Talk:Libertarianism/Archive 41

The lede
Let us discuss the two rival versions of the lede that various people have been edit-warring over.

One clear difference is that Version B has a citation for the first sentence. Do you object to there being a citation for the first sentence? Is so why? Is it an acceptable citation?

,  There are subtle differences between the two versions of the second sentence. Please could you both explain how the sources support your preferred version, and why they do not support the other version.--  Toddy1 (talk) 08:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * B Self-ownership is one of the tenets that distinguishes the Libertarian Party of the U.S. from the rest of the libertarian tradition, which saw freedom as an inalienable right, rather than as property that could be bought or sold. The term "collection" should be changed as well. with Christianity.  The article says it "is a monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ...."  It does not say it is a "collection" of religions, even though some dogmatic Christians claim that their particular dogma is the only real Christian religion.  TFD (talk) 14:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * So, my two cents... apologies on length.


 * On "self-ownership":


 * What TFD said is correct. My problem is that the "self-ownership" statement, repeatedly shoved into the lead by a single editor, is a gross distortion of what the sources say and inconsistent with the contents of the article. Let's just assume that the SEP page cited is a strong source (it's mediocre at best) and peer-reviewed (it isn't), as this editor argued above for reasons that elude me (the source itself was never actually challenged); that's all beside the point. The problem is simply that it doesn't say what he's claiming it says, if you look at the intended context. Like this source, and so many others like it, the SEP is describing the relative "left" and "right" of properarianism. Had libertarian socialism been addressed on that page (and it was not, even in passing), then the SEP, just like the others, would put it in a category all its own, separate from what it calls "left-libertarianism." That's because the "left-libertarianism" these sources refer to – in context – is clearly the pro-private-property libertarian tendencies that took on the name in the US, in the late 20th century.


 * Social anarchists, on the other hand, do not base their politics on natural law. They are not exponents of Lockean self-ownership, or any other kind. On the odd occasion that they have anything to say about it, it's typically to denounce "self-ownership" as an incoherent non-concept, as described in AFAQ B.4.2. Even if you include individualist anarchists, the only one mentioned in this article that argued from natural law is Lysander Spooner – the closest one to a liberal of the lot. Broadly, anarchists either explicitly reject self-ownership or give it about as much credence as, say, Plato's teleological arguments. Absolutely no source in the article gives any indication that it is a cornerstone of libertarian socialist thought – and for good reason: it ain't.


 * This didn't call for page after page of stonewalling from the editor insisting on the change, which is particularly frustrating when we have a dozen archives of editors with some kind of ancap reference for a username waging Rothbard's semantic crusade against recorded history:


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

- Murray Rothbard


 * This article has a serious, chronic problem with reactionary POV-pushing.


 * On the word "collection":


 * I think I argued in favor of opening with "collection" (or whatever equivalent) at some point a long time ago, but eventually left it alone because others disagreed. I don't know who put it back in, but I don't have a strong opinion anymore. On one hand, TFD makes a reasonable point with the example of Christianity. On the other, this isn't a religion. The socialism article isn't describing "democratic socialism" and "national socialism" as a unified political movement. I don't think this is all together that different. My gut feeling is: when ideas so radically opposed to one another happen to use the same name, it's probably more intellectually honest to treat them as separate (even if tenuously related) political categories. And yes, I recognize that you can trace some lines from 19th century individualist anarchism to Hess, Nolan, Cato, the USLP, and so on. I think this is a bare minimum requirement, though, to have an article here instead of a disambiguation page. I hope that explains why I'm a little conflicted, but I don't strongly object to either wording.


 * On citation for the first sentence:


 * Ideally, the lead should have few or no citations, because it's summarizing sourced information in the body of the article. That said, I remember the obscructionism and incessant ancap bickering over every syllable that necessitated they be put there in the first place. I don't specifically object to using Cato Institute's David Boaz as a citation; citing him twice is in the first two (!) sentences of the article, however, takes redundancy to a new level. Folks, if libertarians holding liberty as a core principle is a controversial claim in danger of serious challenge, we need to seriously re-evaluate what it is we're doing here. fi (talk) 05:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * We don't put national socialism and socialism into the same article because the first is actually a type of fascism rather than socialism. The same is true with other mislabled parties such as Social Democrats in Portugal and Liberal Democrats in Russia.  But the articles on liberalism and socialism show that there is a wide range of beliefs in both.  The quote from Rothbard differs from what he and Hess write elsewhere.  The adopted far more from 19th century libertarianism and wrote about it.  I think for many people, especially in the U.S., their main values, such as freedom, individualism, anti-statism, are so uncontested that they miss their similarities.  BTW, "Lockean self-ownership" is an obscure concept in liberalism.  Locke did say "every man hath a property in his own person" but nothing else on the topic.  TFD (talk) 06:35, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Of course I understand why it's absurd to represent fascism as a form of socialism. My point is that there are obscure ideological strands connecting even Nazism to certain fringes of the socialist movement as well (e.g. Strasserism), just as there is a syndicalist connection between fascism and anarchism (i.e. Georges Sorel). I just don't think that establishing connections like that is a terribly convincing argument. My point is: yes, there's connections, but not necessarily a holistic ideology just because you can draw a wavy line from Rudolf Rocker to Benito Mussolini. On self-ownership, I was referring to your quote above, which is the one cited by neoliberal think tanks like Cato – whether it's a fair representation of Locke or not. fi (talk) 07:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I support version B because the differences are supported by the reliable sources.


 * Collection: Like Finx, I'm fine with the word collection. Different denominations of Christianity are, on the whole, similar to each other. However, right-libertarianism and left-libertarianism are vastly different.


 * Self-ownership: Finx claims that the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is only a mediocre source. I disagree, because the material is written by experts on the subjects and is based on content from peer-reviewed publications. Finx also claims I'm misinterpreting the SEP because the context makes it clear they're talking about solely propertarian versions of left-libertarianism. Looking at the context doesn't actually make this clear at all. In fact, the article contradicts Finx's claim. The same source says: "Let us now consider left-libertarianism. It holds that natural resources initially belong to everyone in some egalitarian manner, or that legitimate holdings are subject to some equality-preserving constraint over time." That doesn't sound very propertarian to me. Moreover, they also acknowledge the very radical versions of left-libertarianism. Take this quote for example: "Simply stated, a libertarian theory moves from 'right' to 'left' the more it insists on constraints aimed at preserving some kind of equality. The maximally strong version of a constraint on original appropriation holds that initially no one has any liberty right to use, or any moral power to appropriate, natural resources." If that's propertarian, then I don't know what isn't. It seems to me that they are undoubtedly taking socialist (i.e. anti-private property) versions of left-libertarianism into account. I therefore would like to ask Finx for further clarification of what he's referring to when he says that the context shows that they are actually talking about pro private property versions of libertarianism.


 * As a side note, the SEP isn't the only reliable source supporting this position. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy is certainly a reliable source. They claim on their about page that their "peer review process is rigorous and meets high academic standards." On the IEP entry for libertarianism, it says "Throughout this essay we will refer to this principle, which has been enormously influential on later libertarians, as the 'self-ownership principle.'" [emphasis added] Finx will point out that, unlike the SEP, this quote doesn't explicitly mention left-libertarianism. However, it doesn't explicitly say that self-ownership only applies to right-libertarianism. So, this source will additionally need to be refuted for Finx's claim to hold water.


 * I fail to see how Rothbard's quote it relevant. Yes, the common usage of the term libertarian has shifted over time. It doesn't give any insight as to whether self-ownership is a key concept of libertarianism. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 01:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * As for your citation to "AFAQ" B.4.2, the word libertarian is only mentioned four times, and in all four cases it's referring to right-libertarianism. I understand that "AFAQ uses the term libertarian socialism elsewhere, but it's not clear that this section of "AFAQ" should be used as a source of libertarian thought so much as a source for anarchist thought (even if the two ideologies are similar or have overlap). Moreover, the dictionary definition of libertarian given in "AFAQ" A.1.3 shows that "AFAQ" is using the term libertarian in the historical sense, meaning someone who believes in free will (see Libertarianism (metaphysics)). Thus, we cannot extrapolate their metaphysical usage of the term libertarian to the political definition of the term which this article is about.


 * I must note that my analysis has assumed​ that "AFAQ" is a reliable source, which it isn't. According to WP:ANCITE (specifically WP:AN OPINION), opinionated idelogical works are "questionable sources" and only reliable as statements of the authors' opinions, not factual statements. It even explicitly lists "An Anarchist FAQ" as an example of a source which cannot be used to indicate the opinions of all anarchists (or, for that matter, what libertarians believe), as that would be a factual statement. The only thing that "AFAQ" can be used for is stating the authors' opinions. "An Anarchist FAQ" has also been criticized for it's reliability according to the Wikipedia page. Furthermore, WP:ANCITE states that "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." This seems to support the SEP and IEP over "AFAQ". This is reenforced when it says "Scholarly and academic publications should be considered the best source of reliable information on anarchism." IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 02:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I've responded to most of this already, but the biggest mischaracterization is that the central tenet of libsoc/libcom, which sets it apart from propertarians both "left" and "right," is actually worker control and cooperative management of the means of production, rather than how resources are "initially owned." Social anarchists don't just want "some equality-preserving constraint over time" – that's a social liberal position; they are radical anti-authoritarians who want the workers to run the mills and the factories unconditionally. They want to abolish wage labor, private property and capital because of moral views on productive relationships, not procedural ones about property law or due compensation after appropriating common goods/resources. fi (talk) 12:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * You can disagree with the accuracy of the content of the source, but based on the reliability of the SEP and the IEP, it's unlikely that your unsourced analysis of libertarianism will override them (per WP:RS). You would have to back up your claims using sources with a reliability comparable to the SEP and IEP. Putting that aside, it seems you're misunderstanding the quotation when you talk about equality perserving contraints. Some of these contraints are quite radical, like when it mentions that "The maximally strong version of a constraint on original appropriation holds that initially no one has any liberty right to use, or any moral power to appropriate, natural resources." Here's another quote from the notes page that makes it clear they are acknowledging the same forms of left-libertarianism you are referring to: "The term 'left-libertarianism' is also used to refer to political views, such as those of Noam Chomsky or Roderick Long, that are suspicious of concentrations of power in general (in government, in corporations, in social institutions, etc.)" [emphasis added] The source also mentions some of the most anti-propertarian forms of left-libertarianism there are: "A radical version of joint-ownership left-libertarianism, for example, holds that individuals may use natural resources only with the collective consent (e.g., majority or unanimous) of the members of society." And if that's not enough evidence for you, consider that the author of the SEP entry, Peter Vallentyne, is himself a left-libertarian who has written multiple books on the subject! So, I'm pretty sure he's not mischaracterizing left-libertarianism (nor would he have any biases against it). I'm also curious what problems you have with the IEP source. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 06:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 06:54, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Please could you explain why you object to the word "state" having a Wikilink in the second paragraph.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have reverted this edit because you have not explained why you objected to the word "state" having a Wikilink in the second paragraph.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you're talking about. The wikilink on the word "state" in the second paragraph was never removed or altered, as your diff shows. Did you have some other user or edit in mind? fi (talk) 14:28, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I assume he meant the wikilink to political authority. Could you please explain the removal of that? IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure. It's a barren three-sentence stub you just slapped up that you seem to be promoting (a good candidate for speedy deletion under A3 and A10), which doesn't add any useful information. Compare that to an actually serious counterpart in the very next sentence: Power (social and political). Also state, for no apparent reason is used twice in your version and it reads like a bad high school essay – but that bit of creative writing was left unchanged. fi (talk) 02:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * De-orphaning an article is not the same as spamming and article link for promotional purposes. If you disagree, feel free to nominate political authority for speedy deletion. If you want to flesh out the article to make it no longer a stub, feel free to do that as well. Why do you believe the article is doesn't add any useful information? Even though it's only four sentences long, it still gives the reader more info about political authority than just the word "authority" without a link. What do you mean when you say state is being used twice in my version? IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 03:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Please could you explain why you object to citations [4], [5] and [6] in the first paragraph.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As I said above, my objection is to abusing citations that separate socialist, "left"-propertarian and "right"-propertarian libertarianism into distinct and non-overlapping categories, as the "left" libertarian they describe does not mean "socialist" in that context. I've cited several sources like this above, using "left" to mean the left end of liberal/capitalist. There is also no need to stuff the lead with citations, because the purpose of the lead is to accurately summarize the already-cited content of the article, rather than contradict it based on a willful misreading of the sources. fi (talk) 10:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please could you give some examples showing that it is "a willful misreading of the sources".-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Consider just about any post to the talk page made by User:IWillBuildTheRoads above, like the ones where he emphatically states that he doesn't like/care about socialists and communists, so we don't have to waste time talking about them or acknowledging their existence. Refusing to acknowledge that sources referring to late 20th century laissez faire capitalists are clearly not talking about 19th century anticapitalists is dishonest in the extreme. fi (talk) 10:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've never said I don't care about communists/socialists. I've also never denied their existence. The statement you were referring to was simply my blunt paraphrasing of WP:NOTTRUTH, which states that "Editors may not add content solely because they believe it is true, nor delete content they believe to be untrue, unless they have verified beforehand with a reliable source." I was not saying that I don't care about your views; I was merely saying that you need to back up your views with reliable sources if you want them to be included in Wikipedia. I have extensively tried to justify my usage of the sources in the paragraphs above. I'm still awaiting a response, but there's one point that I'll restate here since it's relevant: The SEP article cited was written by Peter Vallentyne, who is a left-libertarian himself, and the article includes numerous citations to left-libertarian literature. So, I'm baffled that you claim I'm ignoring left-libertarian sources. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 18:34, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, you did say that. I don't know why you think lying repeatedly about things others can easily verify is a good tactic. The reason I stopped responding to you is because you think you're being oh-so-clever by pretending to not understand what I told you, about fifty times now. My views are not the issue here. The views of historical libertarians are the issue, since you're writing an article about them. Then again, if you unilaterally decide that the people who were called libertarian for 160 years aren't "true" libertarians according to your cult, that certainly simplifies the article. All it takes is to spend five minutes reading the SEP to understand that it doesn't say what you think it says. Like other sources, it chooses to call "left" the laissez-faire liberals, like Vallentyne, and not the people who want to abolish capital and state. Peter Vallentyne has nothing to do whatsoever with the anarchist movement. fi (talk) 01:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If you read the next sentence, then the context makes it clear like I explained in my previous post. Again, I'm simply stating WP:NOTTRUTH. Why are you assuming bad faith by accusing me of lying? I've never accused any libertarians of not being true libertarians. The SEP does say what I think it says, and in multiple places too. The IEP also supports my argument. On the other hand, you've never supported your view by citing any reliable sources. As I pointed out above, Noam Chomsky is cited by the SEP, and he wants to abolish capital and the state. Since when is he not a left-libertarian? Why do you get to deem who is and isn't a true left-libertarian? IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, totally false, which anyone can confirm by reading the cited source. fi (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Totally true, which anyone can confirm by reading the cited source. Do you read these sources before you criticize them? IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 21:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That confirms exactly what I just said. The SEP article makes zero (do you understand what that means? ZERO) mentions of anarchism or any other branch of the socialist movement. Not a single one, not even in passing. Follow the reference, click the link and scan the article for anything even vaguely related to what's been called libertarian for 160 years. Nothing. The footnotes, which you just linked, explain that the word has also been used, as a homonym, to refer to some nonspecific totally different thing that the article – the one about propertarian liberals – does not address. Maybe this kind of thing works on the ancap internet forums, but people here can read and check your work. fi (talk) 03:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Are there any parts of fi's edit to the lede that you consider acceptable?-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:44, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I was fine with the addition of individual judgment and the removal of rule of law (both of which Fix advocated). However, both these changes have already been implemented without any resistance on my part. I do not consider any of the other changes acceptable at the moment. That's because he hasn't backed up his assertions with reliable sources or given convincing arguments to reject what the SEP and IEP say on the matter. Until Finx can get consensus for his changes, I oppose their repeated inclusion in the article. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 22:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Finx, let's recapitulate for a moment. You stated that the SEP does not use the term left-libertarian to refer to anyone who wants to abolish capital and the state. I responded by saying the SEP does mention left-libertarians who want to abolish capital and the state; for example, Noam Chomsky. You said that my assertion is totally false, which can be confirmed by reading the source. I replied by linking to the paragraph in the source where Noam Chomsky is referred to. So, this does contradict what you said. You're now also saying the SEP makes zero mentions of anarchism. On the contrary, anarchism is mentioned numerous times. The article's usage of "libertarianism" is consistent with other its usage in other scholarly sources as well (e.g., the IEP article I cited and several research papers such as this one by the left-libertarian Hillel Steiner). IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It mentions Noam Chomsky in the footnotes to explicitly state that its definition of this is not that. Just wow. You provided a link to an appendix to your source that confirms everything I've said up to this point and, despite the authors telling you point-blank that you're misunderstanding, you still somehow expect me to believe that you sincerely think this is evidence to the contrary. fi (talk) 00:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You're drawing conclusions that aren't stated in the appendix. It doesn't "explicitly state that it's definition of this is not that" (it doesn't even appear to to implicitly state it). It just acknowledges that different branches of left-libertarianism exist (and the article covers multiple branches). Since the article acknowledges this form of left-libertarianism (among other forms too), you can no longer say that the article ignores this variety of left-libertarianism. Therefore, this quote applies to all varieties of left-libertarianism according to the SEP: "...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..." (And there's no footnote on this quote listing an exception.) Besides, propertarian and anti-state forms of left-libertarianism are explained in the main part of the article too (as I explained in my comment above starting with "You can disagree with..."). IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 02:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Views on natural resources
Re-iterating my edit summary, I just pasted in content from the just-deleted article. Please feel very free to revert, pare, modify or source. Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 17:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What was the name of the deleted article? Thanks, /wiae /tlk  22:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Never mind; I see that the deleted article was named Libertarian perspectives on natural resources. /wiae /tlk  23:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * (copied from my talk page) I don't agree with your analysis....this is material, not an article. But I was just doing my due diligence to preserve what looks like very good material. With my self-imposed obligation now completed, from my standpoint, I am not distressed by your removal, but IMO for the article's sake it would have been better to discuss it in talk first.  North8000  (talk) 13:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Could you explain how the information from a deleted Wikipedia article violates copyright? Endercase (talk) 17:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, due to a reading of TOS:
 * "Attribution: Attribution is an important part of these licenses. We consider it giving credit where credit is due – to authors like yourself. When you contribute text, you agree to be attributed in any of the following fashions:
 * Through hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the article to which you contributed (since each article has a history page that lists all authors and editors);
 * Through hyperlink (where possible) or URL to an alternative, stable online copy that is freely accessible, which conforms with the license, and which provides credit to the authors in a manner equivalent to the credit given on the Project website; or
 * Through a list of all authors (but please note that any list of authors may be filtered to exclude very small or irrelevant contributions)."
 * I think that the reference on the talk page to the deleted page constitutes a hyperlink to the article. But one in the edit summary that adds it would be better (which did before I re-added the information).  Endercase (talk) 17:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I was just thinking the same thing: We can include the content if we list all the editors in the edit summary. I don't think they will all fit in the edit summary, but I will list them here and add a pointer to this page in the edit summary. Please relax for a few minutes while I finish my lunch and I will get this done. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC) I have changed my mind. A closer look shows that the removed content is completely unsourced, and the content is identical to material in the deleted article, for which the AFD closed as Delete (not merge). — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The AfD was a wikipolitical decision. It was all about sending a message, and striking a symbolic blow against "spammers," aka paid editors and their paymasters, and their favored sources. A result of "merge" rather than "delete" would have taken away from the sense of total victory over the adversary. This was a scorched earth campaign to not only undo their work, but undo it with prejudice, and leave their cause worse off than it was before they ever meddled with Wikipedia. I say that, lest anyone make the mistake of taking some of the arguments presented in the AfD at face value.


 * The libertarianism article is already bloated. Probably a better way forward than merging it into this article, would be to merge the content into the left-libertarianism or geolibertarianism (or criticism of left-libertarianism or criticism of geolibertarianism articles), where there's more room. Regrettably, there was a lot of back-and-forth toward the end with sources being repeatedly removed (again, to send a message and make a point, rather than for valid reasons), and I don't think anyone saved a copy of a non-butchered version in the closing days of the debate. So probably we have to acquiesce to the WP:TNT outcome and start from scratch. It's more of a moral defeat for inclusionists and libertarians, than a major loss in practical terms, though.


 * I think the takeaway from this situation is that, given the presence of certain crusaders in our admin corps, libertarianism-related articles will need to be not just well-sourced, but impeccably-sourced, going forward. St. claires fire (talk) 18:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

On a side issue, the TOS says that the poster agrees to that attribution, not that Wikipedia will always do that attribution. For example, any moving or copying of any material from one article to another would constitute not doing that at the new article, as would any merge (at the new article). On the subject of copyvio, IMO if it was legal in the original article it would be legal here; attribution through the edit history does provide compliance with any copyright related restrictions.  North8000  (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. The text of the actual license states that you must "attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor". The licensor (that's us) states at WP:Copying within Wikipedia that at a minimum, attribution must be provided using an edit summary that provides a wikilink to the source article where the list of contributors can be found in the edit history. Alternatively, in a case like this where the edit history is no longer visible, the attribution could be provided by listing all the contributors in the edit summary. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

A couple of general thoughts
A couple of general thoughts, one of which I was able to use to quell the firestorm here about 5 years ago. (And I've been thinking about this for another 5 years since) These relate to (but not only to) the above thread. Structurally, libertarianism is just a word, not some innate entity. The meaning of words is defined by their usage, and this one has meanings that vary widely over place and time. In some cases, there are major current meanings in current use that conflict with each other. Not just differences in philosophies, but fundamentally different meanings. Others that have changed over time. All have a few core tenets in common which (along with a few other considerations) ties them just enough together to be in the same article. IMHO the best sources on meaning, sub-classes etc. are the ones who step back back and summarize the usage-defined meanings, and the core tenets that run through them. IMHO philosophers would be good sources or subjects for a wide range of uses in this article, but, on the meaning of the term, political philosophers are often not even sources much less secondary sources. That is because when they think and write they are creating definitions, not writing about usage-based definitions.

A similar situation exists for all of the sub-categories. ("right-libertarianism", "left-libertarianism" etc.) We probably need some categories like this to organize coverage, and since these terms have been used. And the terms and the myriad definitions of them should get some coverage. But we should not limit the articles to quixotic quests to find some (non-existent) coherent definitions of these terms. Nor limit talk page discussions to hopeless arguments about such. For example let's say there's a common term "Native American History" and an article titled "Native American history" (which there isn't by that name) which opens with a definition of that term. As with libertarianism, other groupings and titles may apply to that general topical area. Then, someone builds a section on the Puebloan Culture of the 13th century. That section would be rich in content, and should not limit itself to just being a part of defining the term "Native American history".

Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I second these statements. Well said. Endercase (talk) 14:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Nice sentiment. I think it's trivial what left-this or right-that "actually" means. On the other hand, I think it's a colossal embarrassment when an article of this importance opens the first paragraph by ascribing "rule of law" as the central tenet to anarchism or "self-ownership" as the guiding philosophy of communists, by cutely misreading what left-this or right-that means in the intended context of the sources. It's already a point of departure to argue semantics after missing the mark by continents and centuries. fi (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If there is this clear left right division that you claim what do the centrists or other groups have to say on the matter? Surely this is not a binary situation. And even if it is binary, we should still represent both sides without a POV split as is suggested by Policy. This should be maintain as one article. Can you see a good compromise between your two seeming positions? I honestly don't really see the difference between your two edits, they are very similar in my view. Can we all move forward together? You both seem to agree on quite a bit of the article. I would even describe these as minor edits on both parties side. I mean a few links and one reference in a heavily referenced and linked article. It is a bit odd that the graphic at the top shows the two groups divided. Such is also the case with a lot of political articles where it only showed the two major parties. Are there even more POV that we have not represented in a due manner? Are their for instance any recordings of Anarcho-Capitalists that were also communist that describe themselves as libertarians? As those appear in a cursory view to be not represented at all. I mean that it would seem like the ideas of a classless society where sometimes things are exchanged consensually, those ideas seem compatible. I imagine this is a parent article to a lot of smaller articles that should be mentioned.
 * I'm a bit of a third party on this and personally think that LEDE is way too long. Maybe it should be broken up into subsections, linked to smaller articles or subpages? That's a crazy idea, make it into a category article page. Many of those subpages (sub-ideologies seen in the above graphic) likely already exist. Endercase (talk) 15:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't see a POV split or a compromise between blatant misrepresentation and a verifiable summary of the article. There's only so many ways I can repeat that historical, anarchist libertarians were not (and are not) exponents of "rule of law" or, even more laughably, "self-ownership" (natural law). If some original research has lead our "anarcho-capitalist" editors to believe otherwise, they should be able to honestly cite a single source to that effect, linking the originators of "libertarianism" like Dejacque or Kropotkin, with those specific tenets of USLP's or CATO's ideological manifestos. Instead, we're offered outlandish misreadings of sources totally removed from the context of what they are describing. As for what other groups have to say on the matter, it's about a 50/50 split on a petty semantic detail: some use "left-libertarian" to refer to historical, anarchist, anticapitalist libertarianism. Others, like the SEP, reserve "left-libertarian" for a variety of typically American minarchist liberals, exclusively, and distinct from what they call "libertarian socialists." I agree that the lead is too long, but it's also too fabricated to fit a fringe, ahistorical political narrative, which I would argue right now is the bigger problem. fi (talk) 16:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)


 * In the previous sections, you have been asked to explain the alleged misrepresentation of multiple sources, but there has been no explanation as of now. Rule of law has already been removed from the lead per Saturnalia0's compromise, so it's irrelevant now. By the way, self-ownership does not necessarily imply a belief in natural law. In my analysis of the SEP article in the previous section, I have given much justification for why the SEP does indeed include anti-capitalism and left anarchism in its usage of the term "left-libertarianism". IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)


 * It's not irrelevant that this is what's left of your stuffing the lead with nonsense because you can't seem to be bothered to read or understand the sources. It's totally false that you've elaborated on any of your outlandish claims; I have justified what I said more times than I can count now. As for the SEP, your expert analysis is not required. The article makes zero mentions – even cursory ones – of any "left"-anarchists or socialists (maybe "left" socialists, while we're putting left in front of everything for no reason?); it uses "left-libertarian" exactly the same way as this source – i.e. having nothing to do with anything left of liberal. fi (talk) 02:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Many good thoughts there. But I don't think that the article should be split, mostly because I don't think that it can be split.  The result of the huge RFC back when was to cover all significant type in this article.   I think that we need to acknowledge that consistent taxonomies, etymologies etc. mostly don't really exist here. We need to cover all significant ones, including the terminologies, but keeping in mind those limitations.   I think that more coverage of who held or holds these beliefs would provide additional perspective.  We might find that we are crowding (and  thus inadvertently skewing) the article listing beliefs or terms that only exist in the minds of 1 or 2 philosophers.  North8000  (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * – or ones that are just internally incoherent, as the concepts are described. If communism is conventionally understood as abolition of capitalism, then searching for "Anarcho-Capitalists that were also communist" is like looking for vegans that subsist entirely on ham. So, if such a group existed and merited inclusion, you would have to elaborate on the terms just to make a lick of sense. fi (talk) 16:36, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that communism is just the desire for a classless society, do not understand how that is incompatible with anarcho-capitalism. After all this is how Wikipedia functions as long as their are paid editors or deals made. There is no rule of law per say, but there is a rule of consensus, which appears to be almost indistinguishable.
 * If we're talking about communism as understood by Marx and Kropotkin, your impression is incorrect. They defined a communist society as one that not only dispenses with social classes, but also with state, money and private property. An advocate of capital and private property who is a communist is just a contradiction in terms. fi (talk) 04:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 * fi is correct. Communism means the end of the state, which would cease to exist.  The argument between Communists and anarchists was whether this would be a slow or quick process.  Hence Communists believed that an interim period of "socialism" was required.  Liberalism also supports a "classless" society, where hereditary privileges and titles are abolished.  TFD (talk) 05:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Are we using RS to determine significance? How many RS should be require each? We couldn't possibly cover every group that has just one RS describing their existence. Are we counting party platforms as RS? Endercase (talk) 13:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * See Wendy McElroy's article, "Rothbard as System-Builder: A Tribute" (Liberty 2000), which is used as a source for the chapter 2 ("Rothbard - Libertarian") of Gerard Casey's biography of Murray Rothbard, part of a Bloomsbury Publishing series on "major conservative and libertarian thinkers." McElroy says that Rothbard was "the greatest libertarian theorist of the 20th century" who "created the modern libertarian movement."  She identifies one of the major sources to be "the radical civil libertarianism of 19th century individualist-anarchists, especially Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker."
 * The term "libertarianism" is also used in the U.S. as synonym for laissez-faire liberalism. So we would say that Reagan and Clinton followed libertarian policies such as deregulation and welfare reform.
 * Our guides should be "Disambiguation" and "Splitting an article". The first can handled by briefly noting in the lead that the term is also used to refer to laissez-faire liberalism.  The second is already handled by having separate articles about the different strands of libertarianism.  But your theory that Rothbard's libertarianism is totally unconnected to that of Spooner and Tucker and that it is mere coincidence that he chose to use terms such as libertarianism and anarchism is wrong.
 * TFD (talk) 18:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * On the US definition, if 200 million people use it to mean that, and tens of millions self-identify as libertarians per that definition the that is a fundamental and widespread definition, not just a synonym for a lesser known technical term. I don't think that you were saying otherwise but I wanted to mention that just in case.
 * I think that this is different than a typical disambig situation. It's not like orange the color vs. orange the fruit, nor some term with a large amount of un-related meanings.  In this case the various meanings are bound together by some common tenets, and also a typical reader starts starts with considering them to be the same subject or related subjects.  What we have is a unique Tower of Babel where the terms have very different meanings in different places, but where the disparate meanings still fall under the same umbrella of related philosophies.  One question: Would a European consider  laissez-faire liberalism or classical liberalism to be forms of libertarianism?  If so, then I'd say that the article needs a decoder ring rather than attempting a separation. An analogy might be if in Europe "abc" meant brown horses and in the USA it meant white horses, and the reverse for the term "xyx".  Would we then split the "horse" article? And, if so, how would we do it?   I'm thinking not, but instead we should put put a decoder ring into the horse article.  North8000  (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you want to make this article about laissez-faire liberalism in the United States and rename and move this article? I think before we do that we would need to have an article.  Why don't you start it under "Laissez-faire liberalism in the United States" and we can vote on what the two articles are named.  In the meantime, disambiguation is allowed only when "there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead."  TFD (talk) 02:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the theory that European Libertarians are Left or different is incorrect? The list appears to show the same ideology as the US libertarians . Darkstar1st (talk) 09:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The biggest "difference" is that different places in the world have different dictionaries to discuss them. Once you apply the decoder ring, there are many strands but no clear large scale divisions.   North8000  (talk) 11:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That is the major issue I think, there is no one place for a good split. The ideologies are fundamentally linked. The infographic hidden (collapsed) above does have locations for a split, but in reality these ideologies are more fluid. Maybe we should try to update the infographic and just add that? Endercase (talk)

North8000, Wikipedia is not a dictionary and articles are about topics, not word meanings. We know for example that Mars can be a planet or a god or a chocolate bar, but we have separate articles for each one and editors don't spend countless hours arguing about which meaning is correct. Could you please tell me what the topic for this article should be and provide a link to a reliable source. TFD (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * TFD, respectfully, I'd take a closer look at WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, I think that your opening sentence overreaches a bit, and that your analogy is not analogous. On your question:  Significant philosophies and movements with the word "libertarian" in their titles. And sources don't write about what the scope of Wikipedia articles should be. They are a requirement for content in article space.  North8000  (talk) 12:20, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * My answer above is a practical working one. If one wanted to define some terminology-independent entity that this article is about, it would probably be (I used the first sentence as a starting point):
 * A collection of political movements, organizations, philosophies, phenomenon or aspects of any of these that uphold individual liberty as a priority or core principle. Noting how it would enter into the the more complex areas, it would include some aspects of liberalism by the European definition of that term, and the vague but huge meaning of "libertarian" in the US (which is defined in the context of US government/politics) which is "prioritization on reducing the size and intrusiveness of government".
 *  North8000  (talk) 12:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Just added "of libertarian" to clarify.  North8000  (talk) 12:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Individual liberty is the core principle of liberalism, including welfare state, pro-civil rights liberalism, so you would have to be more specific. TFD (talk) 12:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your post. First, which definition of liberalism are you talking about, and then on the relationship of welfare state, pro-civil rights liberalism to the conversations.  North8000  (talk) 12:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe we shouldn't get into what liberalism is or isn't. Let's try to stick to libertarian article discussions. I fear this could go off the tracks a bit. Endercase (talk) 13:08, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I am using the main definition of liberalism. See for example Ian Adams' Political Ideology Today, p. 10:  "There are a number of things for which most liberals would agree that liberalism stands.  Above all there is individual freedom or liberty."  He later explains how liberalism encompasses all major political opinion in the U.S.  Endercase, we need to determine the topic of this article in order to determine what should be in it.  North8000 says it covers the wrong topic, and I am unsuccessfully asking that he explain what the right topic is.    TFD (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I think that the scope / definition of this article is pretty good as-is.  Not ideal, but pretty good.  My comments were just bringing up a few of the complexities; understanding and dealing with them keeps them from causing us big problems. Also I was responding to other people's posts here.   North8000  (talk) 14:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Just to add a note on labels, that I've brought up before: This article uses a pretty obvious double standard for labels: The term "libertarian" is used to refer to socialists based solely on historical "self-identiication" instead of how the term is used by non-socialists and in reliable tertiary sources. OTOH, labels like "right-libertarian" and "propertarian" are used to describe people who do not use those terms to describe themselves, on the basis that socialists use such terms to describe non-socialists. IOW, this article calls socialists what they want to be called instead of what others call them, and calls non-socialists what socialists want to call them instead of what they call themselves. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 19:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point. But I taking it less in the context of concern for bias and more in the context of informativeness.  If some group or philosophy self-identifies with a hyphenated-libertarian term then we should probably cover them as such.   But I'm thinking that using terms that nearly nobody self-identifies with is confusing and  misleading.  North8000  (talk) 01:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Thin and thick libertarianism
I think the thin and thick libertarianism section is in need of a rewrite. For example, the statement "Thus, thin libertarianism would permit a person to speak against other groups as long as they did not support the initiation of force against others" is so vague as to be ambiguous and possibly misleading. What "other groups"? Political groups? Racial groups?

Looking at Google Scholar, there seem to be enough reliable sources out there to sustain a section of a few paragraphs about thick and thin libertarianism, so that's good news, at least. Although that section could go in the left-libertarianism article if the libertarianism article is too bloated already.

I used to think that left-libertarianism was a small faction of libertarianism, but actually, the reason the topic doesn't arise much is that left-libertarians don't go around saying, "I'm a left-libertarian." Rather, they consider themselves the true libertarians, just like anarcho-syndicalists consider themselves the true anarchists.

Another option would be to have a libertarianism and morality article, since a lot of times, libertarians have made statements supportive of thin or thick libertarianism without actually calling it that. I'm thinking of Lysander Spooner's remarks that "vices are not crimes"; Murray Rothbard's remark that "libertarianism is not and does not pretend to be a complete moral or aesthetic theory; it is only a political theory, that is, the important subset of moral theory that deals with the proper role of violence in social life"; etc. St. claires fire (talk) 13:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * You have good thoughts and also it's probably for the best that you moved that sub-topic elsewhere. Beyond that I think we're getting into the bigger topic of what the major sub-articles should be. North8000  (talk) 12:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Whenever I see people call for a merge of some sub-subtopic into the main libertarianism article, I think, "Okay, this is a person who thinks there's so little to be said about libertarianism that we can cram it all in one article."


 * The "Libertarian perspectives on x" series of articles tends to be always under threat, because outsiders say, "This is just some arcane dispute among adherents to an ideology that's already fringe; merge!"


 * Then again, the "libertarianism and y" series of articles sometimes comes under threat too.


 * So maybe we need one giant topics within libertarianism and/or debates within libertarianism article (or maybe that exists already?) that we can put everything under. Then, if people say, "This stuff about natural resources isn't notable" we'll be debating that on the talk page rather than in an AfD. St. claires fire (talk) 12:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

What libertarian means today
As per weight, the article should reflect the common usage, I suggest we minimize references to terms using libertarian with other terms, like libertarian socialist.
 * the Pope, Thus, the libertarian individual denies the value of the common good,... and only the individual gives value to things.
 * the leader of the Dutch LP, As an introduction into libertarianism, I highly recommend “Revolution: A Manifesto” by Dr. Ron Paul.
 * German libertarians, Party of Reason, The party's policies are based on the Austrian School of economics. It campaigns for a minimal state, free markets, free banking and currency competition, decentralization of political power, subsidiarity and direct democracy.  Darkstar1st (talk) 06:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I oppose this proposal and in wikipedia we cannot validate random quotes such as these from politicians who advocate a particular point of view to represent all relevant points of view on a subject. Yet i suggest user Darkstar1st that he/she can enlarge and improve the article right libertarianism if that particular subject is what interests him a lot.--Eduen (talk) 04:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Some libertarians advocate laissez-faire capitalism
this passage appears to be at conflict with 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 weasel word some distorts the meaning. I suggest we remove the weasel word or improve the source for such a claim. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

...LibCap, LibSoc and LibPop are too different from one another to be treated as aspects of a single point of view.
This is from the very source being used to include these topics into one article, ...Others, notably libertarian socialists, seek to abolish capitalism. Long, Joseph.W writes in "Toward a Libertarian Theory of Class." Social Philosophy and Policy. 15:2 p. 310. There is no such thing as a pro-capitalist/anti-capitalist political philosophy. I suggest we remove the source, or align the prose to reflect such. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Reform Jews and al Qaeda are very different from each other but I don't see you trying to delete Abrahamic religions. TFD (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

What expert considers democratic socialism to be part of libertarianism?
What expert considers democratic socialism to be part of libertarianism?

A quick search of the talk page archives didn't turn up this question being raised, but I would be surprised if it hasn't, so forgive me if it has.

Why isn't the diagram of overlapping circles in the article?

Benjamin (talk) 09:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Anti-psychiatry
Libertarianism, which has historical precedent in the Stoics and in Schopenhauer, is strongly associated with the ‘anti-psychiatry’ movement of the last half century. According to that movement, attempts by the state or by the medical profession to interfere with suicidal behavior are essentially coercive attempts to pathologize morally permissible exercises of individual freedom (Szasz 2002). Benjamin (talk) 03:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Let's pick just one place to hold this discussion. I suggest Talk:Anti-psychiatry/Archive 8.  &mdash; jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  04:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Are you assuming that the same material would be equally appropriate for both articles? Benjamin (talk) 04:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://info.interactivist.net/node/1530
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120105000000/http://www.iaf-ifa.org/principles/english.html to http://www.iaf-ifa.org/principles/english.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090609075437/http://www.mutualist.org/id32.html to http://www.mutualist.org/id32.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/14/tea-party-2012_n_1425957.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140227190632/https://www.lp.org/our-history to http://www.lp.org/our-history
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.semainedelavie.ca/en/archives/2007/chaine_vie.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:11, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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/20120105000000/http://www.iaf-ifa.org/principles/english.html to http://www.iaf-ifa.org/principles/english.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

minarchism
I keep removing this from the lede as it doesn't belong there without some sourcing showing how is is "often" called that. , you need to read WP:BRD. Once the addition is challenged, it is up to you to find a consensus here on the talk page for that addition. Otherwise it is edit warring. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 11:15, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Project page and general discussions on libertarianism
A couple active editors and myself are attempting to revive the WikiProject Libertarianism. We appreciate the participation of other editors. The talk page for this article includes discussion of ideological matters, and ways to categorize libertarianism that are not specific to this article. Please consider moving such discussions to the talk page for WikiProject Libertarianism.--Libertyguy (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * To reinforce what Libertyguy said, please consider doing so, and also putting that page on your watchlist. Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Liber: "Free"? or "Tree"
There is no evidence that the word "Liber" ever meant "Free" in Latin. Why start the article with a misnomer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.26.16.236 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Please put new talk page messages at the bottom of talk pages and sign your messages with four tildes ( ~ ) — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.
 * Libertas = Freedom. See http://latindictionary.wikidot.com/search:site/q/libertas. - DVdm (talk) 13:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Corey Robin?
Why centerpiece Corey Robin's reductive views? Is he really an expert on libertarianism? Or just a competing ideologue pursuing his own agenda? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.162.253.101 (talk) 17:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Please put new talk page messages at the bottom of talk pages and sign your messages with four tildes ( ~ ) — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 20:29, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Pruning the see also section
Many items are in the yellow navbox at the bottom. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes! You should always be able remove such links from See also sections based on WP:OVERLINK and WP:NOTSEEALSO.  &mdash; jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  07:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Rather than pick through them, I will remove the lot (or nearly) then others can restore what they like. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Done. I left one, mainly to keep the see also section there. Whether or not that item is appropriate is up to others to decide. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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 tag to http://www.zmag.org/zspace/commentaries/1137
 * 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 tag to http://www.viruseditorial.net/pdf/anarquismo
 * Added tag to http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/ifa-hist-short.html
 * Added tag to http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/cp3/message/9701

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/carlson.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303230052/http://www.nealemorison.com/wlmorison/sydlib.htm to http://www.nealemorison.com/wlmorison/sydlib.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/cp3/message/9701

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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://www.webcitation.org/5kwKHjskP?url=http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761568770_1/Anarchism.html to http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761568770_1/Anarchism.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Diagram
I've said this before, but that diagram is badly in need of a citation. It's rather dubious for several reasons. Benjamin (talk) 07:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Please modify/remove it as needed. It was intended to be a very rough overview for future editors, with references left to relevant articles, on account of a constant stream of fruitless discussion committed to variations "X can't be libertarian because Y is libertarian" (with X and Y being either mutually exclusive or fully inclusive). fi (talk) 07:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't know how to modify it and I don't want to remove it. Benjamin (talk) 08:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The first recorded use of the term "libertarian" was in 1789, when William Belsham wrote about libertarianism in the context of metaphysics. - Clarity?
It'd be nice if the person who cited this source [11] would go into more detail about what the heck William Belsham was talking about. My 18th century speak is rusty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.250.72.238 (talk) 21:53, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Lead fails verification
Key statements in the lead fail verification for the following reasons:


 * As plainly obvious to anyone who actually reads the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy citation, the web-page – from start-to-finish – exclusively describes late 20th century neoliberal US libertarianism, referring to its relative "right" and "left" sides. There is not even a single, cursory mention of historical anticapitalist libertarianism as part of the socialist movement. There is yet no citation stating that libertarian socialists are proponents of "self-ownership" – a concept which goes back to readings of laissez faire and liberal – not anarchist – authors.


 * There is absolutely no citation suggesting or implying that a majority of libertarians are proponents of state, as the lead states unambiguously.


 * The lead uses "government" and "state" interchangeably in a way that contradicts the information in its given sources. Anarchists advocate "self-government" but also advocate abolition of state. If the sources use these words to mean radically different things, so should the lead.


 * There is no citation given for putting mutualism into the propertarian category and later citations, along with history, suggest the opposite: a political camp broadly opposed to private property.


 * No citation is given on libertarian currents concerned with "syncretic politics" and the statement does not appear to summarize anything in the actual article.

Please refrain from original research. Either cite the creative interpretations above or remove the unverified assertions. fi (talk) 01:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * You are new to WP and the libertarian page. Leftists have taken over the page and have tried to distort this page to make it appear as if there is a genuine left-libertarian school.  They are just socialists looking to confuse people.  They can't keep to their own socialist pages and hate the idea that the WP libertarian page even exists.  Sad.  But WP is infected by these trolls.  You need to give up on WP on political and economic matters and go to Mises.org or Lew Rockwell etc. 220.240.19.85 (talk) 03:00, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * While I agree that leftists have taken over the page, and put their ideology into every article they possibly can, it would be an error for people of other ideologies to not represent themselves on Wikipedia. A Libertarian (not a socialist) created Wikipedia, and frankly?  The defeatist attitude is silly.  Socialists are just people, they don't have a monopoly on good arguments - they're just extremely productive at putting their views out there.  Compete with them. A Pickle (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


 * WP is a place for verifiable encyclopedic articles, not a place to "compete" with anybody to propagandize your favorite political opinions. The actual historical record indicates the opposite of what you've stated: the leftist term libertarian, long synonymous with anti-state socialist/communist, was adopted/appropriated by the American right and far right in the mid-to-late 20th century. This is why the article includes so much content on right wing politics: to reflect the reality of a label that's now used for both radical anticapitalist politics and far-right reactionary politics. Which one of these you like best is not pertinent either to the article or this talk page, so please keep it to yourself or find a more appropriate venue for these discussions. fi (talk) 02:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken. As the article sources in detail, left-libertarians were the first people to use the term (anarchists who believed that eliminating or reducing hierarchy was essential to defending liberty); in America in the mid-20th century, right-wing activists co-opted the term from them.  This isn't controversial or disputed - Rothbard writes with very smug satisfaction at this feat. It is the right-libertarians who are the newcomers. (And the term is still frequently used to refer to left-wing anarchists outside of the US.) --Aquillion (talk) 15:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Misleading Pov & ad-like PR.
More often than not, political names (and self-definitions) are not correct. For example the Nazis were not really socialist and the USSR, North Korea and China are probably not republics. In the case of the Nazis, it was an intentional early gambit to gain membership. Likewise U.S. Libertarianism in the real world is actually mostly about business freedom, ie, deregulation. The Libertarian Party is the economics party. For example, the article uses the term "economic" 50 times! I saw few hints of that value/philosophy enunciated in the article. (Perhaps somebody just forgot?)

But the Economics section is only two short paragraphs long, and the view of the Party (the ~90%, the U.S. mainstream Libbie philosophy) is super short: Right-libertarians are economic liberals of either the Austrian School or Chicago school and support laissez-faire capitalism.[69]

Well, yes and no. No because the libertarians are so extreme they seem to worship imaginary unregulated business, and the so-called invisible hand as holy, magical perfection, giving real Austrian School and Chicago school economics a bad name. For example, most libertarian's near worship of greed-is-good philosophy Objectivism (Ayn Rand) as portrayed for example, in her books such as The Virtue of Selfishness.

Right-libertarianism - Wikipedia - Right-libertarianism (or right-wing libertarianism, and usually simply referred to as libertarianism in the United States) refers to libertarian political philosophies that advocate negative rights, natural law and a major reversal of the modern welfare state.

Libertarian economics: A philosophical critique ... with the platform of the American Libertarian Party....the platform suffers from the very same factual and conceptual difficulties that we find in the writings of the political philosophers that inspired it.... would also reject these extreme views. The bottom line is that until Libertarians give more thought to economic ..

(Bold emphasis mine.) The consensus is loosely; it's whacko, intellectually sloppy, and not nice as I have only hinted. Despite the thick layers of pseudo-intellectualism, this is not a respectable world view. Please look around a little and correct this lopsided PoV ad-like distortion. Cheers!  --2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:3044:A2C3:2683:987B (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Anarcho-communism
I have a question on how anarchy fits with libertarianism in general, anarchy usually means no government or "state" as anarcho-capitalists call it, but one thing that really surprises me is why anarcho-communism (which sounds like an oxymoron) has any relevance to libertarianism, I'm personally a libertarian so I'm just confused about this Mslayer122 (talk) 11:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Confussion among the words «libertarian» and «libertarianism»
The content of this article is apocryphal both philosophically and historically. "Libertarianism" everywhere mainly refers at what is exposed in right-libertarianism article. What "libertarian socialists" (I'm one) and "libertarians" share is not a common ideological ground but simply a word, the word "libertarian", and even that word comes from different strains (French word in one case and English word in the other). I think that what English Wikipedia need is an article about the linguistics of the word "libertarian". But this article expose something extremly wrong, as if "libertarian socialism" and "libertarianism" are part of a same political family. Both even have different origins! Also this article says that there is an "American libertarianism" different from libertarianism fron another regions (as in Hispanic regions). That is false, "libertarian socialists" in the Spanish speaking World (where I come from) don't use the term "libertarianism" to refer to our own ideology. We use anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism, and very few times libertarian socialism, but never libertarianism (check 1, check 2, no one result of a non-free market "libertarianism" in Spanish). This Wikipedia article should be extremelly reconstructed and be more honest. --Hades7 (talk) 15:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As explained in the article, modern American libertarianism developed out of 19th century libertarianism and retains some of its tenets, terminology and symbols. Hence it is both historically and philosophically related. TFD (talk) 17:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The article makes an un-scholar and apocryphal interpretation from some remote theorical influences of libertarianism (the American rooted one is the first one and at this moment the only political movement that uses the word "libertarianism", and this not be confused with the term "libertarian") to construct an original research taxonomy (something that should be not allowed in Wikipedia). Where are the historical sources that a "libertarianism" (with that term and referencing a clear and common use) existed in the 19th century?--Hades7 (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * My sugestion is to be more historically accurate and eliminate the current original research by using the article "Libertarianism" only to refer the right-wing or free market ideology as is commonly used in the US and in the World, and at the same time to create an article called "Libertarian" to collect all the political and non-political uses of that word without making interpretations and especulative taxonomies, only a collection of uses of "libertarian". The real "controversy" has always been about the use of the word "libertarian" not of the word "libertarianism". The current article have complicated the issue creating an original research instead of clearing the issue that is just linguistic not ideological. The problem with word "libertarian" is just a Polysemy not a Taxonomy.--Hades7 (talk) 19:42, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Woodcock, for example, uses "libertarianism" to refer to "traditional" libertarian socialist politics. I'm sure there are others as well, among the more solid references in the article. French WP, for example, has a libertarianisme/libertaire distinction, but there's no such semantic distinction in English, as far as movements go. Also, it's a little backwards for American English because USLP is arguably what most people think when they hear "libertarian" in the US, whereas similar parties are kind of a far-fringe curiosity most places in the world, while "libertaire" libertarians have at least some historical real estate. It's not just a random homonym or anything like that. There was a deliberate effort to hijack (or "capture" in the words of Rothbard) pivotal leftist terminology, with considerable success. I don't think we can just remove a syllable and eliminate that issue, somehow. fi (talk) 18:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi fi. I'm not talking about one author that have used rarely a term, maybe one time. English Wikipedia editors have created an article of a fringe use of a single author? I'm talking about that there isn't any historical proof that the term "libertarianism" was commonly used in 19th century to refer to left anarchism or libertarian socialism. No one historical source en English. I'm Spanish native speaker and I'm a libertarian socialist activist and I have made an exhaustive investigation in books and Internet, and there is no single proof of a historical movement called "libertarianism" before free market libertarianism of the 20th century in North America, not only in Anglosaxon sphere, also in Hispanic sphere. In the current article I see a mention of Spanish CNT, and there is no single document that shows the term "libertarianism" (in Spanish "libertarismo") in their documented history of 19th and early 20th centuries. And I insist, I'm not talking about the term "libertarian" but about the term "libertarianism". I also read a little of French and I haven't find any proof of a libertarianism before free market libertarianism. This article suggest a common taxonomy and a wide historical use of the term without any proof, that make this article and original hypothesis, maybe cool for a thesis but not for an encyclopedia.


 * Note: the term "libertarian" in English philosophical tradition is older than "libertaire" political use (see William Belsham). We don't need to expose a conspiracy theory to share the use of "libertarian". "Left-anarchism" historical movement come strongly from Latin Europe emigrants, so is understandable that our use come from a different way (French) instead the use of "libertarian" of the "libertarianism" that comes from Anglosaxon tradition. That way this is a Polysemy problem and not a Taxonomical one, similar words that comes from different origin, lenguages and cultures. We the libertarian socialists don't have to sabotage the accuracy of an article and we don't have and we don't need to create a pseudo-historic narrative just to be against free market libertarians. Even we don't have to dispute an apocryph taxonomy, we only share a term, thats all. That fight just have to be conceptual, and without involving Wikipedia in it.--Hades7 (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, political descriptions in almost all cases were invented long after the ideologies they described had become established. Even the use of the term libertarian to refer to free marketers only came into use in the 1970s. TFD (talk) 09:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand your position that the "ism" is used far more often by (and for) right-wing laissez faire types than libertarian socialists (and maybe that's important enough to note and explain, as I think there's reasons), but I don't really see that as a persuasive point for segregating the topic based on an "ism" – even if we dismiss multiple sources using the "ism" to describe social anarchism and libertarian Marxism. This isn't just some incidental homonym (or even polyseme, IMO). I understand the distinction you want to make, but I agree with TFD that "American libertarianism" (opposed to the former as it may be) is historically and philosophically related. There's a documentary record of a neoliberal or laissez faire political movement "borrowing" terms, rhetoric and some limited set of ideas from libertarian socialism (e.g. Tucker, Spooner) and the broader anti-state socialist movement. They didn't call themselves "libertarians" by accident and it's not some conspiracy theory. It's right out there in the open that a left-wing political ideology, label-and-all was selectively combined with right-wing influences to create the American "libertarian" position. If anything, the parsing out the "isms" seems like post-hoc distinction. I mean, they weren't called "libertarianists" or anything like that and they described themselves as true anti-statists, whatever one might think of that claim. I still think it's disingenuous to treat this as some kind of semantic coincidence. On the other hand, addressing these issues in the section on etymology might make matters clearer. fi (talk) 09:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


 * TFD and Fi. I don't say we couldn't have an personal hypotesis of political theory, but what I see is that those personal hypotesis (the ones of some editors of a moment in the encyclopdia) became the bones or skeleton of this article. An original hypothesis shouldn't be the bones of an article. If you agree that the term "libertarianism" if commonly used for free market politics (even in non-English language), why to insist in the present version of this article? If is a kind of trophy of ideological struggle I understand the emotional fire of that fight, but it is innecesary. Almost nobody know us as libertarians and Nobody knows our political theory as libertarianism, but as libertarian socialism (not even "socialist libertarianism", another apocryphal term to create a false or a "creative" taxonomy). If like Fi, the argument is that libertarianism take things from classical anarchism, that only could be consider an antecedent of libertarianism (free market ideology), that they form a past source as many ideologies take from another. Anyway, Tucker and Spooner were too burgoises and classic liberals for the main libertarian socialism -continental Europe and Latin and Slavic Europe background, revolution and philo-marxist oriented- in their life time that there weren't important for our intellectual tradition, we ignored them, I don't undestand why to reivindicate so much to people that we have ignored and don't have strong roots with our real socialist and revolutionaty tradition. So, that kind of "heterodox" anarchism was revisited and revised by libertarianism, because I was ignored by the rest of anarchism, like an abandoned property. So what? We even don't like those heterodox anarchists so much and if others take somes ideas or "inspiration" that is not enought to create a taxonomy. As an example, Libertarian socialism also takes from medievalist romanticism as Kropotkin suggest (descentralization of jurisdictions, pre-capitalistic organization nostalgia, guild kind society, common property/"foedus") and even if we can create an hypotesis of the reactionary roots of anarchism we shouldn't establish it as a the main narrative structure in the Anarchim article. Maybe we can put that in some part of the article, that Anarchim could be for some people or authors (relevant ones) in the same taxonomy of Reactionary Medievalism (or been more accurated that take ideas from it) but shouldn't be the center of the article if it is not a common perception or a reputated and mainly accepted narrative.


 * To recapitulate, to interpretate idea conections or recolections as a taxonomy put us in the same family of they, and that is not true (and even not convenient) for us. To take some elements don't make them from our family and viceversa. I don't know if the argument of encyclopedia accuracy have been the total centre of this article creation process (and I have already made the argument why in that way this article is pseudo-historic), but if in some way here have been an ideological struggle that is the origin of the current version I have a to say that to put libertarianism as the main term of a taxonomy that have libertarian socialism in the same grup make us inferiors and connected to very burgoises roots. This pseudo-historic taxonomy make libertarian socialism an excentric product of classic liberal free market ideology and libertarian socialism a "corrupted" interpretation of the free market oriented root. That because the article says we are the same family, and a family have common roots. What is the only possible ancestry? Classical liberalism. The pseudo-historic taxonomy even made a big favor to libertarianism and put them as the recuperation of a commnon shared ortodoxy roots. Maybe that you need to do is to create an article only for "Libertarian" term and leave this article to the common use in English, Spanisn, Portuguese and another languages as a free market idoelogy with a no taxonomy roots with left-anarchism/libertarian socialism. Keep both separated is not only accurate is good for both libertarians (free marketers) and libertarian socialists. --Hades7 (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * First, it would not be ahistorical to say that libertarian socialism/communism came out of a classical liberal tradition. I think that's just an obvious and well-supported statement, as it would be to say that Marx came out of this tradition, or from Hegelian roots. All went on, of course, to critique and repudiate, and departed from these traditions substantially, but that doesn't divorce them from their heritage. But more importantly, I don't even see the article making any such statements. At most, it's saying that the "libertarians" of anti-state socialism and the "libertarians" of radical 20th century laissezfaire are, if nothing else, etymologically related and characterized by some professed opposition to some set of objectionable power systems. Is that controversial? Does that imply a single, cohesive political movement? Does it subordinate one to the other? Maybe there's a serious semantic problem here or maybe not, but to pretend that the connections don't exist, that e.g. contemporary right-wing "libertarians" didn't, in large part, grow out of a pile of "borrowed" and retooled left-wing terms and proclamations, is to ignore reality. As I see it, the purpose of the article is to answer the question "what is a libertarian" – and I don't think that making some contrived distinction between "libertarian" and "libertarianism" helps to answer that question clearly. I'm not opposed to radical solutions here, but I think they should make better sense. fi (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Wage labor section is a bit shallow
The current wage labor section largely cites non-libertarians critiques of wage labor.

Wage labor as coercion can also be derived from hayak  in a bit more nuance the the present as can the nature of (un)employment as product of lack of flexibility in wages, worker mobility.

https://books.google.com/books?id=nclLLOfnGqAC&pg=PA55&dq=a+certain+minimum+income+for+everyone,+or+a+sort+of+floor+below+which+nobody+need+fall+even+when+he+is+unable+to+provide+for+himself&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DJ20UrHfE8HYoASS3YKoDQ&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=a%2520certain%2520minimum%2520income%2520for%2520everyone%252C%2520or%2520a%2520sort%2520of%2520floor%2520below%2520which%2520nobody%2520need%2520fall%2520even%2520when%2520he%2520is%2520unable%2520to%2520provide%2520for%2520himself&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=plCHyxBYrp8C&pg=PA425&dq=constitution+of+liberty+definitive+edition+%22worker%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjj35iKl-_VAhWHqlQKHRUXCTcQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=constitution%20of%20liberty%20definitive%20edition%20%22worker%22&f=false

https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/why-did-hayek-support-basic-income

http://crookedtimber.org/2012/07/01/let-it-bleed-libertarianism-and-the-workplace/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joelja (talk • contribs) 05:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

The problem with weak Libertarianism (create a paragraph, it should be mentioned)
Weak Libertarians either support bigger parties with more clear to the public and ancient ideas; or don't support other forces at all. Libertarianism is to be adopted as a whole by mature societies, because it merges the pragmatism of the right and the humanism of the left. Even non declared libertarian parties accept libertarian policies. Most libertarian parties prefer to form coalitions with the right, because they deem fiscal pragmaticism superior than the humanitarian aspect; but rarely the opposite might also happen. In politics the possible prevails, so as a voter one is stronger not when he/she votes the ideal philosophical best, but the option which after the entropy of actuality remains closer to one's ideals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:587:4102:b000:dc36:6b05:57bd:8de7 (talk) 13:42, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Highly questionable diagram
The following diagram



which appears on this very talk page as well as on the articles for Left-libertarian and Right-libertarian, seems really dubious in a lot of ways, mostly in terms of how "left" and "right" libertarianisms are shown as having no overlap. Probably the most egregious example of this is Geolibertarianism sitting off in a corner by itself; AFAICT Geolibertarians agree with the "Laissez-faire capitalist" or "neo-liberal" types on almost everything outside of their specific land-ownership/property-tax issue; indeed they seem to characterize themselves as some sort of modification/reform of that political/economic platform, rather than as something entirely separate from it. So it makes very little sense to show their circle as neither overlapping nor even nearby to it.

If the taxonomy given in the FAQ on this very talk page is to be taken at face value (right-libertarians believe in private property while left-libertarians don't), then by that definition Geolibertarians clearly ought to be shown as straddling this line, since they oppose private ownership for land specifically but still support private ownership for everything else.Nlburgin (talk) 21:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)


 * This chart nicely encapsulates the problem with this article in its current format. The article is out of touch with the reality of the libertarian philosophy. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "libertarianism" today refers to the brand of libertarianism that originated in the United States, and is described in the article currently titled right-libertarianism (which is currently in the process of being resolved there). Britannica defines it similarly. This suggests that the current misnamed article, "Right-libertarianism" be titled "Libertarianism", and the title of this article - currently named "Libertarianism" be revised for the purpose of disambiguation. Perhaps something along the lines of "International Libertarianism", "Libertarianism (usages)", or "Libertarianism (disambiguation)" would be a more apt title for this page. If we're going to fix this naming issue, we'd better fix it right. JLMadrigal   @  17:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Eyeballs needed at Talk:Right-libertarianism
I was coming here to let you all know about an ongoing dispute at Talk:Right-libertarianism about renaming the article, which has now included a proposal that it should be moved to this title, but I see that the user who proposed that (JLMadrigal) already posted pretty much the same comment directly above, so I'll just add my response to him (from over there) here too:


 * Care to quote that SEP article? That's the same one I referred to earlier, which has an entire section on "Libertarianism, Left and Right" and names and describes right-libertarianism and left-libertarianism. It also begins with the sentence "Libertarianism is a family of views in political philosophy", and does not contain "United States" or "U.S." in it anywhere, so I don't see how you can claim it says what you say. I similarly see no such support in the Brittanica article you link.

And Madrigal, I suggest you read the Frequently Asked Questions section at the top of this talk page, it should clear things up for you a lot, though I've pretty much already said what's there many times already so maybe not. --Pfhorrest (talk) 19:08, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "Care to quote that SEP article?" Sure.
 * Paragraph one: "...libertarians endorse strong rights to individual liberty and private property..."
 * Paragraph two: "...libertarians typically endorse something like a free-market economy: an economic order based on private property and voluntary market relationships among agents. Libertarians usually see the kind of large-scale, coercive wealth redistribution in which contemporary welfare states engage as involving unjustified coercion...Thus, rights of freedom of contract and exchange, freedom of occupation, and private property are taken very seriously."
 * Paragraph three: "In these respects, libertarian theory is closely related to (indeed, at times practically indistinguishable from) the classical liberal tradition, as embodied by John Locke, David Hume, Adam Smith, and Immanuel Kant. It affirms a strong distinction between the public and the private spheres of life; insists on the status of individuals as morally free and equal, something it interprets as implying a strong requirement of individuals sovereignty; and believes that a respect for this status requires treating people as right-holders, including as holders of rights in property."
 * Paragraph four: "It is popular to label libertarianism as a right-wing doctrine. But this is mistaken. For one, on social (rather than economic) issues, libertarianism implies what are commonly considered left-wing views. "
 * Note here the Nolan distinction between economic and social issues. On Economic issues, you may recall, libertarians fall to the right. On social issues they fall to the left. Thus the two-dimensional chart is required.
 * JLMadrigal  @  20:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Those quotes don't support your claim, because all of those things describe left-libertarians as well as right. I think you're still not understanding what the difference is. Read further down that same article, to the section "Libertarianism, Left and Right". It explains it quite clearly.
 * And nobody is arguing against a two-dimensional chart, just that that particular two-dimensional chart is not the only one. --Pfhorrest (talk) 20:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "all of those things describe left-libertarians as well as right." Congratulations, Pfhorrest, you have just substantiated my support for Nlburgin's claim that the prominent chart - separating "left-libertarianism" from "right-libertarianism" - is highly defective, because there is no overlap. It also gives undue weight to the dissident left by assigning overly large spheres to this philosophy (which the SEP article refers to as "a subset of so-called “left-libertarian” theories."). Regarding the SEP's take on libertarian views on ownership and appropriation, it refers to them as a "continuum" from left to right (on this economic issue) - not a border line separating two distinct views. JLMadrigal   @  22:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about that chart in particular (which is why this is a separate section), but do note that everything in that chart is within a larger bubble labeled just "libertarianism". Those quotes from SEP describe everything inside that bubble, and that doesn't require the sub-bubbles inside that bubble to overlap, though I'm not making any comments here on whether or not they should overlap, that's a different topic.
 * And SEP may say it's a continuum, but it also uses the terms "right-libertarian" and "left-libertarian", and even in a continuum you can separate one side of it from the other. You don't need to make that point to me: as I said before, I consider my own position to be straddling that line, and there is plenty of room to argue about whose particular views are how far to which side of that line (or maybe straddle it like I think I do), but the fact is that reliable sources like SEP distinguish between views which fall to one side of it and those that fall to the other side of it, and that's what matters for an encyclopedia. --Pfhorrest (talk) 23:20, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I think the problem is that there is not agreement on the article topic. In reliable sources the term right libertarianism is used to distinguish the main body of modern American-style libertarianism from a faction that call itself left-libertarianism (not to be confused with socialist libertarianism or other left-wing ideologies shown in the chart above).. While they have a few differences from right libertarianim, they are not substantial from the perspective of anyone who is not modern American-style libertarian. There is no literature about right-libertarianism any more than there is literature about all colours escept blue or all birds except pigeons. TFD (talk) 23:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The SEP source under discussion disagrees, mentioning thinkers that predate 20th century American right-libertarianism (like Henry George) right away when it begins talking about left-libertarianism. --Pfhorrest (talk) 23:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * (It took me ten minutes to figure out that SEP stands for the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.) In fact the SEP article supports what I said. Note the descriptions of libertarianism from SEP that JLMadrigal quotes above. Left libertarianism (as defined in the SEP) supports all those things. They differ however on ownership of natural resources. According to left libertarians, since land was originally commonly owned, the state may levy property taxes. But they cannot legitimately tax corporate or personal income or even tax buildings, just the land on which it is built. There are about three or four left libertarian theorists, so its a small section of libertarianism. TFD (talk) 00:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Besides your last sentence, which just swipes aside countless anarchist theorists as irrelevant, in what way does any of that disagree with anything I’ve said? —Pfhorrest (talk) 01:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You say that the SEP article describes everything within the larger bubble, when in fact it does not describe libertarian socialism and only describes Steiner-Vallentyne (or "left libertarianism") which in fact overlap 99% with anarcho-capitalism. I suggest your read something by Steiner or Vallentyne and see for yourself. TFD (talk) 01:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The question is not whether Steiner et al count as left-libertarians, but whether self-identified libertarian movements that predate right-libertarianism (and so needed no label to disambiguate themselves) do. SEP gives at least one example (George) and implies that there are others, and libertarian socialism as I am familiar with it generally agrees with those quoted principles as well (modulo disagreement about what “private property” might mean if distinguished from “personal property”). The onus is on you to show that they do not; and more to the point, to show that left-libertarianism is limited only to Steiner et al; and moreso, that right-libertarianism therefore does not need disambiguation from libertarianism simpliciter. —Pfhorrest (talk) 02:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You are the one that presented the SEP article as defining left and right libertarianism. The only left-libertarian historical figure mentioned in SEP's "Libertarianism" was Henry George, who argued that only land (excluding buildings) should be taxed. It has nothing to do with socialism. Socialism means some degree of collective ownership or control of the means of production, while left libertarianism rejects that entirely. It's only because land is not part of the means of production that it is subject to taxation. TFD (talk) 02:44, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You're the only one bringing up taxation. Libertarian socialists are generally anarchists who are opposed to there being any state in the first place, and therefore opposed to anyone who could do any taxation; they (anarchists) are not saying that factories should be taxed, but (for example) that their nominal owners have no right to use force (either "official state" force or "private security" force which they argue is tantamount to a state) to exclude people from working in those factories unless they obey the "owners", because those factories are built on land and from resources that the "owners" have no exclusive claim to. There's a variety of thought on the topic and I'm not presenting this as the exclusive view of all libertarian socialists (or left-libertarians), just as an example of a common one. I know this is different from Steiner et al, but nobody's saying that left-libertarianism is a monolithic block of people who all think exactly the same thing, but rather one general wing of a broad spectrum of ideas. Not all right-libertarians agree on everything either.
 * Regarding Georgism, our own article on it says it is not exclusively about land, but that it is "concerned with the distribution of economic rent caused by natural monopolies, pollution, and the control of commons, including title of ownership for natural resources and other contrived privileges (e.g., intellectual property). Any natural resource which is inherently limited in supply can generate economic rent, but the classical and most significant example of 'land monopoly' involves the extraction of common ground rent from valuable urban locations". Regarding its relationship to socialism, our article says it "has historically been considered as a radically progressive or socialist ideology", and quotes Marx as saying it is "decked out with socialism".
 * In any case, this is all besides the point that George alone is enough of an example that this kind of libertarianism predates the 20th century right-libertarian kind and that left-libertarianism, even if confined exclusively to George and Steiner who are the only names explicitly mentioned in that SEP article (but explicitly given as examples, not an exhaustive list), is not some deviant offshoot of right-libertarianism that can be dismissed as irrelevant. And nobody's arguing that it's less popular at present in the United States, just that what is currently popular in the United States is not the deciding factor for how this encyclopedia should treat its topics. It could just as well be argued from a global and historical perspective that right-libertarian is the aberration that should be dismissed as irrelevant, and that this article should be all about left-libertarianism, which should just be called libertarianism; but I would be against that argument too. We need to remain neutral and treat each viewpoint fairly without bias, and what we have in place already more or less does that. --Pfhorrest (talk) 03:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The SEP article says, "Libertarian theories can be put on a continuum from right-libertarianism to left-libertarianism, depending on the stance taken on how natural resources can be owned." It puts Rothbard on the right, Nozick in the center and HIllel Steiner on the left. Steiner presented a papere at the Ludwig von Mises Institute. and his views are seriously discussed by them. His views have nothing whatsoever to do with libertarian socialism and your source does not say they do. In fact Steiner's view on the ownership of natural resources is basically the same as everyone outside the libertarian movement. No one thinks that you can put a fence around a lake in Alaska and expect the government to recognize your ownership or thinks that government should not be allowed to collect property taxes, yourself and most LMvI members perhaps excluded. It could be that in your mind there is no difference between charging property tax and having all property owned by the federal government, but that's not what the source says. TFD (talk) 04:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, this is not about what Steiner's views are, and I'm not arguing with you about what they are, or what SEP says they are. I'm saying
 * That SEP included others besides Steiner as left-libertarians, including George who predates right-libertarianism entirely, and that therefore left-libertarianism is not limited to Steiner and his offshoots.
 * And that George has been considered socialist, contrary to your assertion that it "has nothing to do with socialism".
 * I'm also not saying anything about what anyone expects existing governments to recognize, or about what my views are at all (what is LMvI and why do you associate me with them?); I'm describing the views of many libertarian socialist (not myself) about what governments should (not will) do, as a counterpoint to your implication that libertarian socialists want to let governments "tax corporate or personal income or even tax buildings" and that that makes them therefore in disagreement with the general libertarian principles laid out by the SEP and therefore excluded from the spectrum of left-libertarianism.
 * And also highlighting the similarity of that to the views of George, who was, once again, only one of two non-exhaustive examples of left-libertarianism given by SEP
 * Leaving the burden on you to show that libertarian socialist views differ meaningfully from those described as left-libertarian by SEP. Not that they disagree in some technical way with Steiner's views specifically, because he does not represent left-libertarianism in its entirety, per the SEP; he is an example of someone's whose views are in that range.
 * All of this is a huge tangent anyway. You just seem to want to argue that left-libertarianism is trivial for some reason. The argument here is about whether there is a notable distinction between "left-libertarianism" and "right-libertarianism", under those names, and thus whether there is any problem with having articles on those topics under those names as we do now. SEP is a notable, reliable, neutral source that says yes, and I've yet to see anyone present anything better than a Google search showing that some people don't like the term "right-libertarianism" to say otherwise. --Pfhorrest (talk) 06:47, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Somehow I had accidentally un-followed this article. I think that the discussion at the "sub-article" Right-libertarianism is tackling one aspect of this. We decided that it IS a distinct topic, and descriptively what the topic is. Now we're trying to decide on the title. May I suggest with starting by participating there before tackling the gigantic topic of the fundamental nature of this article? North8000 (talk) 11:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Pfhorrest, that's a lot of OR abd SYN on your part. If you think that left-libertarianism includes socialist libertarians, then find a source article that specifically says that. Certainly Georism like ever other economic position has been derided as socialism. Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as socialist by its opponents in power? Where is the opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of socialism, against the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries? But it is normally seen as capitalism with low taxes and few government services. If I am wrong, you should be able to provide a source. TFD (talk) 16:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As I said before, this is a huge digression into unnecessary detail for the topic at hand. We're not arguing about the content of left-libertarianism, we're arguing about the name of right-libertarianism. Let's get back on track:
 * All this started when PhilLiberty made disruptive moves and POV forks of right-libertarianism.
 * That prompted a discussion of whether there was a legit topic of that article and what its appropriate name is.
 * You seem to be arguing that "right-libertarianism" is only used to distinguish it from left-libertarianism (with which I agree), but that left-libertarianism is a tiny unimportant offshoot movement starting with Steiner et al, and that right-libertarianism is just normal libertarianism, not a distinct sub-topic to be covered under that name used only by fringe left-libertarians.
 * I point out that the SEP article gives balanced coverage of both left- and right-libertarianism, under those names, and one of the two non-exhaustive examples of left-libertarians it gives long predates not only Steiner et al but also all the right-libertarians you claim left-libertarianism is an offshoot of.
 * So, as it stands, your claim that left-libertarianism is only a small unimportant offshoot of right-libertarianism has been refuted, and with it the argument that right-libertarianism isn't a topic worth covering under a name besides just "libertarianism". Who else may or may not count as "left-libertarian" is beside the point: we have a source giving an example refuting your claim, that's all that matters. --Pfhorrest (talk) 17:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Although we are not arguing about the contents of left-libertarianism, we are arguing about the content of right-libertarianism. And as the source makes clear, it defines libertarianism as modern U.S. style libertarianism, which is pro-capitalist, and therefore excludes such ideologies as libertarian socialism. Right-libertarianism in this context is a term exclusively used when speaking about Valentine, Steiner et al to distinguish their views on property taxes from the main body of modern U.S. libertarianism. In fact the article identifies a third group of centrist libertarians, such as Albert Jay Nock, who found a middle ground. He was a strong influence on William Buckley and the CATO Institute. But Buckley and CATO do no represent a middle ground between socialism and capitalism (unless you're a hard core Rothbardite.) TFD (talk) 18:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Nobody is arguing that libertarian socialism is within right-libertarianism. Where is that even coming from? And the SEP article, as I told Madrigal already, says absolutely nothing about "modern U.S. style libertarianism", containing no mention of "United States", "U.S.", "America", or anything like that. It says things about libertarianism generally, that apply to both left and right libertarians, and then goes on to break down the difference between left and right libertarians within that. And you're repeating that Valentine, Steiner, et al are the only representatives of left-libertarianism, and ignoring the main point of my previous post that the SEP article directly contradicts that, and mentions nothing about Valentine but does mention George who, again, predates not only Steiner but all of the right-libertarians you claim left-libertarians split off from. I'm getting really tired of reiterating that point, and that's the crucial bit. You want to dismiss the significance of the term and topic "right-libertarianism" by dismissing the significance of left-libertarianism by limiting it to a small splinter group from right-libertarianism, but the only source we're discussing so far directly contradicts that. --Pfhorrest (talk) 20:39, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your reference to libertarian socialism being within right-libertarianism. My point is that the topic of the SEP article is what many people in the U.S. refer to as libertarianism, i.e., a pro-capitalist and right-wing ideology represent by the Libertarian Party, the CATO Institute, the Ludwig von Mises Institute, etc. As it correctly states, there is a disagreement about Locke's theory about how land is acquired. But again, there is no mention of any actual left-wing ideologies that could be considered libertarian. I don't understand how you confuse George or Steiner with socialists. TFD (talk) 00:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

We're starting to split the discussion and starting to touch on topics that have had substantial discussion at Talk:Right-libertarianism. May I suggest discussing [Talk:Right-libertarianism]] naming topics at that article. And the more eyes there then better, doubly so for libertarianism watchers. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

The main problem with both articles is their reliance on a dubious distinction between so-called "capitalism" and free markets - at least from Pfhorrest's point of view - by which "anticapitalists" seek to place a hard line cleanly separating it from its supposed counterpart. The highly misleading chart above needs to be fixed. Perhaps in doing so, scales will begin to fall from eyes. Even if there were no overlap between free markets and laissez-faire capitalism (As Mr. Pfhorrest seems to assert), such discussion falls entirely under Nolan's X axis, and doesn't take the Y axis (social/personal issues) into account. The SEP article, in Paragraph four (see above), concurs with Nolan's two-factor basis for political identity. As stated, libertarians fall to the right on economic/property issues, and to the left on social/personal issues. JLMadrigal  @  12:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Libertarianism

 * That sounds very good to me and I have proposed at Talk:Libertarianism that it be implemented. --Pfhorrest (talk) 05:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * First of all, I'd like to personally thank you for your kindness, support and help in linking my proposals and reasons to the talk pages. In the Final thoughts section, I've actually proposed something similar to what proposed for Libertarianism, namely having Libertarianism being only about the original libertarianism, mentiong only in the lead that the word libertarian was co-opted (as it has been stated for a long time until this IP edit and which I re-added in my lead proposal) and moving the American libertarianism section  to Libertarianism in the United States, perhaps also to Liberalism in the United States, Economic liberalism and Laissez-faire and similar articles in which it may have a place since it's part of the liberal tradition rather than some full new philosophy which is what was the case with 19th century libertarianism and wasn't just a renaming (like libertarian for liberal in the United States), being even more important due to starting libertarian/anarcho-communism (at the time, communism, just like socialism, in that it was more communitarian than individualist). However, I wasn't really serious about it (it was more of a proposal that I thought would still be better and make more sense than what was otherwhise proposed, with all due respect) for exactly your same reasons and concerns, even if it wouldn't be necessarely inaccurate to do that. As I stated above, I'm for an improved status quo. Anyway, The Four Deuces seems to be using left-libertarianism only in the third sense as described here: "In its oldest sense, it is a synonym either for anarchism in general or social anarchism in particular. Later it became a term for the left or Konkinite wing of the free-market libertarian movement, and has since come to cover a range of pro-market but anti-capitalist positions, mostly individualist anarchist, including agorism and mutualism, often with an implication of sympathies (such as for radical feminism or the labor movement) not usually shared by anarcho-capitalists. In a third sense it has recently come to be applied to a position combining individual self-ownership with an egalitarian approach to natural resources; most proponents of this position are not anarchists."
 * Source: "Anarchism". In Gaus, Gerald F.; D'Agostino, Fred, eds. (2012). The Routledge Companion to Social and Political Philosophy. p. 227.
 * Left-libertarianism as understood by The Four Deuces should be mentioned and dicussed in a Left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism section to create in Libertarianism in the United States. I'm not sure, but I think Jennifer D. Carlson (2012) also use left-libertarianism in that sense but adds socialist libertarianism ("There exist three major camps in libertarian thought: right-libertarianism, socialist libertarianism, and left-libertarianism. [...] [S]ocialist libertarians [...] advocate for the simultaneous abolition of both government and capitalism."). In my understanding, socialist libertarianism isn't another way to spell and refer to libertarian socialism, but more similar to liberal conservative and conservative liberalism, i.e. libertarian socialism is more of a broad term that is mainly used vis-à-vis authoritarian/state socialism and include anarchism, libertarian Marxism and communism, mutualism, revolutionary syndicalism and others whereas socialist libertarianism could be considered to be the most individualist wing of socialism. That's why I believe Socialist libertarianism should simply be a redirect to Left-libertarianism as it's the socialist wing of broad left-libertarianism as described there.
 * I'm also not opposed to create Libertarian (political typology) (or even Libertarian capitalism), provided it's a new page and not a substitute for either Left-libertarianism or Right-libertarianism. Does it actually warrant a page or simply a disambiguation though? I would say I'm an inclusionist, so I wouldn't have a proiblem with it and perhaps that could also be a start for other ideologies' typology in which we describe that spoefic ideology typology/voter demographics.--Davide King (talk) 08:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I also agree with the inclusion of geolibertarianism (Georgism) and left-wing market anarchism in both Libertarianism and Left-libertarianism. The latter should also be more prominely discussed in Libertarianism in the United States, whose History section needs to be much amplied and strctured like the Libertarianism's History section. I would consider geoism (geolibertarianism/Georgism) part of the broad left-libertarianism as part of the non-socialist left-libertarian wing because it's close to what's referred to as left-libertarianism in the United States and because, while the philosophy nor Henry George himself not necessarely being socialist, both have been supported and worked within the socialist and broad labour movement, which saw George as one of their own. See Michael Hudson's "Has Georgism Been Hijacked by Special Interests", which I remember reading not long time ago, as an example. Either way, I believe we should first resolve the Right-libertarianism issue, so that the discussion can be moved to the rightly page which needs improvement, i.e. Libertarianism in the United States.--Davide King (talk) 09:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You're more than welcome and I agree with basically everything you've said here, though you've said it all far more thoroughly and with better sources than I could. You're impressively knowledgeable about all of this and I really hope your wiki-beaurocratic troubles get sorted out soon because I would love to see someone like you contributing to the encyclopedia in full force. --Pfhorrest (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * BTW, I see above that you can't reply again now, but if you don't end up getting unblocked soon, I'd love to stay in touch with you off-site. I'm not sure I've ever met anyone who concurs with my politics so much and knows even more about it than me. It's trivially easy to find my email address, so if you'd like to keep in touch you can reach me that way. --Pfhorrest (talk) 02:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I think we should not create new pages without a strict need. I support merging pages "Right-libertarianism" and "Left-libertarianism" into the article "Libertarianism". Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 09:09, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I think it should be based on notability, which I think it does. Just like populism, libertarianism is a broad philosophy that has different meanings and ideas besides some similarities and overlaps; and left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism are terms used to describe the two most well-known tendencies within it, not much different/unlike from Left-wing populism and Right-wing populism.--Davide King (talk) 09:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem here is that a rigorous definitions of left- and right-libertarianism cannot be given. And, for example, geolibertarianism can be attributed both to the first and second. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 09:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Right-libertarianism was nominated for deletion back in 2007 but the result was to keep it, more recently a requested move was recjected and one definition would be that of the philosophy within libertarianism which support the private ownership of both land and capital, i.e. of natural resources and of the means of production. In the United States, it may also be used to refer to cultural conservatives libertarians whereas left-libertarianism would refer to those who reject the private ownership of natural resources. As I put it in my left-libertarianism's lead proposal, "In its classical usage, it was a synonym for anti-authoritarian varieties of left-wing politics such as anarchism. In the United States, left-libertarianism refers to the left-wing of the modern libertarian movement and more recently to political positions associated with academic philosophers Hillel Steiner, Philippe Van Parijs and Peter Vallentyne that combine self-ownership with an egalitarian approach to natural resources".
 * Source: "Anarchism". In Gaus, Gerald F.; D'Agostino, Fred, eds. (2012). The Routledge Companion to Social and Political Philosophy. p. 227. "In its oldest sense, it is a synonym either for anarchism in general or social anarchism in particular. Later it became a term for the left or Konkinite wing of the free-market libertarian movement, and has since come to cover a range of pro-market but anti-capitalist positions, mostly individualist anarchist, including agorism and mutualism, often with an implication of sympathies (such as for radical feminism or the labor movement) not usually shared by anarcho-capitalists. In a third sense it has recently come to be applied to a position combining individual self-ownership with an egalitarian approach to natural resources; most proponents of this position are not anarchists".
 * Although some right-libertarians may support a geoist single tax, which maintain both the private ownership of both land and capital, geolibertarianism is part of the non-socialist wing of left-libertarianism due to its opposition to private land ownership, which right-libertarianism support. Henry George has also been described as left-libertarian in the third sense.--Davide King (talk) 11:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * For example, geolibertarians may call themselves left-libertarians. But nevertheless geolibertarianism supports the reduction of the government economic functions. That is, it's not clear where to attribute geolibertarians – to left- or right-libertarianism. Similarly, agorists may call themselves left-libertarians, but nevertheless agorism is a variant of anarcho-capitalism. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 12:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * As stated somewhere else by libertarian socialism supports the reduction of the government of economic functions; they simply believe that can't be done within capitalism because the state is its apparatus, they're interconnected and state capitalism isn't some capitalism's perversion but its natural result; and you can't abolish one whithout removing the other. Left-libertarianism is understood in broad terms (see The Routledge Companion to Social and Political Philosophy's definition) and so are other philosophies like socialism. Obviously, many supporters would understand socialism to mean and refer only to democratic and libertarian socialism, yet Socialism also includes so-called authoritarian and state socialism. I'd consider the latter two (just like so-called Marxism–Leninism and socialist states) nothing more than state capitalism and that to be a fact, but it's my understanding that Wikipedia doesn't necessarely work by facts but rather by reliable sources and verifiable informations, so there isn't much I can do about it. That's why I believe Left-libertarianism and Right-libertarianism warrant their own article, which I believe should be in broad terms, perhaps also referring to the libertarian left (the left opposed to authoritarianism and statism in left-wing politics) and the libertarian right (the right opposed to government economic and social interventions), which would be something broader than libertarian socialism and so-called libertarian capitalism.--Davide King (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I partially agree with you. But usually the left-wing is called those who are for the expansion of the economic and social functions of the government, and the right-wing those who are for the reduction. If we follow this classification, agorists and geolibertarians are right-wing. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 20:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised you use this definition. That's ironically used non-ironically by Americans to classify anarchism as a far-right ideology and Stalinism and fascism being on the far-left, which is just plain wrong. I usually use the definition that is in the lead of Left-wing politics (support of the lower classes, egalitarianism and expansion of freedom for all) Right-wing politics (support of the ruling class, inequalities, tradition, hierarchies and authority). I personally believe that only the socialist left is the left (you aren't really that much left if you merely want to improve the status quo), but that's my own bias and I respect and use the broader definition as written on Wikipedia. That's why I also consider anarchism to be the literally antithesis of right-wing politics.--Davide King (talk) 20:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the government is used to social support of the lower classes in the modern world. There is no other working mechanism for such a support yet. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 21:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think one difference is that libertarian socialists distinguish between government and the state whereas American libertarians think of it as the same thing. Libertarian socialists are opposed to the state and instead advocate a form of self-government whereas American libertarians aren't opposed to the state (after all, the state is an important tool in protecting things dear to them like property rights) but rather to government, more specifically to government regulation of business (indeed, the same government "used to social support of the lower classes in the modern world", as you said). Even these American libertarians that advocate for the dissolution of the state, such as anarcho-capitalists, merely advocate its privatisation, or in practice a return to the city-state vis-à-vis the modern, centralised nation-state. Also, libertarian socialists are opposed to state power but not to create alternative and non-coercive institutions which would take the state's place. Libertarian socialists such as anarchists support "self-managed, self-governed societies based on voluntary, cooperative institutions" in place of the state, hence a stateless society, or more specifically "distinct institutions based on non-hierarchical or free associations".--Davide King (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I have a few general comments on which articles are required. I think we should determine this before deciding what names should be used. First there is no need to have a separate article for the general topic and libertarianism that is part of the left, since they would essentially cover the same topic. The Rothbard version would be one of several types in the main libertarian article and like the other types would also have its own main article. Also, since libertarianism that is part of the left and the Vallentyne version of Rothbard's libertarianism are separate topics, they should not be combined into a single article. So I would suggest the following articles. Note these are topics, not necessarily what they would be called.
 * Libertarianism, an ideology that developed in the 19th century,
 * Pro-capitalist libertarianism, an ideology that developed out of 19th century libertarianism,
 * Left libertarianism, a form of pro-capitalist libertarianism, and
 * Libertarian (political typology), a voting demographic that supports smaller government.
 * TFD (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * But don't forget about Occam's razor: "Entities should not be multiplied without necessity". Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think my suggestion does that. TFD (talk) 15:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , the topics you have listed can be placed in one article. Why an article about pro-capitalist libertarianism if article Anarcho-capitalism already exists? Why an article about 19th century libertarianism if article Libertarian socialism already exists? About people who support a small government you can write in the main article or in the article "Anarcho-capitalism". Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 16:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * As I said, "Note these are topics, not necessarily what they would be called." If pro-capitalist libertarianism=anarcho-capitalism, then we have one article whatever it is called. And it's not an article about 19th century libertarianism but about "Libertarianism, an ideology that developed in the 19th century." In the same sense, we say the U.S. was founded in 1776 but that does not mean we cannot speak about the country today. In any case, libertarianism is broader than libertarian socialism, since it includes pro-capitalist libertarianism as well. I would not put the political demographic under anarcho-capitalism because it's about a group of voters most of whom have not interest in anarcho-capitalism. They don't for example necessarily subscribe to theories of self-ownership or anti-war positions for example. TFD (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Please, correct me if I'm wrong. By your proposals, I'd say pro-capitalist libertarianism isn't part of libertarianism but rather of liberalism, thus it shouldn't be part of Libertarianism but rather it should be part of Liberalism (maybe Classical liberalism, Economic liberalism, or Laissez-faire) and Libertarianism in the United States; just because the word libertarianism is used doesn't make it true (see National Socialism). The same would be true of anarcho-capitalism, which in my understanding isn't really considered part of anarchism but rather of liberalism. While true that liberalism supports the state, albeit at its lowest a minimal one, it could be argued that so does anarcho-capitalism because in practice it advocates the privatisation of the state rather than its abolition like anarchists. Anyway, I don't generally disagree with your proposal (Libertarianism should be mainly the one that developed in the 19th century and continues today within the anarchist and libertarian socialist tradition); I'd even say I agree with you. However, I'm personally more of an inclusive user and I'm not opposed in having Left-libertarianism and Right-libertarianism articles in broad terms, perhaps also expanding them to discuss the libertarian left (the left opposed to authoritarianism and statism in left-wing politics) and the libertarian right (the right opposed to government economic and social interventions), which would be something broader than libertarian socialism and so-called pro-capitalist libertarianism.--Davide King (talk) 20:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe where we differ is that I prefer right-libertarianism over pro-capitalist libertarianism (why have both Pro-capitalist libertarianism and Left libertarianism articles, when the latter would be only about a form of pro-capitalist libertarianism? Shouldn't they be in the same article? And didn't you consider them a tiny minority, or did I misunderstood you? Apologies in the case) and I prefer left-libertarianism to be broader than that. Sources:
 * "Anarchism". In Gaus, Gerald F.; D'Agostino, Fred, eds. (2012). The Routledge Companion to Social and Political Philosophy. p. 227. "In its oldest sense, it is a synonym either for anarchism in general or social anarchism in particular. Later it became a term for the left or Konkinite wing of the free-market libertarian movement, and has since come to cover a range of pro-market but anti-capitalist positions, mostly individualist anarchist, including agorism and mutualism, often with an implication of sympathies (such as for radical feminism or the labor movement) not usually shared by anarcho-capitalists. In a third sense it has recently come to be applied to a position combining individual self-ownership with an egalitarian approach to natural resources; most proponents of this position are not anarchists".
 * Goodway, David (2006). Anarchist Seeds Beneath the Snow: Left-Libertarian Thought and British Writers from William Morris to Colin Ward. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. p. 4. "'Libertarian' and 'libertarianism' are frequently employed by anarchists as synonyms for 'anarchist' and 'anarchism', largely as an attempt to distance themselves from the negative connotations of 'anarchy' and its derivatives. The situation has been vastly complicated in recent decades with the rise of anarcho-capitalism, 'minimal statism' and an extreme right-wing laissez-faire philosophy advocated by such theorists as Rothbard and Nozick and their adoption of the words 'libertarian' and 'libertarianism'. It has therefore now become necessary to distinguish between their right libertarianism and the left libertarianism of the anarchist tradition".--Davide King (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd put your Pro-capitalist libertarianism in Libertarianism in the United States, where I also propose to add a Political spectrum section which specifically discuss the left-libertarianism you propose ("a form of pro-capitalist libertarianism") as well as perhaps talking about how it differs from the libertarian spectrum outside the United States (i.e. pro-socialist libertarianism vis-à-vis pro-capitalist libertarianism, whereas in the United States they're both a form of pro-capitalist libertarianism).--Davide King (talk) 21:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Rothbard's libertarians placed themselves in the tradition of 19th century libertarianism (in particular individualist anarchism, which is pro-capitalist) which they saw as the true heir of the levellers, radicals and Jefferson and Jacksonian Democrats. Hence the libertarian Ludwig von Mises Institute's book Liberty and the Great Libertarians lists readings by such 19th century libertarians as William Godwin, Josiah Warren, Max Stirner, Henry David Thoreau, Lysander Spooner, Henry George, Benjamin Tucker, Peter Kropotkin and many others. They also deliberately not only adopted the names of libertarianism and anarchism, but also symbols such as the black flag and the A. A lot of their theories can be found in earlier libertarian writers. Now their detractors claim that they are not true libertarians, because their version merely supports existing elites. But that doesn't mean that their sharing the same name is some sort of bizarre coincidence. TFD (talk) 22:58, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The only thing I disagree with is describing 19th century individualist ancarchism as pro-capitalist. Market socialism is a thing and I believe they supported a liberal socialist free-market economy. As I argued in this collapsed comment, not all liberals supported capitalism and many favored labour over capital (or otherwhise, they wanted to put capital at the service of labour rather than viceversa; the labour theory of value and all that), so I wouldn't say individualist anarchism was pro-capitalist, unless capitalism is used to mean free market rather than actually existing captalism, but don't think capitalism should be defined as such, just like I don't believe socialism or communism should be defined as state ownership of the means of production. I would describe them as socialists, at a time when socialism was a broad term to descrive supporters of labour vis-à-vis capital, before more modern definitions of socialism. Theoretically, it could also be considered, or result in, a form of social ownership since there would be free access to the means of production and capital to labour with, as opposed to concentrated capital. In Individual Liberty, Benjamin Tucker even saw Adam Smith as a father of socialism, stating: "The economic principles of Modern Socialism are a logical deduction from the principle laid down by Adam Smith in the early chapters of his "Wealth of Nations," – namely, that labor is the true measure of price. [...] Half a century or more after Smith enunciated the principle above stated, Socialism picked it up where he had dropped it, and in following it to its logical conclusions, made it the basis of a new economic philosophy". I personally agree with David McNally's (1993) critcism of market socialism and that may not be considered socialism in Marxist terms, but I don't think Marxism owns an egemony over it and I don't remember Marx or Engels arguing other forms of socialism weren't true socialism; instead, they used words like bourgeois/conservative/utopian socialism.--Davide King (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it may be a matter of semantics. In early America, capitalists had small enterprises and farms, whereas today, the economy is dominated by large corporations often with significant political power. In early America, the common man could obtain his own farm and workers could realistically aspire to becoming partners or setting up their own small businesses and hence become capitalists themselves. But both forms are normally described as capitalist.
 * I don't see the relevance of your comment on Adam Smith. Marx adopted the labor theory of value from Ricardo, who got it from Smith. Marxist retained the theory while neo-classical liberals abandoned it. But socialists obtained a lot of their theories from classical liberalism. And of course modern perceptions of Marx particularly in popular media are often see through the lens of modern Communism.
 * TFD (talk) 23:58, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it's a matter of semantics. You describe early America really well, but by capitalism I mainly mean industrial capitalism and I wouldn't consider these self-employed workers as capitalists. Do they employ other people and do they receive income from owning the workplace? Do they make a profit from the employment of other people, extracting their labour's value? Or do they equally share profits and wages? Wage labour/system isn't present only in capitalism, wage slavery is. Indeed, individualist anarchists wanted the worker to receive the full fruct of their labour. They opposed usury, interest and profit and viewed them as exploitation. They wanted to socialize capital and its effects. They were "fervent anti-capitalists [who saw] no contradiction between their individualist stance and their rejection of capitalism". Source: Brown, Susan Love; Carrier, James G., ed. (1997). The Free Market as Salvation from Government: The Anarcho-Capitalist View, Meanings of the Market: The Free Market in Western Culture. Oxford: Berg, pp. 104, 107. I wouldn't phrase it as "workers [...] setting up their own small businesses and hence become capitalists themselves"; I would describe them as producers, neither worker nor capitalist, or also both a worker and a capitalist at the same time. The free association of producers.
 * Stirner was anti-capitalist, but he wasn't opposed to socialism per se; he said he was opposed to the "sacred socialism". Source: Roudine, Victor. La lotta operaia secondo Max Stirner. p. 12. My literal translation from Italian to English would be: "I'm not at all against socialism, but against sacred socialism; my selfishness is not opposed to love [...]; neither is he an enemy of sacrifice, nor of self-denial [...]; and even less than socialism, [...] — in short, it is not an enemy of real interests; it rebels not against love, but against sacred love, not against thought, but against sacred thought, not against socialists, but against sacred socialism". Stirner has had just as much influence a major influence on anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism, with the latter especially being based on his union of egoists, just as much, if nore more, influed he has had on individualist anarchism. According to anarchist historian Max Nettlau, "On reading Stirner, I maintain that he cannot be interpreted except in a socialist sense". I'm not saying that he was a socialist, he was againt dogmas and "sacred thoughts"; just that his philosophy, if we can call it that, fits well with anarchism/libertarian socialism, especially anarcho-communism economically. He didn't call himself an anarchist, yet I think he's rightfully considered within that tradition. One can be both an individualist and communist; one can be an individualist anarchist and support anarcho-communism or anarcho-syndicalism. The difference is whether there should be any collective organisation or not; whether supporting revolutionism or evolutionism; market socialism, decentralised planned socialism, or communism; and so on.
 * I put that quote because individualist anarchist identified themselves as socialists and viewed themselves as such. Tucker specifically called his philosophy anarchistic socialism and especially distinguished it from state socialism, even stating, "The anarchists of the Liberty magazine are socialists only in the economic sense; in the political sense, they are arch-individualists." Some took part in the Socialist International and most were part of the broad labour movement. Unlike Tucker, Lydander Spooner even opposed wage labour, "All the great establishments, of every kind, now in the hands of a few proprietors, but employing a great number of wage labourers, would be broken up; for few or no persons, who could hire capital and do business for themselves would consent to labour for wages for another."
 * I'd dare saying that one could be both a (political) liberal and a (economically) socialist; as you said yourself, "socialists obtained a lot of their theories from classical liberalism." It was the liberals who first talked about the class stuggle and Marx has aknoledged that. Liberalism and socialism weren't so far away as they may be today, as you say, "the economy is dominated by large corporations often with significant political power"; and liberalism wasn't merely an apology for the status quo as it's now. Ricardian and Smithian socialism is a thing too. I'm not saying that Smith or such people were socialists, just that individualist anarchism isn't pro-capitalism. Indeed, it's my understanding that anarcho-capitalism isn't reject by anarchists merely because it uses capitalism in its name but because it actually advocates it; and that individualist anarchism would still be well within the libertarian socialist, or otherwhise anti-capitalist tradition and movement. Now back to left-libertarianism.
 * Left-libertarianism has been used to refer to anarchism/libertarian socialism and that's why I believe Left-libertarianism to be fine as it is, including the anarchist and non-socialist wing of left-libertarianism as well as left-libertarianism in the United States (agorism, left-wing anarchism, Steiner–Vallentyne school, etc.) and the libertarian left. See David Goodman (2006), Peter Marchsall (2008), Saul Newman (2010) and The Routledge Companion to Social and Political Philosophy (2012). I apologise for writing so much but I'm enjoying this dicussion and I find both it and your comments useful and helpful.--Davide King (talk) 03:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There were some colonial capitalists who enjoyed the surplus value provided by their workers, such as Ben Franklin and Samuel Adams and small farmers employed farm hands. But workers had mobility within their firms or could realistically hope to set up their own. I would classify it as early capitalism rather than pre-capitalism. And it was a system that individualist anarchists could support. TFD (talk) 06:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree and actually think what you said of this is pretty much true. I just disagree with putting individualist anarchism as "pro-capitalism"; in the anarchist sense, I think it could be considered socialism, or otherwhise anti-capitalism, in line with anarchism, hence why it's recognised as school of thought, unlike anarcho-capitalism (whose opposition to it isn't merely conteining the word capitalism in its name). Perhaps it could be "petty bourgeois socialism, a socialism contruscted from the standpoint of small commodity producers which sought to improve society not by abolishing commodity but, rather, purifying commodity exchange." But still socialism, or anti-capitalism, as I understand it.--Davide King (talk) 13:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This diagram perfectly explains how I personally see it.--Davide King (talk) 15:34, 11 November 2019 (UTC) Libertarianism-groups-diagram.png


 * , I would attribute agorism to right-libertarianism. Agorism's ideological predecessors are Ludwig Mises and Murray Rothbard. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 05:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * While many anarcho-capitalists may support agorism, I wouldn't consider agorism to be anarcho-capitalism in itself; it's more a of a tactic that can be adopted by different people and libertarian trends. I would still consider it part of American left-libertarianism, along with geolibertarianism and left-wing market anarchism. Konkin characterised it as a form of left-libertarianism within left-wing market anarchism. The Routledge Companion to Social and Political Philosophy (2012) includes it in the broad left-libertarianism definition. "Later it became a term for the left or Konkinite wing of the free-market libertarian movement, and has since come to cover a range of pro-market but anti-capitalist positions, mostly individualist anarchist, including agorism and mutualism, often with an implication of sympathies (such as for radical feminism or the labor movement) not usually shared by anarcho-capitalists."
 * , agorists are against public ownership and social security programs. Plus, I met agorists who even support "voluntary" slavery. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 06:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Libertarian socialists are also against public ownership and social security programs; they want to abolish the state and capitalism, they support social ownership and an economic system that would support the needs of each individual, not one like capitalism that requires social security programs in the first place due to the inevitabily inequality. While I don't doubt that experience you had, it's my understanding that Wikipedia is based on relaible sources and verifiability and not anecdotes, even if they may be true. The source above includes agorism in the broad left-libertarianism.--Davide King (talk) 06:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , according to Minick Th. (2011) Agorism 101 the end result of agorism is anarcho-capitalist society. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 08:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * As I said, there're indeed agorists who are anarcho-capitalists, but agorism is within American left-libertarianism, the range of pro-market but anti-capitalist positions. It's like that communism issue; the word communism is used to refer to Marxism–Leninism, so I wanted the text to use the latter term, but the source uses communism and there isn't much we can do about it. The Routledge Companion to Social and Political Philosophy (2012) includes it in the broad left-libertarianism definition, so it should be included.--Davide King (talk) 13:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , agorists have a rather specific understanding of anti-capitalism. For them, "anti-capitalism" is a society based on private ownership, in which wage labour and even "voluntary" slavery are permissible. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 14:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, I agree with you on that. However, I have to say that while being personally a market and commodity exchange abolitionist, I have a different understanding of that. Wage labour is synonym of wage slavery only under capitalism; collectivist anarchism and other schools of anarchism may also support wage labour; and the difference would be that, with no capitalist, there would be no one to take the worker's surplus value. Also, socialists and communist don't oppose the private ownership of goods (personal property); they oppose the private ownership of both land (natural resources) and capital (indutry). They differ in whether capital should be owner and self-managed by the workers themselves, whether it should be owner cooperatively or collectively, or whether it should be common ownership. What they all have in common is that of social ownership in that the whole society have free acess to capital and the means of production. Indeed, one argument is that the market isn't free "under conditions of private ownership of productive property" because "the class differences and inequalities in income and power that result from private ownership enable the interests of the dominant class to skew the market to their favor, either in the form of monopoly and market power, or by utilizing their wealth and resources to legislate government policies that benefit their specific business interests." So to have actually free markets, there needs to be some form of social ownership. Whether self-management or market socialism are a form of self-managed capitalism or worker/labour capitalism, what Marx called petty bourgois socialism, is a matter of debate between these socialists. Anyway, back to agorism and left-libertarianism, I have sympathy for you but Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and we have to rely on that, so we include free-market anti-capitalism as one tendency.--Davide King (talk) 15:21, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Response from Pfhorrest
User:Davide King has put forward on his talk page a proposal for the lede of this article (as part of a larger proposal for resolving the ongoing dispute over Right-libertarianism), which sounds good to me and I would like to second here on the actual article talk page. The collapsed content below is copied directly from his talk page:

--Pfhorrest (talk) 05:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with user Davide King's proposal. But I think that it's worth also mentioning such currents as geolibertarianism (Georgism) and left-wing market anarchism.
 * P.S. Can any of the administrators consider Davide King's unblock request?
 * Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 07:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed about those inclusions as well. --Pfhorrest (talk) 08:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


 * This is basically opening 2 or 3 forks from a long-running discussion and making competing proposals. May I suggest that all interested parties join the main discussion? And somebody can relay Davids thoughts. North8000 (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Since Right-libertarianism is a sub-article of this article and all the discussed changes would impact its relationship to this article and the sibling sub-article Left-libertarianism, the main discussion should be happening here. --Pfhorrest (talk) 23:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't agree, for the reasons described above and....A brand new idea to start tying in other articles IMO should not be a justification to start a fork (and float competing ideas) from a very substantial discussion that has been evolving for months. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:15, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not the merge proposal that prompts me to move the discussion here. I've been trying to move the discussion to here ever since the discussion at Talk:Right-libertarianism turned toward seriously considering repurposing the entire article from its current place in the organizational structure. Even without the merge proposal, changing from the current structure of Libertarianism with sub-articles Left-libertarianism and Right-libertarianism should happen here at the parent article. For most of these months I've just been against the various ever-changing proposals that have been floated over there; the merge proposal is just an idea for a change I could actually get behind. Without it, we're just back the same impasse we've been at, but that should still be involving everyone here, not just right-libertarians who hate that name. --Pfhorrest (talk) 23:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a not-nice and inaccurate characterization. I see neutral knowledgeable people there just trying to figure out the best thing to do.North8000 (talk) 23:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Libertarism
(Not about Wikipedia's articles, but about the concepts themselves.) If you return to the origins, these concepts should be called left libertarism and right libertarism. "Libertarianism" is neologism. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. I agree with you, but the problem is that libertarian, or libertarianism, is literally the English translation of and from the French libertaire, or libertarisme. This is unique to English and the English Wikipedia. Other Wikipedia such as the French, Italian, Portuguese or Spanish ones can use libertarisme and libertarianisme (French), or libertarismo and libertarianismo (Italian, Portuguese and Spanish). Hence, we have left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism, which I believe is still the best compromise and solution and which is what many reliable sources use. David Goodway (2006) and Peter Marshall (2008) use left-libertarianism to refer to the original libertairisme (English: libertarianism) specifically to distinguish itself from what they call right-libertarianism, i.e. modern American libertarianism which is within the liberal tradition but isn't called liberalism because in the United States the word liberal mainly refers to what in Europe we call social liberalism.
 * 1) Sources: Goodway, David (2006). Anarchist Seeds Beneath the Snow: Left-Libertarian Thought and British Writers from William Morris to Colin Ward. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. p. 4. "'Libertarian' and 'libertarianism' are frequently employed by anarchists as synonyms for 'anarchist' and 'anarchism', largely as an attempt to distance themselves from the negative connotations of 'anarchy' and its derivatives. The situation has been vastly complicated in recent decades with the rise of anarcho-capitalism, 'minimal statism' and an extreme right-wing laissez-faire philosophy advocated by such theorists as Rothbard and Nozick and their adoption of the words 'libertarian' and 'libertarianism'. It has therefore now become necessary to distinguish between their right libertarianism and the left libertarianism of the anarchist tradition".
 * 2) Marshall, Peter (2008). Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism. London: Harper Perennial. p. 565. "In its moderate form, right libertarianism embraces laissez-faire liberals like Robert Nozick who call for a minimal State, and in its extreme form, anarcho-capitalists like Murray Rothbard and David Friedman who entirely repudiate the role of the State and look to the market as a means of ensuring social order".
 * I think these were also some of the sources PhilLiberty deemed biased as they were "used only (or primarily) by opponents of libertarian capitalism", which simply isn't true.--Davide King (talk) 00:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, but the term libertarism also has its own history. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 00:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, there's Libertarianism which discuss this; what would you add to that section? As of now, Libertarism redirects to Left-libertarianism. Would you prefer it redirects to Libertarianism instead? I would support this since it was the original libertarianism and thus should redirect to the main article. Maybe also starting the lead like Libertarianism, or libertarism (French: libertarisme)? By the way, Libertarianism lead should be reverted back to this.--Davide King (talk) 01:06, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would be nice to write in the preamble of the page "Libertarianism" about an alternative name libertarism with reference to reliable sources. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 01:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * What do you think about this one?--Davide King (talk) 01:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that it's worth also mentioning such currents as geolibertarianism (Georgism) and left-wing market anarchism. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 07:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Psuedoscience
The characterization of Marxism-Leninism as a Pseudoscience is based on the self-characterization of Marxism-Leninism as a science: for example, "The open abandonment by the Soviet revisionists of the scientific Marxist-Leninist concept of socialism comes out clearly, also, when they proclaim the development of the productive forces as the only decisive factor of its construction." and "The frontal attack of Soviet revisionism on the fundamental questions of Marxism-Leninism could not leave the theory and practice of scientific socialism untouched." Fred Bauder 05:52, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * What is your point? Revisionists are, by definition, not Marxist-Leninists. Their abandonment of Leninist precepts is no indictment of Leninism.


 * It would be inappropriate to speak of Leninism as a pseudoscience in this article. Shorne 08:10, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Designating Marxism, Leninism or Marxism-Leninism as a psuedoscience depends on its proponents calling it science or scientific socialism. The nineteenth century definition of science was quite different from a modern definition. Marx believed he had demonstrated certain dynamics which he considered to have scientifically proved. Freud's work is similar, despite a lack of scientific rigor, certain conclusion are drawn which Freud considered proven. It is appropriate to note that some advocates and practitioners of Leninism consider it to have a scientific foundation and that others consider such thought pseudoscience. Fred Bauder 16:03, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)


 * If you are prepared to present both sides of the dispute honestly, go ahead. Merely asserting that some people consider it a pseudoscience, however, is not helpful. We all know that some people are strongly opposed to Leninism. Shorne 17:00, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)