Talk:Libertarianism/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Good definition article

This covers the issue very well: http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=widerquist

It discusses left, right and socialist libertarianism and their history (such as right-libertarians appropriated the term over 100 years after anarchists started using it). It makes the obvious point that the three schools have little in common, other than the name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.40.192.31 (talk) 10:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, but not enough info on the author/title, oh Anon IP :-) So I did some research for you: Karl Widerquist's article described here: Libertarianism -Abstract: This is an encyclopedia entry on libertarianism covering right-libertarianism, left-libertarianism, and libertarian socialism. Suggested Citation

Karl Widerquist. "Libertarianism" in The International Encyclopedia of Public Policy. Ed. Phil O’Hara. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. OK, sounds solid. But more stuff for me to integrate. The problem is not lack of sources, oh, DarkStar, but choosing among many good ones and integrating them all nice and neatly. :-)CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Tag on Forms section

Since there has been edit warring on this (diff), let's discuss. Since when is the dictionary the final word on the notability of any subject covered in wikipedia? And I note that a number of WP:RS have mysteriously disappeared over the last 6 months as well and I'm going to put some back and new ones too. Anyway, then there will be no more of these arguments for making libertarianism look like an ideological monolith when it is a freedom loving fest of 10,000 flowers. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Philosophical Origins and History

This section concentrates solely on the right-libertarians. It needs work to discuss anarchist and other socialist use for the 100 years before libertarian began to be appropriated by the American right. For example, neither Ayn Rand nor "Austrian" economics influenced libertarians in the Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin tradition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.40.192.31 (talk) 14:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

So do the work. Some of us would not like to misrepresent what has been said. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest we create a "classical libertarian" page as very few of the 15% of U.S. voters who call themselves libertarian would also agree to being a socialist, or in favor of anarchy. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:Original research in the lead

I find it difficult to believe that editors don't recognized this diff as original research/personal opinion, and replacing sourced info! Challenge the sources and others can be found. It's also obviously POV since it removes any reference to the fact that many libertarians are anarchists, something a couple of POV editors have been trying to do for months. CarolMooreDC (talk) 07:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted it to the sourced version. TFD (talk) 08:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I tried an expansion on the lead - not sure if it will please everyone, but it's a start. The sourcing on this article is odd - most of the sources (judging by titles) are either tertiary sources (like other encyclopedias and dictionaries) or somewhat opinionated-seeming primary and secondary sources. I'll have to look into it more deeply, though. --Ludwigs2 15:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between libertarians about the right to own some types of property, such as land, water and air. Although in the U. S. land ownership has long been treated as the same as any other type of property, in Europe there was also feudal land ownership which liberals saw as illegitimate. TFD (talk) 17:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

To reply to several questionable edits, from different (or the same?) editor. I can't keep track:

• Yes, the sourcing can be better since others are complaining. (However, my time budgeted on this article to find them keeps being taken up correcting constant questionable stuff inserted that has to be corrected.) However, in the first sentence removing a dictionary reference that DOES reference something in a sentence and re-writing the sentence to one's own satisfaction is against the policy I refer to above. I have a feeling that is true of at least two other insertions as well but don't have time/patience to check. If the person(S) who inserted that info did NOT bother to check the original article, not this is a violation of policy and can and will be reverted.
• Paraphrasing Anarcho-capitalist Murray Rothbard's opinion on other types of anarchists might be useful for other sections, if you name him, but not the lead. (Haven't even checked paragraph.) And his Opinions should be identified.
• RE: "Libertarianism is primarily a political philosophy," - I agree and that belongs in the lead, now just thrown in there later. A review of all the sources is necessary. Plus use of better sources which I'm looking at, including Hamowy.

Please do not just write what sounds good to you personally. That is not wikipedia editing. You only can write what WP:Reliable Sources say. CarolMooreDC (talk)

Murray was an anarcho-capitalist?? "We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists", murray r. Is this also opinion: "should be reduced to a minimal form (minarchism) or even fully abolished (anarchism)"? Darkstar1st (talk) 23:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

@ Carol: sorry, at this stage (having looked at the article for all of a day) I was just tweaking and expanding what was already there - I haven't gotten to a full examination of the sources yet. I assumed that people would take my rough expansion and rework/critique it, which seems to be what's happening. If something strikes you as wrong, please feel free to change or remove it.

A couple of points:

• Technically speaking, Libertarianism is neither a political theory nor a political philosophy. It is actually a political perspective, akin to conservatism, liberalism, marxism, and etc.
• Libertarianism does base itself on some established political theories/philosophies, mostly enlightenment-era philosophy (of Locke's variety), and non-corporate free market capitalism (in the manner of Adam Smith - note that Liberalism is more interested in capitalism as a means of establishing social balance than economic equity). That's the reasoning behind the first line, about classical liberalism and divil society.
• Libertarianism us rarely anarchistic in the conventional sense. Anarchism tends to reject all governance in the name of personal freedom; Libertarianism tends to reduce government to the level needed to maintain personal liberty. The libertarian model (as far as I've seen) is not the individual per se, but rather the local community (or even perhaps to the ancient Greek Polis, though few of the Libertarian authors I've looked at take it all the way back to the Greeks).
• The comment about political theory studying the proper role of violence in society is a well-established trope in social theory. possibly the first (and certainly the most prominent) scholar who used that trope extensively was Hannah Arendt, who saw government as a system for legitimizing and controlling the means of violence (weaponry and the right to use it), and opposed 'violence' to 'power' (where power only inheres in collective action of citizens). This particular use of the trope sounds more like it came from a modern socialist or post-structuralist author, rather than one of the Frankfurt school authors or modern social theorists, but I'd need to review the source more closely. at any rate, I think I can find better sourcing with some time.
• the thing you flagged as an 'unreliable source' is just an expansion and attempt at clarification of what was written there before. feel free to revise it mercilessly; I was just trying to get at the idea behind what was previously written (that libertarianism doesn't fit well on the left/right scale), and I may have done it badly.

@ Darkstar1st: the source you keep trying to add is a primary source reprinted in a non-neutral secondary source that has some distinct problems per wp:RS. plus, you've taken Rothbard out of context. If we want to use this source at all, it has to be in a properly attributed form, such as "Murray Rothbard suggests that Libertarianism is not a form of anarchism, based on the historical and etymological derivations of the term anarchy". see the difference? --Ludwigs2 00:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

he worded it somewhat differently. his article very well made the point how anarchy is not libertarian. "We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical." Darkstar1st (talk) 01:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

look, what Rothbard is saying (which I think is a valid point) is that the philosophy and behavior that anarchists have historically used does not match with the philosophy and behavior that libertarians espouse, even though there is some superficial overlap between their understandings of the nature of government. I don't believe, however, that we need to make a point of distinguishing libertarians from anarchists in the lead, because it's not an association that the modern reader will make. by linking the the individual anarchist section, rather than anarchism proper, I think I've avoided associating libertarianism with anarchy in the first place - maybe we can link in the Rothbard piece later in the article? --Ludwigs2 01:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

"Libertarians believe that the state or other over-arching political structures should be reduced to a minimal form (minarchism) or even largely abolished (individualist anarchism)" perhaps we should stop referring to anarchy in the lead Ludwigs? an individual anarchist, is still an anarchist, which highlights the trouble in this article. far to many conjoined fringe terms which have never existed in mainstream print, have been inserted into this article. Darkstar1st (talk) 03:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

ludwig, the dubious discuss tag means you have others who share you opinion. i am simply asking to discuss before you delete, as the tag suggest. Darkstar1st (talk) 04:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I could make the same comment with respect to you discussing before you re-add the passage. I believe someone reported you for edit-warring; don't know if any action has been taken yet. when you are in the minority on an editing conflict like this, you shoudl really restrict yourself to talk page discussion until the matter is resolved.

I believe there are certain sectors of the libertarian community who embrace anarchism in a mild form. I may be wrong about that, and if so then the reference probably should be removed. does anyone have a clear source on the matter? --Ludwigs2 05:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

<backdent>There are many sources. If I just ignore all the WP:SOAPBOX with no references and all the WP:OR changes that ignore what is said in existing references and put in material that actually reflects real refs, I'll be a lot happier. Will just put up with the mess that has been made of the article for the time being... Sigh... CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Carol - I'm just trying to help here. If you think I'm not helping, say so, and I'll go somewhere else. I have absolutely no attachment to this article. --Ludwigs2 19:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Cut Bloated Bibliography

Still working on more WP:RS, since have so many to go through. Meanwhile decided to take on bloated bibliography. (Edit summary: remove redundant to refs; nonEnglish, peripheral and/or nonnotable listings from bloated bibliography; things that can't be verified as existing from internet searches), I may have taken out a couple things too many and will review in near future if others don't put back anything. Done enough for this 24 hour period. CarolMooreDC (talk) 09:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

i was sad to see the federalist papers not make the cut here :( Darkstar1st (talk) 03:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Lao Tzu

Just as an aside, does anyone mind if I remove the Lao Tzu references? I know a good bit about philosophical taoism, and it would be a stretch to call it libertarian. Unless you want to refocus that passage as an attribution to Rothbard? --Ludwigs2 07:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You should remove it. TFD (talk) 07:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

'oppose, why is Murray Rothbard allowed to be a source on this page, but not his comments about anarchist not being libertarian and Lao Tzo being the 1st libertarian is not? Darkstar1st (talk) 11:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Rothbard is a single source whose opinion is noteworthy but not all-determinative. it's one thing to say that a philosopher born two or three thousand years before Libertarianism espoused some of the same principles, but quite another to say that he was the first Libertarian. I mean, heck: Jesus and Buddha and Krishna taught some similar ideas - were they all Libertarians too? maybe even Plato and Aristotle - Libertarianism as a platonic ideal of governance, and libertarians as the only truly virtuous citizens...

Rothbard's opinions are includable to the extent that (a) they are carefully attributed to him and not presented as facts, and (b) they are notable aspects of the discourse on the topic. Laotzu is presented as a factual fore-runner of libertarianism in the article (which is prima facia incorrect), and there is no evidence that Laotzu or daoism ever played a major role in the development or description of Libertarianism, outside of this one quote. --Ludwigs2 15:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Well spoken. There are many individuals and groups that attempt to backport their philosophy onto historical individuals. Wikipedia's policy is self-identification. As far as I know, the Tao Te Ching doesn't include any statements to the effect of "I am a Libertarian". Yworo (talk) 16:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

great, i will suggest another murray rothbard published work, i'll leave it to others to decide if it is opinion or credible. Darkstar1st (talk) 01:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

excellent. in the meantime, I will remove the bit about daoism (pending some evidence that there is a stronger daoist element to Libertarianism than I am aware of). --Ludwigs2 02:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

My changes

I think most of my changes have been minor and uncontroversial. The article was overtagged, especially the three "diffuse" tag, with no obvious place to diffuse to. Perhaps whoever put those tags in the article could make some sort of suggestion about that? My only major edit was to remove an uncited paragraph from the lead. Was that the OR that's been discussed here as being in the lead? Yworo (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not complaining (sorry if the message I left in your talk sounded that way). I just think we need to sit down and discuss the changes so we're all on the same page. for instance, as I noted above, Libertarianism isn't really a political theory or political philosophy in the proper sense, but actually a political viewpoint (like liberalism or conservatism). calling it a philosophy aggrandizes it a bit. --Ludwigs2 20:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I was just trying to integrate the link from the material I removed. I have no attachment to it. If you change it, just go ahead and put the political philosophy link into the see also section if there's nowhere else for it. Yworo (talk) 20:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Your 1 word argument "duh" for deleting the tag on Stanford as a WP:RS requires some expansion. Torchist stated above: "I think there is an obvious reason for this. Peter Vallentyne, a major proponent of left-libertarianism, wrote the SEP article, and uses himself as a source four times. He also uses H. Steiner, who he collaborated with on three of his own cited works, as a fifth source. The IEP uses Vallentyne and Steiner as sources once each. There could be a bit of undue weight in the SEP version" SEP differs quite a bit from all other encyclopedias on the topic, and this specific article violates wp:self-published Darkstar1st (talk) 11:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it does not at all meet Wikipedia's definition of self-published. It's published by Stanford University and edited by Edward Zalta. The self-published criterion is intended to identify texts where there is no editorial oversight, that is, where the writer is also the editor and the publisher. That's not the case here. Yworo (talk) 16:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

apologies, i meant self sourced, which is frowned upon as if self-published. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

If the editor and Stanford University vetted and passed it, it isn't our concern. Yworo (talk) 16:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

actually there is an ongoing debate whether self-submitted internet sites should be included at all in wp, specifically SEP. here is an example of what can go wrong at SEP:

Although the Encyclopedia is peer reviewed, some errors slip by the process:

Article name	Error	Reason
Identity Politics [As of December 23rd 2006]	"Despite a complex history of biological essentialism in the presentation of racial typologies, the notion of a genetic basis to racial difference has been discredited; the criteria different societies (at different times) use to organize and hierarchize “racial formations” are political and contingent (Omi and Winant 1986). While skin color, appearance of facial features, or hair type are in some trivial sense genetically determined, the grouping of different persons into races does not pick out any patterned biological difference."	Actually, a "genetic basis to racial difference" has not been discredited.[1] The main criticism of the concept of human "races" is not that they aren't genetically based, but that they don't differ enough to constitute separate "races." There is clear evidence, however, that this concept of "race" isn't only related to "skin color, appearance of facial features, or hair type", as said in the article. One example of this would be sickle cell disease. There is debate as to whether there are further differences that result from "race." To sum up the nature of this error, no there are no human "races", but what are called "races" are actually genetically based to some degree. In addition, there are in fact "patterned biological differences." For an example, see this paper written by scientists who oppose the idea of a "biological race", but also observe patterned biological differences in these socially constructed categories.

Darkstar1st (talk) 17:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Uh, if it's peer reviewed, it's peer reviewed and passes WP:RS. Even print encyclopedias are subject to this sort of problem. You're grasping at straws. We aren't expected to do original research to find errors in publications. It meets our publisher qualifications and that's that. If you still think otherwise, please take it to the reliable source noticeboard. Yworo (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

no, i meant he is using himself as a source, 4 times in the sep article, something wp frowns upon. the above example is from the WP:RSN Darkstar1st (talk) 17:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand that. It's been peer-reviewed. End of story. Yworo (talk) 17:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

You keep mentioning "frowns upon" and "ongoing debate". Please provide the relevant links to said discussion or take it to the correct venue, WP:RSN. Yworo (talk) 18:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

i use myself as a source for why wp does not like self sourced. actually, peer-reviewed is not a blanket pass as a wp:rs. there is no end of story in wp, "This policy requires that anything challenged" "However, some scholarly material may be outdated, superseded by more recent research, in competition with alternate theories, or controversial within the relevant field" controversial, most certainly, competition with others, without question. the sep article is well outside the scope of the other more well known encyclopedias on the topic. here is another example of how peer reviewed has failed:

Another comparison was made in mid-November 2008, for the articles about 2 famous philosophers: Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889–1951) and [Bertrand Russell]] (1872–1970).

Over a period of a few days, the 2 articles on Wikipedia were compared with the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) to analyze the differences. Perhaps the Wikipedia (WP) articles had some unsourced opinions, but the Stanford Encyc. articles for Russell & Wittgenstein were crammed with tons of opinions in them. Neither of those SEP articles would work on WP because they were far too narrow: it's the "Stanford Encyc. of Philosophy" only, and not biographies with friendships, 4 marriages or protest marches. Because Wikipedia covers everything, the WP article on Russell had 10x to 100x times more information than the SEP. As for the Stanford Encyc. on "Wittgenstein" (uber-famous guy) – that article was a bunch of opinions with very few quotes from Wittgy or his reviewers having "conundrums" about his "covering all by being silent about the rest" and other stuff typically said by a smart-alec word prankster. I would hope an article on Wittgy would quote notable people saying he played word-games trolling philosophers during his "troll period" (or such), but don't even let Stanford Encyc. try to tell intelligent people that "Wittgy was the greatest" without attempting to quote sources that Wittgy tried punking the world, when realists were "educating" philosophers that time slows down in a strong gravitational field, and atomic clocks on airplanes flying east ran 59 nanoseconds slower than clocks on Earth, etc. And, few would blame Wittgy if he went bonkers about time dilation or computers injected via needles: very few people fully understand all that. Bottom line: the Einstein/Bohr revelations by 1922 had made "philosophers" obsolete unless they spoke tensor calculus (etc.) to model reality: the English language could no longer represent truth about Life, the universe, and everything. So let's update the Wikipedia "Russell" & "Wittgenstein" articles to mention tensor calculus, which Stanford Encyc. of Philosophy probably won't cover. As it stands (in November 2008), the Stanford Encyc. of Philosophy seems 10x to 100x more narrow than Wikipedia, because it does not provide encyclopedic coverage about personal lives and other tangent subjects that affect ideas in philosophy. Philosophy cannot be covered, adequately, without including tensor calculus, the Special Theory of Relativity, the General Theory of Relativity, those megadeath weapons, and other subjects beyond the traditional viewpoints before 1900. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I asked you for the links to the relevant policies or discussions. The above is meaningless to me because there is no context for it. It seems like stuff grabbed out of some discussion you are aware of, but why aren't you providing the links? Did the discussion conclude with a different consensus than you are trying to convey? You are just babbling! Where are the links? Yworo (talk) 18:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

apologies, i assumed we were on the same page, wp:rs, i where i found: "This policy requires that anything challenged" "However, some scholarly material may be outdated, superseded by more recent research, in competition with alternate theories, or controversial within the relevant field" the example came from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Comparison_to_Stanford_Encyclopedia_of_Philosophy

define babbling? Darkstar1st (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

You mean the page that states right at the top that it is no longer relevant? You implied current discussion questioning some very specific things. I'd be happy to join those discussions, if they exist. I'm beginning to suspect that they don't. Yworo (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Yup. I did a project page search and just as I thought, there is no such current discussion. On the contrary, the Philosophy WikiProject lists it on their reference resources page as an example of a reliable online source. Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Yworo (talk) 22:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

it actually says it has been preserved for reference rather than deleted as irrelevant as you suggest. i will bring the page back up for reactivation and we can both weigh in there. sep is wp:rs, but this does not mean everything on the site is acceptable without scrutiny(see above wp:rs concerning academia and changing times, competition, etc). perhaps you are confusing rs as something not to be questioned(which goes against wp very core) with rs meaning material may be included from said source. btw, i much prefer your lead to the current lead used on the page, cheers! Darkstar1st (talk) 22:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Confusing sources for lead sentence

"...or even fully abolished (anarchism).[1][2][3][4][5]" Does the definition of libertarianism really require five sources? if so, would it be possible to spread them out as they are required to support the statement? i suggest we simplify the lead to the websters definition and use it as the sole source. "Function: noun. Date: 1789 1: an advocate of the doctrine of free will 2a: a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action. 2b capitalized : a member of a political party advocating libertarian principles"

or the oxford version: "a person who advocates civil liberty 2 a person who believes in free will"

is debating the term in the opening paragraph helpful? "a minimal form (minarchism) or even fully abolished (anarchism)." Darkstar1st (talk) 12:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

First, note that User:IOTA came in to revert back to something like the long-time lead (first sentence anyway) which made it clear that different types of libertarianism may be anarchist or minarchist and left or right. S/he should comment here. But this has been going on for a couple of years in this article and people should be aware of the history before they start making big changes.

Second, there may be a few too many refs, esp from similar sources, but it's good to have a couple from different perspectives. On my list of things to do, when other things stop interrupting.

And glad to notice USer:Yworo commented on Darkstar's WP:Soapbox habit. The more who ask him to stop it, the more likely he will. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Carol, you realize you are commenting inside my soapbox, i am the one who created this section? also, before i arrived you had the person who coined the term as dejaques, when actually it was a hundred years before. i noticed it was you who worked so hard(soapboxing)work to get this article included in the philosophy group, kudos, we all owe you for your contributions to this article. my current struggle is to allow critique of the anarchy theory which you and others seem bent on not allowing. to do this i am using your own sources to make my point. you may not be the jury on which writings of an accepted author and source, murray rothbard/von mises may be included and which may not. The disagreement between yrowo and me is about a tag that someone other than me placed on SEP, it was torchiest who articulated the critique of SEP, not me. i was simply asking yrowo to come up with a better reason for deleting a tag, "duh" is slang, not an intelligent argument against. perhaps you should direct your soap elsewhere? more people have noticed your repeated accusation soap and ask you to stop, than me. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Need to identify alleged primary sources, or remove tags

Darkstar is throwing the primary source tag on sections without identifying what he considers primary sources. See Wikipedia:Primary_sources#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources. They can be used in some cases, but we can't debate which are problematic and which ok unless they are identified. If they are not, then the tags should be removed. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Still waiting for listing of what you consider primary sourcing, since I see lots of prop-property libertarian writings in there that also could be called primary sources. CarolMooreDC (talk) 07:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

which tags do you mean? i placed 2 tags suggesting 1 or 2 sentence sections be merged? Darkstar1st (talk) 17:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

{Primary sources|date=June 2010}} I meant this tag on Geolibs and Left-Libertarianism. Note new WP:RS onGeolib have been listed here (just moved up to under this section) and can be added to article. I see above there may be some discussion of what you consider primary sources which I missed but I don't have energy to try to tease out whether you have a consistent view on this topic, or just one that supports WP:RS that you prefer. So being specific about which sources you consider primary in those two sections would help. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Geolibertarianism WP:RS

Some can be added as links for now. The tags should be removed.

• search on google scholar for term as of today gives you:
  • 31 Reckoning with Rothbard H Kyriazi - American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 2004 - interscience.wiley.com, page 614. *Even for a geo-libertarian, to say that all landlords are robbers is an overstatement. They rob only to the extent that they own (a) more than an equal share of nature's value, and/or (b) more man-made externalities than they create.
  • Right and Left Wings in Libertarianism cscanada.net [PDF]V Sapon, S Robino - Canadian Social Science, 2010 - cscanada.net ... Another current of the “left” libertarians – geolibertarianism or geoanarhism – is presented by a number of scientists working in the field of political philosophy, the most famous of which being Peter Vallentyne, Hillel Steiner and Michael Otsuka. ..
• Books google search as of today gives you:
  • Geolibertarianism: Libertarianism, Georgism, Henry George, Frederic P. Miller, Agnes F. Vandome, John etc - 2010 - 92 pages
  • The Anacostia Diaries - Page 272 by Francwa Sims - 2006 - 287 pages. Most traditional Republicans are moderate fiscal libertarians. Geolibertarianism: Geolibertarians (also called "one- taxers") are fiscal libertarians who believe that land can never be owned, but may be rented.

Who wants to do the work?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

is Murray Rothbard a WP:RS?

Should this work of his be excluded from this page?

http://mises.org/daily/2801 "We must conclude that the question "are libertarians anarchists?" simply cannot be answered on etymological grounds. The vagueness of the term itself is such that the libertarian system would be considered anarchist by some people and archist by others. We must therefore turn to history for enlightenment; here we find that none of the proclaimed anarchist groups correspond to the libertarian position, that even the best of them have unrealistic and socialistic elements in their doctrines. Furthermore, we find that all of the current anarchists are irrational collectivists, and therefore at opposite poles from our position. We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical. On the other hand, it is clear that we are not archists either: we do not believe in establishing a tyrannical central authority that will coerce the noninvasive as well as the invasive. Perhaps, then, we could call ourselves by a new name: nonarchist. Then, when, in the jousting of debate, the inevitable challenge "are you an anarchist?" is heard, we can, for perhaps the first and last time, find ourselves in the luxury of the "middle of the road" and say, "Sir, I am neither an anarchist nor an archist, but am squarely down the nonarchic middle of the road." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkstar1st (talk • contribs) 01:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

you know, DS, I think you fight this the wrong way. it would be much easier to reword things so that they say (for instance): "Libertarians embrace a minimal state (or minarchist) viewpoint to the extent that they have sometimes been labeled as anarchists; a label that Libertarians generally reject." --Ludwigs2 02:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

perhaps, however, the larger point is who decides which of murrays words will be included? if we source him twice in the 1st paragragh, why not allow more of his words? Darkstar1st (talk) 04:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

i'm so glad there's someone else on here who's so enamored with free-market economics that he pretends to be on a first name basis with murray rothbard. have you spoken to friedrich lately? i heard he and ayn were planning a really great party. and milton's coming, too! yea! now about what ludwig was saying earlier, i agree with lew. ... -- 76.14.32.178 (talk) 05:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

well said 76.14.32.178, or do you prefer Mr. .178? Darkstar1st (talk) 09:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The answer is "consensus". Yworo (talk) 05:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

is there consensus to add Murray saying we are not anarchist? is there consensus to re-add an origin of libertarian, Lao-Tzu as attributed on Lao's own page?

Political theorists influenced by Laozi have advocated humility in leadership and a restrained approach to statecraft, either for ethical and pacifist reasons, or for tactical ends. In a different context, various anti-authoritarian movements have embraced the Laozi teachings on the power of the weak. The economist Murray Rothbard suggested that Laozi was the first libertarian, likening Laozi's ideas on government to F.A. Hayek's theory of spontaneous order. James A. Dorn agreed, writing that Laozi, like many 18th century liberals, "argued that minimizing the role of government and letting individuals develop spontaneously would best achieve social and economic harmony." Similarly, the Cato Institute's David Boaz includes passages from the Daodejing in his 1997 book The Libertarian Reader. Darkstar1st (talk) 12:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget Lao Tzu also wrote: "the Dao is always busy / like an bourgeois entrepreneur / ado creating wealth / wealth creating ado / but the dao of competition / is like an inflexible tree / which in its beautiful strength crushes weak reeds / restoring harmony / and peace" Tao Te Ching ch. 38 -- 76.14.32.178 (talk) 06:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

First, it would help if you linked to the diff in question so we can see the quote and the source. But to speak generally, Rothbard evidently was talking about left anarchists. Have you even read the first sentence of the Murray Rothbard article: :::::

Murray Newton Rothbard (March 2, 1926 – January 7, 1995) was an American intellectual, individualist anarchist, author, and economist of the Austrian School who helped define modern libertarianism and popularized a form of free-market anarchism he termed "anarcho-capitalism". Rothbard wrote over twenty books and is considered by some to be "dean of the Austrian School of economics, the founder of libertarianism, and an exemplar of the Old Right". ??

CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Carol i did link the article, did you not see how my post began? "Should this work of his be excluded from this page?

http://mises.org/daily/2801" Darkstar1st (talk) 15:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Asking whether or not an individual is a reliable source is not helpful. What is important is whether the text cited is reliable. Since Rothbard mostly wrote for libertarian publications, rather than academic journals, his writings are best seen as primary sources. The same with Hayek. And Dorn never calls Lao a libertarian, so that source is invalid too. TFD (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

murray is sourced in two of the 1st 5 sources. which is why i am asking how can some of his material from the same exact source/publication/topic not be considered? Darkstar1st (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

We're not dealing with magic fairy dust here: reliable sourcing is context dependent. Rothbard's works are reliable (as a primary sources) for his own theories and beliefs about Libertarianism; those works may be reliable for topics in Libertarianism more generally (depending on the degree to which he is credited as an authority on those topics); there is no reason to believe that his works are reliable sources for information on (say) ancient chinese philosophy. --Ludwigs2 16:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

would you consider the father of anarcho-capitalism(not my term)an authority on whether or not he himself is an anarchist? Darkstar1st (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

<backdent> You have not reminded me of what you want to do about the anarchist quote by linking the diff of where and how you wanted to use it and context is everything. Do that and I can respond sensibly. As for Lao Tsu, it's not important enough for this article, but you might try putting the fact that several libertarians call him the first libertarian article in the Lao Tsu article itself, assuming there's a section for more modern references to him. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Classical libertarianism

i feel the article is better than when i arrived. i corrected the actual person who coined the term, surprising with so much attention that fact was incorrectly attributed and in a translation from French. asking me to contextualize what murray meant when he said "libertarians are in the middle of the road between anarchist, and the opposite archist" is beyond my ability should it not be obvious the man was no anarchist. so using him twice in the 1st 5 sources, then not allowing his rebuke of those labeling libertarians as such, in the very next sentence from one stating some(weasel word) libertarians are anarchist, is beyond my limited reason. i resign. the lao-tzu has contained the reference for some time now, ironically, my addition of murray there met far less resistance, and actually exposed me to supporting opinion of several other published sources, all wp:rs. i maintain the article classical libertarianism should stop automatically redirecting here. instead we could distinguish the majority of practicing libertarians from the past use of the word Darkstar1st (talk) 18:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Books google] shows "classical libertarianism" also is used to describe left/right pro/anti-property groups so you are back to square one. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, many liberals opposed land ownership which they saw as feudal, and M. Thatcher continued this tradition by forcing aristocratic landowners, including the Duke of Westminster, to sell their property to their tenants. The term "capitalism" derives from a word for moveable property. TFD (talk) 22:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I got distracted by a dog jumping up on me for attention and didn't make my point clearly. Meant to write "used to describe left/right pro/anti-property anarchist and minimal state" groups. In other words it too is used to describe a variety of groups so you can't even use that to describe just a pro-property minimal state position, as Darkstar hoped to do. And as we've just see, the left wing is on the march again in the lead which I'll deal with after satisfy this dogs needs! CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

"Yes, many liberals opposed land ownership", tdf are you speaking to classical liberalism, or classical libertarianism? Carol, I am fine with all the terms i have tried to purge from this article showing up in the classical page. this is actually what i had hoped, we could differentiate the classical practice of libertarianism, from the currently practiced libertarianism by the most people. it is my pov, that the vast majority of practicing libertarians today live in the usa, believe in fiscal conservative, socially liberal, small government. I suggest there are very, very few libertarians in the 3rd largest political party in the usa, who believe in socialism. however, do not despair, i have been scared off from editing this page after the threat of a community ban, which no longer appears to be active, and you will not have anymore "meddling" out of me. Darkstar1st (talk) 01:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there a chance that you could have squeezed any more US-centric original research into your rationale above? BigK HeX (talk) 04:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

@ BigK HeX: wp:BEANS. --Ludwigs2 05:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

@bigX do you have any evidence to the contrary? my OR found a Canadian LP, one in new Zealand, and a guy in france who could not get the 500 signatures needed to get on the ballot. I did find one person very fond of Ayn Rand, wp founder Jimmy Wales, and he is no socialist. http://qanda.org/Transcript/?ProgramID=1042 Darkstar1st (talk) 13:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar - you wear you POV on your sleeve, for everyone to see. This is not a problem in and of itself, mind you, but it becomes a problem if you yourself can't see it as a POV and become determined to present it as truth. self-reflection is useful in cases like this, and I highly recommend it. --Ludwigs2 15:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

it may be my point of view, but it is wp pov as well, for pages to have a separate "classical" article. the differences are so vast, the term has morphed into a new understanding, by more people, an assertion with which you seem to disagree. having a battle on a page in the 1st paragraph about a terms meaning is a sure sign a second article is warranted. from your words you i assume you are opposed adding content to the classical libertarian article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkstar1st (talk • contribs) 16:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not inherently opposed to anything - I'm just pointing out that you are clearly pushing a bit for a particular favored ideology. I don't think Libertarianism is really old enough to have a classical period (unless you're going to try to warp classical liberalism into classical libertarianism), and while I am willing to give Rothbard his due (whatever we determine that to be) I do not believe he is the be-all-and-end-all of any particular movement within libertarianism. I think you are exaggerating the internal consistency of Libertarianism; as I keep saying, I think libertarianism is more of a viewpoint than a full-fledged philosophy. but whatever... I'm not going to argue with you about this endlessly, because I think that will be futile. All I'm asking is that you try to keep your personal views constrained by an objective overview of the material. --Ludwigs2 16:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

too young, darn, that would have solved the issue. willing to give due, as you should if including him in 2 of the 1st 5 sources. ironic how his statement about not being an anarchist didn't make the cut. ayn rand said anarcho-capitalist (which carol reminds us he gave birth to)is an oxy-moron. how moronic, yet ironic, the founder of wp is a fan of ayn, yet her comments and murrays on the topic of anarchism, not part of this article. a term i suggest is out of step with the vast majority of practicing libertarians, yet part of the opening paragraph. wp mission to be unbiased, silences it's own creator, how very anarchist indeed. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

<face-palm> A philosopher called Benedetto Croce once observed that politics is inherently aesthetic: Conservatives find the state of the world aesthetically pleasing and are angered over attempts to change it, while liberals find ideals about how the world should be aesthetically pleasing, and are angered that the world does not live up to the ideals. He neglected to mention the rest of us, who find anger in itself aesthetically unpleasing, and wish angry people would get a clue. But then, he was a philosopher, not a psychologist.

in other words, have a nice day! Find a puppy to play with, teach a kid to tie his shoes, sing something mindlessly stupid for a while. Then try this again. --Ludwigs2 17:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

thx for the advice, but managing my 1300 servers keeps me very busy, i leave wp on for kicks.(and my gf has a cat, who likes laser pointers as much as me) i like the ditty by bene, catchy! you dodged the issue though, it ok for murray to be included when he agrees with you, but not when he agrees with ayn. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

since I have no idea when Murray agrees with Ayn, and no interest in whether Murray agrees with me, I can't begin to answer that question. --Ludwigs2 18:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

perhaps the easier question was the original, is he a wp:rs, is so, wouldn't his relevant words on the topic of anarchist fit here? if so, wp:beans, if not, you and i could always continue the debate on whether or not my contributions are helpful. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

<backdent>To respond to a few comments above:

• Re: “US-centric original research” and the globalization tag and lack of info on movement globally. There was a big section another "right" POV warrior deleted early in 2010 which has been on my list to re-include in some form. Raw info at this, one of the last diffs before it was deleted, if someone wants to look at it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
• Just a reminder of Darkstar's POV is his first edit after not editing for six months is his first contribution to this article at this diff which is to complete gut the lead. This, plus the constant POV soapboxing, are very disruptive. In case I haven't made myself clear before :-)
• At this point I don’t know what DarkStar even means by classical libertarianism, right wing or left wing?
• As for Rothbard (who I knew well in the 1980s when he was hanging with libertarian anarchists) on anarchism Darkstar STILL has not show us the DIFF of the change he made (later reverted) that shows exactly HOW he wants to use it and WHAT the source is. Or at least exact verbiage of what he wants to do and the link to the WP:RS. Giving only one without the other as I believe he did above, is a time waster. And has led to a massively long thread full of time wasting Soapbox. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

i sincerely appreciate all you have done for wp and libertarians. i think hanging with murray is great, in January i met dude that created Lotus 1-2-3 and EFF, was the highlight of my vagabond life to date. I actually had to follow him, then the co-founder of twitter, addressing the same crowd. as for the source, i am going to respond to your request for a third time now: http://mises.org/daily/2801 "We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical", MR. add that after the 1st time anarchist is mentioned in the opening paragraph. or perhaps weigh his validity as a libertarian/source, against those who made the claim libertarians are anarchist. or perhaps we investigate the history he thought the anarchist misinterpreted? what i meant by classical, pre-1970, was trying to avoid the left/right so many libertarians reject. are legal drugs, less war and lower taxes left or right? if you call me a time waster again i am going to hold my breath until you take it back. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I took a crack at it. Wasn't sure what to do with all of the Libertarian movements by country .... looks like it would have made the article overly long. BigK HeX (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Lead again after purging of left libertarianism: both sides please avoid WP:Original research, discuss changes here

Again editors have been putting in their own interpretations and leaving existing refs that don't support them. Please don't do that. There was a good six month period of truce between left and right during late 2009, early 2010. But more recent efforts by pro-property libertarians to purge all mention of left libertarianism without working cooperatively to find appropriate refs to the reality that both groups use the term inevitably is bringing a reaction as those who want the left to have its proper role try to edit it and commit their own faux pas in editing. Just preview changes here so we can find language we all agree on. (Second paragraph was problematic but I was too exhausted from dealing with those who want to purge instead of cooperate to comment.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It is Wikipedia convention that every article on liberty has to discuss left/right, english/continental, positive/negative definitions. I am known for missing a word or two when I read, but when I read the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Left/Right libertarians, I see nothing to indicate that left libertarians are against property/ownership rights in general. What the article states is that left libertarians are against private ownership of natural resources (a specific type of economic good). To clarify-- socialists believe in a classical idea of what creates property/ownership rights: one has a right to that which one mixes with ones labor. They just add two addenda to it, that follow the Marxist critique: (1) labor value is based on time spent, not productivity; (2) current, active usage trumps prior usage and ownership. Hence, a capital owner cannot lease, rent, or charge interest for the use of the means of production and other goods because the moment a capital owner lets these items be used by other workers, the workers mix their labor with them and they become the property of the worker. My crtique: The current intro is vague, the word liberty must be used when defining libertarians. Second, 'left' and 'right' are useful terms because they distinguish substantially different attitudes of libertarians toward certain kinds of property (capital and natural resources). Lastly, if some people object to a continuation of a left-right paradigm, maybe 'American' and 'Continental' libertarian schools should replace 'left' and 'right'. However this is resolved it is worthy of mention in the intro paragraph, and worthy of being stated simply and clearly: right libertarians are classical liberals, left-libertarians are socialists. Both agree to extensive protections of the individual from force wielded by the state or other agents Mrdthree (talk) 15:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree well said. American/Continental. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

lol ... "continental libertarianism". We don't make up terminology just because you don't like what is widely used. Phrase has all of TWO hits on Google. BigK HeX (talk) 16:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. We should use the accepted terminology of left and right libertarianism and then just make a note that some libertarians dont like the qualifiers. However I think even that is a misquote; i.e. the left and right to which Harry Browne is referring is the conventional American political spectrum, not left/righ libertarianism which turns on the question of the suitability of natural resources and various other capital for private ownership. Mrdthree (talk) 15:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

some=weasel word. a sure sign of political polyandry. imho, left refers to social policy, and the right fiscal, meaning all libertarians are both. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Just curious. What does political polyandry mean? Mrdthree (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

a term keeping more than one meaning simultaneously. in an attempt to differentiate anarchy from libert'y'arian, i will use myself as a source of the neologism Darkstar1st (talk) 16:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't researched these in details, but have not given up notion that these may be sufficiently notable to be used in this article: See Books google search listing for term anti-property, Books google antiproperty, books google pro-property, anti-property pro-property libertarianism. Just have other more pressing deadlines to deal with. They certainly were discussed freely enough by editors in Archives 13 and 14 til Darkstar challenged the verbiage. Mea culpa for putting bill paying ahead of wikipedia editing. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

there is no book in the list that involves a discussion of pro- and anti- property libertarianism. That is because there are no self-described anti-property libertarians. 'Left' libertarians discuss what is legitimate property and believe in the notion of property. I (and various sources that attempt objectivity) think simplicity is to define left and right libertarianism and leave nuances to the article body.Mrdthree (talk) 10:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I think I am coincidentally pushing the intro back to where it was in March. I think since I didnt write that version, it must reflect some sort of consensus in interpreting sources or meaning. Mrdthree (talk) 10:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The edit summary saying that left libertarians have different views on property obviously made a good point. It seemed like a good consensus when various people made it a few months back, but looking at the list I knew it would be stretching it to put it in here. (Though it would be nice if some major academic wrote some big WP:RS book repeatedly using the terms after checking out my links. ;-) But since already had the links around, what the hey. I just hate the left-right dichotomy since right originally was AUTHoritarian!! Left libertarians at least have staked out the old Liberal ground. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Would you consider taking a voluntary break from editing here Carol?

in the spirit of wp:kumbaya i have removed myself permanently from this article. would you consider taking a short break yourself? you seem very confident your edits are based on solid wp practice, should that be true, they will withstand your absence for a week or so. maybe what is hold us back is us? i have noticed far more progress since i have limited my soapbox to the discussion page. now that others are accusing you of the same, would you be willing to temporarily excuse yourself here? Darkstar1st (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has accused Carol of soapboxing... BigK HeX (talk) 21:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

apologies, you are correct. i was meaning to point out she is getting the same resistance i had to my edits. my experience was after i stopped making the edits, others came in and did what i was trying to accomplish and their work remained, where as my edits would have been reverted. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I like Darkstar1st's recommendation. Maybe those who have been closest to this article over the last 1.5 years should back away for a couple weeks. No single person has all of the answers. Let's all take a break for awhile and see what happens. 71.161.243.67 (talk) 00:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

My problem is I have allowed myself to get dragged into pointless discussions here when I should have been just editing the article. So I've already engaged in far too much of a voluntary break. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

the "Libertarianism and anarchism" section

Does anyone want to translate this section into English while tying it into the subject of the article? I mean really, what the hell does this section say (for those of us who are not tripping on acid)? Sorry for my tone of voice, but I have a hard time believing that this writing was done with any genuine effort at contributing towards clarification of the subject. It reads like the author should be institutionalized. 71.161.243.67 (talk) 00:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

clarification of sources claiming libertarians are anarchist

"Libertarians have a variety of views on natural resources and the size of the State, ranging from pro-property to anti-property (sometimes phrased as "right" versus "left"), and from minarchist to openly anarchist.[6][3][7][8][9]" the sources support anarchist are confusing, is it possible to separate these five sources so we can evaluate which source makes the claim libertarians are anarchist including page numbers and line? Darkstar1st (talk) 14:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Generally, it's not preferred, but if you'd like to suggest a rewrite here ... Go For It. BigK HeX (talk) 15:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

no, i meant, the editor that jumbled up the 5 sources together, please separate them out in the sentence. i have reviewed the sources and cannot find it. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm the editor that "jumbled" the sources. And, no, I don't plan on unjumbling them, because I have little reason to believe that you could actually have reviewed the links available and then honestly say you couldn't find support for anarchist perspectives on libertarianism. I clicked on 3 links, taking me all of about 4 minutes, which resulted in: 1 source that I could not verify, 1 source that offered weak support for the assertion, and then 1 source that was filled with nothing but support for anarchist views on libertarianism. If you didn't really try in earnest to review the sources, please don't post disingenuous challenges here. BigK HeX (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

kudos! thank you for cleaning up your edit. removing unverifiable, weak sources makes wp a better place. perhaps unjumble is a poor term, i meant would you be willing to place the sources individually, inline as needed? Darkstar1st (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

A) I didn't say any of the refs were "unverifiable". I said that *I* could not verify it.

B) I didn't say any of the refs were weak. I said one was a weak support for assertions on anarchism, saying nothing of whether it was strong support for the remainder of the sentence. And, TBH, it's only weak because it required a large amount of the source's context to support the assertion, but it *does* support the assertion, though it may be short on conclusive one-liners for doing so.

Anyways, my answer at the moment is, 'No.' I don't think anyone has presented a legitimate gripe with the specificity of the sourcing as it is now, so I don't plan any changes yet. If someone else wants to play this fun little game, then I applaud them, but I'm not much of a fan of mollifying people who refuse to accept that there are notable perspectives which conflict with their preferred opinion. BigK HeX (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

the suggest sentence makes 7 claims requiring sources. adding all the sources at the end is confusing. i understand you are unable or unwilling to cite which applies where. this is not your job, and your edit is appreciated in its current form. perhaps a more skilled editor than us both will be able to correct the edit.

1. Libertarians have a variety of views on natural resources 2. and the size of the State 3. ranging from pro-property 4. to anti-property 5. (sometimes phrased as "right" versus "left"), 6. and from minarchist 7. to openly anarchist. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

No one may have told you this, but the lead is SUPPOSED to be a condensed version of assertions made in the article. BigK HeX (talk) 16:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

would placing the sources inline uncondense the wording? Darkstar1st (talk) 16:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

"Anarcho-capitalist Murray Rothbard has stated that "Capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism."[94] --- This is an example of a sentence that confuses me, because I cannot understand what this sentence has to do with the subject of the article (i.e., libertarianism). There is no explanation before or after this sentence that explains how it relates. May I go through the article and erase sentences like this, that have no apparent connection to the subject of the article? (Please do not erase my discussion comments, as has been happening). 71.161.243.67 (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC) agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkstar1st (talk • contribs) 19:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

If you don't understand that the sentence explains Rothbard's view on anarcho-capitalism, and that anarcho-capitalism is classified as a libertarian ideology, then it might not be wise to delete material. If you do understand these relationships, then feel free to FIX the material and make the relationships more explicit. If an editor doesn't want to expend the effort to fix the material, then maybe the {{Clarify}} tag is the right tool. BigK HeX (talk) 19:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

" Please name the source that identifies two classes of libertarians based on whether they believe in property rights or not. 137.132.250.7 (talk) 12:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

agree i am in favor of deleting the claim until clarity of sources can be achieved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkstar1st " given murray clearly stated libertarians are not anarchist, and no clear source opposing, delete the text, until correctly sourced. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Socialist Libertarians? LOL How about militaristic pacifists?

A philosophy that supports one perspective, defacto excludes it's antithesis. Thus claims that an article describing a philosophy lacks balance by failing to include a hybrid between the philosophy and its antithesis is frivolous. Tags removed.--99.21.36.80 (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Those including the term Socialist, get there strength from writing hundreds of years old describing the European classical French "libertaire", which I maintain is inappropriately associated with the modern libertarian movement which is very clearly defined in all dictionaries, and all but one encyclopedia, the online user submitted Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The tags are there to further your point, they were placed there by like minds. The section that needs expanding will be deleted if no further material supporting the section is added. The unbalanced tag means it is weighted too far toward socialist for most here, and a few who disagree. I am glad to have a new voice join in this debate, with your help we will fix this page with sources supporting our opinions, and consensus among the major editors of this page. Please make a homepage/user name so others will know your a regular here. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

It would help if people mentioned Which tags they are removing or putting back, ie Unbalanced in the Lead. Guess I'll have to look for references. However, since Libertarian socialism article exists and it's POV to try to get rid of this section. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually it has been tagged for expansion, so unless that requirement is met, it must be deleted no matter the pov. the tags were all removed and all replaced. the editor was confused, not vandalism on his part, simply an error. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Quote attributed to Einstein: "I am not only a pacifist but a militant pacifist. I am willing to fight for peace." Kwiki (talk) 20:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

said the man whose creation incinerated people by the 10's of thousands in a second. a horror unknown to man since the biblical fire and brimstone, or older texts that warn of human caused annihilation. makes me wonder if we have been around this track before.

Einstein did not invent nuclear weapons. 67.173.10.34 (talk) 07:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)Larry Siegel

It was Einstein who convinced Franklin D. Roosevelt to initiate the Manhattan Project with his Einstein–Szilárd letter. Like them or not, Einstein played a pivotal role in the development of nuclear weapons. BlueRobe (talk) 16:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

 Darkstar1st (talk) 21:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

<backdent>Darkstar wrote: Actually it has been tagged for expansion, so unless that requirement is met, it must be deleted no matter the pov. the tags were all removed and all replaced. the editor was confused, not vandalism on his part, simply an error. I am not sure what tags you are talking about. Actually, however, looking at the Libertarian socialism article, I can see there would not be a problem with merging it to left libertarianism section of this article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC) apologies Carol, you are correct. and i agree on merging also. Darkstar1st (talk) 04:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

1. I'm not sure I'm understanding you correctly, but if you're both implying that the entire article Libertarian socialism should be merged into the article Libertarianism as a section, I think that's a terrible idea, for the same reason that integrating the entire Anarchist communism article into the Communism article would be a bad idea. Libertarian socialism is a separate subject in it's own right, as you can see by checking the dozens of sources at the bottom of the article. And the article is far too long too include as a subsection of the already long Libertarianism article.
2. If you are talking about merging it into Left libertarianism, I would also have to disagree, for similar reasons. Just like anarchist communism is a form of communism and anarchism, libertarian socialism is a form of left libertarianism and of socialism. Just as not all communists are anarchist communists, not all left libertarians are socialists.
3. And to whichever author entitled the section "Socialist Libertarians? LOL How about militaristic pacifists", you should look at the history of the word "libertarian", and how most of the world besides the U.S. uses it today. Hint: They aren't usually talking about right-wing capitalists. Libertarian refers to individual freedoms in relation to government and other institutions. Socialist/capitalist are about economic organization. You can have totalitarian socialism or libertarian socialism. And you can have totalitarian capitalism, or libertarian capitalism ... just thought I'd clear that up for you.

Anyhow the articles clearly shouldn't be merged, unless someone can explain why two long articles on clearly separate topics should be integrated into one extremely long article.

--Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with Jrtayloriv. Any such article mergers would be silly. There might be a case for merging the section on libertarian socialism in this article with the section on left libertarianism in this article, but I don't really see what would be gained. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, I was only talking about merging sections in this article, not the two articles. And I figured if no one from Libertarian socialism objected to doing so, that it was a decent compromise. But you have objected with pretty good reasons, so I shall back off my suggestion. Earlier in the year (Before Darkstar or someone with similar views completely destroyed the structure) the section on types was more clearly separated into pro- and anti-property libertarians. The alphabetical listing is just useless for explaining the different shades of libertarianism, but since all the work I did on the first incarnation was blown up I haven't felt like trying again. So the article remains a bit confusing and un-edifying. You might at least consider making it clear how the two differ in the text, if you can find WP:RS that explain. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Carol, it was not me who killed the last intro, but i was certainly in agreement it be changed. And, it was my my cite tag on the redundant listing of the forms of libertarianism, which i still say is incorrectly formated as that section is still not sourced. Why not remove it completely? The sections it announces have been marked as well, as are the main articles for a few of these fringe terms. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Libertarianism is considered WP:FRINGE, so a small and not WP:UNDUE section on the different types can't be much more fringy. I'm going to put in more refs and hopefully you'll stop attacking this article. You are the only person who has every called these subsections fringe. And note that 750 people watch this article, which is high. Please stop trying to impose your will through constant soapboxing as if exhausting other editors with it will help you get your way. It's really verging on WP:Uncivil. Which reminds me it's not too late to change the section title here since insulting other editors and viewpoints and flaming about your POV really is tacky too. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Poppycock Carol, unless you have proof i have insulted anyone, i will hold my breath until you retract your lie. soap noted part 5, thank you, but i have not forgot your objection to my edits. define flaming? since your edit yesterday was made after i placed my tag, i would suggest not only am i helping, but also directing your edits somewhat. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

BTW, i did not create the section title here Carol. i suggest we bury the hatchet. all of my edits have stood, therefore rather than attacking, i am simply editing. i realize we have different views, but is it possible we can be friends at the same time? Darkstar1st (talk) 14:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, sorry for not checking first message in thread to see that AnonIP did the insulting subject line. Anyway, will concentrate on some refs right now. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Carol -- Discussion of libertarianism cannot, by definition, be considered WP:Fringe or WP:Undue in an article on Libertarianism. You should read up on both of those policy articles to understand what they actually mean. Adding several sections about the opinions of various Libertarian groups in the article on, say, Barack Obama would be [[WP::Undue]]. If you picked some random, non-notable libertarian who had very unusual views on something, that differed from the large majority of other libertarians, and then gave them undue weight in the article on libertarianism, that would be a violation of WP:Fringe. Having sections on various forms of libertarianism in the article on libertarianism is neither. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you there should be "sections on various forms of libertarianism" and was making a convoluted/ineffective argument to disagree with Darkstar who seemed to be saying that there should not be. FYI CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Pardon my interjection, but in the United States - in the 21st century - outside the world of political theorists (but inside the world of that 15% of the U.S. population that is said to self-identify as libertarian), "libertarianism" simply means "classical liberalism." (This word-shift is necessitated because the word "liberal" has already been taken by those opposed to classical liberal principles.) Thus "libertarian" has come to mean pro-property, free market, capitalist (but not "right wing," another matter entirely - the right wing, traditionally, defends the king *against* the interests of the enterprising classes and others!). Other, contrasting uses of the word should be placed in their historical context. 67.173.10.34 (talk) 07:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)Larry Siegel

and ford did not invent the auto, but far more died from ford's vehicles than from karl maybach's. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

"An Unfathomable Schism"

"Libertarianism is not a complete moral or aesthetic theory; it is only a political theory"

The thesis: Libertarianism and Anarchism are discretely different subjects and should be divided as such. To conceptually overlap libertarianim and anarchism is an academic act of treason. A lady by the name of Carol is the only obstacle between the majority and the re-edit of this page.Ddd1600 (talk) 22:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Is Libertarianism a philosophy or a philosophy of government? Political theory cannot be associated with anarchism, individual philosophy however, can. Some sort of compromise needs to be made. As it is now, this page insinuates a glaring contradiction between order and disorder itself.

Now that this writer has calmed down. I simply wish to preface my concerns below with my simple, acute albeit nuanced complaint. As it stands, the introduction of this article categorically insinuates an almost contiguous comparison between anarchism and libertarianism. It does this by denoting the spectrum of libertarian thought as going from 'minimal government' to 'anarchist'. This is bad enough, however, the article goes even further in, if I may, absurdity, by using the word "minarchist" as a synonym to 'minimal-government-supporter'. This 'minarchist' term, etymological, basically tells us as a takeaway, that libertarian perspectives go from "kind of anarchist" to "fully anarchist". Do you see the insinuation here? Look again at it, its very subtle, subliminal even. But what it says is that libertarianism and anarchism are synonymous or, at best, contiguous. As a political philosophy (free will is something like power and politics is all about power), libertarianism does not want to decapitate the government. Anarchism, however, does. Do you see? The distinction is so subtle that perhaps the creator of such an absurd analogy didn't even realize it. But it's right there. A glaring, shameless contradiction. A total abdication of rationality and logic. This is about order versus a total lack thereof. Libertarianism doesn't have any problem with order, it simply accentuates individual liberty. Anarchism talks about order the whole time, anarchism wants to get rid of external order (viz. government). Libertarianism does not. Libertarianism simply advocates an internal locus of control and the manifestations thereof, viz. liberty. I have no political interests here, I'm just safeguarding common rationality, or at least trying to. The fulmination below I only keep for posterity.Ddd1600 (talk)

Regardless of citations, Libertarianism as a subject should not be even remotely associated with anarchism. Anarchism is a philosophy advocating a lack of government while libertarianism is a philosophy of government. Regardless of citation, unless, again, wikipedia is willing to admit irrationality and deceptive manipulation into its content, libertarianism and anarchism should be clearly divided into two separate pages. Given that there is no locus of authority with regards to libertarianism, there are abound to be errant academic documents suggesting the association between the two concepts, for example with the introduction of deception hybrid terms like 'minarchism'. In lieu of this absence of centralized authority with regards to libertarianism, the onus of responsibility therefore rests on the shoulders of intelligent citizens like yourselves to think for yourselves, as libertarianism asks of you, and remind young, naive viewers that libertarianism, a philosophy of government, and anarchism, a philosophy which advocates a total lack thereof, have absolutely nothing to do with one another, REGARDLESS of what some quack says, REGARDLESS of where he got his paper published. Wikipedia should not invite irrational contradiction into its content. Government and Anarchism are diametric opposites, and to allow libertarianism, a philosophy of government to be even remotely associated with anarchism is therefore a heinous academic sin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddd1600 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

We go by what sources say, we do not disregard them. See WP:V. Thus I have removed your WP:POV WP:Original Research. And in reality many people calling themselves libertarians do not want any kind of coercive governance, whether they call themselves anarchists or not. Also, your title insults other editors per WP:Civility and you should change it to something more neutral - and shorter. CarolMooreDC (talk) 08:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Feel about my perspective however you'd like. But it is true. Logically speaking, regardless of any academic history of thought, libertarianism is, again, a philosophy of government. Anarchism is a philosophy advocating a total lack thereof. At the very least, the wikipedia article on Libertarianism should highlight this bald contradiction. The contradiction goes the very core of rationality, and severs it through the middle. Libertarianism is a philosophy of government, anarchism is a philosophy advocating a total lack thereof. They are antonyms. It would be equivalent to saying a man is a woman and a woman a man, or black is white and white is black. It is mental. Indeed, I highlight this insanity for no other reason than goodwill and civility itself. Logic transcends academic opinions. This isn't my idea. It was true before I ever said anything. Libertarianism is the diametric opposite of anarchism, categorically. I won't try to change anything else. I simply leave the onus of responsibility on another brave soul who dares challenge arbitrary institutional academic authority for the sake of sanity and truth. There aren't many 'self-evident truths', but this is one of them. No contest. I give up. Somebody pick up the torch.Ddd1600 (talk) 20:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Like Atheism, this article suffers from trying to be about all topics that are referred to by the name of the article, rather than about any single subject. Ddd1600's point is valid, IF you presume a certain meaning of the term and exclude the others. I'm beginning to think more and more that both Libertarianism and Atheism should be dab pages, where each topic referred to as atheism or libertarianism has its own article. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

You know, that's not a bad idea at all. It would be a fairly major undertaking, but the end results could really eliminate a lot of headaches and edit wars. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 21:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

These arguments are made without reference to any WP:RS that say "libertarianism is, again, a philosophy of government. Anarchism is a philosophy advocating a total lack thereof." and plenty that would disagree, especially about the first statement. In wikipedia terms, your statement is WP:Original Research without WP:Reliable sources.

Most WP:RS see Libertarianism as a philosophy of individual liberty with some libertarians thinking government can have a minimal role in protecting liberty and others thinking it always impinges on liberty. Only conservatives who think they are libertarians think that anarchism is not relevant to libertarianism.

'Most' is a "WP:WEASEL word, 'some' is also such a word, as is 'others'. 'Only' and 'always' are extreme terms and 'conservatives' is a divisive word. That having been said, this is not an issue concerning loose analogies. This concerns politics v. free will. Libertarianism as a political philosophy represents a compromise between centralized authority (government) and decentralized authority (individuals/free will), it is not some kind of extremist philosophy which wants to de-root government in general. That is called anarchism. Hence my concern.Ddd1600 (talk)

ALSO: This section title is really obnoxious and WP:Uncivil to other editors and unconstructive as well. I'd appreciate it if the originator cut it back to a few descriptive words without insults to other editors. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The Websters dictionary def. of Libertarianism, Socialism, and Anarchism, should be enough to settle this debate. These terms are clearly at odds which each other. The original use of the word was quite clear, an unfortunate mistranslation years later, is the source of the confusion here, ""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." Darkstar1st (talk) 01:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

YOu just removed Websters as a source when you again gutted the lead. Stanford ref is a neutral reference that points out what all sorts of WP:RS agree on, there are pro and anti property and anarchist and "minarchist" libertarians. I personally am NOT opposed to deleting all but the first sentence of the second paragraph quoting Stanford, however, as something that can go lower in the article. I just hadn't been able to get agreement on that specific change. If you or others don't object, I will remove that. Also, I do think the longstanding section on minarchism and anarchism should be put back, just haven't gotten around to doing anything about it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Minarchism seems to be a word "on the borderline", so to speak. And again, seeing that anarchism is a school of thought which directly concerns itself with power, it is hard to get by saying that it doesn't have much or even anything to do with politics. It does. Libertarianism does not advocate chaos. Or if it does, it advocates a kind of "ordered chaos", anarchism, however, seems to advocate total...well...anarchy. There's something very obvious about my concerns. But its a very nuanced distinction, and I'm certainly not fired up about it anymore. Regardless, something needs to be done. I'll leave it to you folks. This is a delicate issue.Ddd1600 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC).

@Carolmooredc: "Most," "some," etc. can be used as long as you cite a reliable source to back up what you're saying about some, most, etc. members of a given group. @Torchiest: I think that libertarianism should not be a disambiguation page, although we could have a disambiguation page for the less popular meanings of it. Tisane (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

DDD1600 Rewriting old comments and throwing a lot of new stuff in the middle of it is really far too tiring to try to keep track of. Please add such comments to end of list of postings or start a new thread. Where you actually did so, my reply is: You are engaging in WP:SOAPBOX which isn't very helpful.

It also would be helpful if you would not WP:SOAPBOX in the subject lines. You'll be taken more seriously if you don't, and if you cut down your absurdly long ones to size now. Thanks.

As for Tisane's comments, I agree with first and disagree with second. There are enough people interested in libertarian metaphysics who aren't interested in politics to make it worth while. Please see WP:Disambiguation for relevant rules. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Carol, this isn't "writers vs. editors" here, what Wikipedia is is a NEW kind of encyclopedia. Standing behind some artificial web of academic clout is merely an action of evasive rhetorical maneuvering. The fundamental questions here are logical, not much more complicated than that. You responded to this discussion with an attitude, not an argument. To marginalize my commentary as "standing up on a soapbox" is just an inverted euphemism for saying that I am pointing out a glaring contradiction in the wikipedia page for Libertarianism. My comments, like yours, are REACTIVE, not PROACTIVE. Carol, wikipedia is not a traditional encyclopedia. Traditional encyclopedias are not nearly as dynamic as what is going on here. Your marginalizing comments aren't likely to gain as much weight here as they might in a traditionally structured institution. The underlying problem here is this---there are alot of libertarians out there who are likely to be very "upset" that they are being associated with anarchists. The difference is palpable and obvious, whether you are discussing philosophy OR politics, either way, the difference is palpable. Perhaps you've never met a self-described Libertarian. I know many, and none of them would be pleased with the title of 'anarchist', unless it were somewhat of a joke.68.59.4.188 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC).

Just to clarify, whether libertarians are upset about being associated with anarchism has nothing to do with writing this article. Plenty of people are upset about details in Wikipedia articles, but we don't change them to make people happy. The point is, if reliable sources say things that relate to this article, and the sources are important enough, we use them to build the article.

Outside of that, how do you feel about anarcho-capitalism? Don't you think that, just by the name, it's clearly on the anarchy side of things? What other political philosophy could you associate it with besides libertarianism? There's nothing wrong with having your opinions about this, but our opinions about things don't matter. We're trying to create a balanced piece that accurately represents all significant viewpoints on the subject. Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 14:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

@torchiest - You are absolutely right, subjectivity and encyclopedias have nothing to do with one another. Encyclopedias are meant to represent the most unbiased view possible. However, let me point out an, again, glaring, linguistic flaw in your conscientious retort---you say "the subject" as if libertarianism and anarchism are synonymous. To the contrary, they are not synoynmous, but different, subjects. To associate anarchism with libertarianism is to build a bridge between two different subjects. They are not the same. However, libertarianism, staying true to its own intellectual roots, indeed does not have some kind of central leader 'toting its line'. This, however, does not leave the field open for potshots at libertarianism by associating it with a theory that advocates chaos. Chaos and freedom are two different things. Let me repeat, you say "the subject" as if libertarianism and anarchism were analogous. THEY ARE NOT. I hate to be categorical, and would like to think that I am not being assertive, but the distinction is enormous. Anarchism and libertarianism need to be divided. There is an unfathomable schism between the logical cores of the two subjects. Logic, not politics. Logic. Its as simple as that. Freedom and chaos do not have to coincide. Libertarianism, for example, advocates police officers, an army, and a fire department--maybe not socialized healthcare, but nevertheless. There is a difference. And its not going to change. Simple etymology tells us that 'libertarianism' comes from 'liberty', which simply means personal freedom, NOT chaos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.4.188 (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Where did you get the idea that anarchy is synonymous with chaos? Anarchy merely means no government. It's possible to have order without government. And that, I think, is the connection between libertarianism and anarchism — both advocate non-governmental organizing principles, though to different extents. Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 18:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You have highlighted your misunderstanding of libertarianism. Thank you. You say libertarianism advocates non-governmental organizing principles in a way similar to anarchism. This is the hole in your argument. Principles are one thing, form is another. And anarchism and libertarianism differ greatly in their opinions on form. Anarchism advocates that the "form" of government be a total lack thereof. Libertarianism merely advocates smaller government. And you say, "that's what term 'minarchism' is for", etcetera. The nuanced differentiation between libertarianism and anarchism is vast, in fact there is no nuanced differention, it is almost binary. One says "less form" while the other says NO FORM. Perhaps that difference is a small one to you, but it is incredibly significant.68.59.4.188 (talk) 12:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

@torchiest - The etymology of anarchism comes from a Greek word meaning "no leader". The etymology of libertarianism of course comes from "liberty" which means "freedom". Think about it. Individuals can still have freedom even if they're living in a society with a government, viz. with leaders. But that having been said, it is an imperative, according to libertarianism, to minimize the powers of those leaders as much as possible, THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY WANT THE LEADERS TO BE DETHRONED, merely mitigated. Libertarianism strikes a compromise between government and individual liberty, anarchism does not.Ddd1600 (talk) 12:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

<backdent>To put things in a libertarian perspective, joining wikipedia is agreeing (or contracting) to go by certain policies and to only try to change those policies on the relevant policy talk pages. It's not about trying to argue or enforce new policies, not agreed to by others, on talk pages of articles. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Kind of a dubious assertion, for several reasons. (1) There is no EULA users agree to when they edit or create an account, other than that they consent to copyleft their contributions. (2) WP:IAR. (3) Policy is descriptive, not prescriptive, and guidelines are of even weaker force. (4) Some libertarians would say that there is a right to break certain contracts (e.g. slave contracts), if not all contracts. (5) Possession is 9/10ths of the law. Tisane (talk) 15:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

@ torchiest, on anarcho-capitalism: The article sounds like Right Republican rhetoric on economic issues, actually.Ddd1600 (talk)

The term 'anarcho-capitalism' sounds like something coined by a reactionary ideological group/gestalt originally intended to be negative, viz. by someone who did not advocate libertarian perspectives on macroeconomic issues. My purpose, our purpose I think, is to remove such 'borderline'/'marginalizing'/biased perspectives from the proper intermediate channels suitable for an encyclopedia. The term anarcho-capitalism is meant to provoke a loose fear response in the reader's mind---the title itself is on the verge of manipulation.Ddd1600 (talk)

What you think it sounds like doesn't matter. I personally have a very positive association with the term, but that doesn't matter either. Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 18:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. while it may not matter one mans opinion, maybe if the majority consensus is united, we can rid this article of the many distractive conflicting ?political philosophy? that pollute this page. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The easy way to fix this pollution is to categorically differentiate the subjects of 'anarchism' and 'libertarianism'. As this recent movement suggests--it is a simple thesis and a simple solution. The whole of the detritus will be handled by addressing this one issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) by 68.59.4.188

Again, irrelevant without discussing the multiple WP:RS for different uses. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you anon for the current intro, a vast improvement on the past Darkstar1st (talk) 15:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, but Carol changed it back without much of a commentary. It seems to be that she assumes her logic and academic position to be beyond all doubt. She refuses to compromise, and as it stands, is not interested in negotiating or meeting anyone in the middle. Her idea of democracy is an authoritarian and elitist one, not one grounded in reason and sensibility. She stands behind her own opinion as if it were objective.66.153.239.133 (talk) 19:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

agree Darkstar1st (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually I brought some editors here through WP:Original Research Noticeboard who again reverted and did some other work. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The thesis: "Libertarianism" and "anarchism" are distinctly and discretely different subjects and should be separated appropriately as such. The appeal is not one to authority, but rather logical and reasonable consensus on a democratic, user-controlled basis. The appeal to logic is this: libertarianism, in terms of politics, is a political philosophy. Anarchism, in terms of policy, is a negative philosophy advocating a total lack thereof. The contradiction is a priori and hardly debatable. One theory advocates free will but does not deny political establishment, the other advocates the negation and annihilation of government. Libertarianism advocates free will, anarchism advocates the destruction of all forms of government. The appeal to reason is intrinsic. This is not original research. It is a simple, reasonable, appeal to reason, which is not in any way "original". Someone find a citation for this theory, and use it to back up the separation of anarchism and libertarianism, please.66.153.239.133 (talk) 19:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

This WP:Soapbox does not help the editing process. What WP:RS do you have to add. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

CAROL. MAN IS THE SOURCE OF ALL KNOWLEDGE. YOU ARE NOT A SOURCE OF KNOWLEDGE BECAUSE YOU DO NOT ACCEPT THE FACT THAT MAN IS A SOURCE OF ALL KNOWLEDGE. LEARN CAROL. IN NORTH KOREA WE WOULD HAVE ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS. AS IT WERE, WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH YOU. PLEASE GET OUT OF PROGRESS'S WAY. YOU ARE RUINING OUR FUTURE. YOUR DESIRE TO ASSOCIATE ANARCHISM WITH LIBERTARIANISM IS ANTI-PROGRESSIVE TO OUR CAUSE. PLEASE GO AWAY. PLEASE. PLEASE.71.12.74.67 (talk) 01:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Lead weight

Just wanted to start a new sub-section for this, as I'm tired of reading that long section name in edits. I may not have been clear in my previous comments. I don't think the Standford encyclopedic should be completely removed as a source. My biggest concern is that it is used too much in the lead. That didn't mean that I wanted the lead eviscerated. I also suggested to Darkstar1st that he re-organized his remaining objections, so that we can discuss them in a less scatter shot manner. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 12:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you agree specifically with moving For example, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy right libertarians hold that natural resources "may be appropriated by the first person who discovers them, mixes labor with them, or merely claims them—without the consent of others, and with little or no payment to them."[2] Left-libertarians hold "that unappropriated natural resources belong to everyone in some egalitarian manner"[2]; some also oppose other forms of private property. to further down somewhere in the article?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I think combining the remains of that second paragraph with the third would be better. And perhaps a new third paragraph could be written, outlining that there are many different factions that lay claim to the name libertarian, though they have numerous disagreements about details. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 12:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

OK. However, you'd need a WP:RS for words like "factions" and "claim." The reality is many describe selves as libertarian and differ over what that means. The latest being Wayne Root writing a book "Conscience of a Libertarian" when many libertarians consider him a states right conservative. Anti-property libertarians come and go on this article, but you can bet that any time they are cut out for too long they'll be back and there will be another dustup. So best to present their views in NPOV WP:RS fashion, which is what I try to do, even though both sides may disagree :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Carol, where did you find the word "anti-property". No dictionary has this term, nor is it mentioned in the source linked? I am adding a citation tag, and will delete in 7 daysDarkstar1st (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I've already found several book sources that their are anti-property libertarians and pro-property libertarians and will add before that time. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

would you share one of those with us here?Darkstar1st (talk) 18:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, do you consider John Locke Egalitarian? The primary source; Vallentyne, Peter, list him as such in his book on page 2.Darkstar1st (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I am worried some editors have confused the term "property", as meaning only natural resources, such as land and water. Actually, "property" could mean the monitor you are using to read this passage. Therefore, I suggest we remove the terms "pro-property", and "anti-property", which do not exist in any dictionary, or encyclopedia, or in the very source attributed. No libertarian, of any denomination, would claim your monitor, is not your property, according to all published works by or about libertarians. Darkstar1st (talk) 00:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

'Just wanted to ask a lead in question--do any of y'all realize the fundamentally contradictory nature of the concepts of 'anarchism' and 'sane'? That is the only problem here, that word, 'anarchism'. (Rhetorical) Do you have ANY idea of how 'normal people' think?Ddd1600 (talk)

Lead weight 2

I agree, anarchism means no government, libertarians simply wish to reduce the size back to the constitutional mandate. Much of this article deals with the past meaning of the word libertarian, which seems to be opposite of the current form of the word. For the last few decades, Libertarian is a term employed mostly by people in the libertarian party usa. Definitions evolve, i suggest this article should as well. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Torchiest something that made sense: "if the page seems slanted, perhaps it is a reflection of current attitudes about the term. Much of the article seems to include sources by people who have a political philosophy, opposite of the libertarian party. The edits they make here appear to be more about expressing a pov, instead of reflecting the "consensus" view of the term in modern time. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

There is some truth in that; the minarchists have mostly successfully co-opted the term "libertarian," in addition to co-opting most of the organizations that comprise the libertarian movement, such as the LP. But, if libertarianism is defined is such a way as to exclude the anarchist libertarians, then what will the anarchist libertarians call themselves? Will we have an anarchist libertarianism article, or libertarian anarchism article? (Hmm, upon hitting "preview," I see that the second of those is blue-linked...) Also, anarchism is arguably the logical conclusion of libertarian ideas such as the non-aggression principle; if this article is changed to define libertarianism as minarchism, to the exclusion of anarchism, that is kind of like excluding the John Birchers from the article on conservatism. Hard-liners who have been fairly influential/important within the movement belong somewhere in any article on a political viewpoint, just as the moderates do, even if the information presented about them is mostly historical. Tisane (talk) 20:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep your new comments at the bottom, or it gets very confusing. It sounds to me like you have a very negative bias against anarchism, somehow think the idea itself is a bad one, and resent libertarianism being in any way associated with it. Is that correct? Because I don't think anarchism is really all that bad, and I also think there is a clearly a connection between the two concepts, with anarchism being the extreme end of the spectrum of limited government, i.e. no government. I think there are plenty of WP:RSes that state that as well. Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 20:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

As defined by Oxford; ANARCHY "Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder." This just doesn't sound like any libertarian I know. Much effort has been spent on defining the "classic" version of libertarianism, yet the current use of the term does not appear to have the correct weight in this article. People who come to WP seeking to learn what libertarians believe may go away with the wrong ideas. Noam Chomsky, who i deeply respect, identify himself as a left-libertarian, yet no political party or organization exist supporting this term. Libertarian party, is the 3rd largest party in the use with millions of members and a clearly defined platform of less government, lower taxes, personal freedom. Democrats voted against civil rights 2-1, yet the wp article on democrat is not about the racist democrats of the 60's. lets get the commonly accepted version of libertarian the most consensus can build. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Racism within the Democratic Party could surely go in an article about the Democratic Party, or an article about its history, though. I'm not sure how you define a "member" of the LP (the LP itself has changed its definition of an LP member several times; it used to be a dues-paying member, and now I think it means anyone who has ever agreed to the Libertarian Pledge), but there only a few hundreds of thousands of registered Libertarians. And there are probably only a few tens of thousands of dues-paying LP members (exact statistics seem hard to come by). All in all, it's not such a big organization that it dwarfs groups like the Ludwig von Mises Institute, which is pretty influential in academia for an organization of its size. Tisane (talk) 22:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, however, the current democratic party would probably distance itself from those beliefs as I am suggesting libertarians are aligned under the definition provided by most dictionary and encyclopedia entries, other than the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. LP.org, and Von mises both seem to agreed on the beliefs of libertarians. Combined, these 2 do dwarf all other current libertarian voices imho. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the solution is to come up with a history of the definition, noting how the common understanding of the term has changed over time. Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 23:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st, you are aware that LvMI is a pro-anarcho-capitalism organization, right? They are opposed to the Cato Institute and aren't all that happy with the direction the LP is going either. Anyway, it seems to me that libertarianism is an umbrella term that continues to cover both libertarian anarchists and minarchists. The term has been co-opted, but not so thoroughly that we should define it solely in terms of minarchism, although we could say something like "Most libertarians favor limited government" while still acknowledging the anarchist minority. Consider too that Mary Ruwart, an anarchist, almost won the 2008 LP Presidential nomination and that the Dallas Accord was in effect until 2006. As much as the minarchists might like to downplay the anarchist presence in the party, to leave out significant mention of the anarchists would be error by omission. Tisane (talk) 01:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

anarcho-capitalism is a fringe term, even the wp entry is not sourced. Mary Ruwart has no mention of anarchy on her site, or her wp page. Regardless, it is far from socialism, communism, and firmly rooted in private property as stated on the site: http://mises.org/about/3467#conservative. The libertarian page is struggling with the past interpretation (or misinterpretation of the word "libertare" by communist Joseph Déjacque. William Belsham coined the term in opposition to necessitarian/determinist views.) and the current use of the word almost exclusively employed by those in favor of private property, and smaller government. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Ruwart most certainly is an anarchist. Notice that her article about her conversion to anarchism is called "How I Became a Libertarian. Also, the libertarian pledge is arguably an anarchist pledge, depending on what you regard as the "initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals." If you hold government to the same standard as individuals on that matter, then you are arguably an anarchist. Also, what about this line from the 2004 LP platform: "We recognize the right to political secession by political entities, private groups, or individuals."[2] That sounds pretty anarchist to me. As Rothbard said, "Once admit any right of secession whatever, and there is no logical stopping-point short of the right of individual secession, which logically entails anarchism, since then individuals may secede and patronize their own defense agencies, and the State has crumbled."[3] There is no escaping the LP's anarchist past. Tisane ^talk/_stalk 12:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

We seem to be arguing both sides of the coin. My original point was the page seems over weighted toward left-libertarian, libertarian-socialism. Now I will simply say the page appears over-weighted to terms other than libertarian. Perhaps we are making the issue far too complex. Anarchist=no government, Libertarian=small government, Socialist= big government, Communist=bigger government, Fascist=biggest government. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It would probably be more accurate to say libertarian = smaller government. "Smaller government" is in fact part of the motto of the LP, and the concept is also reflected in the Boston Tea Party (political party) platform: "The Boston Tea Party supports reducing the size scope and power of government at all levels and on all issues, and opposes increasing the size, scope and power of government at any level, for any purpose." All that the libertarians agree on is that there should be smaller government, less taxes, and more freedom than we have now; that does not rule out some parts of government continuing to exist or even expanding (e.g. some libertarians support banning abortion), as long as the overall size/scope of government is reduced. Smaller government also does not rule out completely abolishing government, since a nonexistent government would be infinitely smaller than what we have now. The minarchists and anarchists unite for the time being, and will presumably part ways once the size of government has been greatly reduced, with the anarchists continuing on to pursue government's total abolition. Tisane ^talk/_stalk 15:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

No, small is accurate, as smaller to the point of nil, thus anarchy, already has a WP page. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

<backdent>First, Wikipedia is about references, not opinions. If you think there are NOT enough references showing that many free market libertarians, including in the US LP, are anarchists, I can add dozens more. So which references do you challenge? Note a lot of stuff on that was removed (forget by who) that I know I've been too busy/lazy to put back. But it easily can be. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

According to the different definitions of Anarchy, I agree, however, Anarchy has a page, as does Socialism, yet no mention of Libertarian on either of those pages, much less entire sections. My concern is people are associating the most traditional version of the word anarchy with Libertarian: 1. a state of lawlessness, rather then the modern form: 2. each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder). IMHO, those who edit this page with these terms are trying to degrade the term libertarian. It is obvious the the majority of primary sources are far from libertarian, or free market/property rights. I suggest we re-align the term as it is commonly employed today by the most people, leaving room for pre 1970's uses to the "classical" libertarian page Darkstar1st (talk) 13:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Both Anarchy and Anarchism mention anarcho-capitalism/free market anarchism and individualist anarchism. So you are incorrect. Just because you personally are scared of associating anarchism with libertarianism does not mean you can shunt off the many hundreds of thousands of people and the hundreds of WP:RS that link them. Don't forget the LP Platform reads in various parts: "We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual:....Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights... Self-Determination: Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of individual liberty, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, ...Omissions: Our silence about any other particular government law, regulation, ordinance, directive, edict, control, regulatory agency, activity, or machination should not be construed to imply approval." I think the ordinary American would see the LP as a group rotten to the core with anarchists, which it indeed is.

Please stop arguing WP:SOAPBOX over and over and over. It's just becoming WP:Uncivil.CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Carol i said "Anarchy has a page, as does Socialism, yet no mention of Libertarian" not anarcho-whatever Darkstar1st (talk) 14:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

"Whenever any form of government becomes destructive " meaning some form must exist prior. Which I suggest the majority of libertarians support. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Rather than your claim of soapbox, i think i am simply trying to edit this page, to reflect others pages in the same group. specifically removing unnecessary tangents that debase the term. i call it WP:IACarols Darkstar1st (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Concerns about "debasing" the term libertarianism are way off point. We need to focus on examining all the writings on libertarianism, determining how much there is for various hybrid philosophies, and properly weighting the article to match the different amounts of work on the subjects. The article has to balance viewpoints, and there is a large body of work which talks about libertarianism as it relates to anarchism. Why not write up some kind of outline on how you think the article should be structured, and we can compare it to what we already have to determine if the article is truly unbalanced, or if we just need more sources to properly distribute amongst the sections. Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 15:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Well said. Libertarian does relate to anarchism, as socialism relates to communism. Libertarians do support a central government, Anarchist do not. Trying to combine the 2 schools is as confusing as the pro-property, anti-property debate. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Some libertarians support a central government. Communism is arguably a subset of socialism, by the way, much as anarchism is a subset of libertarianism. Remember the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? Tisane ^talk/_stalk 17:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

No, most libertarians support SOME form of central government, anarchist want no central or local government. The USSR was most certainly communist, and I would suggest totalitarian after 1933. Nazi's had the word socialist in their name as well, although few consider them remotely socialist. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hitler was definitely a socialist. To quote Hans-Hermann Hoppe's Democracy: The God that Failed, "democracy has been the fountainhead of every form of socialism: of (European) democratic socialism and (American) liberalism and neo-conservatism as well as of international (Soviet) socialism, (Italian) fascism, and national (Nazi) socialism." See also the National_Socialist_Program#The_25-point_Program_of_the_NSDAP. Sounds pretty socialist to me. Tisane ^talk/_stalk 19:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

That is a fringe source. He also thought that Reagan and the Bushes were socialists. TFD (talk) 19:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The primary source is the name of the party, NAZI, aka "National Socialist. Tisane, what separates a libertarian, who is an anarchist, from an anarchist? Darkstar1st (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

UserDarkstar, please read Wikipedia:Soapbox#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox]. If you do not have anything to add via WP:RS you really are abusing this site and its editors. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Anarchists are the A circle. Libertarians are the B circle. Anarchists who are libertarians are represented by the intersection of the two circles.

Darkstar, logically, there is nothing that separates a libertarian who is an anarchist from an anarchist. Libertarianism and anarchism are not mutually exclusive, but neither does a belief in one imply a belief in the other. There are libertarians who are anarchists, but not all libertarians are anarchists, nor are all anarchists libertarians. If it were a Venn diagram, it would look like the MasterCard logo, with red on one side, blue on the other, and a purple section in between where the two circles intersect. Tisane ^talk/_stalk 01:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Tisane, then logically they are simply anarchist, and not libertarians. We both agree anarchist do not want any government, libertarians do. Carol, I have enjoyed your comments, but must guide my edits by the previously mentioned WP:IACarols. Tisane, what do anarchist who are not libertarian, believe different from libertarians? Darkstar1st (talk) 08:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

There used to be an essay called WP:Ignore all editors, but they got rid of it. Anyway, anarchism refers to the absence of rulers, and some anarchists consider wealthy capitalists, and especially absentee business owners, to be "rulers"; therefore, they advocate expropriating their property and giving it to the workers, so as to eliminate that ruling class.

To be sure, Rothbard wasn't too keen on legitimizing existing titles to private property if said property was obtained through aggression; he brought up the dilemma: "Suppose that libertarian agitation and pressure has escalated to such a point that the government and its various branches are ready to abdicate. But they engineer a cunning ruse. Just before the government of New York state abdicates it passes a law turning over the entire territorial area of New York to become the private property of the Rockefeller family. The Massachusetts legislature does the same for the Kennedy family. And so on for each state. The government could then abdicate and decree the abolition of taxes and coercive legislation, but the victorious libertarians would now be confronted with a dilemma. Do they recognize the new property titles as legitimately private property?"

Rothbard thought such titles should be regarded as invalid, but some anarchists go a step further to say that all interest, rent and profits should be abolished since they are exploitative. Thus, socialistic anarchists would tend to view contracts for interest, rent and profits as being voidable, while libertarian anarchists would probably view intentional breach of such contracts as fraud, which is a form of aggression. In summary, I think the main differences between libertarian anarchists and non-libertarian anarchists are their viewpoints on what property rights are legitimate. Since only legitimate property rights can be legitimately defended through use of defensive force, these differences in philosophy result in different opinions on the circumstances under which violence is justified. Since all political theory comes down to the question of when violence is acceptable, libertarian anarchism and non-libertarian anarchism must be regarded as different political theories. Tisane ^talk/_stalk 16:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, they are different, so why are they included on this page as a form of libertarianism? Also, if a libertarian-anarchist owns property, thus a ruler, what is anarchist about being a ruler? Wouldn't any libertarian who owns property(land, business, shoes) no longer be an anarchist? Darkstar1st (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The theory is that in a free market, your landlords, employers, etc. don't have sovereignty — i.e. supreme dominion, authority or rule — over you (and hence, aren't your rulers) because you have a choice of competing providers of rental property, wages, etc. Likewise, you aren't a ruler over your landlords, employers, etc. because they have a choice of competing providers of rent, labor, etc. Thus, the sovereignty of the consumer frees everyone from rulers. This theory only works if monopolies are indeed impossible in a free market; libertarian theory holds that you will always have a choice of providers, if not for a specific product, then for a more general category of products that will suffice to fulfill the same needs, or at least fulfill them better than would be possible under any other economic system. Tisane ^talk/_stalk 18:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

"anarchists consider wealthy capitalists, and especially absentee business owners, to be "rulers" "your landlords, employers, aren't your rulers" Tisane, i am having trouble following you. "libertarian who is an anarchist from an anarchist", then why not just call him an Anarchist? Carol your soapbox has been noted, several times, thx Darkstar1st (talk) 14:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Please bring WP:Soapbox to personal discussion pages. WP:Soapbox is a policy, not just a fantasy. I only see one Reference up there and it's not WP:RS. Everything else evidently is just your personal opinions - known as [[WP:Original research[[ - which frankly I'm not interested in and I doubt others are either. This is not the kind of discussion that will result in any changes to the article. Thanks for your consideration. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

DarkStar, You left out the word "some," which preceded "anarchists" in the sentence you quoted. The particular subset of anarchists that views capitalists as being rulers would be the part of the "A" circle in the Venn diagram above that does not intersect with the "B" circle. Carol, just keep reminding him of the soapbox rule; hopefully eventually he'll get annoyed enough to say something over-the-top uncivil so we can take this case to the ArbCom and obtain a topic ban. In fact, we can probably already report him to wikiquette alerts on the basis of the IACarols remark, side-splitting though it may have been; that will help establish later that we've exhausted every remedy but the ArbCom. Tisane ^talk/_stalk 14:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

"libertarian anarchists and non-libertarian anarchists are their viewpoints on what property rights are legitimate" Which property rights do libertarian anarchist hold, that anarchist do not? Both of you seem bent on soap, so plz provide a small example so i may avoid repeating Darkstar1st (talk) 14:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, for instance, suppose I build a factory totally with my own money, which I obtained through consensual exchanges with others, and without benefiting from any government subsidies or regulations. Anarcho-capitalists would hold that I have a rightful title to the factory, while non-libertarian anarchists would hold that I am a ruler and an exploiter and that ownership of the factory should be transferred to the workers. As for a factory owned by a government contractor such as Lockheed Martin, the bulk of whose revenues came from money obtained through taxation, the company would arguably not have a rightful title to the factory since it was knowingly purchased with stolen property, and therefore the factory could be homesteaded by others. Such companies could be regarded as merely branches of the government that are private in name only. We're not going to drop the soap anytime soon so don't get your hopes up. Tisane ^talk/_stalk 15:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

So a libertarian anarchist could own a factory, while an anarchist would seize the factory for the workers. Would other anarchist seize the factory from the workers? Darkstar1st (talk) 15:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Presumably, the anarcho-capitalist factory owner would use hired goons to either prevent the factory from being seized to begin with, or to regain control after it had been seized by the workers. I would say that as a practical matter, the capitalist would be in a better financial position than the workers to hire such goons, but some hired goons might also work on a commission or contingency fee basis; for instance, some private military companies have accepted payment in diamonds after helping countries regain control of their diamond mines. But some of those companies also were, as a matter of policy, only willing to work for democratic governments and internationally-recognized liberation factions. No doubt, the prevailing moral standards of the day would play a big role in deciding which policies would be most popular. Since a factory is property like any other, under anarcho-capitalism, it would probably be handled similarly to the wristwatch scenario. To answer your question, yes, some other anarchists might seize the factory from the workers, if they deemed the workers to have an illegitimate claim to it. Tisane ^talk/_stalk 15:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

but the workers do have a legitimate claim, as they do the work. But why would an anarchist honor a claim? Darkstar1st (talk) 15:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

How does their doing the work give them a legitimate claim? The contract that both parties agreed to stipulated that the workers would receive wages, not a factory. Further, it's inefficient to give workers ownership over the factory, because they are not experts in factory management. On the other hand, if the workers appoint a factory manager, rather than making decisions by majority vote, they are right back to a hierarchical system. Either way, now the management of the factory, or the oversight of the factory manager, is subject to all kinds of public choice dilemmas such as rational ignorance that will hinder effective management/oversight. Plus, because the system does not reward wise/productive investors (and in fact punishes them by expropriating their capital), it will be social Darwinism in reverse; the workers who never bothered to make something of themselves will be put in charge of (mis)managing productive resources. Does the phrase "Twentieth Century Motor Factory" have any meaning to you? Tisane ^talk/_stalk 17:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Tisane, thank you for your help. I think now we can all see anarchist produce chaos. There is nothing libertarian about workers seizing factories. Therefore the two words do not belong together in the same sentence. I noticed how you consistently replace the term libertarian anarchist, with anarcho-capitalist. I think the people who coined these terms so many years ago meant the classical libertarian of the french communist, not the modern libertarian movement. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar, you're attacking a straw man; nobody said there was anything libertarian about workers seizing factories, except perhaps if the factory owner obtained the factory through crime, and there was no way to transfer the factory to the victim as restitution; in which case, the factory could be homesteaded by the workers or by anyone else. There are forms of anarchism that are compatible wtih libertarianism and forms that are not. Arguably, minarchism is incompatible with libertarian principles, though; especially the non-aggression principle, since government's existence depends upon taxation, which is a form of aggression. Given your seeming inability to grasp the concept illustrated in the Venn diagram above, in accordance with the instructions on how to win any argument on the Internet, I'm going to have to do the wiki-equivalent of adding you to my block list, by unwatching this page. I call it IADarkstars. Tisane ^talk/_stalk 21:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Great, so libertarian-anarchist is an oxymoron, i start the process for removing anarchist from this article. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

That's not what he said. He was making the distinction, per your request, between libertarian anarchists and non-libertarian anarchists. The libertarian anarchists would not agree with seizing the factory. Compare Anarcho-capitalism (a featured article, no less) with Anarcho-communism. And there is no agreement that anarchy is synonymous with chaos. Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 21:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

@carol : refering to your previous post on this section about "Soapbox"---I would just like to highlight your position. This is a page on libertarianism, on a website created upon democratic albeit acadeic tendencies. Are you asserting that each individual voice is not a source? How much more "statist" could you be? Its as if you had a, I dunno, biased position!68.59.4.188 (talk) 23:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

" Modern anarchists are irrational collectivists, and therefore at opposite poles from Libertarian.[6][dubious – discuss]"-This is a horrible generalisation, and a value judgement-can it be deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.109.10 (talk) 16:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Lead weight 3

(Another subsection to break up the discussion.) Adding my 2 cents for first time here: Libertarianism does not equal — or even include — anarchism. The assertions otherwise — in the lead of this entry — are perhaps the greatest flaw I've seen on Wikipedia in years of regular reading. In fact, this specific flaw has grown notorious among my friends that read Wikipedia. Libertarianism and anarchism are two entirely different concepts. This is something that 99.99% of people would agree upon. To assert otherwise is simply ridiculous and is probably not part of a good-faith argument. 72.79.130.164 (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

agree i suggest the article is being influenced by those who do not libertarian and wish to hurt the movement by distorting the definition of the term. the people burning cars in toronto g20 are being called anarchist by the media, using the term here is not helpful. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I am suggesting that we push to get the individuals responsible for this barred from editing on Wikipedia. They have clearly violated any standard of reasonableness in editing in good faith. They are most likely trying to discredit libertarianism or are possibly playing some game/bet to see how long they can get Wikipedia to say that libertarianism = anarchy, up = down, green = blue, etc. There is no point in arguing with them about libertarianism not equally anarchy, because this is not a subject of reasonable debate. How do we get them barred? 71.161.243.67 (talk) 23:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

there is an easier, faster way. i like to use there own sources against them, example, murray rothbard is used as a source in 2 of the 1st five sources. when i try to insert material from murray where he says, "We must therefore turn to history for enlightenment; here we find that none of the proclaimed anarchist groups correspond to the libertarian position, that even the best of them have unrealistic and socialistic elements in their doctrines. Furthermore, we find that all of the current anarchists are irrational collectivists, and therefore at opposite poles from our position. We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical." they revert my edit. i suggest we continue to search the sources for errors, as well as additional sources supporting the definition as understood by the most people today. perhaps a starting point would be stanford professor peter vallentyne, a person who is given undue weight in this article via the stanford article he wrote which sourced himself 4 times, and his writing partner a few more. an editor here suggest the source is valid as it is "peer-reviewed". however i found glaring errors in his own book which he listed as a source, ex:page 2 he claims john locke is egalitarian. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a good idea (to win with persuasive ideas), but, unfortunately, it won't work here. This "debate" has been going on for at least 1.5 years. This isn't a matter of trying to inform people who are uninformed. Rather, they know crystal clear that what they are doing is totally bogus. In fact, they are probably amused at the scores of people like you who have come on here for years to try to correct the blatant inaccuracy that libertarianism = anarchism. I applaud you for your efforts, but I think it would make more sense to investigate wp:block at this point. 71.161.243.67 (talk) 23:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

There is only one relevant comment in this section about a WP:RS and you don't provide the link to the relevant quote or the context you want to put it in. So I think you'd have trouble proving your point. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of blocking, note that 71.161.243.67 could be blocked for four non-edits in a row made on June 30 just to insult other editors in the edit summary. Don't do it again please, it's a time waster for everyone and WP:UNCIVIL. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Carol, you are lead weight with regards to this subject. Your opinion represents nothing other than the status quo. Have you considered that fact? Your 14,000 edits lend you little credence. Abandon your project with regards to this page. Your un-natural regard for authority alone reveals you as the ANTITHESIS of a libertarian. Go away, you're not providing value here.Ddd1600 (talk) 22:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Please remove your WP:Uncivil WP:Personal Attack comment from the talk page. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a personal issue Carol, its essentially impersonal, objective. The fact is, you don't "add value" to the process on this page. Unless you have constructions or constructive criticism, please refrain from speaking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) by User talk:68.59.4.188

<--Is User:68.59.4.188 the same person as USer:Ddd1600? If so they should edit with only one identity as not to create false impression of two editors editing. In any case User:68.59.4.188 also was being uncivil and should remove his comment. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)