content inappropriate even if the sources were reliable. Huon (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm assuming good faith however the evidence points towards dishonesty. Im not arguing that October 17th and before that article had an !. I'm saying that today october 21st when you linked me to it, it has a ?. Anyways enough with that, I do also appreciate you're patience. Now two of the sources are articles, If you disagree please point to a definition of article that back your point up. If they aren't articles what are they? and the others are documents which are also covered under Verifiability standards. Only one source you have claimed disagrees with what was actually wrote and I agree with you there. I am thinking of ways to rewrite that sentence. If you have a good way of rewriting it than go a head and edit the sentence. LuckyLag360 (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * So I rewrote the sentence you had a beef with and also removed one of the sources you claimed where unreliable. As for you're attempts to discredit me its a lost cause for you so I suggest sticking to editing. LuckyLag360 (talk) 01:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, then let's do this in greater detail. This is a sentence-by-sentece analysis of the "Center-libertarianism" section. Not a single claim in a single sentence is backed up by a source that isn't blatantly, obviously unreliable. Several claims are in fact contradicted by the sources supposed to support them. Thus I will - again - remove this content. Since multiple other editors have agreed with me in removing it, I'd say LuckyLag360 should take their own advice and establish a consensus for inclusion instead of reverting yet again without addressing the concerns. Huon (talk) 15:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) I still maintain that http://libertariancentrism.com/ is not reliable at all. It's some random website with no indication who wrote it, no indication of editorial oversight. I could write the opposite on my personal website and it would have the same level of reliability - none. I'll disregard those sources from now on (and remove them since they have no place on Wikipedia).
 * 2) Center-libertarianism, found mostly in the United States, believes in the five core principles of Classical liberalism. - This contains two claims: That center-libertarianism is mostly found in the US, and that it believes in the "five core principles of Classical liberalism", whatever those are. The sources are an opinion piece by Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, and an article in Cato Unbound a publication of the Cato Institute. I'll ignore the question of reliability for the moment. The Olson piece does not say center-libertarianism is "mostly found in the US" but rather, if anything, argues it's common in Europe. It also does not enumerate or mention any "core principles", and all it says about clasical liberals is that they may need to join another party. Ruper's Cato Unbound article does not discuss "center-libertarianism" at all, does not say anything about it being found mostly in the US (it also mentions that classical liberal parties exist in Europe), and does not mention or enumerate any principles of classical liberalism, which it equates with libertarianism in general. So no reliable source supports either claim. Thus this sentence is not based on any given sources that aren't obviously unreliable (see 1.) and should be removed.
 * 3) It embraces proprietism as its economic structure. - Olson does not mention economy or anything related to it at all, specifically not proprietism. Ruper again does not discuss center-libertarianism, and he does not say anything about economic structures (he emphasizes economic freedom, not structure) or proprietism. Thus this sentence too is unreferenced and should be removed.
 * 4) Centrist libertarians are generally regarded as the center wing of Libertarian as they reject both anarcho-capitalism and libertarian-socialism. - Neither Olson nor Ruper so much as mention anarcho-capitalism or libertarian-socialism. They don't mention wings either. If it's meant to say, "Centrist libertarians are generally regarded as libertarians who are in the center", it's almost tautology that adds nothing to the article; . Otherwise it's unsourced and should be removed.
 * 5) They advocate private property and Jeffersonian Principles on the right side, but common sense regulations and a Green New Deal on the left side. - I have discussed private property above (see 3.). Neither Olson nor Rupert mention Jeffersonian principles, "common sense regulation" (whatever that is, I have yet to see a regulator who admitted his regulations violated common sense) or a Green New Deal. Unsourced, should be removed.
 * 6) Centrist libertarians believe in private property rights and defend unequal distribution of natural resources and private property. - Sources for the second paragraph (except those dismissed in 1.) are an opinion piece by Phillies, a physicist and politician whose opinions are explicitly not endorsed by the publisher, and a post by Ilya Somin, a law professor, on the Volokh Conspiracy, a group blog. Again I'll ignore the issue of whether those sources are reliable, though the case for non-reliability is much stronger with Phillies. Regarding the sentence at hand, neither Phillies nor Somin mention private property, natural resources or inequality. Unsourced, should be removed.
 * 7) They advocate political egalitarianism and wish to create laws to get money out of politics, as well as environmentalism and a libertarian version of the Green New Deal. - Neither Phillies nor Somin mention egalitarianism, a desire to "get money out of politics", environmentalism or a Green New Deal. In fact, Somin cites someone who "urges libertarians to seek out the center" and explicitly advocates "funding for political candidates". Unsourced, should be removed.
 * 8) Centrist libertarians believe in spending on infrastructure (such as a new Interstate program, nationwide fiber optic deployment, solar/wind power programs) and on national defense, but simultaneously in fiscal conservatism. - By now it's probably no surprise that neither Phillies nor Somin mention infrastructure, spending, the budget, Interstates, fiberoptics, solar or wind power or fiscal conservatism. Unsourced, should be removed.


 * Great now that your done trying to discredit me let me say this. Everything you said is completely wrong and unfounded. You're attempts to completely censor a philosophy that is apart of Libertarianism is without a doubt very entertaining but you should stop. Also please head over to this: Identifying_reliable_sources and go down to where it says Biased or opinionated sources. Read that please. LuckyLag360 (talk) 16:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I've gone through the text in question sentence by sentence and checked every single claim made in that section. Not one was backed up by the sources (except possibly by the one which has the same level of reliability as my personal website - none). You have not contested the facts but merely throw out random guidelines that might sound vaguely relevant. Sorry, that won't do. If everything I said is completely wrong, it should be easy to prove me wrong. Pick any specific claim in the paragraphs that cite Olson, Ruper, Phillies and Somin and provide the quotes in those references that - while avoiding synthesis of our own - confirm that claim. Show us where Olson or Ruper say center-libertarianism is mainly found in the US. Show us where Phillies and Somin argue that money should be taken out of politics. Show us where any of them mentions a Green New Deal. If you can't do that, the content does not belong in Wikipedia. Huon (talk) 00:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * What you did was make straw mans and misrepresent the entire paragraph and its sources. Thats all you've done. You're giving me an edit war warning after you where the one who edited for the 3rd time. LuckyLag360 (talk) 00:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Specifics, please. Which sentence of those paragraphs have I misrepresented in which way? Do the paragraphs not say that "They advocate [...] a Green New Deal" and "They advocate for [...] a libertarian version of the Green New Deal"? Show us where those of the given sources that aren't blatantly and obviously unreliable confirm those claims. The burden of evidence is on the editor who wants content included. This burden has clearly not been met. Huon (talk) 03:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Many admins have seen and edited as well as looked at the sources. The section is still there. Because they are valid. Please explain to me how there unreliable sources? because you haven't, this discussion is going no where.LuckyLag360 (talk) 03:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I cannot believe this "centrist libertarianism" is still inside this article. I actually used to like the respect for sources in this particular article. What we have there in this "centrist libertarianism" is mainly first person accounts and political manifestoes passing as third party reliable sources.--Eduen (talk) 06:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Plenty of sources within this article out side of the disputed additions include political manifestos and first person accounts. You cannot arbitrary change the definition of a reliable source to fit you're argument. Everything is covered under Verifiability. LuckyLag360 (talk) 01:09, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS type of argument. If you have specific issues with other sections' references you are welcome to raise them. That does not mean we should lower our standards for this section. I also really, really don't see how Verifiability is meant to support adding content that the sources do not confirm. Huon (talk) 01:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The sources keep the same consistent standard throughout the article. I don't have a problem with any of the sources. All of them are sourced correctly and meet Verifiability. All the sources confirm the content and I'll tell you what I'll reply/address your source analysis one by one. Im to tired tonight to do it but in the morning I'll get a reply out. So just wait on that and im sure you'll be pleased with my response. LuckyLag360 (talk) 01:57, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm looking forward to that response. Please note that you generally shouldn't modify comments others have already replied to, as you did here. The relevant guideline is WP:REDACT. Huon (talk) 02:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh i'm sorry I was fixing a few grammar and typing errors I made. Anyways remember the section was restructured several times since you wrote this so assume good faith regarding my rebuttals to you as some of your criticisms are no longer relevant due to the changes that I did. So just know that and feel free to write out new criticisms about the way it is now and I will address them for you. But anyways here you go:

You write: “I still maintain that http://libertariancentrism.com/ is not reliable at all. It's some random website with no indication who wrote it, no indication of editorial oversight. I could write the opposite on my personal website and it would have the same level of reliability - none. I'll disregard those sources from now on (and remove them since they have no place on Wikipedia).”

My Reply: It is a website documenting Libertarian Centrism and what it stands for which is covered by Wikipedia:Verifiability#What_counts_as_a_reliable_source

You write: “Center-libertarianism, found mostly in the United States, believes in the five core principles of Classical liberalism. - This contains two claims: That center-libertarianism is mostly found in the US, and that it believes in the "five core principles of Classical liberalism", whatever those are. The sources are an opinion piece by Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, and an article in Cato Unbound a publication of the Cato Institute. I'll ignore the question of reliability for the moment. The Olson piece does not say center-libertarianism is "mostly found in the US" but rather, if anything, argues it's common in Europe. It also does not enumerate or mention any "core principles", and all it says about clasical liberals is that they may need to join another party. Ruper's Cato Unbound article does not discuss "center-libertarianism" at all, does not say anything about it being found mostly in the US (it also mentions that classical liberal parties exist in Europe), and does not mention or enumerate any principles of classical liberalism, which it equates with libertarianism in general. So no reliable source supports either claim. Thus this sentence is not based on any given sources that aren't obviously unreliable (see 1.) and should be removed.”

My Reply: The Cato article talks about the radical center, how libertarians are centrist and also affirms that we belief in property rights and private property which is where its sourced at in the article. Of course it doesnt say its mostly found in the US thats not what the article is sourced for, its sourced to affirm that Libertarian Centrist are in the center of the political spectrum and that we believe in private property and several other things. And it is reliable as it passes Wikipedia venerability as a news article.

You write: “It embraces proprietism as its economic structure. - Olson does not mention economy or anything related to it at all, specifically not proprietism. Ruper again does not discuss center-libertarianism, and he does not say anything about economic structures (he emphasizes economic freedom, not structure) or proprietism. Thus this sentence too is unreferenced and should be removed.”

My Reply: Of course it doesnt that's not the source for that sentence. The source for that sentence is http://libertariancentrism.com/?page_id=2 which supports that sentence.

You write: “Centrist libertarians are generally regarded as the center wing of Libertarian as they reject both anarcho-capitalism and libertarian-socialism. - Neither Olson nor Ruper so much as mention anarcho-capitalism or libertarian-socialism. They don't mention wings either. If it's meant to say, "Centrist libertarians are generally regarded as libertarians who are in the center", it's almost tautology that adds nothing to the article;. Otherwise it's unsourced and should be removed. “

My Reply: Agreed they dont again thats not the sourced article for that sentence. This is https://www.nolanchart.com/article6423-what-is-libertarian-centrism-html which points out what some Libertarian centrists belief as well as shows the nolan chart with a star in the center of libertarianism showing where Libertarian centrist fall on the specturm. That being the Center of Libertarianism on the nolan chart.

You write: “They advocate private property and Jeffersonian Principles on the right side, but common sense regulations and a Green New Deal on the left side. - I have discussed private property above (see 3.). Neither Olson nor Rupert mention Jeffersonian principles, "common sense regulation" (whatever that is, I have yet to see a regulator who admitted his regulations violated common sense) or a Green New Deal. Unsourced, should be removed.”

My Reply: Once again nothing to do with the two articles you harp on. I recently added a new source specifically for that so feel free to take a look. http://libertariancentrism.com/?page_id=7

You write: “Centrist libertarians believe in private property rights and defend unequal distribution of natural resources and private property. - Sources for the second paragraph (except those dismissed in 1.) are an opinion piece by Phillies, a physicist and politician whose opinions are explicitly not endorsed by the publisher, and a post by Ilya Somin, a law professor, on the Volokh Conspiracy, a group blog. Again I'll ignore the issue of whether those sources are reliable, though the case for non-reliability is much stronger with Phillies. Regarding the sentence at hand, neither Phillies nor Somin mention private property, natural resources or inequality. Unsourced, should be removed.”

My Reply: So the sources for that sentence changed several times, I don't even know if I should bother with this one. Let me know if you want to change what you wrote about that particular sentence.

You write: “They advocate political egalitarianism and wish to create laws to get money out of politics, as well as environmentalism and a libertarian version of the Green New Deal. - Neither Phillies nor Somin mention egalitarianism, a desire to "get money out of politics", environmentalism or a Green New Deal. In fact, Somin cites someone who "urges libertarians to seek out the center" and explicitly advocates "funding for political candidates". Unsourced, should be removed.”

My Reply: I actually made a mistake about that source and I did fix it, so go a head and take a look.

You write: “Centrist libertarians believe in spending on infrastructure (such as a new Interstate program, nationwide fiber optic deployment, solar/wind power programs) and on national defense, but simultaneously in fiscal conservatism. - By now it's probably no surprise that neither Phillies nor Somin mention infrastructure, spending, the budget, Interstates, fiberoptics, solar or wind power or fiscal conservatism. Unsourced, should be removed.”

My Reply: It is sourced: http://libertariancentrism.com/?page_id=2 which covers basically everything in that sentence.

Thanks for reading and I look forward to you're reply LuckyLag360 (talk) 16:18, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * As a general note, you say I "harp on" articles; at the time I wrote that, those articles were cited as the sources for entire paragraphs. You have by now shuffled the sources a bit; that doesn't help, though. With numbers referring to my original numbering scheme:
 * I don't see what part of WP:V supposedly declares "a website" a reliable source. Drmies agreed below that this website is not reliable. Merely naming a policy without explaining how it applies is not helpful.
 * You agree that the sources cited for that sentence do not confirm any aspect of that sentence. Whether liberalism is in the center of the political spectrum or not is not part of that sentence.
 * You agree that the possibly reliable sources do not confirm this sentence.
 * You misrepresent the Nolan chart. That star is where the author of that piece falls on the chart - it's not where Libertarian Centrism falls. It also doesn't discuss the position of libertarian centrism within libertarianism. (Also, when I wrote the list above the Nolan Chart wasn't cited as a source for this paragraph; that's why I didn't discuss it back then.)
 * libertariancentrism.com again is that utterly unreliable website. Drmies concurred with that assessment.
 * Yes, I'd still like you to address which quotes of the article support that statement, with quotes. The only possibly reliable source in the entire second paragraph is the Somin article, and it does not back up this sentence.
 * I'm not sure I see your change. You still cite Somin for a sentence Somin does not confirm but in fact seems to contradict.
 * Again the utterly unreliable source.
 * So the entire paragraph relies on a source three editors have agreed is unsuitable, with the other sources, no matter where they're shifted, not supporting the sentences they're cited for. I'll wait a little longer in case someone else wants to weigh in; if that doesn't happen I'll - once again - remove a section not based on reliable sources. Huon (talk) 00:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * First dont misrepresent what I said, I clearly said "Anyways remember the section was restructured several times since you wrote this so assume good faith regarding my rebuttals to you as some of your criticisms are no longer relevant due to the changes that I did." So dont make it out to be im trying to be deceptive. You're first sentence in this reply is not needed and you should really start assuming good faith.


 * (1.) Well first off I said a website documenting. The key word is document and I'll quote it for you:

What counts as a reliable source Further information: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings: The type of the work (some examples include a document, an article, or a book) The creator of the work (for example, the writer) The publisher of the work (for example, Oxford University Press)


 * (2-8.) Is you saying I agree with you that there unreliable, which I don't. read what I wrote and you claiming there unreliable. Yet they are reliable. Everything here is reliable. The hole article is reliable.

This was really a disappointing reply because you didn't even read what I wrote it seems like. You have a personal issue with me and thats why you have attack me and divert the conversation and misrepresent what I write. I'll wait for an actual reply back but until than I've cited policy, I've showed you how its reliable, I've explained where the sources are and all you've done is say there unreliable without any prove or backup other than meat puppetry with your admin buddies. LuckyLag360 (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I understand you well enough. You confirmed that even in your own opinion the only source for much of that content is http://libertariancentrism.com/ and its sub-pages. Drmies said "there is no way that counts as a reliable source" (and gave a detailed explanation). Jules said your sources, specifically including that one, "seem like blog-like sites with little in the way of verifiability". I too explained why it's not reliable. So three editors have explicitly disagreed with your interpretation of policy. Thus I will - once again - remove the inappropriately sourced content. Please do not re-add it before establishing a consensus that it belongs, that your sources are reliable, and that they actually confirm what you cite them for. Huon (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Very well I dont care anymore to be honest. You can do whatever you want, your an admin. LuckyLag360 (talk) 21:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

FAQ
I just noticed that LuckyLag360 added his personal description of Center-libertarianism to the FAQ. I'm going to remove that for two reasons: Firstly, it's not based on any reliable sources (see also above), and secondly there is no indication there actually are frequently asked questions about Center-libertarianism. Huon (talk) 20:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * took you long enough to realize that it was added. The funny thing is that add was approved by another admin, might wanna get a consensus on this before you remove that to. LuckyLag360 (talk) 21:29, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * And who was that admin who approved it? We can ping them and ask them whether they have a problem with the removal. Huon (talk) 21:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure LuckyLag360 (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * If it is not in the article, it should not be mentioned in FAQ.--Eduen (talk) 21:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Libertarian possibilism unreliable source
Libertarian possibilism has a broken source that is unreliable and does not verify anything in its sentence. it should be removed or fixed. LuckyLag360 (talk) 21:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Source was fixed but it has no mention of Libertarian Possibilism, which is what its sourced for. LuckyLag360 (talk) 21:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Page 16-22. Article "Possibilisme libertaire".--Eduen (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Just a heads up Libertaire means Liberty in English not Libertarian. Steelstarz (talk) 19:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Libertarianism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723070247/https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/srv/article/view/5333 to https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/srv/article/view/5333
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761568770_1/Anarchism.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110909065656/http://www.nationalbook.org/nba1975.html to http://www.nationalbook.org/nba1975.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Why do we have an article that focuses on taxonomy of Libertarianism variants?
I created my account just now so that I could weigh in with opinion of this article. Please forgive me if I'm breaking rules that I do not yet understand.

Libertarianism is essentially Classical Liberalism, and the word "Libertarian" is used to avoid confusion with modern American liberalism. If something rejects most of the principles of Classical Liberalism then is it really Libertarianism? Even if you can find something to site, is there value in mentioning obscure, contrived ideas that detract from the basic tenets of Libertarianism?

In a short video, Nigel Ashford of Institute for Humane Studies explains the tenets of classical liberalism on which most classical libertarians agree. Bob Weeks summarizes those basic tenets: Liberty, Individualism, Skepticism about power, Rule of law, Civil society, Spontaneous order, Free markets, Toleration, Peace, and Limited government. (IHS video included)

Sources to consider: http://www.learnliberty.org, http://www.cato.org, http://theihs.org

— Preceding unsigned comment added by DTuhy (talk • contribs) 17:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I think this may be what happens sometimes when you get a contentious topic. Labeling the variants provides a place for "advocates" to say their piece, leaving alone the question of who really "owns" the main topic word. A similar problem exists because of the tension among various styles of anarchism.
 * This is not ideal, but it may be easier to maintain than a completely neutral description that somehow tries to reconcile or paper over the disagreements between factions.
 * Look at the FAQ posted at the head of this talk page for some examples of how some people may disagree with your formulation. Is "extol" the right word?  &#8212;jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  00:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree, that article seems to spend lots of time describing different branches of libertarianism, and not enough of the libertarian philosophy/ideology. When most people think libertarian, they think of right-libertarianism (which is similar to classical liberalism). But, a reader of the article would think that socialists ideologies are a bigger part of the movement than they actually are. The article only explains the non-aggression principle a few times, despite being the defining fundamental value of libertarianism (it should be explained more). Although it's not great, jmcgnh gives good reasons for why there's not much we can do about it. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 06:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Thoughts on restructuring currents as left, right and socialist?
A substantial number of sources (some already cited in the article, but here is another good example) tend to divide libertarianism into three – rather than two – distinct categories: left, right and socialist. This isn't to say that socialism doesn't belong on the left, but rather that a good number of academics seem to reserve the term "left-libertarian" for the "relative left" of the liberal/propertarian tendencies, which took on the "libertarian" label in the late 20th century (mostly in the US). This has led to a fair bit of misunderstanding (to be charitable) when attributing claims to sources in their actually-intended context. I would like to request editors' opinions on whether it would make sense to restructure the article so that socialism is its own category, apart from relative "left-libertarianism," in the convention of these many sources. The aim would be to cut down on further misunderstanding, equivocation and false attribution/contextualization of sourced statements. fi (talk) 05:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The current article talks about many different concepts, all of which claim to be libertarian, or use "libertarian" in the name, rather like "democratic centralism" had the word "democratic" in it, even though it was the opposite of democracy. Restructuring so that each concept is described separately would be an improvement.--  Toddy1 (talk) 06:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * We could divide prominent currents into 3 sections rather than 2 which would require minimal change. Toddy1's comment that they arre different concepts however is false.  The U.S. Libertarian Party built its ideology on 19th century libertarianism, even using its name, which is clear in the writings of Hess, Nolan and Rothbard.  In fact their writings come even closer to some 19th century U.S. libertarians such as Spooner.  There might be confusion however in that neoliberal policies are also sometimes described as libertarian in the U.S.  While that is worth mentioning, it is not the topic of this article.  TFD (talk) 07:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Sure. To be clear, I am not proposing to remove the many verifiable connections linking private property libertarianism to social and individualist anarchist influences. My main concern is that the terminology used in lots of sources is very easy to take out of context if we use "left-libertarian" and "socialist libertarian" more or less interchangeably, when the sources use "left-libertarian" to describe some of the more nuanced proponents of night-watchman states, contracts and private property – particularly the sort starting from a natural law foundation, as very few anarchists tend to do (with the odd ones like Spooner being the rare exception to the rule). fi (talk) 07:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * It still seems like most reliable sources don't make this distinction (they usually treat libertarian socialism as a subset of left-libertarianism). I believe that using a terminology convention that only a minority of sources use will create confusion when citing material from the other majority of sources. Granted, the convention currently used in the article can create confusion when citing the few sources that do make this distinction. However, that's undoubtedly better than using a convention that will create confusion when citing the vast majority of sources. In the article, the terminology that's most widely used by reliable sources should be used, and sources that don't use the common terminology should be analyzed on an ad hoc basis in order to determine the most accurate way to translate their terms to be compatible with the article's terminology. Another thing to consider is that, as you point out, socialism is on the left of the political spectrum, so I think using left-libertarianism to mean something different than libertarian socialism will actually create more confusion. There's no reason to create a misnomer if we don't need to. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 06:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits
, thanks for your edits. I am reverting some parts that were not explained in the edit summaries and that I believe require an explanation. Care to provide a rationale in terms of policy for these changes? I'm listing them in my edit summaries and will copy the diffs here once it's done. Hopefully we can agree on what should be incorporated or not. 1. Ref removal 2. Wikilink removal and reordering I also fixed a missing space between words and a wrong wikilink. Saturnalia0 (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure. As far as I can tell, the only reversion needing explanation is the change from "anarcho-capitalist" back to "anarchist" - right? I don't think I introduced the errors you corrected, but my apologies if I had. So, I tried to explain in the edit summaries but I can expand here. I think pretty much everything below is already cited in the article.


 * The historic anarchist movement, which is a branch of the socialist movement, has always called for abolition of state


 * On the other hand, "minarchists" (who are advocates for laissez-faire capitalism) wish to maintain it reduce it to a night-watchman state


 * The historic anarchist movement is the origin of "libertarian" as a political label; the anarchist communist Joseph Dejacque coined the term


 * The obscure, mostly American phenomenon born in the 1970s called "anarcho-capitalism" is a far-fringe outgrowth of laissez-faire/neoliberal politics – which also calls for abolition of state and considers itself a form of anarchism


 * Anarcho-capitalism, of course, is wholly rejected by the entire historic anarchist movement as a form of anarchism, since - again - anarchism has always been anti-capitalist


 * So, it really doesn't seem to make any sense to refer to something so irrelevant that it barely merited two sentences in the article on anarchism as if it were the most relevant form of anarchism, particularly for this article, if indeed you want to call it a form of anarchism at all. fi (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Looking back at the other changes, I may have inadvertently reverted more than I meant to do. I intended only to undo some changes to the lead: the exclusively propertarian additions, the ancap bits and the clunky wording. I'm not sure how the sections below got reordered back to the way they were before. Seems like a pretty trivial detail and I don't really care which comes first, personally. I hope I didn't mess up any other corrections in the process. Apologies on that. fi (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You need to explain why you're removing sourced material from the lead. This is what all reliable sources say on libertarianism, and Wikipedia can only say what reliable sources say (WP:RS). What exclusively propertatian additions, anarcho-capitalist bits, and clunky wording are you referring to in the lead? If you let me know, I can try to fix those. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 11:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources like Woodcock describe traditional anticapitalist anarchism, and reliable sources cited on the term's history point to a 19th century anarcho-communist coining the label in the sense that is the topic of this article. Is it you position that anarchists base their philosophy on "rule of law"? Or perhaps that communists start from a position of "self-ownership"? Could you please provide a reliable source for either of those claims? I rather doubt it, as those are liberal concepts. If you don't have reliable sources saying otherwise, they don't belong in the lead, and neither does anarcho-capitalism, specifically – or at least not any more than anarchist primitivism, for another fringe example that's barely relevant to the topic. The lead needs to address all major "libertarian" camps, instead of pretending like neoliberal ideologies own the label. fi (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * But, this isn't an article on anarchism, this is an article on libertarianism (I understand that the terms have some overlap). The first paragraph of the lead doesn't even mention anarchism, so I don't know why you're mentioning that. Citing the first usage of the term in political contexts is an etymological fallacy. Just because the first political ussage was by a communist, doesn't mean the contemporary meaning of the word has anything to do with communism (and this is supported by reliable sources). It is not my assumption that libertarians base their philosophy on the rule of law. It is what the reliable sources say on the matter. We have to say what the reliable sources say, and nothing more. I cannot provide a reliable source to the claim that communists start from a position of self-ownership, because I never stated it. Anarcho-capitalism wasn't mentioned in the first paragraph of the lead, so I don't know why you keep mentioning it. The lead just needs to make the main points that are affirmed by the reliable sources. You still haven't explained why you're removing reliably sourced material, and you haven't answered by question about the supposed clunky wording, ancap bits, and propertarian additions (or why that's even relevant to its removal). IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 18:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's very simple, if you elect to read the actual article, which I strongly suspect you have not done. "Anarchist," for over one and a half centuries, had meant the same thing as "libertarian" – referring to socialists, largely communists; "anarcho-capitalist" had not. "Anarcho-capitalism" is very marginally related to this topic. If you want to write an article exclusively dedicated to the last several decades of US neoliberalism and its fringiest outgrowths, there's plenty of articles for that. This is not one. fi (talk) 00:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you're talking about, but you've made it clear that you're not talking about the first paragraph of the lead. Thus, I'm reverting it back to the version before the violations of WP:NPOV and rejections of WP:RS took place. If you have any further objections, please start a new discussion on the talk page. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 19:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "I don't know what you're talking about" – yeah, this is a problem, per WP:COMPETENCE, which is actually the one policy I see applicable here, assuming good faith. You should familiarize yourself with the article until you know what I'm talking about. If, on the other hand, you do understand why communists and anarchists belong to the umbrella of libertarianism, let me know if I can help explain why communists and anarchists are not defined as exponents of liberal concepts, like self-ownership and rule of law. fi (talk) 05:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm familiar with the article, and I understand the terminology. I frankly don't care what communists and anarchists support. I care about what the reliable sources (WP:RS) say about the subject and nothing more. I said "I don't know what you're talking about" because I repeatedly asked you questions and (IMO) refuted your points, but you never addressed them. You responded with a long paragraph about anarcho-capitalism, and other things not mentioned in the lead. When I pointed out that you were missing the point, you only responded with another irrelevant long paragraph. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 03:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Re: "I frankly don't care what communists and anarchists support." – Then this is not the article for you. I suggest you go edit articles where you care about the subject matter in the title. You didn't refute anything and if you think what I said was irrelevant, then you're still having trouble understanding the basic concepts – perhaps because you don't care about them. fi (talk) 12:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You're taking what I said out of context. The point is that your personal opinions about political ideologies are irrelevant for encyclopedic content. Encyclopedias like Wikipedia should only include content backed up by reliable sources (preferably multiple reliable sources) in order to fulfill WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR. You're falsely generalizing what I said to make it seem like I don't care about libertarianism as a whole. I care about all political ideologies at least somewhat. I'm just acknowledging that personal opinions and views expressed in a Wikipedia talk page don't override multiple reliable sources. If I haven't refuted anything, you need to respond to my counterarguments to show why I haven't. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 23:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I have never shared with you any of my own personal political views. This article is talking about anti-state socialists and communists and their political views. If you don't care about the political views of socialists and communists, then you should not be editorializing articles about the views of socialists and communists – with no sources to back up your claims to boot (as I've already explained repeatedly), other than some vague hunch that only "a few" libertarians are socialists. fi (talk) 05:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Your arguments are unencyclopedic because they depond on WP:OR combined with WP:SYNTH. Your statement perfectly demonstrates your misunderstanding. Nobody should be editorializing Wikipedia (Wikipedia's policies explicitly say to not editorialize articles). You need to get a grasp on Wikipedia's policies before you make these long threads arguing for what belongs on a Wikipedia article. You still seem to not understand the sources that are being cited. Your assertions about the quality of the sources are factually false; they don't apply to any of the reliable sources cited in the lead. You are still falsely generalizing what I'm saying, as I mentioned in my previous comment in this thread; you still haven't explained why you seem to believe opinions or views expressed in a Wikipedia talk page override multiple reliable sources; and you still haven't given any counterarguments to support your claim that I haven't refuted anything. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 00:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read the policies that you've linked. It's not original research to contextualize what a source is referring to, like noting that Cato is explaining propertarian libertarianism rather than libertarian communism, nor is it synthesis to read the article you are editing and notice that the lead blatantly contradicts the article's contents. It is original research to extrapolate or base statements on claims that the source never made, as you are doing now. Either remove the what you've superimposed on libertarian socialists, for no reason whatsoever, or start an RfC to ask for consensus, which you presently do not have. fi (talk) 03:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You admitted in your post above that you were attempting to editorialize this article, which is a patent violation of Wikipedia's policies. So, I don't know why you're trying to explain to me the very policies you are breaking. Cato is undeniably right-libertarian, but there are four other sources backing up the claims (some of those sources do acknowledge left-libertarianism such as the SEP). Plus, propertarianism isn't even described in the lead. Unless of course you see self-ownership as propertarian since it entails some form of ownership. But, that's a contrived explanation and is in opposition to what the reliable sources say. No extrapolation of the sources is made in the lead (although I challenge you to point one out). You're awfully confused; I haven't superimposed anything about libertarian socialists (again, I challenge you to point out examples of me doing this). A (possibly temporary) compromise was reached, so I have no need to start an RfC since I am satisfied with the compromise. If you are not satisfied it's entirely up to you to take action. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 06:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * A compromise involves two parties coming to a mutual understanding, which is difficult to do when someone with an ancap meme for a name willfully misunderstands everything they are told. I accused you of editorializing; or, to put that in WP policy terms, which you're so fond of throwing around like confetti, WP:OR. If your position has suddenly changed to "some libertarians base their politics on Lockean self-ownership while others reject it," then you should put that information in the relevant section of the article or in Libertarianism in the United States, not in the first paragraph of the lead here. It doesn't belong there for the same reason workplace democracy and mutual aid doesn't belong there. You have the whole article to explain what right wingers do and don't believe, complete with sources about them. fi (talk) 08:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, my name is an ancap meme and I am an anarcho-capitalist. I have never tried to deny that. How is it WP:OR? I cited three sources, and only one of them is the Cato Institute. My position is that based on the reliable sources, self-ownership is a significant enough of a tenet to warrant inclusion in the lead. That's because it's mentioned in multiple reliable sources as a key principle, it's mentioned 62 times in the SEP article (so there's evidence it's important), and the SEP dispells the idea that the other sources were just talking about right-libertarianism. Per the reliable sources, it should be included in the lead. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 15:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll quote the most pertinent bit that you seem to have glanced over in WP:OR, which desperately needs your attention: "Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context." fi (talk) 04:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You need to point out where this section of WP:OR is being violated in the compromise lead you keep reverting. The fact is, you keep removing reliably sourced material, so you need to gain an understanding of the policies.
 * I have done so at least a dozen times by this point and I don't know how many more times I can repeat myself. The context of Cato's reference is not libertarian socialism. The context of the SEP reference is not libertarian socialism. Putting it in that context is clearly misleading, removed from what the source intended and in contradiction with the rest of the article. Is that clear enough? fi (talk) 08:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I never claimed in the article or the talk page that Cato was talking about libertarian socialism (although it's not explicitly talking about right-libertarianism either). On the other hand, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy was explicitly talking about left- and right-libertarianism in the quotation (it also refers to self-ownership as a libertarian tenet in many other parts of the article too). You're wrong about the context; it's not misleading. No, it's not clear enough because you haven't showed why the SEP source is misleading and not what the source intended, and you still haven't explained what the contradiction with the rest of the article is. Even so, if other parts of the article contradict what's said in reliable sources, those parts need to be emended or removed. And if you do explain these things to me, cite multiple reliable sources like I have given you (I have given three reliable sources). I don't want original research or synthesis, which is all I've gotten so far from you. Remember, you have been the one removing reliably sourced material, not adding it. If you cannot show that the SEP is wrong and show that I'm extrapolating all of the other sources and show that I'm "superimposing" views about libertarian socialism then I will add the material back in. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 21:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I have explained to you, repeatedly, what "left-libertarian" means in the context of the SEP page you are referring to, which you have ignored repeatedly. The only notable anarchist who was an exponent of natural rights (with caveats) was Lysander Spooner. Virtually everyone else either always considered natural rights nonsense to begin with, or rejected it eventually (e.g. Benjamin Tucker). Read about anarchism if you don't understand what it is; a good place to start on how anarchists reject self ownership is An Anarchist FAQ, B.4.2 (AK Press, ISBN 9781902593906 & ISBN 9781849351225). Anarchism is an anti-state movement (therefore no "rule of law") and anti-capitalist movement (therefore no Lockean self-ownership, except with a handful of oddball anti-capitalists like Spooner). If you want to make your changes to the lead, start an RfC and I will find all the needed references to refute the conclusions that you've concocted by removing references from context. Short of that, please stop adding nonsense to the lead. fi (talk) 00:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Just because the SEP (which is peer-reviewed and written by experts) describes libertarianism is a way you don't like, doesn't mean it's wrong or referring to some other type of left-libertarianism. So, you still haven't refuted the SEP. Your claim about Lysander Spooner is totally false and irrelevant the argument (without extrapolation or synthesis). I'm an anarchist, so I do know what anarchism is (now you're gonna say I'm not a "real anarchist"). Oh, "An Anarchist FAQ" is now a reliable source for statements of fact about libertarianism? That's drivel. Next you're gonna send me a picture of what some anarcho-communist wrote on the walls of a public restroom and say it's a reliable source about libertarianism. Per WP:ANCITE, "Sources that rely heavily on personal opinions are considered 'questionable sources,' and cannot be used as sources for anything other than to indicate the author's opinion"; and "Factual claims made largely by ideologists of a particular point of view have less authority than factual claims supported by independent scholars or other third party sources." Since you have been removing reliably sourced material, it's now your job to start an RfC, not mine. That's because a compromise was offered and I agreed to it. You still haven't explained how I'm extrapolating all the other sources or how I'm contradicting other parts of the article. Since you're giving me "An Anarchist FAQ" and claiming it's a reliable source for factualy claims, I'm changing the article back to the version with the removed material. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 02:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The AFAQ, which you've apparently somehow never heard of, has been the definitive reference on social anarchism for over twenty years, published by AK Press (which is apparently new to you as well). It's a 550-page per volume academic project, and a much more rigorous one than anything you've leaned on, at that. You will find exactly the same treatment if you look at serious historians and leading academics like Woodcock or Graham, to so say nothing of present-day anarchists and social scientists like David Graeber, who have articles you can easily access deconstructing 'self-ownership' – again. You need to stop POV pushing in the lead, or we will eventually have to settle this on the noticeboards. fi (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course I've heard of "An Anarchist FAQ" (and I've read some of it too). AK Press is not peer reviewed (like the SEP); as long as the content is relevant, publication is not difficult. How is "AFAQ" more rigorous than the four reliable sources I've cited? It's not POV pushing to look at reliable sources and insist that their content not be removed. You're claim about "AFAQ" being a definitive source for the subject is nonsense. WP:ANCITE explicitly lists "An Anarchist FAQ" as a source which cannot be cited for factual statements about a subject matter. It can only be used for statements about the authors' opinions. And in the same section it states that the opinions expressed in "AFAQ" cannot be used to represent all anarchists (let alone all libertarians, which is what this article is about). Moreover, the book has been criticized for its reliability. David D. Friedman (who is undoubtedly biased, but still has makes criticisms) says he is irritated by "the irresponsibility of people who apparently do not care whether what they publish is true." He says that "Apparently the authors' approach is to make up their facts, then correct the more blatant errors after I point them out". source On the other hand, WP:ANCITE states that "scholarly, well-researched material" is the best type of source. This seems to strongly support the SEP, which you have let to refute. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 01:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm going to end this exchange instead of indulging every irrelevant red herring you throw out. What you said, again, is categorically false. The only thing WP:ANCITE says regarding the AFAQ (the one time it's mentioned, as a hypothetical example) is to treat it in the context of social anarchism, rather than taking social anarchist political positions (e.g. "consistent anti-authoritarianism demands abolition of capital") as encyclopedic fact, as those are conclusions based on social anarchist moral and political judgments. The SEP web-page you cited is neither peer-reviewed nor particularly authoritative, even on propertarianism, but none of that matters in the slightest, since I never challenged its veracity. What I challenged was your insistence on removing it completely from its clearly intended – propertarian – context, as the page does not address, relate to, discuss or even acknowledge libertarian socialism in any, shape or form. This should be obvious to anyone with even a cursory understanding of the subject. I have repeated this enough and I will not repeat myself again. To be clear, if you had used the reference after a statement attributing self-ownership to both the propertarian "left" and "right" (both of which are miles to the right of the socialist movement), I would have absolutely no objections and we would not be having this very tedious conversation. fi (talk) 02:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll try to expand on this to hopefully make it clearer, as I'm now being accused of disruptive and unconstructive editing by the user above, despite doing my best to explain the edit – or rather the revert to the previous, long-standing wording of the lead. As explained by the FAQ above and the actual contents of the article, Wikipedia editors have decided to dedicate this article to libertarianism as an umbrella term, for all political philosophies going by that name. This includes both the right wing, neoliberal philosophies going by this name (mainly in the US) since the late 20th century and the socialists that have been going by this name since the mid 19th century. CATO's definition of libertarian is indeed true for CATO's brand of libertarianism; however, CATO does not represent traditional socialist anarchism or anarchist communism or libertarian Marxism. It represents the right-wing ideologies that call themselves libertarian. Attributing "rule of law" to anarchists or "self-ownership" to communists is akin to starting the lead with "libertarians advocate abolition of private property and capital." While this is very obviously well sourced and uncontroversially true for socialist libertarians, it clearly does not apply to the right-wing libertarians described below. Now that we've established that CATO, among other right wing advocacy groups, does not own the word libertarian, consider how self-ownership and rule of law applies to anarchists/communists. Might certain communists conceivably agree with some formulation of "self-ownership" that's sufficiently dissimilar from the way that it's used by right-wing libertarians? Sure, and I can think of a few examples. Do some anarchists act in defense of "rule of law" in the context of states and liberal capitalist society? Absolutely. Are these political camps defined as exponents of either one? Not at all. They want a radical transformation of society that's neither based on propertarian precepts nor governed by states or state laws. I would hope we have sufficient citations in the article already to establish that anarchists have a few teensy objections to states, um, existing. Let's try and read past the first two sentences of the article and take a short glance at the FAQ before making ambitious edits that don't make a lick of sense. fi (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You did not do your absolute best to explain the edit. In addition to what I said in my post above about your discussion on the talk page, you also provided no edit summary for your reversions. When I reverted your reversion, I mentioned that there was no reason given for the reversion. Once again, you reverted it with no edit summary. You didn't even remotely try to explain the edit. That's not me assuming bad faith, that's just me pointing out that you did not give a reason for the reversion. This combined with the fact that the edit removes reliably sourced material is why I left a disruptive editing warning on your talk page. The CATO Institute is not the only citation given. There are four citations from reliable sources given about the definition and key ideas of libertarianism. They all point to what is discussed in the lead paragraph I have been advocating. If you need further proof, I'll give you a fifth source. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which is certainly a reliable source, says "Second, in addition to the better-known version of libertarianism—right-libertarianism—there is also a version known as 'left-libertarianism'. Both endorse full self-ownership, but they differ with respect to the powers agents have to appropriate unowned natural resources (land, air, water, minerals, etc.)." [emphasis added] They acknowledge left-libertarianism (which I have been trying to do aswell), and still mention that all libertarians still support self-ownership. I don't care one iota about your analyses about left-libertarian thought in these talk pages. Per Wikipedia's guidelines (WP:OR and WP:RS), I only care about what the reliable sources say on the matter. Even so, I have attempted to keep the lead paragraph compatible with left-libertarianism. For example, I removed "free markets" from the lead because it's a propertarian idea even though most reliable sources say it's a key aspect of libertarianism. So, all propertarian parts of the lead are removed, unless you consider self-ownership to be propertarian. But, even the SEP acknowledges that self-ownership is still a key aspect of left- and right-libertarianism. So, the argument is moot at this point. I concede that we could remove the rule of law. It's pretty important for libertarians IMO, but may not be necessary for the lead. You still need to explain why you're removing sourced material. Can you also explain what "anarcho-capitalist bits" and "clunky wording" are in the lead because I could try to fix them. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 04:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Re: "you also provided no edit summary for your reversions" – This is false. I provided edit summaries. As far as the definition of libertarianism, I've explained all I can. It's not on you to keep the lead "compatible" with "left-libertarianism"; the lead should simply state the facts instead of making things up by selectively pointing to definitions of right-wing libertarianism. I hope this is clear enough. We have plenty of sources which say libertarians want to abolish private property – Woodcock made no mention of US neoliberalism, for example. And yet, all except you are capable of understanding why those sources don't describe the USLP. fi (talk) 12:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's look at the facts (all verifiable on the history. On 20 February 2017 I changed the lead paragraph back to the one supported by reliable sources, and told you to see the talk page. At 5:18 21 February 2017 you made this edit with no edit summary and at this point no response to the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libertarianism&oldid=766618231 There it is; there's no edit summary or response on the talk page as of this time. However, that's not all. I reverted your edit with the edit summary "No reason given". Minutes later you reverted my edit, completely ignoring my revert. Once again you reverted the same change without an edit summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libertarianism&oldid=766619055 You just denied it, but as we've seen, your claim that you did have an edit summary is patently false. This signals to me that you are not acting in good faith. I'm not selectively choosing definitions of right-libertarianism, I'm just finding reliable sources for libertarianism in general. The lead I am advocating for is what reliable sources say. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 00:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't owe you an edit summary every single time I revert the same nonsense you keep spamming. You knew the reasons very well, because I provided them the first time I took it out, in the original edit summary, and elaborated more on this talk page. fi (talk) 05:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The first time edit summaries no longer applied. A compromise had been reached on the talk page, and you wanted to change it back to your version. An edit summary is needed for explaining why you are disregaring the compromise that was reached. Also, I had already responded to the reasons given in your initial edit summary on the talk page. You could have at least responded to the talk page before you made the change, but you didn't. After I reverted your edit and said that it was because there was no edit summary given by you, you knew that an edit summary was needed, but you changed it back again with no edit summary. So you did not do your absolute best to explain your edits like you claimed. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 01:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * And regarding the SEP, which I never removed as a citation, the "left-libertarianism" it describes is obviously not the same libertarianism as, say, Joseph Dejacque's anarcho-communism. Notice, for example, how the SEP page makes zero mentions of socialism, even though anarchism is a branch of the socialist movement. This is similar to another source in the lead listing, "right-libertarianism," (relative) "left-libertarianism" and "libertarian socialism" as a separate category, in the author's context. That's because the topic of these pieces is Nozick and Locke, and the relative "left" and "right" in terms of the "libertarianism" introduced to the US in the late 20th century. To borrow a cited quote from the lead of the self-ownership article: "Anarchism shares with liberalism a radical commitment to individual freedom while rejecting liberalism's competitive property relations." In other words, if you want to charge anarchists with being committed to self ownership at all (which is a poorly sourced claim in the first place – probably because anarchists tend not to base autonomy on terms denoting property), or other liberal values, you'd have to qualify that their interpretation of those concepts will usually differ radically from the liberals'. The "left-libertarians" mentioned in the article on self-ownership (like Hillel Steiner, Peter Vallentyne, Philippe Van Parijs, Michael Otsuka, and David Ellerman) belong to the same relative left; they are neither traditional (socialist) anarchists, nor socialists broadly. They're not advocating for the abolition of wages, capital and private property. Instead, at their leftiest and most radical, they make essentially reformist arguments for (I quote) "income redistribution on the grounds of a claim by each individual to be entitled to an equal share of natural resources." fi (talk) 13:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to the current "anarchists and anarcho-capitalists" wording, even though one could argue that there's a problem with giving "anarcho-capitalists" that much weight. fi (talk) 01:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm going to try to redo my revert correctly without changing the parts I assume you wanted to discuss. fi (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Done. My apologies again for that whole mess. Here is the diff of what I actually meant to edit/revert, without messing with the other changes and corrections since the lead was altered. Please let me know if you still have concerns on the ancap-back-to-anarchist undo. I'll apply it again, if there's no objections. Thanks! fi (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The SEP defines "self-ownership" as a position shared by both right and left-wing libertarians, and the debate is, if I understand it correctly, that some, but not all left-libertarians share that concept, thus it should be removed. Wouldn't such an attribution ("some left-libertarians") or similar be satisfactory? If not, I suggest either searching for sources that specify that it is not a concept shared by all left-libertarians (as far as I understand it there are some in the self-ownership article, I did not check) or starting an RfC for consensus. Until then, my suggestion is to leave the term in the lead (i.e. modify the current revision) and add the SEP as a source (it is, after all, what a reliable source says). As for "rule of law" only CATO seems to mention it. CATO is a right-wing libertarian website and is clearly describing that group (see "free markets", etc). The debate, as far as I understand it, is that this concept is not shared by left-libertarians. So if "rule of law" is to be kept it should be attributed to right-wing libertarians. Would that be a satisfactory compromise,  ? If not, then either a source should be found that says it's shared between everyone or it should not be added at all (i.e. the current revision should not be changed in this regard). That is my take on it in terms of policy, hopefully the proposed compromises will be satisfactory, though. Saturnalia0 (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * As I said in my reply to above, the SEP is talking about the "relative left" of propertarian ideologies: the people essentially arguing that capitalists owe ameliorative concessions to the population at large, based on their interpretation of natural rights and private property. The radical left doesn't believe in those things in the first place. I have no objection to qualifying self-ownership and rule of law with "some" in principle. On the other hand, the lead is already long enough as it is and I don't see why we can't just leave it to the rest of the article to go into detail on the particulars of US libertarianism. "Left" and "right" are basically honorific labels. What's "left" or "right" in one context, is not in another. I would not use the wording of the SEP without explaining its context, as that would be misleading. fi (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree. Leaving it out of the lead is fine by me. I proposed a compromise since, as I understand it, IWillBuildTheRoads is arguing to keep it in the lead. Saturnalia0 (talk) 18:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * This is a good NPOV compromise that I agree with. I have made the changes to the article. Let's hope this lasts. I should note that the existence of a few left-libertarians who don't support self-ownership doesn't rule out self-ownership from being a key idea to the ideology as a whole. This is for the same reason that we wouldn't remove democracy from being a key idea of neoconservatism just because a few neocons may not support democracy. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 01:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * First of all, you completely disregarded what proposed and then just edited your same thing in again. If you're going to completely ignore the reason you're abusing the sources to shove self-ownership in there, repeatedly and despite objections, we're gonna need an RfC and consensus – if only to decide whether ~160 years of socialists (most of whom couldn't possibly care less about Lockean interpretations of property as natural right) calling themselves "libertarians" constitutes "a few." fi (talk) 04:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I did what Saturnalia suggested. He said "Until then, my suggestion is to leave the term in the lead (i.e. modify the current revision) and add the SEP as a source (it is, after all, what a reliable source says)." I indeed left the term in the lead and added the SEP as a source. He also said "if 'rule of law' is to be kept it should be attributed to right-wing libertarians." I decided to remove it entirely from the lead. Your point about ~160 years of libertarian socialists is only applicable if reliable sources claim that all of these libertarian socialists did not support self-ownership. As the SEP said, self-ownership is believed by both right- and left-libertarians, regardless of whether they support ordinary property rights. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 04:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * From above: "Wouldn't such an attribution ("some left-libertarians") or similar be satisfactory?" While plenty of references are available, I don't have to provide a source on socialists dismissing property as a divine right derived from natural law for much the same reason I don't have to prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist. You're the one making the outrageous claim by transposing propertarian articles on libertarian socialists. fi (talk) 05:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I added the aforementioned attribution. If it is not satisfactory, then fix/undo my revision and I highly suggest starting an RfC. From my perspective this debate is going in circles. Saturnalia0 (talk) 09:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Or, maybe, just don't mention it, the same way the lead doesn't mention, say, mutual aid being central to libsoc/libcom but not others, or the fact that some libertarians like broccoli, while others think it's "pretty gross." My only objection now is that it's silly, if (at least) technically correct. fi (talk) 15:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * And, for what it's worth, IWillBuildTheRoads does have somewhat of a point with the "citation needed" that they just added. It's pretty easy to surmise how anticapitalists feel about Lockean self-ownership, given its modern context, but putting that at the very top of the lead should probably have a source somewhere later in the article. The original problem with IWillBuildTheRoads's inclusion of self-ownership as universal libertarian principle was that there's one source attributing self-ownership to propertarians and no sources saying it's central to anticapitalists. So, per WP:VNT, while having the benefit of not being false, this just kind of shifted the unsourced claim to a less absurd one. fi (talk) 15:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I found this citation on the left-libertarian page (quote shortened):

Kymlicka, Will (2005). "libertarianism, left-". In Honderich, Ted. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. New York City: Oxford University Press. p. 516. ISBN 978-0199264797. "'Left-libertarianism' is a new term for an old conception of justice, dating back to Grotius. It combines the libertarian assumption that each person possesses a natural right of self-ownership over his person with the egalitarian premiss that natural resources should be shared equally.  Right-wing libertarians argue that the right of self-ownership entails the right to appropriate unequal parts of the external world, such as unequal amounts of land.  According to left-libertarians, however, the world's natural resources were initially unowned, or belonged equally to all, and it is illegitimate for anyone to claim exclusive private ownership of these resources to the detriment of others." IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 13:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's the exact same issue. This is talking about the relative left of propertarian libertarianism. A dead giveaway would be the very first sentence you quoted – calling it a "new term" that "combines" property-based precepts with egalitarianism. The next giveaway should be the list of influences/proponents immediately after the passage you quoted: Thomas Payne, Herbert Spencer, Phillippe Van Parijs, Hillel Steiner. Notice how that doesn't say Pierre Joseph Prodhoun, Peter Kroprotkin (practically Spencer's arch nemesis, on account of Kropotkin's communist conceptions of Mutual Aid vs Spencer's laissez-faire capitalist Social Darwinism) and Joseph Dejacque. Context matters. This is "left" in the same sense that Svalbard is relatively south of the North Pole. fi (talk) 14:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you going to ignore these replies on re. how you're misunderstanding and misusing the sources and just keep making your edit over and over again? You do not have anything resembling consensus to change the lead. Could you please revert it to the way it was before? Thanks. fi (talk) 01:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)