Talk:Libertarianism/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Some issues raised by lead

Since people insist on writing a long intro, it gets me thinking about the article. I visited propertarianism article which is mostly original research with no WP:RS that anyone uses it. "Pro-property" at least is a NPOV descriptive phrase for relevant section. (Of course I also am starting to think after a quick look at some sources that "mainstream" libertarianism vs. anti-property libertarianism is a more accurate description of difference.)

Note that I found lots of refs that "mainstream" libertarianism is [largely (forgot to add originally)] antiwar/anti-intervention which will put in tomorrow. But none that anti-property libertarians are. I couldn't find any refs that all libs are for civil liberties. So people might work on that.

I noticed Left libertarianism can be described better in lead per the actual section. But why single out some but not all varieties of libertarianism in the lead? CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Pro-military intervention libertarianism: [1] Also, the libertarian Ron Paul supported the invasion of Afghanistan. Here is a list of documents arguing against libertarians that support intervention. I don't know what the "mainstream" within libertarianism is, but if non-intervention is the mainstream view there are many exceptions. Introman (talk) 02:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Unbelievable but true! :) I actually find myself agreeing with Introman that the propertarian libertarian record as it pertains to war is a very mixed one indeed. By my reckoning the proportion of right-libertarians who are anti-war by principle and in practice is quite a small minority. As to the left-libertarians, one example of their anti-war and civil rights (including anti-racism and anti-death penalty) activity is the new left and the Students for a Democratic Society. [2] To get one's bearing ti might also be useful to look at the anti-war activities of Paul Goodman and his left-libertarian associates.I also find it curious that this article almost makes it seem like Students for a Democratic Society was a right-wing, propertarian libertarian movement. I believe some clarification might be in order.BernardL (talk) 02:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed forgot largely and stuck in above. Barnett's article is about the most frequently noted exceptions. The rest were mostly quasi-libertarians who ran back to Macho government as soon as their manhood was challenged by terrorists.

I meant mainstream as a general view compared to anti-property libertarianism. But I'm not sure that the 5 or 6 mentions I saw of it in books.google and news.google would support a renaming. Prop vs. anti-property libertarianism actually was my own alternative to right vs. left a few months back, so there is some WP:OR in there already. In truth, how to describe the differences is still evolving in those who bother to notice libertarianism at all.

Finally, the article has a history section and a current section. So please put your ref'd info in right place. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The most common synonym for "libertarianism," when used to refer to that which supports capitalism, is "right libertarianism" or "right-wing libertarianism." Introman (talk) 03:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a fairly classic slogan from anarchism that broadly sums up the left libertarian perspective on war, "No war but the class war". Fifelfoo (talk) 03:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

If you are comparing pro and anti-property libertarianism, various adjectives are used (as we've found through our internet searches for this article). However, most WP:RS media and book sources don't use any adjective because they assume we are talking about the pro-property variety. So this article is not typical of most accounts of libertarianism because it discusses all kinds of libertarianism. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Which is why this article clearly demarcates two major English usages. Interestingly in Australian and New Zealand Englishes, Libertarian has been used as a non-sectarian term for democratic working class movements since the 1970s without reference to their Marxist or Anarchist backgrounds. For example, the pamphlet "You can't blow up a social relationship" came out of the Brisbane Libertarians. Also see The Push and its ideology for earlier Australian libertarianism. This article is atypical in a *good* way as it encyclopedically discusses the major usages of a term, rather than the isolated polemical discourses which (understandably) do not tend to bother with discussing "the worst people in the world" who "scurrilously misuse our term." Fifelfoo (talk) 03:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Proper use of propertarian/propertarianism

I found propertarianism to be a mass of poorly sourced and WP:original research assertions. If an source isn't discussing propertarianism or propertarian one can't just throw in something from some article or other about private property even if one "knows" that's what they "really" mean. One needs a source. So now it's properly sourced information showing that there are a variety of definitions. Looking through Books.Scholar just now I see there are 187 returns, mostly related to LeGuinn, copyright law and various treatise on property and will look more at them later. Also, I saw some definitions of non-propertarian that belong in that article as well - i.e., rather than starting a whole new article,

Meanwhile given that propertarianism doesn't define all pro-property libertarians I made that more general. Non-propertarian seems to be more acceptable to the other groups so I left that for now. Will source both intros after get a few more sources.

Also, since we're talking about current movements, obviously the movement that is "best known" should go first.

Also, once get more sources I'm going to rename one section "Libertarianism, anarchism and minarchism" (and move up info from minarchism) since technically libertarian socialists who believe in libertarian municipalism are "minarchists" and it just makes it less confusing to readers to put all that together. Unless I should call it "Libertarianism, anarchism, minarchism and municipalism." CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your attempt to equate "technically" minarchism with libertarian municipalism. As I understand it minarchism is the view that the state should be reduced to a mere "nightwatchman" role so that the principle of free market and private property can flourish without impediments. Direct democracy, especially as it regards the sphere of the economy is not central to this vision. Libertarian municipalism on the other hand seeks to transform the local municipality into a direct democratic polis and simultaneously to establish a confederation of directly democratic municipalities which would replace the current state. The citizens author policy directly by participating in democratic assemblies. This vision does not presuppose a free market at all and advocates ownership of land and enterprise by the free democratic assemblies. To quote its founder, Murray Bookchin:

Libertarian municipalism proposes a radically different form of economy–one that is neither nationalized nor collectivized according to syndicalist precepts. It proposes that land and enterprises be placed increasingly in the custody of the community–more precisely, the custody of citizens in free assemblies and their deputies in confederal councils. How work should be planned, what technologies should be used, how goods should be distributed are questions that can only be resolved in practice. The maxim “from each according to his or her ability, to each according to his or her needs” would seem a bedrock guide for an economically rational society, provided to be sure that goods are of the highest durability and quality, that needs are guided by rational and ecological standards, and that the ancient notions of limit and balance replace the bourgeois marketplace imperative of “grow or die.”[3]

BernardL (talk) 23:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

This article is about politics more than economics. The relevant quote from that Bookchin article would be:

Libertarian municipalism represents a serious, indeed a historically fundamental project, to render politics ethical in character and grassroots in organization. It is structurally and morally different from other grassroots efforts, not merely rhetorically different. It seeks to reclaim the public sphere for the exercise of authentic citizenship while breaking away from the bleak cycle of parliamentarism and its mystification of the “party” mechanism as a means for public representation. In these respects, libertarian municipalism is not merely a “political strategy.” It is an effort to work from latent or incipient democratic possibilities toward a radically new configuration of society itself–a communitarian society oriented toward meeting human needs, responding to ecological imperatives, and developing a new ethics based on sharing and cooperation.

Political decentralization is the real issue and I have some info and sources on libertarians left and right on that and should incorporate that. I assume Bookchin et al who talk about municipalism wants some form of local democracy and doesn't want a national state. There are two types of pro-property libertarian minarchism - that which assumes the survival of a minimal state and that which assumes it will be dissolved in to much smaller states. So that's the comparison I would try to make - but only with WP:RS. It might take a few more days. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but I think this latest initiative of yours is verging on the absurd. According to you , "This article is about politics more than economics." That sounds very nice - but then the fourth sentence of this article asserts that "The best known[8][1] formulation of libertarianism supports the free market by advocating private ownership of the means of production,[9] individual property rights, and minimal regulation and taxation, all within the context of the rule of law.[10]" In other words economic institutions (free markets) are at the forefront of the mainstream libertarian doctrines. Can you name anyone who is currently considered a prominent propertarian libertarian thinker who does not regard the "free" market as integral to their libertarian advocacy? Rothbard? Rand? Nozick? Hospers? Von Hayek? I selected the Bookchin quote about the control of the economy and society by radicalized democratic institutions because it seemed among the most obvious ways of demonstrating the contrast between minarchism and libertarian municipalism. The main modality of classification for this article uses the criteria of disposition towards property: the major division of this article is between Pro-property libertarianism on the one hand, and non-property libertarianism on the other. My selection of the Bookchin quote should have clearly demonstrated that libertarian municipalism and minarchism hold fundamentally different views on property as lib municipalism seeks to subsume land and business enterprise under communal forms of ownership. Among the principal reasons why Minarchism wants to maintain a minimal state is to protect private property. They are pretty much antithetical philosophies. You think decentralization is the deciding factor but the description of minarchism in this article makes it clear enough that the preference for decentralization is in fact a minority strain in minarchist thought. You are correct to suggest that libertarianism, of any variety, is broader than economic concerns (although please show me a form of contemporary libertarianism where economic concerns are not central to the discourse). I in fact already suggested that a major political difference between libertarian municipalism and minarchism was that libertarian municipalism unambiguously embraces direct democracy - in other words the substantive content of the politics of libertarian municipalism is incommensurable with the politics of minarchism. In terms of substantive political differences I would also note that- if you read the article by Bookchin- libertarian municipalism is not merely a localist vision but offers at the same time a vision of confederalism between localities, which itself follows in the footsteps of the federalist visions of the major classical anarchists, Proudhon, Bakunin, and Kropotkin (see chapter 9 of Colin Ward's A Very Short Introduction To Anarchism- Oxford University Press). Finally to demonstrate the absurdity of grouping minarchism with anarchism, libertarian socialism and libertarian municapalism rather than with propertarian forms of libertarianism you need only consider the intellectual lineages of these two different strains of thought. Libertarian Municipalism was originated by Murray Bookchin and these perspectives evolved uncontroversially out of long line of anarchist and libertarian socialist theory and practice. Minarchism and the nightwatchman state concept was effectively popularized by none other Robert Nozick, still a doyen of mainstream propertarian libertarianism. Others that used the term before him seem to have done so within the context of a discourse between advocates of free market and private property who held differing perspectives on the appropriate role of the state, if any. In conclusion, your initiative to lump minarchism in with anarchism and libertarian socialism and even to subsume libertarian municipalism under the heading of minarchism is thoroughly absurd. If you expect to attain consensus for such an arbitrary initiative you will have to come up with some astounding evidence and arguments. I'm not holding my breath. BernardL (talk) 00:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

First, when I say it's about politics I mean you don't quote Bookchin on economics and fail to mention what his political views are. ::Frankly, considering that "left/socialist" libertarians do NOT intend to use force to impose their economic views, I don't even see what people are getting excited about. (And you don't even have to associate with capitalist libertarians unless they are polluting, which is a form of aggression for true libertarians.)

Note also that I am not the one who wanted to bring this debate to the lead, but since others insisted and keep bringing in new refs that - while accurate - are divisive, I have to go with that.

Also, if Municipalism assumes that communities confederate into some big government form, then obviously I was mistaken about it. Perhaps you could put some sourced info in the article about it and then it would be clearer what the connections are or are not. Two sourced sentences in an article are worth more than scads of WP:OR on a talk page. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Continuing on propertarian thread

Having sourced the Propertarianism article more and added "nonpropertarian" section - please see - I can see that they at least are more descriptive than right-left, though neither is widely used in libertarian or mainstream circles. So the issue remains most people meaning the "best known" pro-property description when they say libertarian, except in left wing circles worldwide, which still remain much smaller circles than pro-property ones.

That's what article should reflect, including by having propertarian libertarian groups section listed first. Please explain why it should go second, whomsoever reverted it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

English is not en-US anymore than it is en-GB. The citations in the article for usage are poor in this respect as they are en-US specific. OED3 lists the US n. as "1920 Amer. Jrnl. Sociol. 26 68" OED3 revision Draft 2006 & following definitions are peculiarly US specific; and recent. In extension, in a topic of international significance where the key contributions are not necessarily English specific, international uses such as the Italian or Spanish also begin to impact on article focus. Making an argument based not on use density of the word would be a better way to proceed with your intention. Such as "Users will be seeking US uses primarily at the moment." Even then, that isn't an argument for coverage limitation (due to historically important anti-property uses), but ordering. I find your en-US based arguments on use preference to be particularly frustrating and an example of culturally offensive provincialism. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC) struck my frustration and personal offense Fifelfoo (talk) 02:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

First, you last sentence falls under WP:civility as uncivil. Second, this is English wikipedia, which of course reports on things from all over the world. But lots of refs in foreign languages are not appropriate. More refs from other countries can of course be found. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I am willing to retract, strike and apologise for my venting offence; but I stand by your en-US centric world view being provincialist and a problem with this article's globalisation and systemic bias. Refs to foreign languages are appropriate if they're simple survey works (credible tertiary sources on usage or social density) or detailed specific academic works (ie: French: Libertarian socialism in France: a history). Given that I have pointed and evidenced ("The Push", Brisbane LSO) en-AU's use of libertarian being solely revolutionary socialist (yes, even weirdly enough the push) prior to c.2000's import of US-lib-cap inspired; and that Libertarian is a common word shared amongst European languages, and imported, or reimported, into non-European languages, any claims about world usage or density have to be i18n, or very clearly specific. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Very Confusing Article

This article says little to nothing about the Libertarian Party of the United States, not to mention the political strength the Libertarian Party of Kentucky has. This article is very confusing and should be made to read more like the Democratic and Republican party articles. --PaulO (talk) 23:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

This article is about the political philosophy, not one specific organization promoting one view of the philosophy. See Libertarian Party (USA). CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Intro: Right libertarianism / left libertarianism proportion

I think the intro gives too little discussion about right libertarianism relative to the discussion about left libertarianism. As is sourced, right libertarianism is the best known. Left libertarianism is more obscure so it certainly should not get MORE discussion that right libertarianism. It should get less. Either the right libertarianism paragraph should be expanded or the left libertarian one reduced. Otherwise it pushes a POV out of whack with representation in the sources. Introman (talk) 22:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree and was going to, just busy. Also "right" wing is a PRO-statist position so those who use it - even if they are WP:RS - are doing so incorrectly. Something which is discussed in the text and obviously has to be emphasized more by quoting those who use it and the response by libertarians who object to its use. It certainly should not be used in the lead. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that "right" is a pro-statist position. Regardless, even if that's what "right" meant, it's a very common name for laissez-faire libertarianism that supports private ownership of the means of production, so it should be used in the lead. Introman (talk) 15:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

But if it is that there are objections to its use also has to be noted, as later text will show. Later. I'm trying to make wikipedia a post-5pm activity only and am slipping today. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

If there are sourced objections to the term you can just say something like "...referrred to as "right libertarianism," though some object to the "right" terminology.."

You are correct, Sir/Maam. Also, there is a real problem with the emphasis on dividing types of libertarianism by economic views. Just like a great middle of people aren't left or right, a great middle of libertarians (including me) really don't care much what economic model people freely choose, as long as people don't force it on them. So will look for refs reflecting that view. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's a different approach: Has anyone got any references or works that deal with commonalities or shared history of so-called "right libertarianism" and "left libertarianism"? It seems to me that -- if they exist -- these might form a basis for some sort of reconciliation in this article. If, on the other hand, they don't exist, and these two movements are not two sides or forks of a single viewpoint, but rather completely separate movements that merely happen to share a name, in which case disambiguation rather than merger is appropriate. --FOo (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, too bad our NO NATIONS NO NUKES captialist/anti-capitalist anti-nuke protest group of 1982 didn't get a WP:RS write up :-) (See pics.) Of course since 1999-2000 when anarchists in this country got serious about property destruction, it's been much harder to make such alliances. On the other hand they'll never have the fire power of the "propertarians," so they render themselves less relevant through adopting "diversity of tactics." . A phrase I must put on my list of articles to create!!

But seriously, at this point the scuffling is minor compared to some articles. I believe the article just needs a few tweaks to put it in touch with reality and WP:RS, but I've been procrastinating for a number of reasons including slight boredom with the topic. But motivation will return soon enough. ;-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

ref=Vallentyne is inappropriate to cite for best-known-ness. 1) Author's CV demonstrates a limited capacity, and lacks historical, political science, sociological and linguistic capacities. Additionally, in the Encyclopedia entry by Vallentyne and in his article, he does not cite, and is not infact refering to Libertarianism (Socialism) / Anarchism as can be seen from the quote, "Classical liberalism emphasizes the importance of individual liberty and contemporary (or welfare) liberalism tends to emphasize some kind of material equality. The best known form of libertarianism—right-libertarianism—is a version of classical liberalism, but there is also form of libertarianism—left-libertarianism—that combines the classical liberal concern for individual liberty with the contemporary liberal concern for a robust concern for material equality. In this paper, I shall assess whether libertarianism in general—and left-libertarianism in particular—can judge a state to be just without the universal consent of those it governs." (Cited doc in Vallentyne, ¶1). As such I've moved Vallentyne's chapter (actually a reprinted *journal article* as anyone could read if they looked at the Bibliographic page of the cited book.) I will be removing the encyclopedia article by Vallentyne as evidence of that statement after a reasonable period for standard editorial debate. Looking at Vallentyne's encyclopedia article, its obvious that its a rework of "Libertarianism and the State" from Social Philosophy and Policy, and falls under the same area of competence and uncited areas--being no expert in language use or social or political science importance of libertarianism, and not referring to the "other" libertarianism of Chomsky, Ward, the CNT, Makhno, EZLN etc. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

OTOH, after Verifying Wolfe's citation on the same point, his capacity in everything except a linguistic sense should be impeccable due to his speciality and publications. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

This is not a matter of linguistics. Vallentyne is simply saying the capitalism version of libertarianism is better known. That's not linguistics. Introman (talk) 20:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The intro is only getting more POV. The left libertarian section is now larger than when I put up the POV tag. There are three sources saying that the most common form of libertarianism is the capitalist version, yet the left libertarian section of the intro is at least twice the size of the capitalist one. Introman (talk) 20:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

No, there aren't three sources. There's one source, Wolfe. Vallentyne has no capacity to make the statement as his involvement with libertarianism is limited to philosophical libertarianism of rights, and explicitly fails to evidence he knows of revolutionary libertarianism. His claim is uncited and unargued in the articles listed. The two articles are infact mirror duplicates, and are same authored, so only provide one, flawed, source. I'm reverting you. If you think this is a level of acceptable citation, you need to be taken out and given an undergraduate degree in the humanities. As I noted above, Wolfe alone is a sufficient citation for the point. Neither Wolfe nor Vallentyne are acceptable sources for *commonality* as neither is a sociologist of political movements nor a demographer.

Your edit fails to take account of Talk: discussion. Read Wikipedia:Ownership. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

From the info in his Wikipedia article, Peter Vallentyne appears to be an acceptable source to me. Introman (talk) 01:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

That's nice. From his academic CV which shows no engagement with Marxism or Libertarian Socialism, no action outside of moral philosophy, no sociology, and no political science. From his articles cited which fail to evidence his claim (as noted above, prior to your reverts), his source is unacceptable for the claim attributed to him as he fails to demonstrate it.Fifelfoo (talk) 01:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No engagement with libertarian socialism? He IS a libertarian socialist. Introman (talk) 02:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

What he does in his own time is his business. His CV indicates he has no capacity to comment on the social prominence of respective political movements. His academic speciality Philosophy, is perfectly adequate for numerous other citations he is used for. But most importantly, the claim that Lib cap is most well known is undemonstrated and uncited in the articles referred to. In comparison Wolfe who has written on Marx, and doesn't seem to confuse libertarian socialism as a movement with a rights based analysis of personal capacities, and who has written about relative prominences of social movements, is a perfectly acceptable source to claim that Lib Cap is better known. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

<backdent>It would be helpful to come with any non-socialist mainstream sources (besides academic and partisan ones currently used) that recognize libertarian socialism/communism is known at all. You cannot say that all references MUST discuss both kinds, when many WP:RS have no idea lib soc/comm even exists. After taking more of a look soon and more discussion I also doubtless will revert back to statements and refs about which is best known. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

All references don't have to discuss both kinds, but references which evaluate relative social position ought to. With texts like Woodcock (1962) (below) it would be difficult to approach the field of political philosophy of libertarianism (as opposed to moral philosophy) without having interacted with, and thus made reference to, social anarchism. This is why Vallentyne is not appropriate, but Wolfe is. Vallentyne's publication record is insufficiently broad to support him being able to characterise Libertarianism of all kinds. You're arguing that his blindness to left-libertarianism means that it doesn't exist; my argument is much simpler: Vallentyne lacks the gravitas to write on libertarianism outside of a constrained philosophical area. Vallentyne's encyclopedia article lacks the credibility to be used for that claim. Wolfe's does. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. I looked at it and the correct Vallentyne reference to pro-property libertarianism being best known was somehow replaced with the other one which is talking about something else. People please be careful when changing references. Thanks.

Also note that Hamowy has a lot of interesting things to say, as does Routlege. I haven't looked at either closely but will soon. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Reading through "Libertarianism and the State" which I suggest you do, its available provided by the author in .doc format, you can clearly see that he makes the claim in the introductory paragraph, fails to cite it, and from his working definition (page 4-6) that he is discussing *only* US style lib-cap, and not discussing libertarianism as it exists philosophically outside of the US lib-cap discourse, or as social movements (Woodcock 1962). The reference makes a good example of impulses towards collective economics within the US lib-cap discourse, and should probably be shunted there. But it does not have the credibility sufficient to sustain the claim that the "best known" as Vallentyne clearly does not know of any social movement in the last 150 years that participated in, and in a number of cases was the primary driver, of major violent notable social changes. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Please see references 39-43. Especially the last three. They all support text making the same point and support the lead but just haven't been put there because topic discussed again later. If you want the last three also can be put up there, but that much referencing not really necessary since lead also reflects other things in the text. Reading whole article can be helpful to understanding of the lead. I'll certainly go looking for some English refs from other nations that make same point, if you need it made more fully. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Have verified these sources seeking to replace Vallentyne on "best known" with someone with actual standing to comment.

Cato, LewRockwell are self-sourcing (As you would know, this doesn't make them untrue, merely unacceptable to carry the weight of demonstration, they can be excellent supporting or illustrating sources); additionally Boaz doesn't speak to point, its an illustrative use of a primary source and thus OR

NYT lacks academic standing, it is a primary source for social importance, not a secondary source, and is unacceptable by itself; moreover the source is incorrectly cited. The book review is by Kenneth Silber who is acknowledged by NYT to be a libertarian writer and is thus self-sourcing yet again.

Botan and Hazleton is a throw away line in a speculative paragraph, which lacks citation and moreover lacks the qual/quant type studies necessary in PR to demonstrate something to be true

Teles and Kenney is the kind of source we want. (I speak from reading the article with Google Books gaps.) I haven't found any clear statement of volume of awareness / comparison. Their chart is quite nice and a clear demonstration that lib cap exists outside of the US. Sadly it doesn't indicate its the predominant use. Moreover, we should incorporate Teles and Kenney and their cited source on Lib cap involvement and sanction of Chile's authoritarian government through the Boys from Chicago experiment as it is well cited and notorious. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I see both right and left libertarianism are now about equal size. I still don't think that's appropriate. Right libertarianism is the mainstream version, so it should have more coverage than left libertarianism which is more on the fringe. Introman (talk) 19:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree more can be added. Where to begin? Still haven't carefully studied whole thing. Busy busy and going out of town for a week. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Expanding the right libertarian version would seem to me to be the priority. A sentence about organisational modes and social movements, ie the think-tank structure, ie from Teles and Kenney would be valuable. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge to UK

The other article is main, this article's § is the summary of the main, the summary is better than the main. Thus move content, and reduce this page's § to an excellently written engaging encyclopedic summary. Any objections to this editorial course? If not within a standard time frame of a couple of days, I'll action it. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The section should be 1/3 size it is now. I agree to do it, though when finally return tomorrow or in a few days might do it differently since I doubt the material is even about libertarianism. CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Where is the critique?

This page does not offer a neutral POV because it possesses no critique. Also there is no connection drawn between this movement and the various bombers and terrorists that are devoted to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.74.179 (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you volunteering to add a criticism section? Binarybits (talk) 19:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Per archive 12 and earlier archives: There was one that was not inline sourced and not always clear in long long list of notes as formerly organized what were the references. After no one sourced it for a month it was deleted. Previously discussed in talk/archive if you want to find details. Unsourced info can be removed. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

However to successfully add a critique would need someone who can talk to the "inherent aggression of the state" people. It really needs to be written by a recovering Libertarian, who knows (and is able to admit) the inherent flaws of these many variants and has actually seen the dark faces of those who would support McVeigh and the other anti-federal government conspiracy advocates. For to add a critique would start an editing war fought with a religious fervour by the Libertarian "devout".

But without a critique this article isn't worth much at all. 81.155.112.70 (talk) 07:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Lol at 81.155.112.70. It needs to be written by someone with a legitimate set of philosophical arguments to present. Not a 'recovering libertarian' -- whatever that is. Incidently, recovering into what? Like one day you acknowledge that the use of violence against passive action is evil and the next day you wake up and go kill a bunch of people for disagreeing with you?—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

I am not "volunteering to write a criticism section" (that same idiotic retort was used against a comment I made previously on this article): there is already an article on criticisms of libertarianism on Wikipedia. However, it isn't linked to on this page (which, of course, is a disgrace). It should be listed in the libertarianism portal and in a "see also" section at the bottom. the address is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_libertarianism.206.75.198.6 (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

First I saw this article and am watching. Can see it needs a lot of work. No one is stopping you from linking to it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course there cannot be a criticism section in any article even related to liberalism. It is not allowed even to think about the possible dangers of such a system, because it will make you labeled as nazi, antisemite, racist, fascist and very, very evil. Believe me, I tried to add quite balanced and well sourced criticism to articles related to liberalism, anarchism, gay pride, etc., but they were always reverted by enthusiastic ninja editors. --91.8.239.73 (talk) 09:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Questionable "Historically significant social movements of Whichever libertarianism" Sections

Wiki editors don't decide what is most significant, WP:RS do. Also the section title is just pretentious. Such material belongs in relevant historical sections above.

I pinned down which pages of Teles supported the "spreading" idea to the libertarian ideas; but my error doesn't justify a rather malicious paragraph which seems to be based on a short mention of some "Chicago boys" who don't seem to be identified as libertarians advising Pinochet. Note there are lots of articles debunking the view point that Milton Friedman was involved with Pinochet and I'm sure idenitifing those errant individuals would be useful - but not for this article. In this kind of "attack page" vein, I could name the well known "libertarian socialists" who were advocating diversity of tactics and firebombing things in year 2000-2001 in WP:RS. But is that "typical" of libertarian socialism? Have a little consideration for collaboration, please. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Teles doesn't refer to Friedman, but Hayek, and refers specifically to the role of the Chicago boys and references a third work as seminal. Hayek, and his involvement with Chile, are notable for exactly the reason Teles specify. If you're going to claim Teles as a source as you did two days ago, then I suggest you read him. I'd encourage you to find the appropriate sources to discuss Makhno's alleged attrocities, the IWW's stockpiling of arms, or the assertions about CNT militia killing priests. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The articles current sections you suggest "folding" into are in no way historical. They're "as of 2009" and aimed at discussing theoretical lineages rather than social action. I suggest you improve your reading comprehension, Hayek is the figure questioned in the paragraph. Your hostility and assumption of bad faith is not appreciated. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

OUt of town on computer that keeps eating edits, so quickly a) title stil WP:OR without source to significance; b) sources not proving real libertarians involved; c) i can add sources denying real libertarians are involved. Obviously biased WP:ATTACK edits. Will go to appropriate noticeboard if necessary. It didnt' even occur to me to include negative stuff like above and such stuff appropriate only for articles of specific entities involved CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Once again since the editor who reverted me just doesn't get it: This diff removes two sections entitled "Historically significant social movements of non-propertarian libertarianism" and "Historically significant social movements of non-propertarian libertarianism." The editor immediately reverted the sections and refuses to admit a) he is deciding what is historically significant - as opposed to leaving that to WP:RS; b) the first one isn't even referenced; and c) the third one is referenced by biased sources who are talking more about conservatives than libertarians. He needs to show in his footnotes that they are in fact talking about libertarians, and not just free market individuals who may have bad views on civil liberties, foreign interventionism, etc. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I direct you to the citations already listed, now with a quote. They begin their chapter by theorising US Libertarianism as subject, and their analysis of Chile repeatedly emphasises a specifically Libertarian role. They are an RS in CUP. The non-propertarian section hasn't acquired any citations during your break and should be fine to remove. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I direct you to Wikipedia:PROVEIT#cite_note-1

This book quickly becomes unavailable for reading through books google. Therefore you must quote exactly what it says re: "Chicago boys" were libertarian in all their views. Or it says merely that they had "libertarian" views on economics. Or whatever it says. Plus there are lots of libertarian denials of all this which would it massively expand the section to add.

Plus you still don't address the issue of who is to decide what is significant? Is some libertarians burning down buildings the most significant aspect of libertarian socialism? Most people on the planet probably would think so. Few would think what some lefties say what some conservatives did is. But shouldn't we have WP:RS determine that?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

That link goes no where. Just type in footnote what they say about these alleged libertarians as I'll do with other sources. Tomorrow. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

At footnote for "Steven Teles and Daniel A. Kenney, chapter “Spreading the Word: The diffusion of American Conservativsm in Europe and beyond,”". I'm happy with your characterisation of the anti-globalisation movement, and your sourcing. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Chilean Chicago Boys belong in Chile section/less POV rendering of other sources

First, now that you've revealed the Chicago boys were Chileans and not American interlopers, this belongs in a section on Chile, not in “significant movements” and that’s where it will go. Plus the three authors obvious hatred of the free market and labeling anything vague free market as libertarian is countered by other sources which shall be presented. Right now whole thing is WP:UNDUE.

Significant movements have been discussed in the “Usage by pro-property movements.” If the lib socialists have done anything more significant that join in burning down part of Genoa, then that belongs in another section. Both section titles remain WP:OR. Something you have for the fourth or fifth time refused to address. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

"Spreading free-market think tanks throughout the world is not the only strategy that libertarians have attempted. Universities have also served as vehicles for propagating free-market ideas beyond the Anglo-American sphere. Perhaps the most notorious effort to inject free-market thought beyond our borders was the University of Chicago Economics Department's project in Chile." RS cited in article from CUP.

Most notorious is a claim of notability in an RS, of political specialists, in a CUP edited collection of political science. You're arguing against an RS. If the RS has "hatred of the free market" it doesn't matter, its an RS. In fact, its the kind of RS at the front of the list of RS's. I've been focused on the content of these sections. But, as the RS notes, they're making claims about historical significance. Fifelfoo (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Once again you haven't figured out that "libertarian" and "free market" are not necessarily the same and notorious stuff about those with a free market ideology can't be stuck on all libertarians because of guilt by association. (Hayek is not considered a real libertarian by many libertarians, by the way, something that needs mentioning above.) All sorts of alleged free marketeers support politically authoritarian measures. Some of the sources you quote confirm that and will be properly quoted.

Sure we can have a long long section called "Chile" about Chile Chicago boys who shared a few ideas with real libertarians and lefties vs. more neutral parties views on all of that, if you insist. But it is WP:UNDUE as others would tell you if they edited the article.

CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

[Clarified at 17:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)] The reliable source cited claims Hayek and the Chicago Boys are libertarian, take your point up with the RS by publishing a journal article in a scholarly peer reviewed journal; or a chapter in an edited scholarly book published by a scholarly press. Fifelfoo (talk) 16:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

As I've said, there are lots of sources these people were not full blown libertarians. WP:UNDUE and POV is the issue. The question is why is this even important enough to waste time on, especially in a questionably titled section whose content belongs either in the relevant history sections or in the Chile section. Other things to do today. Plus I do like to seek consensus for stuff like I propose above. But I guess if can't even get a reply will just have to do what I have to do and see if can rustle up a neutral editor for comment. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

"the most notorious" POV isn't an issue: its an RS, the scholarly RS's own point of view is clearly attributed, cited, and cited with multiple sources. Nor is UNDUE an issue. "The most notorious" incident of exporting US style libertarian capitalism, certainly an indicator of historical significance, is worth a terse paragraph. Fifelfoo (talk) 17:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

COI

This question was properly asked at 16:40 (revised version) at the user's talk page per WP:COI, but he chose at 16:43 to answer both versions here. User_talk:Fifelfoo#WP:COI_on_pro-Property_Libertarianism.3F The revised relevant text being:

Per WP:COI I am asking you here: Do you belong to some anti-capitalist group that wants to destroy the reputation of all pro-property libertarians? Why do you consistently assert that free market economic views equal pro-property libertarianism views, even if those holding them hold plainly UNlibertarian ideas on civil liberties? Does the extreme POV of your edits have some WP:Conflict of Interest basis?? If so, please declare it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the Good Faith. As with every wikipedia editor, it normally takes me less than 3 minutes in an open editor window to respond to, "Are you, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party?" Fifelfoo (talk) 17:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:COI says bring questions to talk page. I did. You choose to confuse the issue with your various replies below on this page. Keeping it on your talk page would have made other issues of a deleted question manageable. And membership in the Communist Party would be relevant to that article just like membership in the Libertarian Party is relevant to this page. I'm sure if I were writing reams of POV stuff about that party you'd bring it up. But I'm not and you don't.

However, you are writing a very POV paragraph based on one source claiming those holding free market views or libertarian views in one area are therefore representative of the whole pro-property libertarian movement and that is patently false. Therefore one must question your POV. Soon enough I'll make a number of corrections to article that fix the problem and meanwhile I'm on the hunt for neutral editors and admins to look at the differences between versions. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Secondary source, edited collection, academic publisher, work specifically on topic.

You might want to see if Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sociology or Wikipedia:WikiProject_Philosophy have Request for Comment processes. Its an excellent way to seek out uninvolved editors. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Sociology isn't very organised. Philosophy is fairly organised. I'll start a section below, so we can edit an RFC before publishing it to externals sources.

---

CarolMooreDC asked me at User talk:Fifelfoo#WP:COI on pro-Property Libertarianism? Do you belong:

to some anti-capitalist group

No.

[to some group] that wants to destroy the reputation of all pro-property libertarians?

No.

Does your group support violence like burning down establishments to do so?

See the first and second response. I belong to no groups that support violence. I belong to no groups that support burning down establishments. As I belong to no groups that want to destroy the reputation of all pro-property libertarians, I do not belong to any groups that further these aims through the other two points. Your assumption that I belong to such a group is deeply uncivil.

Per your pleasure with Diversity of Tactics edit?

See the first and second responses. I find it saddening that you think that experiencing pleasure at a reliably sourced accurate addition of content means I have a COI.

Does the extreme POV of your edits have some WP:Conflict of Interest basis??

I dispute this characterisation of my edits. I have included terse summaries of major RS in Scholarly publication modes which directly address the topic of historical significance of pro-property libertarianism, and included a brief summary of obviously historically significant anti-property libertarianism, as a result of a glaring historical gap in the article when it comes to the material actualisation of politics.

I have no conflict of interest to declare in relation to Libertarianism.

I seriously suggest you retract the accusation through assumption that I belong to a group that supports violence like burning down establishments to do so. Fifelfoo (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

CarolMooreDC asked me at User talk:Fifelfoo#WP:COI on pro-Property Libertarianism? Do you belong:

to some anti-capitalist group

that wants to destroy the reputation of all pro-property libertarians?

Asked and answered above.

Why do you consistently assert that free market economic views equal pro-property libertarianism views, even if those holding them hold plainly UNlibertarian ideas on civil liberties?

I don't, as repeatedly stated, in article, with citation, a RS holds this view, and the content articulately and fully attributes these opinions to the authors listed in the CUP published RS.

Does the extreme POV of your edits have some WP:Conflict of Interest basis??

Asked and answered above.

I don't feel that your emending your questions on my talk page is an adequate retraction, as it does not indicate a public withdrawal of those views. Fifelfoo (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:COI I asked it on your talk page. Why not respond there instead of junking up this page? Also you responded to things I realized were not actually relevant or appropriate and I deleted. At least have the courtesy to start with that or I will have to add it above your note. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:COI I choose to answer here. Per the gap between you asking, and you changing what you had asked, I had answered. Fifelfoo (talk) 17:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Free market conservatism is not libertarianism

The Chicago boys issue i'll deal with more when I return and now this THatcher loves Hayek=libertarianism addition show confusion among editors about pro-property libertarianism and conservativism. In both cases I doubt that sources reflect real libertarianism, as opposed to limited economic "libertarianism." When I return from trip will deal with more. Unless people want to clean up their own errors.:-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Academic texts from relevant specialists typify the Chicago Boys as libertarian and are cited in the section. I would, of course, welcome texts from relevant specialists (Self-published should be fine as long as they're key acknowledged thinkers in lib-cap style thought) against the position for a sentence. I feel this would get around the "No true scotsman" problem, as then it would become "The perspective of Historians XYZ, which is disagreed with by prominent scholar Foo of thinktank". As regards notability I've been thinking a bit on how to respond to you, and I feel it is this: the disciplinary standards of social history describe revolutionary seizures of power as inherently notable, and, if done from an ideological perspective, this is inherently notable to the history of that ideology as a social movement. I have not wanted to put an in depth response, as you're unable to adequately edit to respond; and of course won't be moving on this until after you've had a chance to respond fully, but the thoughts came together to be put down today. My understanding of this page is that it covers both ideology and social movement. I have not conducted source verification of the Thatcher piece, the editor responsible should hopefully come forward here to respond to you. If nothing else the connection between Friedman's economics and neo-liberalism / neo-conservatism should be noted if we mention Friedman's economics. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

There are 300 million people in the United States. To virtually all of them that are politically aware, libertarian means pro-property and pro free market, and it has come to mean such in most of the English speaking world. Honestly, I'd be willing to give up the word if we could have liberal back, but that's not going to happen. The article should, and does, mention the usage of the world by anti-capitalists, but as far as the article's discussion of philosophy, it should center around the market usage, as the other is already amply covered in the various articles on anarchism. With your suggestion, there would be no place for a political ideology that has millions of adherents, as libertarianism differs so substantially with mainstream American conservatism, and even more with European conservatism, that the whole philosophy could not be integrated with any article on conservatism. Gtbob12 (talk) 22:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to suggest specific edits. Is your last sentence agreeing with the thread title or are you trying to make some other point. It's not entirely clear. THanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, it's clear to me that Gtbob12 agrees with the title of this section... that Free market conservatism is not libertarianism. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Opening is broad and misleading of libertarian as being completely scattered ideology

As with all ideologies there are different views and beliefs within its various subscribers. The opening to "Libertarianism" misrepresents the ideology as being completely scattered with no clear base of thought. Most Libertarians are strong believers in property rights. The opening to this makes it sound as if anarchist who believe in the abolition of property represent a legitimate wing of a libertarian movement and or party. This is not so. This is like saying Democrats believe in progressive reforms as well as some promote communist policy for the public good. Or Republicans believe in stopping illegal immigration, others are Neo-Nazis. This page makes libertarians out to be a bunch of anarchist and crazies. The founders of the United States were Libertarians, shown by the Constitutional Republic of free people and limited government that they gave us. The definition should reflect such, with an emphasis on limited constitutional government, the maximization of individual liberty, freedom from coercion, economic freedom, property rights, and rugged individualist principles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by James A. Dufrane (talk • contribs) 05:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Your views are rather provincially US. Your views on the Article's direction don't reflect the reliable sources, weight policies, or article consensus. If you want to move your views forward, start with reliable sources and weight according to the presence in academic literature. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Extremely poor quality article

This page is a confusing mess. First of all, libertarianism should not be introduced as a dichotomized philosophy split between "propertarians" and "anti-propertarians" as anti-propertarian libertarianism (A) has a multitude of definitions ranging from purely semantic opposition to "property" to full-blown authoritarian communism and (B) in the English-speaking world is extremely marginal. Georgists, geolibertarians, and most other schools of libertarianism listed under the anti-propertarian heading are not in point of fact anti-propertarian or are only normatively anti-propertarian. Furthermore, left-libertarianism is not one consistent school of anything, but rather a generic label applied to many different schools of thought. This article should more closely resemble the actual political, economic, and philosophical history and schools of libertarian thought (focused on the term as it is formally defined and popularly used in English), something along the lines of the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy's article on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.252.171.112 (talk) 01:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on sources, not personal opinions. All you have done in your editing is replaced material that was based on sources with your own opinion, leaving the refs there. Property does seem to be the main division, be it minor or major opposition to ownership of private property among nonpropertarians. Left vs right problematic for a number of reasons, including existance of self-identified "left libertarians" in both property and nonproperty categories. Why not suggest other ways of organizing it here.

More importantlly, while the article may not be perfect, but you have to present actual reliable sources to make your points, not just say what you want and leave sources there, as if they are the source of your own ideas. In wikipedia that is called WP:Original research. Therefore I am reverting, leaving one change that was ok. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

No, those are not personal opinions and the way the libertarianism is presented in this article - as significantly dichotomized between "anti-propertarians" and "propertarians" - is contrary to how it is presented in every major English-language reference available online. One of those sources was referenced previously, the IEP, others include the Encyclopedia Britannica, which mentions nothing about "anti-propertarianism" or "propertarianism" in its 'libertarianism' article; the same is true for West's Encyclopedia of American Law, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism, the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Geolibertarian, Georgism or sectarian "left-libertarianism" is mentioned as a minority school of thought, if at all.

Furthermore every nominal "Libertarian Party" in the English-speaking world adheres to this mainstream libertarianism, as well as significant associations (such as the Oxford Libertarian Society that titularly use the term; similarly popular use of the term by news organizations (eg. NY Times), academic journals (Journal of Libertarian Studies, the Libertarian Papers), and popular commentary follows this standard. The article as it stands is a mess, clearly not NPOV, and serves to confuse what is objectively the established and popular usage in the English-speaking world. When I have significant time to go through and source established definitions, it will be changed to align to a NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.252.171.112 (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, sometimes there's a consensus based on a few sources to use a summary phrase or two, which is what happened here. If you have a better one, just suggest it. And if you have WP:RS to support it, even better. Just saying it stinks doesn't help much and sets up and adversarial relationship.

However, a number of editors support at least a brief mention of these various subcategories of minor libertarian views. And since they do have articles it's better to have them in their proper context then having them floating about loosely and confusing people. And since there are editors who will come in here out of the blue with possible contrary opinons, even if they are dormant now, it is good to give people a chance to opine before hand. I usually outline major changes I intend to make to avoid unnecessary reverting and conflict. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

This Article is, Clearly, Deeply Flawed

It appears to have been written/edited by marginal elements wishing to appropriate the term "Libertarian" for themselves. Libertarianism is universally known to be an extension of classical liberalism, exemplified in modern times by Austrian economics, Objectivism, and so forth. The idea that anti-property "libertarians" are a significant group, significant enough to be given equal weight, or that they are even properly classified as "libertarians" at all is absurd on its face. This article should be flagged as unreliable, and given a complete overhaul by someone who does not have an ax to grind. This is not the place to gain publicity for your "movement". We all know what libertarianism is. The article should explain that for those seeking actual facts, not fringe propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.18 (talk) 09:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

"It appears to have been written/edited by marginal elements wishing to appropriate the term "Libertarian" for themselves." This is not the case. http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secA1.html#seca13 It is in fact the pro-capitalist usage of the word that is incorrect historically. The socialist usage far predates it. Moreover, I would venture to say that Anarchists are a much more significant and well known group than this more recent aberration of free-market "libertarians" (originating in the United States.) As was cited in the article "Libertarian socialists such as Noam Chomsky or Colin Ward point out that the term libertarianism is considered throughout the world a synonym for anarchism, despite the fact that within the United States in recent decades it has become more usually associated with free market positions." I doubt that very good statistics are available comparing the relative numbers of supporters of either ideology, but it seems obvious (IMO) that anarchism is much more common and well known. However, it would be biased to exclude either right- or left-libertarianism from the article regardless of the comparative number of supporters. Right-libertarians have become very vocal and visible on the internet (even if they don't have much of a social movement to speak of.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.77.63.25 (talk) 08:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, your own source states quite clearly that anarchists have appropriated the term in forms such as "libertarian socialism" because it obscures the negative connotations of the term anarchism. So now you have kindly exposed the cause of the deception that went into writing this article. Wikipedia should not be the place for anarchist Public Relations maneuvers. The article on anarchism should include much of the substance of this article, and that information should be reduced to a sub-section and/or link in the Libertarianism article. You have made it very clear where the POV fault in this article comes from. Now it simply needs to be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.24 (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that if you read down past the first paragraphs you will find that it cites a number of instances where Anarchism is identified as Libertarianism--- long before the freemarketeers started using the term.

"However, due to the creation of the Libertarian Party in the USA, many people now consider the idea of "libertarian socialism" to be a contradiction in terms. Indeed, many "Libertarians" think anarchists are just attempting to associate the "anti-libertarian" ideas of "socialism" (as Libertarians conceive it) with Libertarian ideology in order to make those "socialist" ideas more "acceptable" -- in other words, trying to steal the "libertarian" label from its rightful possessors.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Anarchists have been using the term "libertarian" to describe themselves and their ideas since the 1850's. According to anarchist historian Max Nettlau, the revolutionary anarchist Joseph Dejacque published Le Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement Social in New York between 1858 and 1861 while the use of the term "libertarian communism" dates from November, 1880 when a French anarchist congress adopted it. [Max Nettlau, A Short History of Anarchism, p. 75 and p. 145] The use of the term "Libertarian" by anarchists became more popular from the 1890s onward after it was used in France in an attempt to get round anti-anarchist laws and to avoid the negative associations of the word "anarchy" in the popular mind (Sebastien Faure and Louise Michel published the paper Le Libertaire -- The Libertarian -- in France in 1895, for example). Since then, particularly outside America, it has always been associated with anarchist ideas and movements. Taking a more recent example, in the USA, anarchists organised "The Libertarian League" in July 1954, which had staunch anarcho-syndicalist principles and lasted until 1965. The US-based "Libertarian" Party, on the other hand has only existed since the early 1970's, well over 100 years after anarchists first used the term to describe their political ideas (and 90 years after the expression "libertarian communism" was first adopted). It is that party, not the anarchists, who have "stolen" the word...........Given the anarchist pedigree of the word "libertarian," few anarchists are happy to see it stolen by an ideology which shares little with our ideas. In the United States, as Murray Bookchin noted, the "term 'libertarian' itself, to be sure, raises a problem, notably, the specious identification of an anti-authoritarian ideology with a straggling movement for 'pure capitalism' and 'free trade.' This movement never created the word: it appropriated it from the anarchist movement of the [nineteenth] century. And it should be recovered by those anti-authoritarians . . . who try to speak for dominated people as a whole, not for personal egotists who identify freedom with entrepreneurship and profit." Thus anarchists in America should "restore in practice a tradition that has been denatured by" the free-market right. [The Modern Crisis, pp. 154-5] And as we do that, we will continue to call our ideas libertarian socialism." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.77.63.25 (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

This debate shows why there is a lot of info on both movements. The important thing is what the most reliable sources say on the topic. They do seem to say pro-propertarian is better known and the amount of info in the article reflects that. So the article may not be perfect, but it's not that bad either, according to wikipedia policies. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I18n, Globalise, Systemic Bias (en-US) working section

Lib Soc I18N

General: Anarchism: a history of libertarian ideas and movements By George Woodcock 1962. Source: Books. Status: Unverified.

France, Late 19th C Source: Scholar. Status: Unverified.

Italy, West Germany 65-90 Source: Scholar. Status: Unverified.

France, Contemporary Source: Scholar. Status: Unverified. Journal PDF link

Spain 1936 Source: Scholar. Status: Unverified. MS Word doc copy

Spain 1978 Source: Scholar. Status: Unverified. Journal link

RFC - Chicago Boys notability and emphasis

Status: Draft. unpublished to any projects, in draft until the comment requesters agree to publish it

Requester: Fifelfoo (talk)

Requester:

Requester:

At: Libertarianism#Historically significant social movements of propertarian Libertarianism

Is the involvement of the "Chicago Boys" in the 1972 Chilean coup a Historically significant social movement[s] of propertarian Libertarianism?

Is it a sufficiently notable incident to have at the head article of all Libertarianisms?

Better Article

Stanford University[4]

This article is referenced here, but should be consulted further. It is far better in its construction and wording. In particular, this Wiki article should not include anti-property libertarianism first in the "Origins" section, and it is debatable whether entirely anti-property philosophies should be included at all. It would appear reasonable that "left libertarianism", which recognizes only natural resources to be "community property", could be included while any philosophy that opposes all private property cannot be considered libertarian in any sense. Additionally, the Stanford article traces the origins of libertarianism to Locke, which seems entirely accurate and supportable. The Wiki article, while not entirely unacceptable, suffers from clear bias by left-leaning authors promoting their own philosophy, which may not be deserving of the title of "libertarianism" at all. Stanford University carries a bit more credibility than anonymous Wikipedia authors, and as such the article I've linked puts this Wiki and its authors to shame.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.171.0.147 (talk) 13:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Then rename it to right-wing libertarianism, or propertarian libertarianism, or propertarianism or whatever and write solely about it. Otherwise, I don't see why this keeps coming up by capitalism supporters. --JokerXtreme (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Anti-property first because stronger WP:RS on first uses of word. Note that I have noted some minor POV/factual slippage in a few recent edits, esp. by AnonIPs, but I have been too busy to contest or deal with. Will soon enough. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Lets get featured again!

Hello y'all. I'm trying to shorten the article. It seems like a soapbox for bunch of different groups claiming libertarianism for themselves. That's fine, but each group is putting too much detail of their philosophy in. I've added some quick summaries to the Libertarian Principles section, in the hope that they can eventually be substituted for the propertarian/antipropertarian sections. -- MutantPlatypus (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

While there is not doubt some sections are too long, this article was worked on by a lot of people and just because they may not be paying attention this week doesn't mean they won't be paying attention next week. I'll comment on specifics as they arise. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've been trying my best to leave content in by removing it with comment blocks instead of outright deletion. If your content is missing, check the page source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MutantPlatypus (talk • contribs) 03:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Non-English Sources

Seeing the debate here about "libertarian socialism" and such, I decided to see what the sources said about it. After all, I had though libertarian socialism was an oxymoron so I needed to clear this up for myself. Alas, most of the sources are not in English. If you translated them - yourself - directly into the Wiki, does that not constitute original research? I'm removing said sources and replacing them with citation needed tags. I don't see how non-English sources are reliable in establishing English-speaking usage of the word "libertarian". To say - in the ENGLISH article no less - that basically "this French source says people who are libertaire are anti-property, thus English-speaking libertarians who call themselves such are anti-property", is an inappropriate use of translation in a Wikipedia article. It is establishing an opinion (that "libertarianism" is an anti-property movement) with the translation itself, not citing the opinion of of the original source. The source may very well translate "I, Joseph Decacque, say 'libertaire' means anti-property." But if it says it in French, how is that relevant to how the common English speaker uses the word "libertarian." See also WP:OR#Translations -- MutantPlatypus (talk) 07:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I replaced this a) because it is relevant to the citations that were put up and I hadn't gotten around to making a comment on it. Which is that I have had a problem in the past with insufficient english sourcing so hopefully someone will rectify that. Also b) noticing the mention of "libertarian socialism" I see that the Libertarian (disambiguation) which used to include Libertarian socialism article was removed because there were only two links and am discussing with editor who did it and will go further if necessary.

I requested deletion of the disambig page because after I removed anarchism and libertarian socialism all that was left was Libertarianism and Libertarian (metaphysics). At the time, the libertarianism article had a lot of content on libertarian socialism, so I saw no need to disambig to a different article. In fact, at the time of this comment, it still has substantial libertarian socialist content (just not as much as before). —MutantPlatypus (talk) 03:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

If left libs are purged from article, pretty soon non-interventionist libs will be and neocons will go around calling themselves libertarians. :-( CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

They can do whatever they want, but for it be reflected in the article they need to do it in a reliable, English source. :P —MutantPlatypus (talk) 03:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Libertarianism

This article is about the political philosophy called "Libertarianism", not about the usage of the word "libertarian" (not an article about linguistic) and no-way an article for exposition of "old anarchist" point of view (check politics about relevance, mayoritary point of view, etc.). --Sageo (talk) 14:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Sageo, I agree ENTIRELY. However, the archives have a LOT of discussion on this that never really reached a consensus. I only recently started editing, so I'm not too familiar with them, but I can guarantee people will object to have their definition removed or will re-insert it. I've taken to summarizing the various definitions instead. —MutantPlatypus (talk) 14:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi!, thanks for your help MutantPlatypus. If you consider that the secctions that I deleted should be replaced but "hidden" I will don't oppose. My arguments were already expose "relevance, pertinence, majority point of view, an article about a philophy not about linguistic", etc. In that way no matters if an article is "referenced" when references aren't applicable to article (like if an article about "apples" -the fruits- were referenced with links about the "company"). --Sageo (talk) 14:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Libertarianism and Anarchism

This section doesn't even mention libertarianism. Sageo has removed it, but I restored it (albeit in comment blocks) because it has a fair amount of content, and would like to defer to the Talk page. If the section's content is all duplicated in the Anarchism main article, then I fully support deleting it entirely. Otherwise, it may be worth keeping for a bit until consensus is reached. —MutantPlatypus (talk) 14:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Joseph Dejacque

I've included here some material on Joseph Dejacque that I don't think belongs in the article. The sources supporting him are entirely in french and thus hard to verify. Not even the anarchism articles recognize him in their history. —MutantPlatypus (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Anarchist communist Joseph Déjacque was the first person to describe himself as a libertarian. in May 1857, in an 11-page pamphlet De l'Etre Humain mâle et femelle ("Concerning the Human Male and Female"), an open letter criticizing Pierre-Joseph Proudhon published while its author was in exile in New Orleans. Déjacque accused Proudhon of being "libéral et non LIBERTAIRE" (liberal but not libertarian), that is, the neologism was coined specifically as a distinction from the classical liberalism that Proudhon advocated in relation to economic exchange, in contrast to the more communist approach advocated by Déjacque.

It would be advisable to get help from someone who can read French before doing something like that, or better yet simply leave it to those who know what they are doing. If you don't read French yourself, there is no point your single-handedly removing sources because you suspect that they might not be being used properly. Déjacque's early use of the French equivalent of the term "libertarianism" is important information that readers need to reach an informed view of the subject. UserVOBO (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Dejacque still doesn't hold relevance to this article. A more complete history of libertarianism should include him, because attention is already given to the anarchist claim to the word libertarianism. There's no need to suddenly blast the reader with plethora new subjects like anarcho-communism, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, and Joseph Dejacque, then suddenly turn away and continue on down the history. These thinkers get their mention elsewhere. —MutantPlatypus (talk) 01:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Most things in this article would be new to many readers, so how does that justify removing Dejacque? I don't see any basis to your claim that he is not relevant. UserVOBO (talk) 02:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm, conceded. I'll put him back. —MutantPlatypus (talk) 04:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

POV lead

The lead of this article asserts that,

"Libertarianism is a political theory that advocates the maximization of individual liberty in thought and action and the minimization or even abolition of the state. Libertarians embrace viewpoints across a political spectrum, ranging from pro-property to anti-property (phrased as "right" versus "left") and from minimal state (or minarchist) to openly anarchist.

All schools of libertarianism declare a strong advocacy for the rights to life and liberty, though there is disagreement on ownership of the means of production. Some sources indicate that the term "libertarian" outside of the US, sometimes refers to anarchist ideologies. However, some American and English sources claim that the most commonly known formulation of libertarianism supports free market capitalism advocating for private ownership of the means of production."

Nearly every word of that is wrong, or at least misleading to a greater or lesser extent. It needs to be rewritten.

"Libertarianism" is not a "political theory", but a collection of different (and incompatible) political theories that unfortunately happen to use the same term for themselves. The claim that "libertarians" embrace a range of viewpoints conveys the false impression that the different "libertarianisms" are a single entity, which they plainly aren't. The sentence asserting that all schools of libertarianism support "the rights to life and liberty" is confusing, since supporters of private property consider the right to own property part of liberty while opponents of course do not - and therefore do not support liberty from the point of view of supporters of property. The final two sentences imply an incompatibility between anarchism and free market capitalism, although some libertarians see themselves as supporters of both, so that's also misleading. UserVOBO (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

That's why I propose a split. There is no way to reach a consensus here. The article gets changed all the time because of that. We should leave the bare minimum here and split to two child articles, one about propertarian and another about anti-propertarian forms of libertarianism. --JokerXtreme (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

What would this bare minimum consist of? If you make such a split, you would have an article that might be little more than a disambiguation page. Dividing libertarianism that way might also count as original research. UserVOBO (talk) 23:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

That is what I'm actually advocating. A kind of disambiguation page. And maybe that is what it takes to get things straight. I don't understand what would consist OR. --JokerXtreme (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking that if you call the articles something like, "Libertarianism (propertarian)" and "Libertarianism (anti-propertarian)", the titles may count as original research, unless there are sources specifically describing the ideologies in question that way. I also think those titles would be awkward. UserVOBO (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The rights to life and liberty are both valid, because right after the comma it clarifies that there is disagreement on the ownership of the means of production. If you'd like to change "the means of production" into "any private property", I encourage you to do so. I was just unwilling to make such a large claim.

Your objection to the sentence is ungrounded. I'm not sure if you've seen the anarchism and socialism articles, but they have the same issues with incompatible ideologies claiming the same term, and they haven't been forked from a disambiguation page to every single philosophy that might share their name. I bet if you asked the average, English-speaking layperson "what is libertarianism?" they'll answer with reduced government and the right to private property. Secondary sources describe a libertarian split, but they (even Chomsky) concede that libertarians are generally identified with the propertarian version. How many reliable, secondary sources (like news articles) have you seen that refer to libertarianism as anarcho-communism? Because this is the English Wikipedia, the most common version is the propertarian version, the article should focus on the propertarian principles and mention the historical significance of the anti-propertarian movement. Because the Standford encyclopedia identifies different libertarianisms, they both deserve mention. See the policy doc:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WEIGHT#Undue_weight

—MutantPlatypus (talk) 01:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

"Libertarians" who don't believe in property, whatever the nature of the property in question, don't believe in "liberty" as the other kind of "libertarians" define it. Adding that there is disagreement over the ownership of the means of production does not change that. So the way the article is written is POV and unacceptable. As to your other comments: It's not relevant that you believe "the average, English-speaking layperson" would say that "libertarianism" is "reduced government and the right to private property" (just as it's not relevant that I think most such people would respond with a shrug of indifference to the very question). That the term "libertarianism" is most often used in English speaking sources to refer to the view you describe does not mean that "the most common version" [sic] is propertarian, which is a different issue entirely. Talking about a "libertarian split" is foolish, since there was never a single "libertarianism" that it would have been possible to "split" from. UserVOBO (talk) 01:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

How most English speakers define it is extremely important. See policy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WEIGHT#Undue_weight. The two sides have to be represented, how would you do it? I never defined what liberty was. The dictionary says a libertarian "beleives in the principle of freedom" or "liberty". It doesn't matter that the people or call themselves libertarian disagree on what freedom means, they all want to promote freedom. —MutantPlatypus (talk) 03:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it isn't important at all. Most English speakers wouldn't have a clue what libertarianism is. How reliable sources define it may be relevant. I'm afraid that your argument that the definition of freedom or liberty is irrelevant does not work. It cannot make sense to say that libertarians all believe in "freedom" if "freedom" does not have any real meaning. The most one could say in that case is that all libertarians say they're in favour of something they call freedom - a quite different and not very informative statement. UserVOBO (talk) 03:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Mutant, why do you keep removing the text from the Nolan chart? It is not representative of all libertarians and this should at least be noted. --JokerXtreme (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I explained it in the edit summary. Because it says "economic freedom", not "rights to property". The chart doesn't define economic freedom, and libertarians don't agree on what exactly "freedom" means, (only that more of it is good) so it represents both sides. —MutantPlatypus (talk) 03:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with what you're saying, but the chart displays economic freedom at the right-wing. This cannot be interpreted as economic freedom by left-libertarians for quite obvious reasons... --JokerXtreme (talk) 10:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey! Don't be running around calling things I missed "obvious". Even if it really is obvious. :P You're totally right. However, I think that point should be included, too. It might not be neutral (or may be synthesis) to say "this chart is not representative of antipropertarian libertarianism." However, I wouldn't object if you included it, but it would be good to have something along the lines of "economic freedom, on this chart, is defined according to to the political right that supports property rights, and thus the freedom that supports property rights. See left-libertarianism for the category of libertarianism that rejects some property rights." —MutantPlatypus (talk) 10:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Didn't mean to be biting, just drilling my point home :D

Don't think it is synthesis, as it does not advance a position that the original authors did not intend. Does it? In any case, I don't think we should be bothered with rules too much, since we agree this is an improvement.

By left-libertarianism I meant all anti-propertarians libertarians. --JokerXtreme (talk) 13:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about what can be sourced. The lead currently is sourced with good sources. Please describe the sources you all have for the points you are making. Also, the chart is one way of looking at things, not the definitive descriptor. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

A reader cannot possibly conclude from the chart and the description that it is not representative of all libertarians, so we have to do something about that. --JokerXtreme (talk) 21:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I fixed it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Edits by 69.228.251.134

I have removed a number of recent changes by the above mentioned IP address. These seem to have distorted sources and introduced awkward changes to the article's writing; some (such as the unnecessary labeling of sources as American, with the apparent purpose of casting doubt on their credibility) are close to vandalism. Probably more of them need reverting, and it would be good if other editors could look at them more carefully. UserVOBO (talk) 19:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Good start. I am going to go back to some of language towards earlier in the month before a lot of these dubious, undiscussed big edits. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed splitting

We need to split this article to Libertarian Socialism and Propertarian Libertarianism. This cohabitation is not working. --JokerXtreme (talk) 14:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

A bare Libertarianism article is still needed, however. Socialism, Anarchism, and Communism aren't just a disambiguation pages. I suggest discussing undisputed liberties first, then having a couple of small sections discussing the anti/propertarian disagreements, with links directing readers to more in-depth articles. Notice how Socialism doesn't have a separate section for each type of socialism.—MutantPlatypus (talk) 14:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

In first place, an article should expose what expert says about a issue. In this case, Libertarisnim, there isn't any reference about political science investigator says in philosophical encyclopedias (I'm not talking about ideological promotors). No reference have any mention about more than one "Libertarianism" (in a relevance and majority point of view). In the articles the editor don't have to put what the believe but references says. References about usages of a word "libertarian" not make related to the ideologies that uses it. This is the big mistake of this article, make this relationship from a word (linguistic) and not from political philosphy that attributes only one deffinition of Libertarianism like a philosophy. --Sageo (talk) 15:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no "only one" definition for Libertarianism. Any self-proclaimed libertarian uses a different definition, just as socialists. That should be clear by now. Hence the need for splitting. --JokerXtreme (talk) 15:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, this it not matter of linguistic "Which are the uses of the word libertarian?", is matter of "Which is the majority and experts general political deffinition of Libertarianism and what is about?". Or, this article is about linguistic and crypto-linguistic? or is about a political philosophy called libertarianism?. --Sageo (talk) 15:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, an homonymy in the adjective don't make related waht have no relation. Those ones which also uses "libertarian" like adjective, also uses it like sustantive "Libertarianism"? And this sustantive is more knowed by experts for represent which philosophy (remeber the relevance policies), which have more political representation, a tangible indicator of relevance between another majority/pertinent/relevance points.--Sageo (talk) 15:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what all this linguistic talk has to do with it. Libertarianism is used as a synonym of Libertarian Socialism and Anarchism throughout the world and has historical roots to them. In the United States since the creation of the Libertarian Party a propertarian usage has emerged. All this is philosophical and political, nothing to do with linguistics. --JokerXtreme (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Mmm, about the suggest I'm not sure about what implies a disambiguation in this case (which argument and structure wants to give JX inside the disambi. page). What should be cleared is that libertarism is one philosophy and libertarian socialism is another philosophy, with no direct relation, one is not part of another, they are different with not direct conection, becomes from another origins, have very different principles, and only share a linguistic "seem", no more (at least in regard to transcendental questions). --Sageo (talk) 15:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC) PD: I'm not from US, and I you want to prove which usage is most common and relevant today, I totally question your afirmation of the ACTIVE use libertarian out of US: Check Movimiento Libertario in Costa Rica per example. Have you reliabe references about a relevant/pertinent/active/majority use of "Libertarianism" (literally, a sustantive) for another thing different to Libertarianism itself?. I question again, Homonymy make related ideologies wich previusly were not related in anyway?, homonimy makes one part of another?. --Sageo (talk) 15:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Again with these linguistics. It should be quite obvious and it is very easy to verify that historically the term libertarian has always been used interchangeably with libertarian socialist and anarchist. A very small majority inside the US and even smaller in other countries, that are admittedly very prominent in lobbying and think tank activities, have tried (and as it seems succeeded partially) to usurp the libertarian term. So, if you want it that way and we must choose one definition the propertarian definition won't be it. Do not repeat the same linguistic rhetoric, it is becoming tiring. --JokerXtreme (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You don't answer about the relevant issue, the most important and active schoolar sources about political themes support the use of "Libertarianism" (literally) in only one sense. Articles should be maked about the pertinent theme and not waht an editor "believe" is correct and wrong. That is the important. Eh, about your last intervention... in historiography "left-anarchism" or "historic anarchism" you mention disappeared from the Earth -like a social/political movement- in the decade of 40' of 20th century, I have consult my calendar and I see that we are in the beginning of the secong decade of 21th century.--Sageo (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC) PD: No one usurped any therm, libertarianism comes from "libertarian" word that comes from anglo-saxon individualism of 19th century, "libertarian" of libertarian socialism/utopian collectivism comes from the French "libertAIRE" of the 19th century. And, anyway, thoelogicians uses the word libertarian a long time ago before of both (1600-1700's).

So I'm don't clear wich is the problem between us, probably we agree in the matter of the article. Do you accept that Libertarianism (sustantive) article (like the principal if there is any dismabiguation) should be about libertarian philosophy (classical-liberal and individualist one) and linguistic point is anecdotic and not trascendental to the principal theme that is the deffinition of the philosphy and movement. For another uses, like the libertarian adjective for collectivist ideas not properly related to libertarism, there is libertarian socialism article, etc. Do we agree in all this?--Sageo (talk) 16:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any sources (especially secondary, per WP:PRIMARY) saying that "libertarianism" in the English speaking, modern, world is used in an antipropertarian (beyond left-libertarian, as in no private property AT ALL) sense? In the Western world I get the feeling that non-community property goes back a VERY long way, so English usage would support a propertarian libertarianism when the word "libertarianism" is taken by itself. —MutantPlatypus (talk) 17:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you may have gotten things wrong. Why do you have the impression that we are talking about an issue that concerns only the English speaking world? --JokerXtreme (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Because this is the English Wikipedia. —MutantPlatypus (talk) 20:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Further, because the variations in the definition of "libertarian" (unlike "liberal") in the evidence I've seen so far, are not confined to the US. Although libertarian socialism is worth mentioning, its not the same level as the meaning of "liberal" between "classical liberal" and "social liberal." —MutantPlatypus (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This is the English wikipedia, but the issue described is not restricted to the English speaking world. Well the propertarian definition of libertarianism is predominant in the US, as a result of the creation and spread of the Libertarian party. This has also been exported in the UK, which is reasonable since the same language is shared and a Libertarian party was also founded there. In the rest of the world there are only some rare cases where there are some minor parties of insignificant popularity.

What I'm arguing about here is that most probably outside USA and UK (and I'm not sure about UK) libertarianism is synonymous for libertarian socialism and most of the sources cited are American. --JokerXtreme (talk) 23:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, the Libertarian party is using the term for no longer than 50 years, while the term itself has a history of at least one and a half century. --JokerXtreme (talk) 23:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any sources in English to back up your claims that "libertarianism" is synonymous with anarcho-communism, a system of government that rejects any kind of state or private ownership of capital, land, other natural resources, and all other means of production? All the English sources cited have qualified anarcho-communism as "libertarian socialism", not simply "libertarianism". Since there is already an article titled Libertarian socialism, the treatment of LS and anarchism on this page should be brief with a link to the LS article. Perhaps just a paragraph or two about Dejacque's "liberal et non libertAIRE", and how libertaire would normally translate as libertarianism, but the most widely used definitions of libertarianism in are incompatible with it, so it is qualified as LS. Again: You need a source, preferably a reliable source, but I haven't seen any source as of yet to support your claim. —MutantPlatypus (talk) 03:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to claim the term libertarianism for anti-propertarians. I'm just trying to prevent appropriation from the propertarians. What I've been saying all along is to split the article to left and right libertarianism. Here's a source to support my claim, it's actually a source that is already being used in the article: [5]. --JokerXtreme (talk) 20:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The cohabitation was working (though the leftists could have included material in the principles section), until MutantPlatypus came along and imposed his POV on the article by deleting a lot of material without discussing it first on the talk page. (Although someone else had been messing with it from a leftist point of few in the week or so before that, as I now remember.) Some of the subsections of old article may have been too long, but they all described variations of libertarianism that some do subscribe to, and are perfectly encyclopedic.

This is one of these dust ups that happens from time to time on this page, but it's not an excuse for whole sale deletion and I think we should revert back to this Feb. 17th version - or even further back since I remember there was some nonsense I hadn't gotten around to dealing with that was recently added. People should propose any major changes here before making them.

See my comments at Talk:Libertarianism (disambiguation) on the idea of removing the disambiguation page. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

This proposal is going no where. Can we delete the tag on the article? CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)