Talk:Right-libertarianism/Archive 3

Paragraph One
''Mainstream-libertarianism, refers to the prominent brand of libertarian political philosophy, originating in the United States, that advocates civil liberties, natural law, laissez-faire capitalism and a major reversal of the modern welfare state. Mainstream-libertarians strongly support private property rights and defend market distribution of natural resources and private property.'' JLMadrigal   @  15:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)


 * A simple Google search for "mainstream libertarianism" produces over 1700 hits, a random sampling of which demonstrates that most people associate it with the brand of libertarianism currently described in this article. The term "right-libertarianism" is primarily employed by the self-described libertarian left, and is widely rejected by most libertarians. JLMadrigal   @  04:02, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a backward way of looking for a name. We need to identify reliable sources first and then see what kinds of names they use, not pick names we like or dislike and then see who uses those kinds of names. It's entirely possible that one side of a controversy may be more likely to use the terminology favored by neutral comparative sources; that doesn't make those sources biased, that makes one side more neutral in their terminology. Consider for comparison a term like "race realism", which is not used by any neutral reliable sources, only by racists, but that doesn't make those neutral comparative sources non-neutral for using unbiased terminology. We need to avoid false balance. --Pfhorrest (talk) 07:40, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem with your approach is that you have not identified a topic, which would be necessary in order to obtain reliable sources to describe it. Instead, you are starting with a false premise, and seeking justifications for that premise. In your own words, you can't "pick names we like or dislike and then see who uses those kinds of names." "Right-libertarianism" seems to be the only name you like, and you seem unwilling to research even one more descriptive title. The range of titles must be analyzed in order to determine the validity of said terms to describe the subject matter. The most accurate terms will then be candidates for title. We have already thoroughly vetted "right-libertarianism" and have found it wanting. It's time to take the next step. JLMadrigal   @  14:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have identified a topic. Ask yourself, why does this article exist, instead of just Libertarianism, when the people this article is about just call their view "Libertarianism"? Because there are other people with different views who also call their views "Libertarianism", so the article Libertarianism is about the overarching umbrella of all views that get called that and the things that they have in common. What are the things that these different views that all call themselves just "Libertarianism" disagree about? Ownership of natural resources and thereby the means of production. There are two articles about the different sides of that disagreement: this one is about the side that thinks natural resources can be freely appropriated from an unowned initial state and then privately owned and traded, and that ownership rightly defended by force, and that counter-force against that constitutes coercion; while there is another article about those who think that natural resources belong initially to the public and private use of them requires compensation to the public, that the use of force to maintain private control of them instead of such compensation constitutes coercion, and that counter-force against that is just defense against that coercive force. So, what do sources that discuss that difference of opinion between people who all call themselves just "Libertarian" use to distinguish the two different types? So far as I can see, they use "right-libertarian" and "left-libertarian". And nobody has pointed at any sources that use any other terminology to discuss that distinction. You've pointed at things showing that right-libertarians call themselves as mainstream or contemporary or whatever, but that's irrelevant. We need sources that discuss the difference between this kind of libertarianism and the other kind, because that's why this article exists in the first place, to discuss one side of that disagreement.
 * Tangential to this, I skimmed the history of this article and it seems that it has had some back-and forth merging and splitting with Libertarian conservativism in its early years before settling on this topic, with the article at that other title (Libertarian conservativism) being the one about views that are between libertarianism and right-wing (conservative) views. So that is clearly not the topic of this article. --Pfhorrest (talk) 17:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that "Libertarian Conservativism" is not a good title - since antipropertarian libertarians (your brand) are more conservative. Traditional (conservative) libertarians belong over there. But if the distinction were merely the resistance to property, then "Propertarian Libertarianism" would be an acceptable title. Today antipropertarianism and anticapitalism has become relegated to the fringe of the libertarian movement. As discussed above, the ideology described in this article has, for the most part, overtaken the movement. Trying to relegate it to a mere wing is an exercise in futility. JLMadrigal   @  03:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Where did you get the impression that I'm antipropertarian? I've just been trying to explain their views to you and maintain balance in the encyclopedia, I'm not on either side of this disagreement (I'm a weird in-between position of my own invention, not that that should matter). In any case, you can't honestly claim propertarianism/capitalism is less traditional or conservative than their opponents, considering that the opponents came later historically. --Pfhorrest (talk) 05:31, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh and as far as left-libertarian being relegated to a fringe, you might want to skim through Libertarianism for a whole bunch of counterexamples. --Pfhorrest (talk) 01:26, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. The "Libertarian conservativism article seems like a perfect disambiguation redirect, since, as you say, it is the article "about views that are between libertarianism and right-wing (conservative) views" (which is exactly what the title "Right-libertarianism" implies). JLMadrigal   @  02:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You missed the whole point of mentioning that other article, which is that there is already that article on that topic, and this article is about a different topic, and this fight was already had long ago with the result being what we have now. —Pfhorrest (talk) 03:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Lede
''The term, "right-libertarianism" is used by mainstream libertarians to refer to libertarians who ally with the right while holding otherwise libertarian views. It is also used by traditional libertarians and self-identified left-libertarians to describe libertarian views that do not object to capitalism, laissez-faire, and the individualization of property.'' JLMadrigal   @  03:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The mainstream libertarian link would, of course, link to the new Mainstream libertarianism article instead of redirecting to the "Libertarian conservativism" article. JLMadrigal   @  03:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

CUTTING-EDGE THOUGHT-LEADER
While the future of Right-Libertarianism is under discussion, we really should make sure one of the most forward-thinking writers in this space is included—Ilana Mercer. Wikipedia’s mission and mandate to be a trusted, credible cornerstone of truth and reality dictates that thought leaders who make significant contributions to a particular field be acknowledged. That mission is undermined, if Wikipedia pages start emulating “social media,” where notoriety and cyberspace celebrity are key determinants for inclusion.

Ms. Mercer has a long-lived following, not because she was once carried on the masthead of Reason magazine, but because her decades of on-target, take-no-prisoners writing placed her solidly in the hard-libertarian right universe. &

For 20 years, Mercer has been writing consistent weekly columns, helping define issues that have become synonymous with Right-Libertarianism. In many cases, Ms. Mercer has been the hands-down leader on controversial issues, such as:

•	Immigration — A loud-and-clear restrictionist.

•	Anti-wars of aggression — A libertarian theorist and tireless contributor of works that strengthen the foundations of anti-war right-libertarianism:

•	Trade — Unlike left-libertarians, she is not enamored with trade deficits, and routinely takes aim at those who praise them:

•	Israel and foreign aid — Authored a position piece for Ron Paul’s 2008 campaign, articulating a position that informs America First, right-libertarianism:

•	Crime — Generally supports retribution, not restitution:

•	Anarchism — In her characteristically astute, spare manner, Mercer says, “It’s a justice issue.”

Wmbscott (talk) 14:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Comprehensive disambiguation strategy
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 this article. Britannica defines it similarly. This suggests that the current misnamed article, "Right-libertarianism" be titled "Libertarianism", and the title of the 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 that page. If we're going to fix this naming issue, we'd better fix it right. JLMadrigal  @  14:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 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 if you think this article should just be moved to Libertarianism, then this discussion is definitely going to have to involve the people there too, and probably a much larger process. --Pfhorrest (talk) 19:00, 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  @  20:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I replied to the version of this comment you posted at Talk:Libertarianism already and I think the discussion should continue there so that we're not repeating the same posts in two different places from here on out. --Pfhorrest (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

We had a gigantic range war at Libertarianism maybe 8 years ago. The result was to discuss all significant strands of libertarianism there. Trying to claim that the US meaning gets dibs on the word would doubly kick that hornet's back open. I'd be opposed to reigniting that fire, and also I think that the "cover all significant strands" decision was a good one. Not that I'd be against converting it into some type of disambiguation article.

Pfhorrest, as you noted, the guideline prefers switching to a different common name in sources. Without repeating myself, in short I think that there is no such term that meets that criteria. And, IMHO, I think that "Right libertarianism" specifically fails that criteria. Also the guideline in essence says that there is no "common name" requirement for the portion in parentheses...it is merely disambiguation. North8000 (talk) 19:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, I disagree strongly that there is no such term that meets that criteria. There are clear reliable sources using the term "right-libertarianism" specifically to disambiguate this kind of libertarianism from others. That it is a less common name than just "libertarianism" is perfectly fine per the guidelines, since "libertarianism" is ambiguous.
 * Consider for another analogous case "rights". There are some people (probably a lot of overlap with libertarians) who would argue that there is no such thing as a "positive right", that all rights are negative rights, and so they might want to argue that Rights should be just about negative rights, and Positive rights should be an article about the (in their view) made-up nonsense that some people believe in. But that's not what we have; we have an article at Rights about all kinds of rights that all kinds of people believe in, and then sub-articles on the different subtypes of those, using the technical language that sources use to distinguish those kinds from each other, even though most English-speakers, who are not experts, just say "rights" and never use those technical terms. An even better but less familiar example might be "claim rights" vs "liberty rights", where in the language of the author who originated that distinction (Hohfeld), "rights" meant explicitly claim rights, and "liberties" were a different thing, not a kind of "right"; but we don't give the title Rights to mean just claim rights, we use it for liberties too (and powers, and immunities, etc, even though Hohfeld wouldn't call any of those "rights").
 * In both of those cases, we eventually ended up with merged articles about Negative and positive rights and Claim rights and liberty rights, discussing the distinction between the two for each pair, rather than having separate articles for each side of each distinction. I would be fine with a solution like that here, if we had an article like Left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism that discussed the distinction between them, instead of separate articles about each of them. But that's a much bigger project, and would again need input from a broader community. --Pfhorrest (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The guideline discusses using prevalence in sources sources to determine what a common name is. This is sources in general, not just sources who create terminology to deal with taxonomy issues.  My point was saying that IMO "Right-libertarianism" fails that test.
 * "Right-libertarianism" only fails the test for what is the most common name. I don't think there's any disagreement that the most common name is just "libertarianism", but the problem is that that's the common name of multiple things. So for disambiguation, we look first for a natural disambiguation, a name that is still attested in reliable sources but is not ambiguous. In this case I don't expect you're going to find anything other than a taxonomy of different kinds of libertarianism using anything besides just "libertarianism", so those are going to be the kinds of sources we have available, and so far as I've seen, they only use "right-libertarianism". --Pfhorrest (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If I may sum up my point of contention (ignoring "liberalism" as a possibility) it would be that "right-libertarianism" may be in second place, but it is such a distant second in everyday sources that it doesn't qualify as common. Which leaves no possibility under natural disambiguation, and so then I'd advocate moving on the parenthetical disambiguation e.g. "Libertarianism xxx xxx)" Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The current Libertarianism article, as now being discussed on its talk page, has a gigantic flaw that reflects the dichotomy view of libertarianism. The chart used on various pages regarding libertarianism inserts a sharp line of division separating left from right libertarianism, rather than a continuum of gradually differing views regarding expropriation (which is only one of many views held by a variety of libertarians - and doesn't even touch on positions regarding social issues). I have no objection, of course, to including mention of left-leaning libertarians in an article about libertarianism. JLMadrigal   @  23:13, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Try for the finish line on the title
Well, I'm back on the continent. We've had a lot of excellent discussion. Sometimes the discussion page is more informative than the article page, and this might be one of them, and over 8 years I've been learning much from discussion pages on libertarianism, including when there was the giant range war at Libertarianism. And so thank you to everyone for that. I think that we have decided that this is a distinct topic and one worth having an article on, and we've decided on roughly what that topic is. It can be defined roughly as "the form that is commonly called "libertarianism" in the US and is the common form in the US (but also exists elsewhere)", or it can also be defined in political science terms (e.g. not anti-capitalist etc.) in ways that others here can do better than me. Regarding a title, besides all of the usual complexities, we have an additional "tower of babel" one, where, in this case, the English language is actually two different languages which have very different words for the topic of the article. When I proposed a process, I considered it unlikely that we'd come to a consensus in the usual Wikipedia way. I see about 5 possibilities, and I'm going to show some bias in my descriptions. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Decide that there is "no consensus" and have the default status quo, not as a decision, but as a non-decision.  So all of our work would be for nothing and it would still be unresolved.
 * 2) Continue discussions here and see if we can gravitate towards a title.
 * 3) Move to a conventional broadcast RFC right now.  IMO, especially with all of the possibilities for an answer, and people unfamiliar with the topic, this will generate a random answer or no answer.
 * 4) Have a further discussion to organize an RFC.   Possibly reduce it to two possibilities for the RFC to consider.
 * 5) Resolve it per the un-wikipedian way that I propose as follows. First, I think we have a pretty representative and well-versed group here to handle this. Somebody already advertised this discussion at the key places to get similar participants.   We'll make a list of all of the proposed titles. Only persons who have contributed at least a few times to the discussion can participate. Then everybody give EVERY possible title on the list one of the following ratings:   "Good", "OK" or "Bad". "Good" will equal 2 points, "OK" will equal 1 point, and "Bad" will equal  zero.  The one with the highest average rating will be our decision for a title.

Personally, I prefer #5 but could also live with #2, #3 or #4. North8000 (talk) 21:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Since I see no problem with the status quo, and the only method that seems acceptable for coming up with a new title from scratch (seeing what sources comparing different kinds of libertarianism call them) so far seems to point at the status quo as well, I think #1 is best. Failing that, #3. --Pfhorrest (talk) 23:39, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Of the options presented, it seems that the best way to proceed is #5 - and possibly have a runoff. JLMadrigal  @  04:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Using the weighted voting system described for arriving at an approach, given the options presented, here is the tally with three participants:

North8000 Pfhorrest  JLMadrigal  TOTAL Option 1 0          2          0           2 Option 2 1          0          0           1 Option 3 1          1          0           2 Option 4 1          0          0           1 Option 5 2          0          2           4
 * JLMadrigal  @  09:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Cool North8000 (talk)
 * That doesn't really mean anything, never mind the circularity of using the methodology of option #5 to decide on option #5, especially when that is explicitly not the way things are usually done around here. --Pfhorrest (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * One way or the other, someone needs to propose some specific alternative titles. Like for anything else we do on wikipedia, it needs to be backed by sources.  We need to develop a consensus to change from the status quo.  So, to start, what are the alternative titles and what sources back them up?   (posted by workpermit)

List of possible titles
Everybody, please add to / edit this list Every, please add to this list North8000 (talk) 11:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC) North8000 (talk) 21:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Right-libertarianism
 * Libertarianism (common U.S. meaning)
 * Libertarianism (U.S. usage)
 * Libertarianism (common U.S. usage)
 * Modern libertarianism
 * Libertarian capitalism
 * Contemporary Libertarianism
 * Mainstream Libertarianism
 * American libertarianism
 * American style libertarianism

Here are four more that should be considered: The last 5 get my top votes (2 each) - especially "Mainstream Libertarianism". All of the rest get 1 vote - except, of course, for the first (which gets a big fat zero). I'm shying away from using the mysterious term "capitalism" in the title. JLMadrigal  @  00:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Negative Rights Libertarianism
 * Laissez-Faire Libertarianism
 * Free-Market Libertarianism
 * Center-North Libertarianism

And reliable, neutral sources for any of these besides the first (which I’ve already provided from SEP)? —Pfhorrest (talk) 01:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

JLMadrigal  @  14:13, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Libertarianism

I've added a google search to each item to help us find sources. I know we all understand COMMONNAME but to remind new editors who come across this page: "In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies, and notable scientific journals. A search engine may help to collect this data; when using a search engine, restrict the results to pages written in English, and exclude the word 'Wikipedia'."---- Work permit (talk) 02:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


 * "Center-North Libertarianism" is the most accurate and descriptive title for the state and essence of the apolitical movement defined in the current article, but it is not yet generally used as a term (nor is the Nolan Chart well known outside of the movement). The most common term is "libertarianism" as understood by the vast majority of English speakers today, but there is already an article by that title (which also includes traditional and fringe "libertarians"). So the task at hand here is to provide an objective title that best describes the movement while being readily identified by the greatest number of readers. The article itself will provide an abundance of sources buttressing the explanatory materials therein, clarifying the terminology, and differentiating between the various viewpoints within and without. JLMadrigal   @  02:54, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Weighing-in / discussion
Well, "common name" isn't going to solve this for us. Vaguely speaking, the common name in the US is "libertarianism" and the common name in most other places is "liberalism". Both of these names already have articles which have broader coverage than the topic of this article. And, for everybody, the "other" name is not only not the common name for them, it has a completely different meaning in common usage of their version of English, and that different meaning is in the same (politics/poly-sci poly-sci) arena. (= not analogous to "orange the fruit and orange the color")   I don't think that there is a poly-sci term that is used across the divide, and also most poly-sci terms of those are speaking of some narrower philosophical strand, and none of the other poly-sci terms are in common use to qualify for "common name"

I suggest "Libertarianism (common U.S. meaning)".....the choice which has the most awkward wording of all of them, and (IMO) the choice which will best resolve this and the confusion related to it, making awkwardness the inevitable small price to pay. The awkward inclusion of "meaning" brings the central "tower of Babel" issue immediately forward, and immediately provides the context/framework for absorbing the info that follows and avoids any appearance of saying that it is only practiced in the US or that it is the only variant practiced in the US. And, so, IMO "Libertarianism (common U.S. meaning)" also best and most closely implements "Common name" including the qualifier (in parenthesis) needed to do that  Then we can address the name topics early in the lead. North8000 (talk)


 * I disagree that common name won't solve this. I was going to take my time to write more extensively, but even a quick perusal of the google sources suggest the most common names are Modern libertarianism, Contemporary libertarianism, and of course Right-libertarianism.  Prominent sources supporting the common name are the Encyclopedia Britannica for Contemporary Libertarianism, the Cato Institute for Modern Libertarianism ,  and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy for Right-libertarianism .  I'd argue that "modern" and contemporary" are synonymous and in some way a source for one back up the other term. ---- Work permit (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I also disagree vehemently (with North8000). But also, looking through those prominent sources you mention for "modern" and "contemporary" libertarianism, they all seem to be using "modern" or "contemporary" as a simple adjective in articles generally about libertarianism, not using the term "modern libertarianism" or "contemporary libertarianism" as a compound proper noun phrase for a specific kind of libertarianism. This article is a sub-article of Libertarianism, along with left-libertarianism, and it is specifically about the kind of libertarianism that is contrasted with left-libertarianism, so for sources for names on what to call that kind of libertarianism, we need sources comparing those two kinds of libertarianism. --Pfhorrest (talk) 17:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * From Britannica The publication in 1974 of Anarchy, State, and Utopia, a sophisticated defense of libertarian principles by the American philosopher Robert Nozick, marked the beginning of an intellectual revival of libertarianism. is what I take to be the article (though it should acknowledge Rothbard who preceded Nozick). As I mentioned, I haven't had time for a more thoughtful approach to sources. ---- Work permit (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Pfhorrest, this is not a subsidiary article. It is not a contrast or comparison with any other article or viewpoint. The subject of this article is the contemporary brand of libertarianism. It could stand alone without mentioning contrasting political views, and still be a world class encyclopedic entry. JLMadrigal   @  23:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Calling this kind of libertarianism "THE contemporary brand of libertarianism" discounts anyone who is a contemporary advocate of another kind of libertarianism, of which there are plenty of notable people, such as Noam Chomsky. The kind of libertarianism discussed in this article is newer, sure, and maybe more widely known in some places like the United States, sure, but it is not THE ONLY kind of libertarianism that currently exists. The article Libertarianism is rightly about all kinds of libertarianism that have ever existed. An article about "contemporary libertarianism" would need to be about all forms of libertarianism that exist contemporarily. That is not what this article is about; regardless of title, the current contents of this article aren't just about libertarianism of recent years rather than of times in the distant past, it's about libertarianism that's pro-capitalist rather than anti-capitalist. To name that topic, we need to look at sources talking about that kind of libertarianism, distinguishing it from other kinds of libertarianism, and see what they call it. And I strongly doubt you'll find anything calling it anything other than "right-libertarianism", because that's the term used to distinguish this kind of libertarianism from libertarianism that is not of this kind. --Pfhorrest (talk) 03:39, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * In case you have not been paying attention, Pfhorrest, the article is about the PREDOMINANT, MAINSTREAM brand of contemporary libertarianism. To attempt to shrink and place all libertarian political philosophies that advocate civil liberties, natural law, laissez-faire capitalism, reversal of the modern welfare state, private property rights, and market distribution of natural resources and private property into something that can be placed to the right of some imaginary line is an exercise in futility. You seem stuck in some sort of dualism, as does your friend Noam, in which reality is neatly divided into two opposing camps (over some nuanced interpretation of the word "capitalism"). JLMadrigal   @  06:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's you who haven't been paying attention. This kind of libertarianism might be the predominant, mainstream, contemporary brand of libertarianism (at least in some place), but that is not the defining characteristic of it. As for my supposed dualism, I could retort that you seem equally obsessed with defining your brand of libertarianism as the objective center, and ignoring that there are multiple ways of constructing political spectra (even multidimensional ones) and your preferred way is not the only or even most widely accepted never mind objectively right one.
 * But back on titles. Compare again this topic and football. Say you've got a typical American who loves football and libertarianism, as he understands those terms. He wants to look them both up on Wikipedia. When he looks up football, he finds out that there's actually a variety of related sports all locally called "football", that all have more specific names, and that the kind he's familiar with is called "American football", and there's another article about that specifically. Even though nobody who plays "American football" calls it that; that's how it's generally distinguished as a type of football from other types of football. Note well that that is not the mainstream kind of football worldwide, but that the mainstream kind is not called "mainstream football", it's called "Association football".
 * Likewise, when he looks up libertarianism, he finds out that there's actually a variety of related political/philosophical views called "libertarianism", and that all of them have more specific names, and that the kind he's familiar with is called "right-libertarianism", and there's another article about that specifically. Even though nobody who is a "right-libertarian" calls it that; that's how it's generally distinguished as a type of libertarianism from other types of libertarianism. Maybe that is the mainstream kind of libertarianism, at least in America, or even worldwide, but that's not its defining characteristic. Its defining characteristic, as a kind of libertarianism, the thing that sets it apart from other kinds of libertarianism, is its support of capitalism (not free markets, which all libertarians support, but private ownership of capital). The dimension from anticapitalist to capitalist in the usual, commonly-used political spectrum is termed "left-right", so the kind that's anticapitalist is rightly called "left-libertarianism" and the kind that's capitalist is called "right-libertarianism". By professional sources who discuss the differences between different kinds of libertarianism. The fact that you don't like it as irrelevant as the guys who think Football should just be about American football and Association football should be called soccer. Yes, we get that that's how you talk, and it bothers you that other people speak differently, but that's what reliable sources specifically addressing the different varieties of things that call themselves the same name use to distinguish them..
 * I've said all of this before and I'm getting tired of having to repeat points that have not been refuted. I hear what you're saying, I understand why you have the view that you do, but there are reasons against it. Repeating it over and over again isn't going to change that. Find a source discussing different varieties of libertarianism that uses different terminology for them than "left" and "right" if you want to argue that this article on one of those varieties of libertarianism should be called something other than what it is. --Pfhorrest (talk) 19:49, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to help sort this out I would like to point out / debate a few things in relation to your argument. One point which JLMadrigal might have been trying to make is that you are proposing your own idea of an approach which (even if it is really good) IMO departs from guidelines while sort of implying that it implements guidelines. Namely, find a source that that discusses the topic in conjunction with related types and use whatever their terminology was for differentiating. This is more likely to end up with poly-sci jargon than a common name. (Which begets the question....what are they a source on? What the common name is? What the distinctions are? What the poly-sci names are? etc.)   If you use that method on your (well chosen) football analogy you might end up with "Prolate spheroid ball football" rather than "American Football" which I'm guessing is the common name outside of the US. Do you think that your analogy might have suggested an answer: "American libertarianism" or "American style libertarianism"  And, as with football, this is not synonymous with "libertarianism in the US" because we also play a lot of round ball football in the US, and American football is not confined the the US. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 21:06, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So far as I am aware the approach I am advocating is not my own, it is just a straightforward implementation of the guidelines. And given that this is a political science topic, "poli-sci jargon" is the common name; relevant sources on the topic are all about political science in one way or another. I think "association football" is a much clearer football analogy here: that's a really technical term that nobody besides people comparing different kinds of football would use, but that is exactly the kind of term we need for a differentiating title about one of those kinds of football, and I expect (not being a sports expert myself) that there are sources supporting Wikipedia's usage thereof in its articles about sports. My analogy very well might suggest that this article should be called "American libertarianism" and left-libertarianism should be renamed "International libertarianism" or something, I don't know, but I've never seen any sources suggesting that. All I'm saying is that since this article is about a sub-type of libertarianism, and can't just have the common name "libertarianism" because that means a broader variety of things, we need sources that discuss different sub-types of libertarianism to see what they call this one. And all I've ever seen it called is "right-libertarianism", which is why the article has been developed under this name now.
 * It's poli-sci (political science), not poly-sci (many sciences), BTW. --Pfhorrest (talk) 22:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with about 3/4 of your post. On the other 1/4, to look for wp:Common name for guidance:  First it is pretty clear to use the common name vs. the technical one. Also, it is basically saying that a parenthetical disambiguation in the second part of the title is merely that for when two different articles both need the same common name.  In short, the common name is the part of the title before the parenthetical disambiguation, there is no such requirement for the disambig portion. So the parenthetical part does not need to be and actually isn't a part of the common name.  Finally, taking "based on appearance is RS's" both literally and I think in spirit, it is referring to usage in sources in general (e.g. newspapers,  magazines) not just sources that make a scientific study of the topic.  Putting this all together, if we go by what the topic is called where it is practiced,  I think that the guidelines pretty strongly suggest "Libertarianism" followed by parenthetical disambiguation. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 14:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * OK you've convinced me, North8000. "Libertarianism (common U.S. meaning)" is the best choice. The most common term to describe the ideology of the article is Libertarianism, and the described brand of libertarianism predominates in the U.S. Let the disambiguation begin. JLMadrigal   @  14:47, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Article_titles suggests that natural disambiguation (using a less-commonly used name attested in reliable sources) should take priority over parenthetical disambiguation. Also the fifth of the general principles for naming, Consistency, suggests that we should take into account other article names, like Left-libertarianism, and try to name this article in a way consistent with them, so as I said long ago if there is to be any renaming it should probably involve input from a wider community than just those watching this article. —Pfhorrest (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * FYI my whole agenda is an as accurate and informative article as is possible, with the title being a key part of that. And, now that we have invested a lot of work in this, to have our process reach some type of conclusion.  My suggestion above was my best effort towards that process, but I'm flexible. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not at all questioning your motives North (AGF and all that), I just disagree strongly with your conclusions. --Pfhorrest (talk) 19:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Cool & thanks. I figured that. You've been a great person to converse with, as with many others here.  I just wanted to emphasize that I'm not married to the title I suggested. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 19:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * North8000, thank you for all the work you've done, including assembling a list of possibilities. I think the best way forward is to identify and discuss sources for each item. ---- Work permit (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

FYI I'll be off-the-grid gone 9/27-10/5. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 14:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

In response to the request above, North's idea for "immediate clarification" at the top of the article for idea #16
My first try:

Libertarian is a common term for the form of Libertarianism widely practiced in the US as well as the common meaning of the term libertarianism in the US. This form is often named "liberalism" elsewhere such as in Europe where "liberalism" has a different common meaning than in the US. In some academic circles this form is called "right libertarianism" as a complement to Left-libertarianism, with acceptance of capitalism being a distinguishing feature of right libertarianism.

Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 12:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I would begin the article with;
 * "According to polls conducted by x, x, and x, 25%, 27%, and x% of Americans self-identify as libertarian, respectively. While this group is not typically ideologically driven, the term libertarian is commonly used to describe the form ..."
 * I would also revise your last sentence to read, "... with acceptance of "capitalism", as defined by that group, being the distinguishing feature."
 * JLMadrigal  @  14:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Those are good recommendations. Here's my first try:
 * Not to be confused with libertarian ideology.
 * Libertarian is a typology used to describe a political position that advocates small government and is culturally liberal and economically right-wing in a two dimensional political spectrum. The other major typologies are liberal, conservative and populist. Libertarians often support legalization of victimless crimes, such as the use of marijuana, while opposing high levels of taxation and government spending on health, welfare and education. The term libertarian was adopted in the United States where the word liberal had become associated with a version that supports extensive government spending on social policies. Libertarian also refers to an anarchist ideology that developed in the 19th century and to a version that developed in the United States that is avowedly pro-capitalist.
 * TFD (talk) 16:04, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Both paragraphs could be used without being redundant. I would omit the first sentence, "Not to be confused with libertarian ideology." I would also expand on the two-dimension typology with a Nolan chart, which is commonly used by this group, to clarify the distinction between social and economic or person and property stances. JLMadrigal   @  16:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That's actually a hat note at the top of the page:


 * TFD (talk) 19:42, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Towards bringing the main question to a conclusion
We've put a lot of work into trying to deal with this. We're probably all feeling burnt out but we should not let all of that effort go to waste and try to bring this to a conclsion. I think that we already decided that this article should exist and we have sort of an idea what it should be about. To state it imperfectly (but still goo for clarification) it's about the form of libertarianism that matches the common meaning of "libertarianism" in the US. In in the global taxonomy, it is a type that is not opposed to capitalism.

Here is is the result of soliciting possible names for the article. I left on any links that people put on during the "request for ideas" phase.

Not sure how this might or might not be considered to be a result/decision, but may I request that the regulars/watches here weigh in on every one of the above ideas? The "every" is important; otherwise similar ideas will detract from each other. Besides the normal comments, may I suggest 3 potential "ratings" for each?
 * 1) Right-libertarianism
 * 2) Libertarianism (common U.S. meaning)
 * 3) Libertarianism (U.S. usage)
 * 4) Libertarianism (common U.S. usage)
 * 5) Modern libertarianism
 * 6) Libertarian capitalism
 * 7) Contemporary Libertarianism
 * 8) Mainstream Libertarianism
 * 9) American libertarianism
 * 10) American style libertarianism
 * 11) Negative Rights Libertarianism
 * 12) Laissez-Faire Libertarianism
 * 13) Free-Market Libertarianism
 * 14) Center-North Libertarianism
 * 15) Libertarian (political typology)
 * 16) Libertarian


 * 1) Good idea
 * 2) "just OK" idea
 * 3) Bad idea

Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

North8000's views
These are based on considerations already discussed at length above. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 22:47, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Bad idea
 * 2) Good idea
 * 3) Good idea
 * 4) Good idea
 * 5) "Just OK" idea
 * 6) Bad idea
 * 7) "Just OK" idea
 * 8) Bad idea
 * 9) "Just OK" idea
 * 10) "Just OK" idea
 * 11) Bad idea
 * 12) Bad idea
 * 13) "Just OK" idea
 * 14) Bad idea
 * 15) "Just OK" Idea (sorry, just too cryptic)
 * 16) Good idea (if clarified at the start)

, could you propose a new lede for option 16? JLMadrigal  @  13:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Responding, a whole lead is a pretty big thing. But I'd be happy to propose the "immediate clarification" /first sentence or two or disambig that I alluded to.   Now I'm thinking that disambig might be better because it allows reference to the article e.g. "this article is about" <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 11:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * See below <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 12:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

JLMadrigal's views
JLMadrigal  @  12:56, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Bad idea
 * 2) Good idea
 * 3) Good idea
 * 4) Good idea
 * 5) Good idea
 * 6) Bad idea
 * 7) Good idea
 * 8) Good idea
 * 9) "Just OK" idea
 * 10) "Just OK" idea
 * 11) Good idea
 * 12) Good idea
 * 13) Good idea
 * 14) Good idea
 * 15) "Just OK" idea
 * 16) Good idea

JLMadrigal  @  16:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

JLMadrigal  @  03:34, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Pfhorrest's views

 * 1) The only truly Good idea
 * 2) Bad idea
 * 3) Bad idea
 * 4) Bad idea
 * 5) Bad idea
 * 6) "Just OK" idea (but really should be a separate article if at all, a la Left-libertarianism and Libertarian socialism)
 * 7) Bad idea
 * 8) Bad idea
 * 9) Bad idea
 * 10) Bad idea
 * 11) Bad idea
 * 12) Bad idea
 * 13) Bad idea
 * 14) Bad idea
 * 15) Bad idea
 * 16) Bad idea

I believe I speak for the rest of the main editors who have been thoroughly discussing this issue in seeking your input regarding a more descriptive and accurate title for the page. JLMadrigal  @  01:28, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

The Four Deuce's views

 * It seems to me that libertarian has two meanings in the U.S. In a narrow sense it refers to the ideology of people such as Ron Paul and Murray Rothbard that saw itself as part of 19th century libertarianism and adopted many of their theories and symbols. They talk about things such as the gold standard, self-ownership and other things that most people don't understand and promote non-interventionism and an end to the war on drugs, which draw little public support. In a broader sense, it refers to the traditional liberalism in the U.S. which promotes individualism and capitalism and is suspicious of government policies of redistributionism. That view can be seen across the U.S political spectrum except socialists. Its intellectual roots are in Locke and Adams, not Spooner and Goldman. Basically it refers to economic liberalism but that term is not used because due to what an editor of the National Review called the Great American Semantic Confusion, the term liberalism in the U.S. came to refer to an approach that was mid-way between laissez-faire liberalism and welfare liberalism. TFD (talk) 02:20, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * For the biggest numbers (the "20%" of US voters), I think it's a lot simpler. People who generally prioritize smaller and less intrusive government and more personal freedom. They mostly couldn't name a libertarian philosopher.  Like 95%+ of Americans they consider capitalism to be the norm, without naming or promoting it. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 10:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Could you give your thoughts on the title ideas? <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 10:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * While the term is used that way, I don't see a body of literature about the topic. Can you point to any book or article about libertarianism that uses your definition? TFD (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that it more of a "description of a phenomena" than "using a definition"  but:  The Libertarian Vote by David Boaz and David Kirby, Cato Institute, 18 October 2006.     The ANES Guide to Public Opinion and Electoral Behavior, 1948–2004 American National Election Studies.       Kiley, Jocelyn (25 August 2014). "In Search of Libertarians". Pew Research Center.  <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 17:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * IOW it is the quarter of the Nolan chart that is socially liberal and economically conservative (as those terms are used in the U.S.) Maybe "Libertarian (political typology)?" In any case, this article is more about ideology than typology. The same thing could be said about the liberal typology. Democratic socialists for example are not liberals and don't base their opinions on liberal ideology but nonetheless score higher than actual liberals in the Pew typology. If as you say most libertarian voters can't name any libertarian philosophers, there's little need to mention them. TFD (talk) 19:35, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * We're trying to move forward with this article, TFD, and give it the most descriptive and accurate title for the common center-north libertarian ideology described by most English speakers (and writers) as simply "libertarianism". We have established that the current title is both confusing and inaccurate. What title(s) from those listed would help to resolve this dilemma? Could you rate them? JLMadrigal   @  13:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

As I said, the most descriptive term would be "Libertarian (political typology)," which isn't listed above. It's not an ism. I don't even think it is the most common usage, because when I think of libertarianism, I think of Ron Paul and the Libertarian Party. TFD (talk) 14:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Just as an overview, I looked at more polls and they generally say that 23% of US voters identify as libertarian and 27% have libertarian voting patterns (by the common US definition) but I think only about 1% - 3% vote for the US libertarian party. But, party voting aside,  Ron Paul is probably the most well known libertarian personality. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 14:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I added "Libertarian (political typology)" even though I don't understand. Please check if it is as intended of if you would like to change it.  <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 15:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I added my additional rating above. I am not yet convinced that it is a great choice and may require substantial alterations to the article. Convince us that it is the best choice. JLMadrigal   @  16:24, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "We have established that the current title is both confusing and inaccurate". No, we have not established that, you just keep asserting it. This article is about the subdivision of libertarianism that is distinguished from left-libertarianism, and "right-libertarianism" is the only name for that attested in sources that anyone has offered here. --Pfhorrest (talk) 16:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


 * 23% of voters identifying as libertarians is consistent with usage as a typology rather than an ideology. Typologies are normally referred to when discussing voters. If you do a Google search or book or scholar search you will find that the most common use is as an ideology. I note also that these polls are multiple choice. Some polls omit libertarian, and the same people describe themselves as something else, either liberal, conservative or moderate. An open-ended question would result in more responses. TFD (talk) 17:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It's presented correctly. Another possibility is Libertarian (voter demographic). What I mean is that it is in this sense a term used by pollsters to describe a voting group that is socially liberal and economically conservative based on a belief in smaller government. But there's no suggestion that voters identified as such share a common ideology any more than there is with the liberal voting block, some of whom are liberals while others are socialists. TFD (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * In that case, why not just title the article "Libertarian"? Such an article does not yet exit, and, in contrast to "Libertarianism", the vast majority of libertarians are not pushing an ideology (-ism). The fact that this description is a typology is redundant. JLMadrigal   @  19:51, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That sounds fine. TFD (talk) 19:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe! Would probably need the first sentence (and maybe a disambig) to clarify but it's much easier to do in a sentence than a title. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 20:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you guys are talking about something that should be a different article entirely, not a repurposing of this article. This article fills a space in the organizational structure between Libertarianism and Left-libertarianism; this and the latter are sub-articles of the former, relied upon by it. --Pfhorrest (talk)
 * I think the discussion is based on retaining the same subject. But not necessarily the way that you are describing/defining it. While the idea of typology is new to me, and I don't know  that it can be totally separated from ideology (it seems to me that typology must be based on at least a brief vague ideology definition) that general idea seems more relevant to deal with the most common form of named-libetarianism.  While it may be a complement of left-libertarianism, trying to view it through an ideological taxonomy used for other philosophical strands of libertarianism may not be the best lens to view it through. This may be particularly true / more useful for something that is basically a very large (like with 1/4 of the US population self-identifying as such) vague phenomena rather than an ideologically/philosophically defined strand of libertarianism.  Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Pfhorrest, an article's title doesn't need to fit into a perfect anticapitalsit/capitalist libertarianism dichotomy, as the anticapitalists would like. The reality is different. The Libertarian conservativism article would serve as a nice redirect from the current title, and let them have their ideological opponent - which falls to the right in the libertarian quadrant on both economic and personal issues. JLMadrigal   @  02:51, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Libertarian conservativism is not the same thing as right-libertarianism, it is a subset of it; and if you look at the early history of this article, there were already extensive arguments about differentiating the two topics, which were both vying for this article title, and that ended up splitting what you think "right-libertarian" means off into the libertarian conservativism article, and leaving this article about the topic it's currently about.
 * The only reason this article exists at all is to be a counterpart to left-libertarianism. If you guys think there should be some other article about something else libertarian-related, go ahead and propose that. But it seems to me like you all just object to there being any article at all called "right-libertarianism" and keep searching for new excuses to do away with it. --Pfhorrest (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned before, the only use of the term "right-libertarianism" is in articles about "left-libertarianism," which is a breakaway from the school founded by Murray Rothbard, Karl Hess and David Nolan. Left-libertarians, while accepting most libertarian principles, disagree on whether natural resources including land could be acquired through appropriation from nature or whether they could only be obtained through social consent. Some editors have misinterpreted their position as anti-capitalist.
 * Compare it with Delaware. There is an article about Delaware and one could discuss how Delaware differs from the rest of the United States. But that doesn't mean we need an article about the "Rest of the United States other than Delaware."
 * TFD (talk) 21:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * And, bypassing the many repeated counterpoints I've already given to the points you keep repeating without change, I point you once again to the best exemplar we have, the SEP article on Libertarianism (note that it is just Libertarianism simpliciter, about the whole field of views, that that article is about) which has a whole section on "left and right" varieties, and cites among the "left" authors one who predates any of the names you claim left-libertarians break away from. I'm getting really tired of repeating that without any rebuttal. --Pfhorrest (talk) 06:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Pfhorrest, if you look at this page it's clear that a lot of people are trying very hard to figure out what the best thing to do is, and are trying to evolve that rather than come in with pre-conceived answer. IMO your "But it seems to me like you all just object to there being any article at all called "right-libertarianism" and keep searching for new excuses to do away with it." is clearly not the case and is uncalled for,  Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 01:36, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation Page
The current title will need to be converted to a disambiguation page that clarifies the uses of the term "right-libertarianism". It will need to describe both the use by "left-libertarians" to describe American-style libertarianism as well as the use by American-style libertarians - which implies libertarian conservatism. Here is my attempt:


 * The term, "right-libertarianism" is used by libertarians - particularly in the U.S. - to refer to conservative libertarians who ally with the right to some extent on social and economic issues - particularly regarding abortion and immigration - while holding otherwise typical libertarian views.


 * It is also used by self-identified left-libertarians, the term used to refer to the Steiner-Vallentyne group which broke away from the Hess-Nolan-Rothbard group (which they term "right-libertarian") on the issue of whether or not natural resources should be privately owned, to describe all other libertarians.

JLMadrigal  @  16:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)


 * One structural note (which I think you already know) is that I think that the current article would first need to get moved to the new title.  This is consistent with the fact that this discussion is about the topic of the current article, and also to preserve the history. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 20:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Converting the title page to a disambiguation page won't remove the talk and edit histories - as far as I know. Or are you wanting to move the history to the new title? Is there a special procedure for that - other than copy-paste? I don't want to leave a dead link. JLMadrigal   @  21:10, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it would be to move the article to the new title. That would leave a redirect at the old title.  Then edit the redirect into the disambig. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 21:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Aside from the general problems with this proposal overall, the bit about left-libertarians being only Steiner-Vallentyne and breaking away from Hess-Nolan-Rothbard is factually inaccurate, as I've repeatedly pointed out is substantiated by the SEP article, which names left-libertarians who long predate Hess-Nolan-Rothbard. --Pfhorrest (talk) 22:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)


 * In fact the SEP article mentions exactly one left libertarian who predated Hess-Nolan-Rothbard, Henry George. George is sometimes described as a left-libertarian and sometimes as a precursor to the left-libertarian school associated with Vallentyne and Steiner, which grew out of the Hess-Nolan-Rothbard school. See for example, "left-Libertarianism" in The Palgrave International Handbook of Basic Income:
 * "Left-libertarians and Georgists (also known as 'geolibertarians') combine a defence of robust self-ownership (which they share with minimal state libertarianism) with a defence of the egalitarian ownership of natural resources (which they share with left-wing Lockean and Painean traditions)."
 * Note this is not to be confused with actual left-wing ideologies that have been described as libertarian such as libertarian socialism and communism. Left-libertarians hold that government had no right to tax income, capital, profit or buildings, which is not a socialist position. In fact a typical right-wing complaint against socialists is they that they tax too much.
 * TFD (talk) 09:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This is beside the point and I've said it before anyway, but you do realize that libertarian socialists also don't support taxation of income, capital, profit, or buildings, because they don't want there to be any state at all, with any such power to do any taxation or anything else, right? Instead they're against states enforcing certain kinds of claims to property, very much like the kind of left-libertarians you're talking about. They generally support what they call "personal property" (possessions that you have for your own personal use) and oppose what they call "private property" (individual ownership of collectively used things, like the means of production, including land), but rather than saying that the latter should be taxed or something, they just say no such claims should be recognized. --Pfhorrest (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you are missing the point. The terms left and right libertarian are used to distinguish pro-capitalist writers such as Vallentyne from Rothbard, they are not used to distinguish anti-capitalist libertarians (who are left-wing) from pro-capitalist libertarians such as Vallentyne and Rothbard (who are not left-wing). TFD (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I said "this is beside the point", because you brought up libertarian socialists and then acted like they want to tax things, like you keep doing, and I keep pointing out is not only beside the point, but factually false. You wrote "...ideologies that have been described as libertarian such as libertarian socialism and communism. Left-libertarians hold that government had no right to tax income, capital, profit or buildings, which is not a socialist position" -- but that is the position of libertarian socialists, who oppose there being any state at all, and so any taxes. I'm not the one bringing up libertarian socialists here, you keep bringing them up to try to distinguish them from what you consider left-libertarians, but then the distinction you keep drawing about taxes is just factually wrong. --Pfhorrest (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you think libertarian socialists and other left-wing ideologies described as libertarian are left-libertarians as defined in the SEP article or not? TFD (talk) 02:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see any clear grounds to distinguish them on, but I'm not positively asserting that they are the same, because that's not necessary to hold up my main point. I'm just criticizing you for bringing them up only to mischaracterise them. --Pfhorrest (talk) 03:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * And to clarify my view of the two positions:
 * Left-libertarianism as you characterize it: like right-libertarianism, anti-state (and consequently anti-tax), but doesn't recognize private claims to land, only chattel.
 * Libertarian socialism: like right-libertarianism, anti-state (and consequently anti-tax), but doesn't recognize private claims to the means of production, only personal possessions.
 * So I don't see a really clear line by which to say they're definitely completely different unrelated groups, and it's definitely not the line you keep implying it is. But again, that's not a necessary point to support for my overall position. --Pfhorrest (talk) 04:05, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Draft Lede for Option 16 Libertarian
According to polls approximately 1/4 of Americans self-identify as libertarians. While this group is not typically ideologically driven, the term "libertarian" is commonly used to describe the form of Libertarianism widely practiced in the US, and is the common meaning of the term libertarianism in the US. This form is often named "liberalism" elsewhere such as in Europe where "liberalism" has a different common meaning than in the US. In some academic circles this form is called "right libertarianism" as a complement to Left-libertarianism, with acceptance of capitalism, as defined by that group, being the distinguishing feature.

Libertarian is a typology used to describe a political position that advocates small government and is culturally liberal and economically right-wing in a two dimensional political spectrum. [expand] The other major typologies are liberal, conservative and populist. Libertarians often support legalization of victimless crimes, such as the use of marijuana, while opposing high levels of taxation and government spending on health, welfare and education. The term libertarian was adopted in the United States where the word liberal had become associated with a version that supports extensive government spending on social policies. Libertarian also refers to an anarchist ideology that developed in the 19th century and to a version that developed in the United States that is avowedly pro-capitalist.

JLMadrigal  @  18:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

It's kind of unusual to put detailed multi-poll data in the first sentence and the lead is supposed to be summary. How about put that detail in the body and start with "According to polls approximately 1/4 of Americans self-identify as libertarians." Also, are the quote marks on "capitalism" needed? Is there really a different meaning? Even if so, it sounds a bit disparaging, and it already alerts the reader to potential differences with "as defined by that group" <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 18:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I took your suggestion for the first sentence. There is, indeed, a difference in interpretations for the word "capitalism", as the discussion above demonstrates. The group that terms itself "left libertarian" makes a distinction between "free markets" and "capitalism", while libertarians in general do not. I believe that it is important to alert the reader early about this potentially confusing issue of semantics. JLMadrigal   @  19:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I also removed the quotes. Are we ready for production? JLMadrigal   @  04:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If you guys want an article about who does or doesn't identify as a libertarian, that would be a different topic than the topic of this article, which is about a specific subtype of libertarianism; and you would need to justify that the sense common in the US is deserving of being the primary topic, which I suspect will find the same objections you would find in moving the topic of this article to just Libertarianism. Also, since Libertarian is currently a very common redirect to Libertarianism, this whole proposal strikes me as an underhanded way of sneaking in exactly that more without actually having the fight you'd face if you tried to do it directly. --Pfhorrest (talk) 06:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Pfhorrest, my thought is that we're both talking about the same topic but as seen through two different lenses, but let me try to double check that. One topic has been the very large phenomena centered in (but not limited to) the US. As would anything with about 100,000,000 different people in it, it is vaguely defined, roughly along the lines of one quadrant of the Nolan chart. Do you believe that this is a part of the topic of this article?   If so, then I would say that we are talking about the same topic but as seen through two different lenses. I would argue that your "lens" is from a very small group of people, those trying to create a taxonomy for the various philosophical strands of libertarianism and even then creating it mostly as a complement to left libertarianism.  I would also argue that those people are creators, not coverers/sources. If your idea of the topic of the article does not include the broader phenonema described above, then I would argue that you really don't have a topic for an article.   Just a two word sequence used in different ways by some creators of philosophical taxononmies, not practiced anywhere by that name.
 * Your post also edged on the topic of not avoiding any appearance (by the choice of title) of appearing to say that this is the meaning of libertarianism. I also wanted to make sure of that when I said that we'd need immediate clarification / disambiguation at the very beginning of the article.  I think that the current draft of the beginning very strongly accomplishes that.  At the very beginning, (in the disambig)  it says that this is about a subset of libertarianism, and points and links to the Libertarianism article as the one having broad coverage of that topic.   The first few sentences of the proposal also make it clear that it's about a specific strand of libertarianism. I also put in as a compromise pretty prominent coverage of the term right-libertarian early in the lead.  IMHO more prominent than it merits, but that's what compromise is about. We're never going to find something that 100% of the people like 100%.  This discussion was pretty well advertised in the libertarian areas of Wikipedia.  We got a handful of participants who did a lot of work on this.  The ones who most stridently opposed your view have at least temporarily stepped aside. A broad RFC is also a possibility but I expect that such would  draw a lot more responses from the 100,000,000 and their experience of what libertarianism is to them.  Could you accept something like the above title (#16) and proposed disambig & clarification wording (maybe with with some tweaks) as a compromise?  Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 12:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * In answer to your first question, I think the topic of this article is the right (pro-capitalist) half of the spectrum of different kinds of libertarianism, specifically as a taxonomic distinction from the left half of that spectrum, with this article and Left-libertarianism as sub-articles of Libertarianism generally. The political view generally called just "libertarianism" in the United States, which frames itself as the top quadrant on the Nolan chart, falls within that topic, yes. (Though note that the use of that framing is disputed between different kinds of libertarians, and others would frame it rather as being in the top-right quadrant of a square chart of liberty x equality, rather than the Nolan diamond of personal x economic liberty. That's why "center-north" is not an unbiased title.) But, and this is the important part, that does not define the topic.
 * As for the use of popularly-uncommon taxonomic terms for article titles, I again remind you of the situation with different kinds of "football". Nobody says they're going to an "association football" game or to an "American football" game, everyone just says "football game", and means different things by it. But when discussing different kinds of football, people use the terms "Association football" and "American football", and the Wikipedia articles are appropriately named with those terms even though nobody but sports taxonomists use them. The situation we have here is completely analogous. Everybody just says "libertarian", but means different things by it, except when needing to distinguish one type of libertarian from another. I've asked for anyone to show any reliable source reporting on anyone using any different set of terms for distinguishing these kinds of libertarianism from each other, and nobody has offered anything.
 * Think of it from the reader's perspective. If a Brit who likes "football" comes to Wikipedia and searches for "football", he'll find an article about the variety of different kinds of football he maybe never heard of, and find out that the kind he knows is technically called "association football" (even though none of the footballers he's ever heard talking about it call it that), and follow to the article about that. Likewise if an American comes looking for "football", he'll find the same general article and navigate his way to the article about the sub-type he knows as just "football". And if an American who likes "libertarianism" comes to Wikipedia and searches for "libertarianism", he'll find an article about the variety of different kinds of libertarianism he maybe never heard of, and find out that the kind he knows is technically called "right-libertarianism" (even though none of the libertarians he's ever heard talking about it call it that), and follow to the article about that. Likewise, if someone from outside of America who's accustomed to "libertarianism" meaning a kind of socialism comes to Wikipedia and searches for "libertarianism", he'll find the same general article and navigate his way to the article about the sub-type he knows just as "libertarianism". It's quite evident from the talk pages of various football articles that lots of people get really upset that their particular kind of football isn't the kind talked about under the title of just "football", and that the game they're into isn't called "association football" or anything like that, it's just football damnit. But that's not how Wikipedia works. And I get the strong impression that all this hullabaloo at this article is just the political equivalent of that.
 * And no, the proposal #16 here does nothing to assuage any of my concerns. It's ever bit as bad as if Libertarianism was just about right-libertarianism with a prominent disambiguation to Left-libertarianism. It's still biasing the encyclopedia in an undue way. --Pfhorrest (talk) 22:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If you all absolutely will not stop until there is no article titled Right-libertarianism anymore, about the only acceptable solutions would be merging this and Left-libertarianism into a combined article on the difference between them (similar to Negative and positive rights), or merging both of those article into Libertarianism simpliciter and discussing the left-right division in a subsection of that the way that SEP does. --Pfhorrest (talk) 22:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I like both ideas although I suspect that the "difference" article and Negative and positive rights violate guidelines. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 14:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * What guidelines? There are lots of other articles like that, especially in the Rights section, including Claim rights and liberty rights, Natural rights and legal rights, Individual and group rights. For a time there was also an article on Equity and gender feminism though that's since been torn up and refactored into other existing articles. There's probably other examples, those are just the ones I've personally noticed. --Pfhorrest (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Either way I like the idea.<b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 16:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You may be on to something there, Pfhorrest. Build a new article about the dichotomy view of libertarianism - although the left-libertarianism article pretty much already does that. JLMadrigal   @  13:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, what I've been promoting (and even promising) to do for many years (see project page) was to reduce this article to one that is primarily about the term. This would give it the article-retention & full taxonomy treatment that Pfhorrest desires, albeit while acknowledging that it is through that lens, and reducing it to being mostly about that term.    In the discussion above, it was decided that the underlying topic of this article needs also to have an article. Perhaps we can do both. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 14:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm all for it - with my reservations specified above. JLMadrigal   @  23:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I have reworked the entire lede to reflect the focus on the common libertarian typology, and omit repeated references to the right-left dichotomy view. You can view and comment on my potential version here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JLMadrigal/sandbox
 * Cool. Not sure if you were seeking to include this in the initial move.....I would suggest not, that we just include the "immediate clarification". But if you think that we should change the "initial form of the immediate clarification" in my write-up below, I'm open to that.   But I had the "right /left" thing in there (plus other things) to garner Pfhorrest's support. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it will not be as simple as that. While the article will not need to be entirely rewritten, the use of the terms "left libertarian" and "right libertarian" need not be repeated throughout the article, since the dichotomy is already explained sufficiently in the lede. The dichotomy view of libertarianism can be expanded in the respective article(s) - such as the new disambiguation article which will fall under the current title, to satisfy its adherents. JLMadrigal   @  17:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Either way, are you suggesting that we change in in my summary below? <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's stick with the lede at the top of this section with the discussed corrections - for the new title - and explore the remaining lede paragraphs in the sandbox. The objective, by majority consensus, is to describe the typology typical to the vast majority of libertarians, and a full 1/4 of US citizens - which the current article already does, but under an ambiguous and misleading title. JLMadrigal   @  05:09, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Results
Here are the final results with 0 representing bad, 1 representing OK, and 2 representing good. Please advise of any corrections.

North8000    Pfhorrest    JLMadrigal     TFD         TOTAL Option 1  Bad           Good         Bad            Bad          2 Option 2  Good          Bad          Good           Bad          4 Option 3  Good          Bad          Good           Bad          4 Option 4  Good          Bad          Good           Bad          4 Option 5  OK            Bad          Good           Bad          3 Option 6  Bad           OK           Bad            Bad          1 Option 7  OK            Bad          Good           Bad          3 Option 8  Bad           Bad          Good           Bad          2 Option 9  OK            Bad          OK             Bad          2 Option 10 OK            Bad          OK             Bad          2 Option 11 Bad           Bad          Good           Bad          2 Option 12 Bad           Bad          Good           Bad          2 Option 13 OK            Bad          Good           Bad          3 Option 14 Bad           Bad          Good           Bad          2 Option 15 OK            Bad          OK             Good         4 Option 16 Good          Bad          Good           Good         6 JLMadrigal  @  13:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Was that actually TFD's input on those or did you infer it?  If not, TFD, could you  give your thoughts on those? <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 17:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * TFD didn't call any of the other titles "OK", but, at this point, it would not move option 16 from the top spot, so it is moot. JLMadrigal   @  23:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I did revise his stance on option 15 for the record. I have not verified it, since it is inferred. But those are the only two titles on which he took a positive position. is welcome to revise it, if necessary (for the record).  JLMadrigal   @  12:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

So, if we: We have a plan? <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 14:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Did #16 with the "immediate clarification" combined with
 * Doing one of Pfhorrest's suggestions or else mine of retaining a bare bones taxonomy-through-a-lens article here (which I'm guessing Pfhorrest wouldn't object to)
 * I do object to there being just a bare-bones article here. If there is not a full article here at this title to complement Left-libertarianism and function as the necessary sub-article of Libertarianism, then there should only be a redirect to an article or subsection of Libertarianism discussing the difference between left- and right-libertarianism, and likewise at Left-libertarianism, so we'd need to get consensus from editors at that article before proceeding too. --Pfhorrest (talk) 18:51, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, it looks like we're close together but that every aspect isn't going to be unanimous. So to get it all in one place to get it moving, I'd say move this article to to #16 Libertarian plus/with the immediate clarification roughly as worked out above. After that we pick and do one of Pfhorrest's two ideas. BTW, either of Pfhorrest's two ideas could be mostly implemented without or prior to involving the Left Libertarian article.<b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 20:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I still have the same objections I mentioned above to moving this article more-or-less-as-is to Libertarian: basically the same objections I'd have to moving it to Libertarianism.
 * And I really think that the combined section or article needs to be created before turning this into a redirect to it, and that that entire plan hinges on Left-libertarian redirecting to the same place (if only this article becomes a redirect, that is not an acceptable outcome), so we really do need their input before we do anything.
 * The whole plan is such a big change that I think it needs a proper RFC, really. But since I'm not the one who thinks anything needs to be changed at all -- I think things are fine how they are, and am only suggesting an alternate way that things could also be fine as a compromise to all of you who hate the way things are right now so much -- I think one of you should do the work of calling that proper RFC, over at Talk:Libertarianism where the discussion links for the merge templates point. --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:51, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, one thing is absolutely clear to me is that requiring elimination of the Left-Libertarian article in order to make this change is not appropriate. And, as I indicated over there, I think that you quickly putting merge templates all over the place along the lines of your idea was not appropriate and out of process, even though I do like your ideas.  And such actions should certainly not be used as a basis for determining the course of or jamming up the initiative here. A full broadcast RFC would be fine with me but as I described in more details above I think that the result would end up more adverse to your viewpoint  than the compromise being worked out here.  As something close to that, this discussion was well advertised in libertarian circles and then a proposed move also serves as a mini-RFC, and I think that this one has has much more basis to be proposed (basically the whole discussion above) than yours did. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 12:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The change that I approve of is the merger of this article and Left-libertarianism, into either a new article or a subsection of Libertarianism. To move this article and do nothing to Left-libertarianism would just be to give you exactly what I've been objecting to this entire time, so of course this change requires the elimination of Left-libertarianism. It's not a merger at all if you just rename one article and leave the other alone. --Pfhorrest (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Saying that the Left-libertarianism article must be deleted in order to implement change here would be a poison pill for any change here.<b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 18:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that Left-libertarianism has to be deleted in order to implement any change here, just that if the change we're implementing is merging this article with that one, just retitling this article and leaving that one untouched is not, in fact, implementing that change. And that change is the compromise I've offered, which you seem to be expressing acceptance of too, so if we're going to make that change, we need to actually make that change and not some other one you haven't gotten consensus for. --Pfhorrest (talk) 20:55, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If we could snap our fingers and it happened, I'd consider your idea to be the best of all if it were to get reduced to become a sort of taxonomy article. (if not, it would just be a duplication of the liberrtarianism article)  However, it requires sort getting rid of the Left-libertarian article which IMO has a stronger basis for existence than the Right-libertarian article and look how difficult this effort is.  In short, such is a poison pill for this overall effort. Unless we leave it for phase two.<b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 12:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Pfhorrest, this discussion has been in process for nearly 3 months, which has given you plenty of time to solicit objections. You can't stall for time any longer. I say we give you until 11/13 to bring an official objection from a Wikipedia authority. Otherwise we go ahead as planned. JLMadrigal   @  13:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not how Wikipedia process works. You are the ones wanting to make a change away from the long-standing consensus over objections, for reasons that amount to WP:JDLI. The changes you've all put forth over these months have wandered all over the map, from making up a bunch of different completely unsourced new names for this article, to changing the content of this article completely, and now to renaming and repurposing it for reasons that are far from clear. What is the actual problem that any of these proposed changes purport to solve? You have yet to establish that there is anything actually wrong with the status quo, only that you all don't like the label "right-libertarian" being applied to folks who self-identify as just "libertarian", but that's what the sources call that subtype and nobody has presented any other sources with any different labeling over my repeated requests for them, and just that you don't like it isn't an argument. Lots of soccer players hate that the article about their sport isn't just called Football, too, that doesn't constitute an argument.
 * The onus is not on me to prove that things are fine how they are, the onus is on you to show that any change is required. You've all been making up your own new processes here and acting like they carry any weight. You don't get to just hold votes, Wikipedia is not a democracy. You don't get to set arbitrary deadlines. You need to actually follow process. And I don't have to do that work for you, because I'm not proposing any changes; I'd be happy if this whole thing just dropped. --Pfhorrest (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that we try to make the move it will turn into another mini-RFC anyway. But clarity, I'm fleshing out my summary:
 * Move this article to idea #16 which is Libertarian subject to having a immediate (at the top) clarification that this topic is merely a subset of libertarianism. The clarification would initially be as follows but then can be evolved:
 * Libertarian is a common term for the form of Libertarianism widely practiced in the US as well as the common meaning of the term libertarianism in the US. This form is often named "liberalism" elsewhere such as in Europe where "liberalism" has a different common meaning than in the US. In some academic circles this form is called "right libertarianism" as a complement to Left-libertarianism, with acceptance of capitalism being a distinguishing feature of right libertarianism.
 * This is also an expression of support for doing one of Pfhorrest's two templated proposals at a later date.
 * Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 16:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 16:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I think pages Right-libertarianism and Left-libertarianism must be merged into the article Libertarianism. The problem here is that a rigorous definitions of the first and the second cannot be given. And, for example, geolibertarianism can be attributed both to the left- and right-libertarianism.
 * What is your opinion on this issue?
 * Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 10:55, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If we could snap our fingers and it happened, have it reduced to a sort of taxonomy / terminology article, then I'd be strongly in favor of that idea. However, it requires getting rid of the Left-libertarian article which IMO has a stronger basis for existence than the Right-libertarian article and look how difficult this effort is.  In short, such is a poison pill for this overall effort. Unless we leave it for phase two.<b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 12:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)