Wikipedia

Talk:Libertarianism/Archive 26

< Talk:Libertarianism
Latest comment: 14 years ago by North8000 in topic Try Moving On and Deceptive Template
Archive 20←Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28→Archive 30

left libertarian is the lessor well known, thus a minority and according to WP:NPOV should not be given as detailed a description or as much

Latest comment: 14 years ago35 comments8 people in discussion

the views of tiny minorities(several of the forms listed qualify as tiny) should not be included at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight this policy is not currently being followed, but has been in the past.

sources confirming LL is minor

  • "...in addition to the better-known version of libertarianism—right-libertarianism—there is also a version known as “left-libertarianism” " stanford encyclopedia of philosophy

In Political Science one can observe various discourses to defining the essence of libertarianism, which are based on (Boaz, 1998) different philosophical approaches to the institutions of central political power (especially the state). Today, interpretations of right-libertarian ideological complex are most popular in the scientific literature and in the popular imagination. Yet, since the middle of 19th century – the concept of libertarianism had been used in a left political context, and only in 1950s its right ideological context use came into fashion...

"came into fashion means majority Darkstar1st (talk) 20:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
No it doesn't, it means "came into fashion". We don't get to interpret sources. Yworo (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
You did read the following sentence, right? siafu (talk) 20:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
You mean "Consequently, the term and its derivatives in the left ideological context had been widely used in the West over the past century and a half." I guess that means we can just move this down into the opposed section? "Widely used" means we can move this into the "sources confirming LL is not a minor use" section. Yworo (talk) 21:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
"Left ideological context" does not mean left-libertarianism! Right-libertarianism is arguably in the "left-ideological context" too. Left-libertarianism is the very specific ideology in which the right of individuals to own property is not recognized. That's not what "libertarianism" has ever referred to (and why it should not be in this article). --Born2cycle (talk) 22:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
You said "That's not what 'libertarianism' has ever referred to". That's a clear misrepresentation and not helpful. Yworo (talk) 22:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, well, I'm still waiting for someone to cite even a single specific instance of a source referring specifically to property-rights-denying left-libertarianism as "libertarianism" in any variety of English, and even from any time period. Until someone produces such a source, I will continue claiming that libertarianism has never been used in reliable sources to refer specifically to a property-rights-denying political ideology. And that's an important point. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Is libertarianism of the Left or of the Right? We often avoid this question with a resounding “Neither!” Given how these terms are used today, this response is understandable. But it is unsatisfying when viewed historically.

In fact, libertarianism is planted squarely on the Left, as I will try to demonstrate here.

Another source copied from below up to here because it has no reference to property-rights-denying left-libertarianism whatsoever; it refers exclusively to pro-property-rights libertarianism, which is "right-libertarianism". --Born2cycle (talk) 22:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

sources confirming LL is not a minor use

Darkstar1st (talk) 18:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Sure.

Sources that support the opposite moved up to other section. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, folks, please don't edit my posts and move sections to other places. It's against our policy for how we interact on discussion pages, and, frankly, not nice. If you disagree they say what they say, say so, maybe you'll convince me. If you want to put your own copies in other places per your interpretation, go ahead. But please don't edit what I wrote. I put them where I intend them to go. Thanks. --GRuban (talk) 21:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought this was a special section for listing sources editable by the community, not an ordinary signed comment section. My bad. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

In Political Science one can observe various discourses to defining the essence of libertarianism, which are based on (Boaz, 1998) different philosophical approaches to the institutions of central political power (especially the state). Today, interpretations of right-libertarian ideological complex are most popular in the scientific literature and in the popular imagination. Yet, since the middle of 19th century – the concept of libertarianism had been used in a left political context, and only in 1950s its right ideological context use came into fashion...

Is libertarianism of the Left or of the Right? We often avoid this question with a resounding “Neither!” Given how these terms are used today, this response is understandable. But it is unsatisfying when viewed historically.

In fact, libertarianism is planted squarely on the Left, as I will try to demonstrate here.

Here again libertarianism is used to refer to a political ideology that understands property rights, but opposes corporatism (just like Ron Paul). This is quintessential mainstream (right) libertarianism.

Here's a hint, if the ideology the source is talking about is referenced as libertarianism, and not as left-libertarianism or libertarian socialism, then it's referring to pro-property-rights right-libertarianism. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Good enough? Of course I don't know if Canada and the UK qualify as sufficiently English speaking countries... :-) --GRuban (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
neither does not support LL being the majority Darkstar1st (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Good enough? Of course I don't know if Canada and the UK qualify as sufficiently English speaking countries... :-) --GRuban (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, the Canadian one (Sapon/Robino) is problematic because the original language is French, and the translations to libertarian/liberal from the French approximate equals is at least questionable. At any rate, it's not a great source because of that. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
There's no indication on the page linked to that the original language was French. The fact that the page has the abstract in both languages does not mean anything, as bilingual publication is extremely common in Canada (in fact mandated by law in many cases). The publication is apparently bilingual and the source text is in English; a French version does not seem to be available. siafu (talk) 20:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Wow, I thought I was joking! You're serious that you think Canada is not an English speaking country? And when a Canadian says Libertarian he doesn't necessarily mean what this article is about? Frankly I'm amazed. If you want to write an article about Libertarianism in the United States, go ahead. But this is not that article. --GRuban (talk) 21:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, there's Canada, and there's Quebec (in which the population is "predominately French speaking" and "the official language is French").

Have you read it? It's obviously either translated from French or written by someone who is not a native English speaker. Normally that would not be an issue, but when the topic is how a particular term is used in English, it's quite relevant, especially considering they translate French liberalisme to libertarianism, and socialisme libertaire to libertarian socialism. Again, with respect to seeing how libertarianism is used in English, or what libertarianism means in English, this is simply no better than a source from a Paris university that was translated to English. Regardless, the content of the text supports the other view anyway.--Born2cycle (talk) 22:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I read a bit of it, and read quite a bit like any other publication in English in the social sciences. The two authors are not obviously French, the text is not in French (though they provide a French-language abstract), and barring any particular reason beyond your personal belief, I don't see any reason to believe it was originally written in any other language than English. The translations you're citing are in the abstract; they could just as easily be mistakes made when translating into French. This argument is not going to go precisely nowhere.
Moreover, that article specifically states: "Yet, since the middle of 19th century – the concept of libertarianism had been used in a left political context..." i.e., people used this word to mean more than just right-libertarianism. This is, as far as I can tell, evidence enough to warrant inclusion of other left and centrist libertarian understandings in this article. I can, in fact, see no benefit whatsoever from excluding them. I wonder if perhaps you believe that including these other definitions would mean presenting libertarianism as a predominantly left-wing movement or somesuch. This is not the case. siafu (talk) 23:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Okay, I read over Lester, and it's very interesting that you brought this here, because it definitely demonstrates the opposite. All uses of libertarianism in this piece about whether "libertarianism" is "left-wing" or "right-wing" refer to the ideology of right-libertarianism (a.k.a. Classical liberalism). Note this comment: "In figure 2, libertarians and classical liberals then find themselves in the top right-hand corner." The "top-right hand corner" includes a ration of 10 on his "property choice" axis, a right-libertarian position. Left libertarianism or libertarian socialism is not even considered, by name, implication or inference. The whole point here is that this is usage of libertarianism (and note that this is a British, not U.S., source) synonymous with right-libertarianism is very typical. At any rate, that source should be moved up to the section above, as it supports the notion that LL is a minority use of the term. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)   Done

this is rubbish

The only sources which can determine due proportion are global demographic or survey data. "Less well known" does not imply "minor" and "minor" does not imply "tiny". The entire premise of this post and its suggested methodology is completely bogus, and thus it is soapboxing. Counting sources is meaningless. Someone please collapse it. Yworo (talk) 19:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

i am seeking a single source to refute the sep, before i proceed with aligning the article to meet wp standards, not a list please define the "methodology" being used here and how the sep is bogus? Darkstar1st (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I will say that the applicability of WP:DUE here at all is tenuous because that policy addresses what proportion of an article about a presumably controversial topic should be devoted to each viewpoint about that controversy. And that's not what's going on here. That is, we are not talking about views in support of or against the subject of this article. However, I think it's worth discussing since several people have cited WP:DUE in various contexts as if it is applicable here. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
SEp is my source, as well as WP:NPOV, either describe which of the 5 sections in the soapbox you are accusing my of violating, or strike your accusation. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Those are not sources. TFD (talk) 20:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Presuming that we are advocating following the results of the last RFC, the two operative statments by the close were:
"Libertarianism" should be broadly construed to include all significant viewpoints from reliable sources."
"Although all variants should properly be described on this page, the weight given to various viewpoints should depend on their weight in reliable sources. This includes the weight in the lead, which should summurise the article, and reflect the weight given to various ideas in the article. Concepts that are only briefly mentioned in the article need not be mentioned in the lead. still following the results"
This discussion is absolutely germane to and in line with implementing that North8000 (talk) 20:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:Undue is only relevant issue now

The RfC's have resolved the issue of keeping in a mention of various forms of libertarianism and not just focusing on one. On Sept 8 I presented this content analysis of neutral, right and left content in the article. There three times as much right as left. I don't think it's changed that much since then. Individuals who thought there was too much left were invited to ad more right. The main thing I remember them adding was a WP:OR/synth (or maybe just really poor summary) of two sources which was presented in such a way to misrepresent the material as a quote. Anyway, this section seems to be yet another example of disruptive editing. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of Topic or Scope during the period 1 October 2010 - 1 April 2011
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I challenge the notion that the RfC's have resolved "the issue of keeping in a mention of various forms of libertarianism and not just focusing on one". If nothing else, WP:CONSENSUS changes. But, also, the latest RfC is barely a day old and has had hardly any input from a previously anyone not previously involved here. Not to mention that that proposal was never meant to be an RfC, and was not written to be one. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I want to add that one of the reasons I believe consensus is particularly likely to change here is because we still obviously have a big misunderstanding about how libertarianism is used in the sources. For example, in the section above someone listed three sources as supposed support for left-libertarianism not being in the minority, and yet two of them (Lester, Richman) are actually quintessential examples of the term libertarianism being used to refer to the pro-property-rights political ideology of individual liberty... right-libertarianism, while the third (Sapon) clearly states that right-libertarianism is "most popular". --Born2cycle (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Yaaaawn. Ceaseless repetition does not make it so. "Most popular" is not a justification for limiting the scope of the article. Your inability to understand that you've completely lost your argument is getting exceedingly tedious. Yworo (talk) 23:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Some editors here believe WP:DUE applies to the question of content scope; in fact, they justify not excluding left libertarianism from this article based on WP:DUE. Well, WP:DUE is about representing "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint". Therefore, editors are obligated to determine prominence of viewpoints among reliable sources to determine promince of coverage in the article, and "Most popular" is relevant to making such a determination. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Mediation status

Latest comment: 14 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

Since the bot removed the thread, thought I’d put up a short version of our status, including couple relevant comments. Despite best efforts of some editors here to be very informal mediators, we probably still need more formal mediation here.

  • Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-08-02/Libertarianism informal mediation request and various discussions here.
  • Note one informal mediator dropped out because s/he was too busy.
  • I'd recommend formal mediation, if we're going to deal with content. The acerbic disputes over deciding content (or perhaps more accurately, over getting editors to accept decisions over content) will be difficult to rein in using an informal approach. BigK HeX (talk) 14:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • If someone wants to request formal mediation, they still can go for it, given lack of new formal mediator.
  • Currently while we're waiting for informal mediation and seeing if anyone wants to take initiative to request formal mediation, the article has become fully protected. Go to this {{editprotected}} link to learn how to use the tag to propose any non-controversial or consensus-based changes to the article, and an admin will come along and make the edit. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
How bout this three sentence mediation: Everybody who wants to exclude strands based on philosophies being too disparate stop those efforts for a month in exchange for we all try to implement the operative comments of the RFC closer. Basically, vett strands for significance s based on RS's, and weight coverage based on wp:due/undue. Also try to develop a big picture summary (probably based on common tenets) in the lead or overview. North8000 (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Keeping editors working within wikipedia policy is why we need a mediator, since obviously having trouble making it happen. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
It needs more than that. It needs a meeting of the minds, and then policies, sources etc. to guide the implementation. Without that, policies are a method of warfare, not a solution to it. Have you EVER seen a war settled by policies? Just saying that, not saying that we don't need a mediator. North8000 (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
The policies are pretty good at encouraging consensus, if they are followed. However, if people "ignore or refuse to answer good faith questions" by mischaracterizing the questioning as disruption, which is against policy, however, then WP:CONSENSUS is much harder to achieve. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Of course I see and agree with your point. But what you are describing is(mis)using policies as methods of warfare. Of course, that is the more clever and difficult-to-stop way to conduct warfare in Wikipedia. At the granular level, the policies are imperfect enough to be abused. The workaround in Wikipedia (when it works) is consensus-based application of the based on both their granular-level wording plus spirit and intent. Hence MY point. Policies alone are not enough, and, in fact, can be mis-used to make the situation worse. A meeting of the minds in needed. North8000 (talk) 00:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Policies would ideally be enough. That's why we can change and evolve them when they fail. But starting with WP:AGF it's pretty difficult to really war while adhering to the rules. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
You seem to do it pretty well. Yworo (talk) 00:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not at war with you or anyone else, Yworo, though if that's your impression it explains much. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Really? I was suggesting that you can change and evolve. But if you think you're warring, I'm sure you're right. Yworo (talk) 04:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Pointless discussion

Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
Discussion of topic or scope between 1 October 2010 and 1 April 2011
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

We have just had numerous RfCs about this topic and now Darkstar1st (who has asked me not to contact him on his talk page, which I consider to be immature), has brought up the topic again. However he has never presented any sources and my suggestion is to ignore his contributions unless he provides sources and argues from policy. TFD (talk) 00:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's get into the nitty-gritty details of writing the article and ignore the bleating of those who haven't yet figured out that they've lost their arguments due to the fact that those arguments are simply unconvincing. Yworo (talk) 00:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Re: "asked me not to contact him on his talk page"... Huh. The I-word you're talking about seems to be contagious. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
That's a personal attack. Please redact it. Yworo (talk) 00:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
It would be an embarrassment if readers came to this article and found that libertarianism was a synonym for the modern far right. TFD (talk) 01:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Just so. Yworo (talk) 01:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Sure would, though I'm curious as to what prompted you to say this. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: remove all references to any ideology never referred to as just "libertarianism" without qualification in English WP:RS

Latest comment: 14 years ago94 comments15 people in discussion

We have reliable sources in English that refer to so-called "right libertarianism" as just "libertarianism" without qualification, starting with Boaz (quoted in intro of article) and the Encyclopedia Brittanica.

However, we have no reliable sources in English that refer to the ideologies known as libertarian socialism or left libertarianism as just libertarianism, unqualified.

Therefore, presuming the continued absence of presentation of any such sources, I hereby propose that all references to Libertarian socialism and Left libertarianism in the article named Libertarianism be removed, except maybe in a hat note at the top of the article. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

  1. Bevir, Mark. Encyclopedia of Political Theory. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications, 2010. page 811;
  2. Vallentyne, Peter (September 5, 2002). "Libertarianism". In Edward N. Zalta (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2009 ed.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Retrieved March 5, 2010. in addition to the better-known version of libertarianism—right-libertarianism—there is also a version known as 'left-libertarianism' {{cite encyclopedia}}: Check date values in: |year= / |date= mismatch (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help);
  3. Christiano, Thomas, and John P. Christman. Contemporary Debates in Political Philosophy. Contemporary debates in philosophy, 11. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. page 121;
  4. Lawrence C. Becker, Charlotte B. Becker. Encyclopedia of ethics, Volume 3 Encyclopedia of Ethics, Charlotte B. Becker, ISBN , page 1562;
  5. Paul, Ellen F. Liberalism: Old and New. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007. page 187; and
  6. Sapon, Vladimir; Robino, Sam (2010). "Right and Left Wings in Libertarianism". Canadian Social Science. 5 (6).
  7. Roderick T. Long, "Towards a Libertarian Theory of Class," Social Philosophy and Policy 15:2 1998, 303-349: 304-308.BigK HeX (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Note the absence of any actual reference to any sources that actually refers to LS or LL as "THE SAME libertarianism" as RL. Speaking of ridiculous; if they were THE SAME, there would be need for the THE DIFFERENT labels. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Ummm ... absence of sources? Not really. You beat me by a little bit, but it just took an 20 extra seconds to fish them out for the zillionth. I think your last challenge to the sources was to attack the (obviously-English) Sapon&Robino source with the speculation that it may have been translated from a different language. BigK HeX (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Nothing in the above list refutes my claim.

Note the absence of any actual quotes (i.e., text) that uses just the term libertarianism, unqualified, to refer specifically to the ideologies in question -- Libertarian socialism and Left libertarianism. Note, also (since Libertarian redirects here) that you will find myriads of references to right-libertarians like David Boaz and Murray Rothbard as "libertarians" in reliable sources (I'm presuming no one disputes that, but I can provide any number of sources for that if requested), but there are no references in English reliable sources to libertarian socialists like Noam Chomsky as just "libertarians", unqualified. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

No one is proposing "stripping well-sourced viewpoints from the article". This is a proposal to strip references to any specific ideology that is never referred to as as just "libertarianism", unqualified, in an article about "libertarianism". --Born2cycle (talk) 19:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Same difference. Yworo (talk) 19:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy pretty clearly refers to left-libertarianism as a "version" of libertarianism. john k (talk) 20:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment Born2, I think that your proposal is logically sound, but it goes right to the heart of the most un-solveable dispute here, and may not be the only way to make this a good article. Any chance you would set this aside for a while and see if we can make progress on getting a better article without that change? North8000 (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Support This short youtube video of Chomsky comparing the different meanings of the word "libertarianism" supports the conclusion that we're talking about very different ideologies...Chomsky on Libertarianism. Chomsky's discussion is as confusing as this current article...and for the exactly the same reasons. Organizing articles by labels rather than tenets is completely illogical and the result is confusion and conflict. The solution is simply to rely on the disambiguation page to direct people to the meaning that they are interested in learning about. --Xerographica (talk) 20:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment have you really listened to that. He states what traditional libertarianism is and goes on to state that the views of libertarianism in the US are "perverse" and opposed to traditional libertarianism. Yworo (talk) 20:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
    • If anything, that argues that the article should take an historical pov, start with what libertarianism was from the Enlightenment until now, with a distinct section on the changes which came about primarily in the US starting the the 1950s. Yworo (talk) 20:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Changes? Look over the long history of libertarian thought that I outlined in my scope of government section and please let me know what the major changes have been. Herbert Spencer and David Boaz and everybody in between all agree as to what the bare minimum scope of government should be. Chomsky combined the socialist and anarchist traditions while Rothbard combined the anarchist and capitalist traditions to create new political ideologies. Comparing their ideologies to libertarianism is a suitable topic for a new article but is clearly outside the scope of the libertarian tradition. --Xerographica (talk) 21:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Clarifying Comment John K (and others), there is no dispute about the existence of uses of "libertarianism" in English reliable sources in a broad sense to refer to the category or collection of specific ideologies that uphold individual liberty to some significant degree. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy referring to "left-libertarianism" as a "variant of libertarianism" is an example of that.

    What's at issue here is whether the term libertarianism, in isolation, without qualification, is ever used to refer in a specific (non general/broad) sense to any specific ideology other than "right libertarianism".

    The basis of this proposal is that libertarianism is never used in English reliable sources to refer to the specific ideologies exclusively known as "libertarian socialism" and "left libertarianism", which are never referred to specifically as just "libertarianism", without qualification. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

    • OTOH, there are no sources referring to right-libertarianism just as libertarianism prior to 1950 or outside the United States. Seems to me that the period from the Enlightenment to 1950 shouldn't be ignored in favor of a view only 60 years old. Yworo (talk) 20:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't really understand why that is what is "at issue". "Libertarianism" can refer just to right-libertarianism, but it can also refer to the whole nexus of ideologies that describe themselves as "Libertarian." If it could not, then the Stanford article on libertarianism would not mention left-libertarianism. john k (talk) 21:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
It's only "at issue" because born2cycle thinks this article should only promote the views of the US Libertarian Party. It's pretty much been a long-standing political attack on this article and its scope. Yworo (talk) 21:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
That's false, and was addressed refuted here. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
A link to a thread heavily derailed by BlueRobe's soapboxing isn't exactly helpful. What is it we're supposed to see in there? BigK HeX (talk) 21:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
"He never chooses an opinion; he just wears whatever happens to be in style." --Leo Tolstoy. Yworo (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
The opening comment of that section provides examples of usage of the terms libertarianism or libertarian referring to right-libertarianism from the UK and Australia thus refuting the contention that the use of libertarianism to refer to right-libertarianism is specific to the U.S. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Examples are just that. They can indicate that something needs to be included, but can never be definitive with respect to exclusion. Yworo (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
The examples show that the use of libertarianism, unqualified, to refer to right-libertarianism, is not exclusive to the U.S. Libertarian Party or the U.S. Yes, I believe the topic of this article should be the specific political ideology espoused by the U.S. LP, but I also believe the topic of this article should be the specific political ideology espoused by the primary libertarian organizations of the U.K. and Australia, which is the same ideology! By characterizing my view only in terms of the U.S. LP you are unfairly implying the existence of a U.S. centric bias in my position that is simply not there. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Close, but not quite, John. My contention is that libertarian socialism and left libertarianism never describe themselves as just "Libertarian", unqualified. That is, libertarianism can mean one of two things, either "right libertarianism", or the broad category of ideologies that are based on individual liberty, but it alone unqualified never refers specifically to "libertarian socialism" or "left libertarianism". Therefore, anyone typing in just "libertarianism" is highly unlikely to be looking specifically for libertarian socialism. That leaves the question of whether they are most likely to be looking for the broad category or the specific ideology of right libertarianism. I suggest you google "libertarianism", at books, UK, AUS, scholar as well as in general, and then tell us what you think... Because that's what this is about. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
So, it is ACKNOWLEDGED that the ideological concept of "libertarianism" is used in reliable sources to encompass versions such as "left libertarianism" ...? If so, then what in the world could be the Wikipedia policy basis for this proposal??? BigK HeX (talk) 21:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
There is no policy that addresses appropriate scope of an article. However, there is plenty of precedent, including Christianity which excludes Mormonism even though Christianity (in a broad sense) encompasses Mormonism. Where is the WP policy basis for that limitation in scope? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Umm .... policy most certainly addresses scope. WP:DUE requires us to describe understandings that are prominent in reliable sources. What is NOT addressed by policy is this arbitrary idea to strip from the LIBERTRAINISM article these prominent understandings of the political ideology of LIBERTARIANISM based on their more-specific names. Try as I might, I really can't fathom a single way to understand this proposal, other than as a means of POV pushing. BigK HeX (talk) 21:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I can see that you're trying to understand the proposal, and I appreciate that.

WP:DUE does not address scope, it presupposes scope. That is, no matter how valid a viewpoint about bicycles might be, no one is going to suggest content about that belongs in this article because it is clearly out of scope. What WP:DUE addresses is whether certain opinions about the topic belong in the article; that the content in question is within the scope of the topic is presumed.

I admit that content about libertarian socialism is not nearly as clearly out of scope for this article is as content about bicycles, but that's just a difference in degree. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no presupposition in WP:DUE. If reliable sources hold a prominent viewpoint that bicycles are an integral part of libertarian ideology, then bicycles would fall within the scope. If it seems that editors are not finding Libertarian socialism to be "as clearly out of scope" for the Libertarianism article, it might well be because, by-and-large, editors have voiced their opinion that Libertarian socialism is NOT out-of-scope of the libertarianism article, and that is based on an analysis of the reliable sources presented. BigK HeX (talk) 21:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
BigK, WP:DUE does not deal with what the scope of the article encompasses (that is how broad or narrow in scope it should be), but, rather, whether a given opinion about the article topic (which is presupposed to be known) should or should not be included in the article. That's very different.

The example they give is about whether the concept that the earth is flat should be included in the article about Earth. They say "no" not because it's "out of scope", but because "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all" (though sufficiently notable to warrant its own article at Flat Earth). --Born2cycle (talk) 22:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Correction. Although not specifically addressed as "scope", arguably WP:CFORK deals with scope. So, another way to characterize this proposal is to fork this article in a way that is not a content fork. For example, "Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another. This does not make either of the two articles a content fork. ". Except, I suggest that if the fork is done there will not be a significant amount of information in common with one another.

In fact, the dearth of common material that the supposed "daughter articles" of this article, right-libertarianism and libertarian socialism, have with each other, clearly shows that they are distinct topics and should not be covered in one article. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's 85 sources discussing traditional libertarianism, a qualifier that is only necessary because right-libertarianism is the odd man out that monopolizes the conversation, pretty much like you are doing. Yworo (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Not sure what your point is . Most of those references to "traditional libertarianism" are to Libertarianism (metaphysics), which everyone agrees is out of scope here. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
That was quick and not accurate. Adding "-metaphysics" still yields 81 results and adding "-philosophy" still yields 71 results. Adding both still yields 68 results. So clearly the bulk of the results do not refer to Libertarianism (metaphysics). Yworo (talk) 22:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Okay, but I still don't understand your point.

Would like your answer to the question I pose at #Cat when you get a chance. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Strong Oppose, and these constant attempts by one faction to try and claim ownership of a word are becoming really tedious --Snowded TALK 22:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. The proposal is a policy violation. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources. While English sources are preferred if you can find them, if you can't find them, non-English sources are perfectly fine. This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, and Libertarianism is not a philosophy that only exists in English. --GRuban (talk) 22:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your input. This proposal does not suggest that non-English sources not be used as sources for article content that is within scope, which would be a policy violation. The proposal does suggest that non-English sources not be used to determine what the term "Libertarianism" means in English for the process of determining article scope. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
      • You're welcome. I'm afraid, however, that my objection still stands, as does that of our policy. What the term means is a rather crucial part of the article about the term, so you're clearly proposing excluding those sources to determine article content. This article is about Libertarianism, the philosophy, which is a concept that exists independent of language. It is not about "Usage of the word Libertarianism in English"; that would be the scope of a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. --GRuban (talk) 18:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is the third time this RfC has occurred in a short period of time. Born2cycle obviously ignores what other editors write and is wasting peoples' time. TFD (talk) 23:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
    • How many comments do I have to address in ways that obviously show I'm reading and understanding what they're saying, and asking questions in the few cases when I don't understand, to prove that I'm not ignoring what any other editor writes? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
      • How long is it going to take you to figure out that we get what you are saying and strongly disgree with it? Yworo (talk) 23:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
        • As long as you (plural) argue that my position is U.S. centric or is a violation of WP:DUE and/or WP:NPOV, then there can be no question that you're not getting what I'm saying. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
          • Then obviously you are very poor at expressing yourself. Yworo (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
          • Perhaps it's because you said "just as this article should associate the topic of this article with the political ideology of the U.S. Libertarian Party" in this comment. Maybe you didn't mean to be quite so explicit about your agenda? Well, the cat's been out of the bag since then. I don't see how you are going to get it back in. Yworo (talk) 00:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
            • You've taken that phrase out of the context of the sentence and paragraph in which it is made. Here is the entire sentence, slightly paraphrased to include context from the end of the previous sentence: "Yet the article at Conservatism never-the-less correctly associates the topic of that article with the political ideology of the U.S Republican party, just as this article should associate the topic of this article with the political ideology of the U.S. Libertarian Party". That is, the article at Conservatism, even though it associates its topic with the political ideology of the U.S Republican party, never-the-less covers Conservatism from a global perspective; it is "restricted" to the ideology of the U.S. Republican party because there is little significant difference between the non-U.S. and U.S. meanings. Similarly, the article at Libertarianism could and should associate its topic with the political ideology of the U.S Libertarian party, for essentially the same reasons (the party represents a huge faction of adherents to the ideology), and it could so without being U.S. centric, because the common meaning of term libertarianism globally in English today is synonymous with the ideology of US LP.

              In other words, there is no reason to de-associate Libertarianism from the ideology of the U.S. Libertarian Party just as there is no reason to de-associate Conservatism from the ideology of the Republican Party.

              This example of your taking my phrase out of context and thus misunderstanding what I was saying is why I believe you still don't get it. You can't blame me for not understanding what I'm saying because you're interpreting my words out of the context in which they were made. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

              • You see, I don't believe that the Conservatism (article) "associates the topic of that article with the political ideology of the U.S Republican party", correctly or not. Or that if it does, it's something that should be corrected. So the first part of your statement is ignorable rhetoric. As is the second part. Yworo (talk) 00:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose The fact that there isn't a quote provided that uses the term in the sense that it has been coopted in modern times does not stand as a reason to strip out relevant and valid information about ideologies that are closely related, and were labelled interchangeably in the past. The idea that because people here in America say "Libertarian" meaning the modern flavor of American right-wing libertarianism (a la Ron Paul) does not mean that wikipedia should do so as well. This seems so patently obvious to me that I have hard time even understanding the couterargument as anything but an attempt to push an agenda. siafu (talk) 03:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Does it seem as patently obvious to you that just because the term cat is usually used to refer to the domestic cat and much less often to a lion, that doesn't mean that lions should be excluded from the article at Cat? Well, lions are excluded from the article at Cat. There is no obligation on editors to include every use of a term, modern or historical, in the article whose name happens to be that term. What editors are obligated to do is present material in articles named by a given term that is in accordance with actual modern use of that term. See WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. And Cat. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
      • The word "cat" has never had the general sense that you seeem to be implying; the primary meaning of the word in English has always been the domesticated animal. You can, in fact, learn this very bit of information in the Nomenclature and Etymology section in the article cat. Libertarianism, as a term, has historically been a blanket term for a set of ideologies centered around personal liberty, both left- and right-wing, and it is still used in this sense in much of the English-speaking world. Just because the discourse in the United States has adopted a narrower definition does not mean that wikipedia should do the same. See, for example, the articles on Liberalism and Conservatism, both of which have different historical and non-American meanings that are thoroughly explored in the articles. siafu (talk) 15:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
        • On the contrary, according to definition 1b of cat at m-w.com: a cat can be "any of a family (Felidae) of carnivorous usually solitary and nocturnal mammals (as the domestic cat, lion, tiger, leopard, jaguar, cougar, wildcat, lynx, and cheetah)" --Born2cycle (talk) 00:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- Each time this has been brought up, the result has been the same: libertarian socialism and other forms of left-libertarianism, as well as anarcho-capitalism are considered by reliable sources to be forms of libertarian thought, and will be included in the article. Please stop being disruptive -- the consensus is clearly against this proposal, and it would be better if we could spend our time working on the article, rather than wasting our time rehashing something we've already made a decision on recently. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Some indication that you've at least skimmed the arguments here, much less given them serious thought before responding, would make it easier to not discount your vote/comment for not taking into account the stated arguments. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose The very concept just "libertarianism" without qualification is itself WP:Original research. I have never seen such a concerted attack on an article, even by arch-Zionists trying to smear anti-Zionists as anti-Semites, so I really have to wonder about the origins of this extreme partisanship, now that we are working on the third RfC in a month on more or less the same topic (plus of course the two requests for move). CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose: By my count there have been five previous votes on this same basic question, all within just the last few weeks. I think we need less voting and more constructive suggestions to improve the article. Iota (talk) 21:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposal Discussion

Cat

It has been brought to my attention that the analogy of Christianity (because it excludes Mormonism even though in the broad sense Christianity includes Mormonism) does not work because that article in fact does include Mormonism (as Church of the Latter Day Saints). Oops, and sorry about that!

So, then, I refer you instead to Cat, which, like libertarianism, has broad (the entire cat family; all political philosophies that value individual liberty) and narrow (the domestic cat, "right libertarianism) meanings in English. I suggest that the percentage of reliable sources about "cat" that use the broad sense of the word is higher than the percentage of reliable sources about "libertarianism" that use the broad sense of the word (just google both words and you'll see), yet the scope of the topic at Cat is still only limited to the specific topic of the domestic cat. Is that a violation of WP:DUE or WP:NPOV? Of course not! If limiting the scope of that article to the domestic cat is not a denial of the "viewpoints" that see lions as a variety of cat, then why is limiting the scope of this article to right libertarianism a denial of the viewpoints that see "libertarian socialism" as a variety of libertarianism? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Because libertarianism has a long tradition dating back to the Enlightenment. What you call "libertarian socialism" is more in line with what was originally meant by the word. So-called "right libertarianism" is the new kid on the block, dating from the 1950s. By restricting the article to it, the whole history of libertarianism has to be thrown out. In fact, maybe we should exclude right-libertarianism from the article and you could go create a separate article on it. If anything, right-libertarianism is the "Mormonism" of libertarianism. Yworo (talk) 23:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
"By restricting the article to it, the whole history of libertarianism has to be thrown out." By that logic, by restricting the article at Cat to the topic of the domestic cat, the whole existence of the feline family has to be thrown out. Surely that's not what you think, is it? Then why is restricting this article to right-libertarianism mean the whole history of the use of the term has to be thrown out?

Nothing is being thrown out in either case. It's a matter of what does the respective term usually refer to in modern common English usage. In the case of cat, it usually refers to the domestic cat, rather than the broader meaning which encompasses lions and tigers, and so the scope of that article is limited to that. In the case of libertarianism, it usually refers to "right libertarianism", rather than to the broader usage (and never to the specific ideology of "libertarian socialism" - google libertarianism and see how many pages you have to sift through before you can find even one instance of the use of the term "libertarian" or "libertarian socialism" in a secondary source to refer to a "libertarian socialist" or "libertarian socialism" respectively. Let me know if you can find one, and how many pages in it is.

By the way, I agree what was meant by the term prior to the 1950s (really prior to the 1970s, if talking about overall usage in English) was something different than right-libertarianism. But the term itself was very obscure in English. In fact, it didn't enter the mainstream at all until even more recently than that. I remember as recently as the 80s respectable news sources often incorrectly referred to Lyndon LaRouche as a libertarian.

But if this is a WP:RECENTISM concern, the definition of "recent" applies more to a much more, well, recent definition of recent, stuff like Avatar. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to debate logic with you. While I'm sure your position seems logical to you, it seems completely illogical to me. If we are going to use logic, my logic is definitely superior to yours. How about some sources? Yworo (talk) 00:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
How about some sources for what? What kind of sources are required to exclude the topic of lions from the article named Cat? The only purpose of sources in such questions of article scope is how the term in question is used in sources; with what frequency to mean what. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
If you want an article that is limited to right-libertarianism, then you can find that at: Right libertarianism. The article at Libertarianism is certain to include all of the prominent understandings. BigK HeX (talk) 00:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Now we're getting somewhere. Of course.

But, here's the point. An article limited to the topic of the domestic cat could be at Domestic cat rather than at Cat. The reason that it's at Cat is because when the term is used in English today it's much more likely being used to refer to the domestic cat than to the family of cats. Similarly, the reason that the article at Libertarianism should be restricted to right-libertarianism is because when the term is used in English today it's much more likely being used to refer to the ideology of right-libertarianism than to refer to any other meaning, including to the family of individual liberty ideologies (the broad sense). --Born2cycle (talk) 00:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Most likely, you presume an awful lot in that explanation. It's highly doubtful that you participated in the discussion on the article naming at Cat. I'm not sure why you think your speculation on the decisions at Cat would be persuasive. BigK HeX (talk) 00:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Huh? How have I speculated about the decisions at Cat at all? --Born2cycle (talk) 00:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Born2cycle, stop wasting my time. Talk about sources, not your personal views. TFD (talk) 00:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Did you participate in any of the naming convention or move proposals related to Cat or Felidae? BigK HeX (talk) 00:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't recall ever being involved in any of those discussions, though if I was I would have supported having the scope of the article at Cat limited to the primary topic of "cat", per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC - which is the domestic cat. It's the same reason I think the topic of this article should be limited to "right libertarianism" - per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.

TFD, I'm not talking about my personal views. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

In fact, there was a move proposal at Cat, here. Arguments are very familiar... --Born2cycle (talk) 01:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Well ... you're free to review the arguments at this move proposal for the article at hand. BigK HeX (talk) 01:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Why are we talking about possible conventions at Cat instead of the conventions of similar articles (Conservatism, Socialism, etc)? This really seems like reaching. BigK HeX (talk) 01:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I assume this is a discussion of the proposal based on the WP:OR assumption about "just libertarianism" and not some new topic. Please clarify that in your first sentence, or make proper paragraphing if it's a different section. (One which doesn't contain any WP:RS.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Carol, to whom are you speaking about what? --Born2cycle (talk) 05:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
BigK, the reason we're talking about Cat here is because some have argued, including you (please correct me if I misunderstood or oversimplified), that since there are reliable sources for varieties of related uses of the term "libertarianism", then the article named "Libertarianism" must cover those uses, or its a violation of WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. If that's true, then the same reasoning should apply to other articles with names that could refer to multiple related uses, like Cat. But it doesn't. Why? Why doesn't the answer to that question apply here?

As to other articles about political ideologies, there are no reliable sources that support the notion for any of those terms that some particular use is better known than other uses. There is for libertarianism... and that's right-libertarianism (if anyone needs actual cites for that, let me know, but it's stated and cited in the article). Nothing like that is true about any of the other political ideologies. That's why, in that sense, Libertarianism is more like Cat than it is like Conservatism, Liberalism, Socialism, etc. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

General warning regarding disruption

Further attempts in the next six months to dispute the topic and coverage of this article will be taken to WP:AN/I as disruption. The community of editors has clearly and repeatedly discussed this topic and reached a consensus position. The continual contesting of such a consensus has the effect of disrupting the encyclopaedia. Editors should also feel free to collapse such disruptive discussion during the next six months, rather than bringing the matter to WP:AN/I. The purpose of this general warning is to prevent disruption; not to prevent editorial opinion. In six months time considered editorial opinion on topic and coverage, backed up by policy and reliable sources, will be considered as normal. WEIGHTing discussions, backed by RS, are fine: they don't go to topic or coverage, but to extent and focus of coverage. WEIGHTing discussions haven't been disruptive. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll back you up on this. Was ready to do it two weeks ago, but side tracked by various admin moves against the worst offenders. But it still has not stopped the general behavior by other editors, making it difficult to discuss very specific issues related to policy without it degenerating into another WP:Soapbox fest in favor of deleting all but one form of libertarianism from the article. This behavior will make it necessary to keep this article locked in its current form forever, policy violations and all. So let's give it til maybe next Wednesday and revisit the issue, perhaps with a consensus complaint this time since these scattershot complaints that keep missing the main points obviously have not been effective. Perhaps draft on on one of your talk pages and ask those who generally agree to comment.CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I also intend to participate in this enforcement. BigK HeX (talk) 08:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I apologize for any disruption that the above proposal seems to have caused, but never intended for it to be an RfC or any kind of big deal. I did want to see what regulars here thought about that particular reasoning. I've achieved that goal and plan to incorporate it into the ongoing project at /scope, which I do plan on having an RfC for when it is completed. I anticipate that to be weeks if not months away, as I announced back when I started it. --Born2cycle (talk) 14:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Dear Born2cycle, warnings do not apply to things which happened before they were issued!  :). This editorial group needs to cycle through a low and slow phase concentrating on sourcing first and foremost. As your /scope page and my work on a bibliography indicates, the Talk: page isn't working right now to provide the Reliable Source background to debate. Given that sourcing projects take considerable time, revisiting debates—some of us would like to see closed for the moment—in six months is no great problem for the encyclopaedic project, because eventually we'll all get it right at the end of the day. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Discussion of Topic or Scope during the period 1 October 2010 - 1 April 2011
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I don't think it's unreasonably disruptive for me to continue to seek at least an indication of understanding about one particular point relative to the issue of scope and reliable sources. I'm not necessarily seeking agreement on this point, but at least a reasonable explanation for why there is disagreement, so we can agree to disagree. That point is the one I just tried to make (again) yesterday above at #Cat. As long as people keep repeating that having the article at Libertarianism limited in scope to right-libertarianism violates some kind of policy (WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, WP:RS, etc.), that's an indication that they are not understanding this particular point, much less explaining why they disagree with it.

In particular, if someone can explain why their argument that the article at Libertarianism must cover libertarian socialism because there are reliable sources about "libertarianism" that do so, but the same argument does not mean that the article at Cat must cover lions because there are reliable sources about "cat" that do so, and does not mean that the article at Bicycle must cover three wheeled human powered devices because there are reliable sources that do so, then progress can be made on this issue.

That is, any policy-based argument based on libertarianism being a term having several related but distinct varieties as supported by reliable sources, including a broad sense and a more commonly used more specific sense, should not apply to just this article, but to any article named with a term having several related but distinct varieties, including a broad sense and more commonly used more specific sense. Both Cat and Bicycle meet this description, yet no one promoting the policy-based argument seems to be willing to say that those articles are improperly scoped per the same argument. So, what gives? Unless I missed something (which I doubt), this has not been done. So, again, I'm sorry if my efforts here have been disruptive, but I'm really just trying to understand the basis for the policy-based objection here.

Progress could also be made if those objecting to limiting scope would concede that the reality is that there is no explicit policy-based argument supporting either side. However, I do think there is a scope guideline implied by the spirit of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which explains why Cat excludes lions and Bicycle does not cover three-wheeled human-powered devices despite reliable sources existing that clearly include those concepts as varieties of the respective topic. What I don't understand is why the same reasoning does not mean that Libertarianism need not, if not should not, cover libertarian socialism. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

1) Yes, it's disruptive.
2) Because the consensus from multiple RfCs is to do so. Yworo (talk) 17:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
  1. Why? How?
  2. "When editors cannot reach agreement by editing, the process of finding a consensus is continued by discussion on the relevant talk pages." WP:CONSENSUS

    "Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and one must realize that such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for accepting or rejecting proposals or actions. While past "extensive discussions" can guide editors on what influenced a past consensus, editors need to re-examine each proposal on its own merits, and determine afresh whether consensus either has or has not changed." WP:TALKEDABOUTIT.

  3. You know, progress towards WP:CONSENSUS can be made in talk page discussion when good faith points and questions raised by the other (see my previous post above) are not ignored (see yours), but addressed and answered. ("All editors are expected to make a good-faith effort to reach a consensus that is aligned with Wikipedia's principles." - WP:CONSENSUS)

    Contrast the stonewalling/dodging demonstrated here (again), which I suggest is at the core of what is highly disruptive on this talk page (because progress cannot be made when one side is not continuing to make a good-faith effort to reach a consensus), with the much more reasonable and progress-making discussion I'm having with User:John K on his talk page.

    If you have nothing constructive (working towards understanding/consensus) to add to a given discussion, I suggest not contributing. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Your last sentence is quite uncivil. Yes, consensus can change. But multiple RfCs on this very issue over several months have indicated that change in this particular case is quite unlikely. Please read WP:TEDIOUS which applies to your persistent behavior and may ultimately lead to administrative action if persisted in. Yworo (talk) 17:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
The only thing I see that might arguably apply to me at WP:TEDIOUS is this: "You find yourself repeating the same argument over and over again, without persuading people.". However, the remedy for that is exactly what I'm doing: "If your arguments are rejected, bring better arguments, don’t simply repeat the same ones. And most importantly, examine your argument carefully, in light of what others have said. " That's exactly what I'm doing... see my long post above from this morning, the one you ignored and cited as an example of being disruptive. Is there anything else at [WP:TEDIOUS]] that you think applies to my behavior?

You might consider this part of it: "You ignore or refuse to answer good faith questions from other editors.". (see above). In that light, here's a good faith question for you: can you please address the points I made above in the 17:03 post? Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing. My answer is, I believe you are abusing WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to promote your own opinions. Your use of it doesn't follow good logic or the standard Wikipedian interpretation or use of the guideline. As I said before, I'm not going to argue against clearly deficient logic. Please stop wasting our time. Good day. Yworo (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. A couple of follow-ups.
  1. The alleged deficiency in the logic I presented in that post is not clear to me, even though my profession depends on my ability to think logically - software engineer. Perhaps I'm missing something. What exactly is "clearly deficient" in the logic presented in that post?
  2. What, if anything, do you believe justifies limiting the scope to a more commonly used specific interpretation of the respective term rather than to cover a more broad use of the term at articles like Cat (which does not cover lions and tigers even though they are "cats" in some reliable sources) and Bicycle (does not cover three-wheeled human powered devices even though they are considered to be "bicycles" in some authoritative reliable sources)? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I've supported that last RFC close, even though there were numerous problems with the process. However I see no progress towards the closer's operative statements, specifically starting to review the other strands to see if they are "significant, based on RS's" (otherwise not included) implementing weights based on wp:due / wp:undue. I.E. NEITHER "side" is following it. If we can't start making such progress, I could see many folks wanting to re-open it. North8000 (talk) 18:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


Merge discussion

Latest comment: 14 years ago17 comments9 people in discussion

Propose merging Libertarianism (disambiguation) into Libertarianism.

Libertarianism (disambiguation) is unnecessary because it should only be used when there is no main article, i.e., if there were no Libertarianism article and Libertarianism redirected to the disambiguation page. TFD (talk) 14:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

RE: Libertarianism (metaphysics) -- Since the only two meanings of the word are the political theories and the metaphysical concept, I think it would be sufficient to mention the metaphysics article in a hatnote in the political theory article (which is the primary topic). There is no need for the disambiguation page. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Do you agree there is no link to the type of libertarian I just described above? If not, what is that article? Anyone? --Born2cycle (talk) 05:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm really not understanding what you think is missing. Is Libertarian conservatism or Right-libertarianism what you were looking for? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
AgreeI think Born2 is pointing out that this article is such a mess that it is missing coverage of one of the main tenets overwhelmingly held by Libertarians (individual property rights) as such. I.E. that this article (currently) is in too bad of a shape to fulfill the role of a summary article. I agree that this article is such a disaster, but think that structurally the idea proposed by TFD and supported by Yworo and Jrtayloriv is a good one. North8000 (talk) 10:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Jrtayloriv there is no article about the political philosophy that all prominent libertarians, including Ron Paul and Murray Rothbard, for example, and which all those categories refer to, share in common. --Born2cycle (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Is right libertarianism what you are looking for? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 14:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
No, because Right-libertarianism is a sub-category of the main libertarianism I'm talking about. It excludes libertarians like Rothbard and Rose Wilder Lane. Mainstream libertarianism - the libertarianism that all the Wikipedia libertarian categories have in common - amounts to advocacy of individual liberty including recognition of property rights. Not this article, nor any other article, is about that political philosophy.

It should also be noted that there are no prominent individuals or organizations of "left-libertarianism" or "libertarian socialism" who are referred to as being libertarian (e.g., they are not listed in any of the WP libertarian categories), which is why I'm a proponent of turning this article into being the one about mainstream libertarianism. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Disagree Wikipedia guidelines allow a separate disambiguation page even when a main article exists. (See Dog (disambiguation) for example.) We should consider, is the term in question also used to refer to other meanings that are distinct from what is described on the main page? To me, the current disambiguation page appears to describe such usages. LK (talk) 11:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
You make many good points. It's just that we seem to be doing the same thing in two different places. The article includes any philosophy with the "Libertarian" in its name, including many of those on the disambiguation page. Right now the article is an incoherent mess, but one route would be for it to explain those other strands that it includes. And I think that the other strands have some tenets in common (even though folks seem to be trying to prevent those from getting covered) with the prevalent forms of Libertarianism. Also the "Libertarian" article redirects to the "Libertarianism" article whihc points more toward it needing to be a broad article on Libertarianism, sor of a "disambiguation article" North8000 (talk) 13:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Disagree. This article is not the main article for all senses of the word, notably the non-political philosophical sense meaning "belief in free will". However, the notion of "civil libertarianism" (that is, support for civil liberties) is also distinct. The disambiguation page is useful. --FOo (talk) 13:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
For better or for worse, I think that this article is the top level article for all things Libertarian. Even "Libertarian" redirects here, and there are no other general Libertarian articles. North8000 (talk) 15:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Latest comment: 14 years ago32 comments6 people in discussion

Does the CNT (National Confederation of Labour) belong in this article about libertarianism?

Comments from uninvolved users

I'm thus-far uninvolved. I've avoided getting involved because I'm a self-declared anarchist, and I'm hesitant to edit in an area where my editing might be compromised by my own point-of-view. I believe participation in this "pre-RFC" is OK, as regular editors can take or leave what I say, and I don't intend to edit the article in the future. My view is that libertarianism springs from 19th century anarchism, has historically been associated with the left, and in the past 50 years has also been associated with the right. I take no view on whether popular association is right or wrong - I'm sceptical about left and right as labels. I regard the CNT as a libertarian organisation, both historically and in the present day. I believe it is significant with respect to this article as it was, at one time, the largest-ever libertarian organisation, with a membership of over 1.5 million - 4-5 times larger than the present-day US Libertarian Party. However, I believe it is wrong to focus solely on the CNT, which is, after all, "merely" a trade union. Rather, I believe that the CNT should be viewed as part of a wider Spanish libertarian movement that has, at times, included organisations such as the FAI, Libertarian Youth ("FIJL") and Mujeres Libres ("Free Women").

My goal here is to focus on references that describe the CNT et al as "libertarian". For that reason the prose is in terse note form, and the references are verbose.

Britannica: Britannica's entry on "Libertarianism (politics)" states that libertarians' "distrust of government is rooted in 19th-century anarchism."[tfowr 1]

Murray Bookchin: writes about the CNT during their "heroic years, 1868-1936",[tfowr 2][tfowr 3] describing them as "libertarian". In a 2005 book he compares the CNT's libertarianism with libertarian organisation elsewhere in Europe, and considers the effectiveness of the CNT in educating its recruits.[tfowr 4][tfowr 5][tfowr 6][tfowr 7][tfowr 8]

Stanley Payne considers the CNT's success in creating a libertarian movement in Andalusia, and comments on the CNT's insistence that the Spanish revolution "must be of a libertarian type".[tfowr 9][tfowr 10]

Preston and Mackenzie continue the "CNT as libertarian organisation" theme.[tfowr 11] Interestingly, they also look at the FAI's relationship to libertarianism, suggesting that the FAI promoted individualism implicitly within the CNT and explicitly within the wider libertarian movement.[tfowr 12]

Ackelsberg considers the relation of Mujeres Libres with the CNT and the wider libertarian movement.[tfowr 13] Ackelsberg notes that Mujeres Libres weren't merely "the women's section" of the CNT or the FAI, but established themselves as full-members of the libertarian movement.[tfowr 14] At the same time, Ackelsberg notes the importance of the libertarian movement to Mujeres Libres.[tfowr 15]

So far I've looked at how contemporary commentators describe the CNT and its sister organisations during the early part of the 20th century - particularly during the Social Revolution and Civil War in Spain. Stuart Christie encountered the CNT et al in the late 1960s, when he attempted to assassinate Franco. Christie - writing in 2003 - describes the reunification of the Spanish/Iberian libertarian movement.[tfowr 16]

So there we have it. A small cross-section of five contemporary writers, writing in English, and using the term "libertarian" to describe the CNT and its sister organisations, both before and during the Spanish Revolution, and as recently as the 1960s. Now, I'm not saying that this article should become a hagiography for the CNT. It shouldn't. I'm not even saying that the CNT should dominate the article, or even that so-called "left-libertarianism" should push out "right-libertarianism". It shouldn't. But there's a real danger, I believe, that this article might re-create libertarianism as right-libertarianism. As other editors have noted, we already have articles about left- and right-libertarianism. This article needs to provide an overview, and it should, I believe, mention the major organisations within the history of libertarianism. The CNT was at one time the largest libertarian organisation in the world. It has yet to be surpassed. TFOWR 17:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Without praise or condemnation for the assertions above, I think it just has to be said that in-depth discussion of the viewpoints from reliable sources blows away 90% of the personal viewpoints that this talk page has seen in recent months. Posts like this, while not expected as the norm, certainly do stand as shining models for how a viewpoint can be presented. BigK HeX (talk) 18:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Click here for TWOFR's excellent list of citations to accompany his above post. (Note: You may have to click "Show" here before the citation hyperlinks from his above post will work correctly)

References

Notes
  1. ^ "Encyclopaedia Britannica entry on "Libertarianism (politics)"". Libertarians believe that individuals should have complete freedom of action, provided their actions do not infringe on the freedom of others. Libertarianism’s distrust of government is rooted in 19th-century anarchism.
  2. ^ (Bookchin 1998, pp. 167) In Moscow he [Angel Pestana] he was courted by Zinoviev and Losovsky, but he soon began to sense the enormous gap that existed between the libertarian ideals of his movement [CNT] and the authoritarian practices of the Bolsheviks.
  3. ^ (Bookchin 1998, pp. 182) Besides trafficking in thousands of weapons, operating a grenade foundary, and staging carefully planned "actions," they were a source of considerable funds for various libertarian projects.
  4. ^ (Bookchin 2005, pp. 102) Unlike the relatively stable mass social democratic parties that flourished elsewhere, mass libertarian organizations in Spain gave rise to a seething and fecund radical political culture, one that was unparalleled in the rest of Europe.
  5. ^ (Bookchin 2005, pp. 103) This firm commitment to organization was a striking feature of the Spanish libertarian movement and was unparalleled in any other libertarian movement; it goes some way towards explaining Spanish libertarian organisations became relatively large and effective.
  6. ^ (Bookchin 2005, pp. 110) Nor was the CNT always able to convince its recruits that a libertarian society should be their goal.
  7. ^ (Bookchin 2005, pp. 111) Whether anarchism and syndicalism could exist within the same movement - even a libertarian one - was not at all clear....Indeed, the history of Spanish libertarian organization was one of continual fracturing and division among its major wings.
  8. ^ (Bookchin 2005, pp. 113) In other parts of Europe libertarian ideas rarely developed a mass following; their supporters were confined mainly to small, scattered groups.
  9. ^ (Payne 2006, pp. 21) In western Andalusia, where anarchism gained considerable backing, the lower middle classes and workers of the towns had from the mid-nineteenth century been attracted to a radical republicanism that was highly individualistic, egalitarian, and anti-clerical, creating an environmentpropitious for a libertarian movement among the working classes. Moreover, Andalusian anarchists did not appeal merely to the most immiserated but also to a somewhat broader cross-section of society.
  10. ^ (Payne 2006, pp. 209) By contrast with the persistent Marxist-Leninist prophecies of caballeristas, Communists, and POUMists, CNT spokesmen always insisted that "the Spanish revolution must be of a libertarian type."
  11. ^ (Preston & Mackenzie 1996, pp. 137) While these early anarchist pioneers succeeded in spreading their message and establishing a movement and a culture that could survive, or at least endure, state repression, Spanish libertarian theory remained weak. In response to the relative poverty of indigenous anarchist theory, SPanish libertarians borrowed heavily from wider European intellectual trends, both from anarchist sources and the radicalized middle class.
  12. ^ (Preston & Mackenzie 1996, pp. 151) While it would be a gross caricature to suggest that the FAI eschewed collective mobilizations - an unlikely scenario given their standing inside the CNT - as I have shown elsewhere, the faistas were the architects of an immense outpouring of individualism within the libertarian movement.
  13. ^ (Ackelsberg 1991, pp. 177) Given Mujeres Libres' dual commitment to education and activism, we might expect it to have been welcomed with open arms by the CNT and FAI, its "brother" organizations in the libertarian movement.
  14. ^ (Ackelsberg 1991, pp. 183) Mujeres Libres identified itself ideologically with the goals and methods of the CNT and the FAI. At the same time, it jealously guarded its autonomy. Its initiators chose "Mujeres Libres" (free women), rather than "Mujeres Libertarian" (libertarian women), as its name, for example, to make clear that it had ideological connections to the libertarian movement, but was not a subsiduary organization.
  15. ^ (Ackelsberg 1991, pp. 36) The women who founded Mujeres Libres were all firmly committed to the goals of the [libertarian] movement and deeply involved in its organizations. Each had been nurtured by it. Many described themselves as having come to a full sense of who they were only in and through the activities of the groups they joined, whether unions, storefront schools and cultural centers, hiking clubs, or the like. The libertarian community becamse essential to their newly developing sense of self.
  16. ^ (Christie 2003, pp. 202) Defensa Interior (DI) was the clandestine activities planning and resistance organisation set up at the Limoges Congress in France, in late 1961, by the Defence Commission of the recently reunited three organisations of the exiled Spanish libertarian movement (MLE) - the CNT, the Spanish anarchist trade union; the FAI, the Iberian Anarchist Federation; and the FIJL, the Iberian Federation of Libertarian Youth.
Sources
What a lot of great work! If I had one comment, I think that the "largest" moniker would apply to organizations that consider "Libertarian" to be their primary identification. North8000 (talk) 18:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I hinted at that with my "merely" a trade union comment. The CNT consider themselves to be part of a wider libertarian movement - they're "merely" the trade union wing. Note that I'm not arguing for the CNT per se, but for the Spanish movement as a while - including Libertarian Youth and Mujeres Libres. By the way, I had to severely edit my post down to get a representative sample that wasn't tl;dr... it's possible that some great cites that made that point better got lost along the way. I think what's left still illustrates the point, however. TFOWR 18:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments from involved users

It seems this "argument against" is premised on the idea that anarchism is mutually exclusive of libertarianism. With such a tenuous premise, I'm guessing the "argument against" could be a good bit stronger... BigK HeX (talk) 14:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
The argument is based on the fact that anarchists are not libertarians, and the fact that a group which calls themselves anarchist have no place in this article. I will be removing these comments btw once someone does an argument for, thanks mark nutley (talk) 14:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure that this article has been through that debate, and settled that some(!) anarchists are libertarians. "Evidence" based on a rejected premise doesn't seem useful. I haven't seen supporting evidence yet, so it's somewhat hard to tell, at the moment. BigK HeX (talk) 15:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Some may be, some are certainly not hence this RFC. I will be going through every group which does not appear to be libertarian, cheers mark nutley (talk) 15:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Mark, "mutually exclusive" (which I don't agree with)seems to be a premise of your argument, but I don't see an argument in progress in this case. I would think that potential inclusion would need to start with either somebody saying it should be included, or some reasons why it should. Has either happened? At first glance looks to me like a group that does not self-identify themselves as Libertarian, and does not have the word "Libertarian" in their name. North8000 (talk) 15:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
North i was discussing this with another editor in a section above (renamed deletion of left wing groups) were said editor seems to think the occasional passing mention is enough to have them in the article, hence this RFC to garner community input. mark nutley (talk) 16:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Some prominent libertarians, including Murray Rothbard, along with many other Category:Austrian School economists, are libertarian anarchists. Being anarchist does not preclude an individual or organization from being libertarian. However, being anarchist does not necessarily mean one is a libertarian. Individuals and organizations like the CNT that do not recognize the individual's right to property are never referred to as being libertarian in reliable sources. --16:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I'll assume good faith, and assume that MarkNutley just doesn't understand how Google works. He ran the search query "libertarian CNT" instead of libertarian CNT. The former gets 6 hits, as would be expected, because very few books would have the exact phrase "libertarian CNT" in them. However, the latter query returns 6,180 hits. Just for future reference MarkNutley, did you realize that putting things in quotes makes it where you have to have the exact phrase "libertarian CNT" and excludes things like "the CNT, a libertarian organization", etc.? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

On a different note, starting up RfC's for each questionable group seems like massive overkill. Jumping straight into initiating a string of RfC's would be a bit annoying, I'd guess. Personally, I don't think this issue is at the point where even one RfC is needed..... BigK HeX (talk) 15:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree but an RFC will only be done if a consensus can`t be reached on each group like this one mark nutley (talk) 16:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Argument Against - No reliable sources refer to the organization in question as being a libertarian organization. No prominent libertarians are or ever have been associated with it (in either direction). It's not a libertarian organization. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
However, it should be noted that what you just said is manifestly false, as demonstrated by the sources above which do refer to it as a libertarian organization. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
That stuff is very confusing. In one of the sources, Bookchin, Murray (2005). The third revolution: popular movements in the revolutionary era, I searched for the term "libertarian" and just found this on p. 109: "Since libertarian theory in all of its forms agreed that money was morally corruptive, ..." This is simply a very different use of the term with a completely different meaning. I think this goes back to a very different meaning in Europe, especially non-English speaking Europe (in this case Spain). --Born2cycle (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Born2, would you say that TFOWR's material establishes them as being Libertarian, even if by a very different meaning of Libertarian?

Note that I've cited Bookchin (2005) five times (and each cite uses the term "libertarian" in isolation, without qualification), so you might want to run your search again ;-) I'm fairly certain I'll have left out some cites as well, for brevity. But yes - Bookchin (an American, writing in 2005) was writing about libertarianism as it was understood in the 1930s. Since then right-libertarianism has developed, and with it libertarianism has developed to encompass both the original form ("left-libertarianism") and right-libertarianism. Libertarianism in the 1960s understood this better than we do now, I feel - I suspect the Libertarian Party would see little common ground with libcom.org, or Libertarianz with the Aotearoa Workers Solidarity Movement, and that's a pity. (But it's also my own WP:OR...) TFOWR 22:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
You could also look through these results, which repeatedly speak of the CNT and it's ideology as "libertarian". -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure who is asking me the question above, but, yes, I agree that the material establishes them as being "libertarian", but by a very different meaning of libertarian. It is my understanding that by the 1960s the term libertarianism was virtually unknown/unused in every day English, and adherents of propertian individual liberty were looking for a name for their political philosophy, since they couldn't use liberal or liberalism any more since modern liberals had evolved from classical liberalism into a statist philosophy. So they adopted (the apparently unused) libertarianism, and applied it to advocates and adherents of "classical liberalism" of the past (like Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, Rose Wilder Lane, etc.) as well as to themselves. This is not necessarily right-libertarianism (which is minarchist) either since it includes anarcho-capitalists like Karl Hess and Murray Rothbard who are considered left libertarians by some definitions, even though they are propertian.

I think the problem we have is that when writing about something, you have to be clear about your terms and what you mean by them. But what we're doing here is clipping here and there from different sources who use different meanings for the same terms, and we're not properly discriminating/translating into a common/consistent glossary for our readers. This applies to right and left libertarianism as well as to libertarianism itself. I don't think it applies to libertarian socialism because that term seems to be consistently defined and used among the sources. I think the solution is to be clear about our terms and definitions up front, and stay consistent at least throughout the article, but ideally throughout Wikipedia. Some might see it as WP:OR, but I think it's editorial prerogative, and necessity, really. Otherwise nobody knows what we're saying, and that includes the editors as well as the readers. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you get the idea that "libertarianism" was virtually unused in everyday English by the 1960s. The 1950s and 1960s in the US saw a resurgence in radical thought, exemplified by the New Left which was sharply critical of authoritarianism. By the early 1960s Murray Rothbard and others were building strong links between the New Left and libertarianism (including right-libertarianism and anracho-capitalism). True, since the 1960s there's been a tendency for right-libertarians to re-purpose the word, but I don't believe that (a) they walked into that with eyes shut, nor (b) that they have achieved as much success with that as might be suggested here, nor that (c) we should follow their lead. Check out the refs for the articles I've linked to - "libertarianism" wasn't a forgotten concept in 1960, waiting to be rediscovered by the right: it was a vibrant, living philosophy - discussed and debated by radicals of the left and right. TFOWR 10:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
TFOWR please stay. And of course, Born2 please stay. You both are actually engaging in vs. avoiding discussion on the relevant topics, you both use references, and you both use the concept of sourcing to further the discussion rather than to prevent discussion.North8000 (talk) 11:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
North8000,
TFOWR, you discussed re-purposing of terms etc. If looks at the term Libertarianism/Libertarian spanning the globe and time, would you say that there sufficient tenets/beliefs/goals/shared attributes in common such that we we are still talking about a single topic when we say "Libertarian"? North8000 (talk) 11:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I think an easy way to assess that is to look at how other tertiary sources treat the word. I've looked at a couple of encyclopaedias recent - Britannica I cited above, but there are one or two more that I've scanned as well. They certainly seem to treat libertarianism as a single topic. I appreciate that there are difficulties in reconciling different schools or currents, but that's not unique to libertarianism. It's not our job to reconcile different, apparently contradictory, currents - we just need to describe them and allow the reader to make up their minds about the overall topic. Libertarianism is subject to debate and disagreement, just the same as other philosophies, ideologies, schools of thought. We should report that, rather than try and find a definition that avoids confusing the reader by leaving out half the story. TFOWR 11:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I think that you thought I was leading to "not a single topic".....such is not the case. Actually I was just trying to learn of tenets-in-common. If they exist, they should be a part of the lead or overview. If they don't exist, then they have nothing in common except the word, and we don't have a single topic. Personally I think that some common tenets do exist and that we do have a single topic, but that's just my best guess at this point. North8000 (talk) 11:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Oops, yes! Sorry! The same advice hold, though - how other encyclopaedias treat tenets is useful to look at (and in the case of Britannica unless we pay we won't see more than their lead, anyway... but I digress...) because encyclopaedias (obviously!) face the same problems we face: how to summarise a difficult topic consisting of multiple schools or currents. I'm not suggesting that we should copy other encyclopaedias, but it would make a useful starting point, and may also help identify which schools/currents we're either neglecting or focussing on too much. TFOWR 11:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Since you seem to have knowledge of the strands that are "farther away" in time and philosophy (sorry if that metaphor is faulty) I was hoping to get your thoughts on common tenets. North8000 (talk) 14:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd be reluctant, to be honest, for two reasons: firstly, my knowledge of libertarianism is mostly limited to "mainstream" (!) anarchism and, to a lesser degree, anarcho-capitalism. Secondly, I don't believe my thoughts are really relevant - we should be focussing on sources, not our own views. In this case, I think that tertiary sources can guide us, and that secondary sources can be found through that. i.e. we can use tertiary sources to identify the common tenets, and secondary sources to discuss the tenets. (I've only skimmed the refs for the various forms, but they seem to be well-sourced already). There may also be tenets that are disputed between major forms - I wouldn't necessarily rule out putting that into the lead, something like "Libertarians in general believe X....Right-libertarians tend to believe Y, but Left-libertarians believe Z". It's similar with anarchism: anarchism has collectivist and individualist currents, which on the face of it appear at odds with each other, but both should be discussed. TFOWR 14:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Of course RS's are a necessity and guide for inclusion, but one can find individual ones to say anything one wants, or knock out any source But an objective expert (or discussions between objective experts) can often get things pointed in the right direction because what they know is the end result of absorbing, integration and weighting dozens or hundreds of RS's.North8000 (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Right, but if we use tertiary sources as a guide, we avoid that problem. My concern with discussions between experts (and I'm certainly not an expert!) is that they tend to go off-topic quite quickly. Looking at overviews from secondary and tertiary sources leaves us with "just" editorial discussions, which is far preferable to heated arguments about personal views ;-) TFOWR 15:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
An objective expert defers to tertiary sources (as TFOWR has recommended), instead of suggesting that the shutdown of certain lines of discussion is improper or encouraging two Wikipedia editors to continue a debate, as if the purpose of the talk page is personal education about the topic. BigK HeX (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the nice punch. I haven't had one today so you filled the vacuum. North8000 (talk) 22:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Prominent left-libertarian or libertarian socialist individuals or organizations?

Latest comment: 14 years ago55 comments8 people in discussion

After being accused of "soapboxing" a fringe view, ("the view that left-libertarianism is not part of the topic of libertarianism proper" in the ANI filed against me), I got the idea to peruse the various libertarian categories at Wikipedia, including Category:Libertarians, Category:Libertarianism in the United Kingdom, Category:Libertarian organizations based in the United States, Category:Libertarian think tanks, and I couldn't finding any examples of left-libertarian or libertarian socialist individuals or organizations among them. This raises the question of whether the opposite view, that left-libertarianism is part of the topic of "libertarianism", is the fringe view.

There is no question about the occasional use of the term among reliable sources to refer to a broad category of political philosophies as "libertarian", and that left-libertarianism fits in that umbrella, but that doesn't mean that left-libertarianism is considered to be "libertarian" in reliable sources with respect to using the term to refer to a specific political philosophy. So, I am curious about the following (primarily #3):

  1. Are there any prominent left-libertarians or libertarian socialist individuals? If so, who are some of them?
  2. Are there any prominent left-libertarians or libertarian socialist organizations? If so, what are some of them?
  3. Most importantly, are any of the above referred to as libertarian or libertarianism in reliable sources? If so, where?

I mean, if there are no prominent libertarians that are referred to as left-libertarians or libertarian socialists, isn't implying the opposite giving undue weight to a fringe view? Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Did you look in the subcategories ? For example, Category:Left-libertarians (subcat of Category:Libertarians), Category:Libertarian socialist organisations (subcat of Category:Libertarian organisations). Do you realize that our categorization rules says that members of a subcat should not also be placed in the parent category? Yworo (talk) 17:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Two notes:
  • If are following the RFC closing of a few weeks back, the criteria for inclusion in the article is that it is a significant, as determined by reliable sources.
  • For all of these terms (including "left libertarian" and "right libertarian", "libertarian socialist" etc. ) we not only need to determine whether that phrase has been used by RS's, but whether it has been used by RS's as a name for a strand of Libertarianism. For example, if were were covering breeds of dogs, and some RS's used the term "big dogs" when discussing breeds or titling chapters or books, such does NOT constitute them saying that "big dog" is the name of a breed. North8000 (talk) 18:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if I get your point in your second note, North. Are you saying that just because there are no prominent libertarians that espouse left-libertarianism does not mean that left-libertarianism is not really libertarian?

Is this a "scope" discussion? Seems like it. If so, somebody please collapse it. Yworo (talk) 18:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Your first question in unanswerable, because it pre-supposes an answer to both questions which arise from the RFC closer.
And to the question and two assertions in your second paragraph, IMHO the answer is "no" to all three.North8000 (talk) 18:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
But my second point is that that a RS might be using the ters descriptively without saying that it it is a strand of Libertarianism. North8000 (talk) 19:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
This is a new point that has never been discussed, as far as I know. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
But to what end? Is this intended to reopen the scope discussion? What bearing does this discussion have on potentially improving the article? Why have you ignored the clear subcategories that contain the notable individuals who meet these criteria? Yworo (talk) 18:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Did you not read the above? This is a matter of implementing the closing of the RFC = implementing the result of the scope discussions. 19:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Looking at the list... there are some folks like Matthew Bellamy who call themselves libertarian and advocate left-libertarianism, but who are notable for something other than their libertarianism - those are hardly examples of prominent libertarians. Noam Chomsky is prominent for his political philosophy (even though by profession he is a linguist), but I don't know of any reliable sources that refer to him as a libertarian. Do you?

I see that someone added Karl Hess to the left-libertarianism category, but that's clearly a mistake as the author of Capitalism For Kids of course recognized property rights. I'm beginning to think that left-libertarianism has multiple meanings, which confuses things. The meaning of LL I'm asking for examples of prominent libertarians is in which property rights are not recognized. There appears to be another meaning which divides propertian libertarians into a "left" and "right" (those on the left are anarchists like Hess and Rothbard). In other words, this use of left-libertarian appears to be a synonym for anarcho-capitalist. I have no problem with inclusion of that in an article about libertarians since there are adherents of that that are prominent libertarians (like Hess and Rothbard).

So, I'm still asking for an example of a prominent left-libertarian (the type that denies property rights) and is referred to as being a libertarian in reliable sources. Do you have any examples of that?

As I go through the list, I think I finally found one... Henry George. And maybe Samuel Edward Konkin III. These are the only two in the list that I think can be fairly referred to as prominent libertarians as well as advocates of left-libertarianism in which private property rights are not recognized. Did I miss anyone? --Born2cycle (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Technically, all of the members of the subcategories are "libertarians", so this seems to be more of your "just libertarianism" nonsense. In addition, Wikipedia itself does not count as a reliable source, so conclusions based on Wikipedia categories are not reliable. Why not just use reliable sources? Yworo (talk) 19:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Yworo, just because WP editors categorizes someone under "libertarians" and "left-libertarians" under "libertarians" does not mean the person is a prominent libertarian. Why not just use reliable sources indeed! In what reliable sources are any of the people in Category:Left-libertarians (other than George and Konkin) referred to as libertarians? --Born2cycle (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Further to my comment above, do those two sources use the term "left libertarianism" term as a name for a strand of Libertarianism that exists by that name, or do they use the the term descriptively? North8000 (talk) 20:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. Per multiple sources and the RfCs, libertarianism has a number of branches or variants, which include left- and right-libertarianism. By definition, if the scope of libertarianism includes left- and right-libertarianism, then left-libertarians are libertarians. You are both again wasting other editors' time. This is again an argument about scope, and I will be collapsing it per previous agreement. Yworo (talk) 20:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes it does matter, the question is central to implement the FRC closing. If RS's state that "Left Libertarian" is a term that identifies a significant Libertarian philosophy, then the RFC says it should be in the article. If not (e.g. if RS's don't say that, and merely use it as a description, then the RFC decision says that it should not. North8000 (talk) 22:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Take a minute to read the Henry George article and you'll see he clearly did not believe in the necessity of property rights for individual liberty. But it turns out Konkin is propertian, so in the sense that left-libertarianism is used in this article, he should not be in the category. The Konkin article describes him as the founder of agorism, and that "agorists are propertarian market anarchists who consider property rights to be natural rights deriving from the primary right of self-ownership."

So we're down to a single example of a prominent libertarian who is left-libertarian in the sense used by this article (does not believe in property rights) ... someone who died before 1900, Henry George.

So, are there any prominent libertarians alive today (or in the last 50 years) that are left-libertarian in the sense used in this article? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, we can start with Noam Chomsky, who you excluded without reason. Yworo (talk) 21:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Here are three reliable sources which refer to him as a libertarian:
  • "renowned American Jewish scholar and left-wing libertarian Noam Chomsky" - Walter Laqueur, Judith Tydor Baumel. The Holocaust encyclopedia, p. 297. Yale University Press, 2001. ISBN 0300084323
  • "to quote the American libertarian Noam Chomsky" - Benjamin Franks. Rebel alliances: the means and ends of contemporary British anarchisms. AK, 2006. ISBN 1904859402
  • "the American Jewish academic and left-wing libertarian Noam Chomsky" - Robert S. Wistrich. A Lethal Obsession: Anti-Semitism from Antiquity to the Global Jihad. Random House, Inc., 2009. ISBN 1400060974
I'm sure sources can be found for anyone else you think it would be convenient to deliberately exclude. Yworo (talk) 21:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay. That seems like a very different use of the term. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Different from what you would like? Chomsky clearly falls into the primary definition of libertarian in the sources I presented earlier that distinguish libertarianism as endorsing "full self-ownership" (i.e. being anti-authoritarian). As libertarianism encompasses left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism, both left and right libertarians may be and are referred to as "libertarians". Yworo (talk) 22:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Yworo, please stop looking at my posts through your "he has a POV" lens and try to be a little bit more NPOV about interpreting my words, okay? Thanks.

Not different from what I would like, but different from the conventional use of the term libertarian. It's even different from the use of the term "left-libertarian" when that is used to refer to propertian libertarians like Karl Hess. It's also notable that in two of the three references above the difference I'm talking about was recognized in that Chomsky was not referred to as a libertarian, but as a left-wing libertarian, an apparent recognition for the need to distinguish Chomsky's philosoohy from conventional libertarianism. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

THe point is that they are referred to as libertarian, and not "unconventionally libertarian". You really have to stop this you know, the position is very very clear and ever more desperate attempts find a way round something you don't like are disruptive and increasingly so --Snowded TALK 14:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I have to stop what, Snowded? I don't understand your point. A source is rarely if ever going to state whether its use of a given term is conventional or not. The point is that if one source says Karl Hess is a libertarian, and another says Chomsky is a libertarian, they are saying very different things about Hess and Chomsky (because their respective political ideologies are so different), and the article would be improved if these differences were somehow conveyed to the reader. Do you disagree? --Born2cycle (talk) 15:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
See my response to your ANI whinge --Snowded TALK 15:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
RE: "Yworo, please stop looking at my posts through your "he has a POV" lens"
But, what is he to do, if he's finding it pretty clear that a POV lens is evident in every comment you've made here? Instead of "if one source says Karl Hess is a libertarian, and another says Chomsky is a libertarian, they are saying very different things about Hess and Chomsky" why not consider that they are saying the SAME thing....? A refusal to do so would not help people to presume that there's no "POV lens." In any case, just because two individuals have apparent differences in philosophy, does NOT mean that they don't share enough similarities to take on the SAME label with the SAME meaning. BigK HeX (talk) 16:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, sure, it might be the same meaning in both instances IF each source is using a very general meaning of libertarian. However, that usage is very rare in primary and secondary sources. The only sources I know that do that are tertiary. My point stands. You have to look at the context of the source to know which meaning of libertarian is intended. If it's in Boaz' book you can be sure being propertian is implied. If it's Bookchin he almost certainly means (anti-propertian) libertarian socialism. All I'm saying is that context matters, and that we can't just presume that every usage of libertarian is in the general sense. In fact, few are that. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
That "context" only matters if we personally grant import to aspects such as propertarianism. That some editors continually emphasize certain right-libertarian values as if they are necessarily intrinsic to "libertarianism" has been unhelpful for progress on this article. BigK HeX (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Please focus on this discussion, BigK. While I may have argued that propertianism is necessarily intrinsic to "libertarianism" in the past, I'm certainly not doing that here. Why bring that up?

My point remains. The context matters regardless of whether we personally grant import to any such aspect. What matters is whether the sources grant import to it.

Do you not agree that primary sources of libertarianism, whether of the pro or anti propertian strand, grant that aspect of their ideologies to be very important? For the propertians like Rothbard, Hess, Rand, Hayek, Boaz, Paul, von Mises, Nozick, etc., the Lockean right to private property is fundamental. Similarly, to anti-propertians like Chomsky, Bookchin and Henry George, equally as fundamental to their ideologies is the belief that all property is commonly owned.

This is about what's important to them, not to me. Please stop personalizing these discussions. If I don't write anything about my personal POV, then please don't comment on it. Please interpret my comments from a NPOV. That is how I intend for them to be read. Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

You are (as ever) making an argument about what should in your opinion be called libertarian. Its the sort of thing you might want to write an article about, but here it is at best OR. This is really very very clear, if there is a reliable source which says they are libertarian then in wikipedia terms they are. We have been round this a hundred times and it is time to stop. Your position does not have support --Snowded TALK 18:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Snowded, how on Earth you got that meaning from what I wrote is a complete mystery. Honestly, Snowded, please retract this or cite the exact words of mine that indicate I am "making an argument about what should in [my] opinion be called libertarian". Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
RE: "Please interpret my comments from a NPOV."
The foundations that private-propertarians may propose could justify a particular strain of libertarianism, but still does NOT negate other views of libertarianism and is unlikely to make the use of the term "libertarian" as amorphous as you insist. You may want to consider the possibility that your insistence on these points is what personalizes the issue with an implicit POV. BigK HeX (talk) 18:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Also, I'll note that "libertarianism" word usage issues have been reviewed by the community. At the last RfC, common qualification of certain terms was basically regarded as irrelevant, and in this RfC people rejected the idea that the contents of this article had only the word in common (as opposed to the political philosophy). Context can be important, but it's pretty clear that most objections of this sort have been regarded as minor issues (at best) for this article. BigK HeX (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

break A

You're personalizing again. Please don't. I didn't say anything about negating other views of libertarianism. Why bring that up?

Just how amorphous do you think I'm insisting the term is? And, again, why even bring that up? I'm not talking about that either (though I will now, below).

This also has nothing to do with what was discussed in those RfCs, so why are you bringing that up? If you think it's related, again, please identify what exactly I said that you think makes it related, because I certainly did not intend that, and I don't see how you could have read it that way.

Again, all I'm saying is that when we use a source that refers to "libertarianism" we should be clear to the reader what that source means by "libertarianism" in that context. The terms libertarian, left-libertarian and right-libertarian are each sufficiently amorphous that their range of meaning is significant enough to make context very important in determining their meaning. Do you agree or disagree with that? Can you please just answer that without bringing in all this other superfluous baggage? --Born2cycle (talk) 19:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really of the opinion that I "brought it up". You opened the topic on word usage issues, again.
Further, you say you're not "negating other views of libertarianism", but yet you attempted to disqualify Noam Chomsky earlier from a list of libertarians.
Also, you've said that "This also has nothing to do with what was discussed in those RfCs...". As you have above proposed that the article be modified to reflect judgments based on (your unsourced assertions regarding) "conventional libertarianism", I contend that the RfC's are relevant. Generally, the community does not seem to agree that word usage issues are a significant problem here, so it's pretty unclear why we're dealing with more general objections here. Perhaps, there are specific passage(s) in question -- if so, then tell us what specifically what you want to see. BigK HeX (talk) 20:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
If you want to reply to some other post, then can you please indent accordingly? Please do not indent as if you're replying to one post, but then actually reply to something I said four posts back or at the start of the section, especially without notice. It's very confusing and impossible to follow, at least for me. Thanks.

There is nothing in the diff you linked as above proposed that was intended by me to be a proposal for anything, much less anything as specific as a proposal "that the article be modified to reflect judgments based on ... 'conventional libertarianism'". I'm puzzled as to how you are getting anything even close to that meaning from those words.

I agree we should be looking at specific passages. I'll start a new section on that. Here I was hoping on establishing consensus about the issue in general, but it seems many of you are quick on the "disagree" trigger no matter what I say.

As to whether Chomsky is a libertarian, consider what the linguist himself has to say about that and on the issue about whether the term libertarian is well defined:

Actually, I don't think I've ever called myself a "libertarian," because the term is too ambiguous. I do often call myself a "libertarian socialist," however.

Do you consider the renowned English linguist to not be a reliable source for a) whether he is a libertarian, and b) establishing that the term libertarian alone without context is too ambiguous (or amorphous) to clearly mean anything very specific? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Consensus on the issue in general has already been established. Also, I find a bit of irony in your your proposals for the use of Chomsky.
A) Chomsky has directly called himself a "libertarian" without qualifiers (though in the context of "misuses" of the term);
B) No .... for the zillionth time. The term "libertarian" might not convey what Chomsky would like for people to understand about himself, but that hardly the same as being "too ambiguous to clearly mean anything very specific".
RE: "There is nothing in the diff you linked as above proposed that was intended by me to be a proposal for anything ... I'm puzzled as to how you are getting anything even close to that meaning from those words."
Probably because we're in a thread where you're attacking left-libertarianism as "fringe" and disqualifying responses to the questions you've asked with general arguments that are not seen as persuasive by myself and others.... BigK HeX (talk) 21:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Consensus changes and consensus does not trump what reliable sources clearly state. Anyway, right now I'm simply trying to persuade you about something, because you are clearly intelligent, can think for yourself, and so are likely to be persuaded by logic and reason.
If the only context in which Chomsky has referred to himself as a libertarian is one in which the term is misused, where is the irony? That supports my point.
I have not argued (at least in this section) that left-libertarianism is fringe, nor even that the view that left-libertarianism is part of libertarianism is fringe. I started this section to explore whether the latter is true or false.

If the term libertarian is "too ambiguous" to convey clearly what Chomsky would like to convey about his own views, how is it not "too ambiguous" to convey clearly anything about any other persons's or organization's views? Chomsky did not say the term is too ambiguous only for the specific purpose of describing himself; the linguist said it's too ambiguous, period. Besides, for a term to be "too ambiguous" for some particular purpose, it has to be at least ambiguous (if not "too" ambiguous) in general. That doesn't prevent other sources from using it none-the-less, but it does mean we have to look at context to clearly know what they mean in each use, which is the only point I've been trying to convey here.

Note also that Chomsky's words support two other points that have been in dispute:

The term "libertarian" has an idiosyncratic usage in the US and Canada, reflecting, I suppose, the unusual power of business in these societies. In the European tradition, "libertarian socialism" ("socialisme libertaire") was the anti-state branch of the socialist movement: anarchism (in the European, not the US sense).

The two points are: (1) in contrast to libertarianism, libertarian socialism does not suffer from the ambiguity problem, and (2) there are two distinct meanings for the term libertarian: a) what Chomsky calls "the idosyncratic usage of the US and Canada", and b) what he refers to as "'libertarian socialism' ('socialisme libertaire') was the anti-state branch of the socialist movement: anarchism (in the European, not the US sense)".

Note also the distinction of anarchism in the European sense from the US sense.

Do you think Chomsky's words here support having this article split into two separate articles, perhaps into something like Libertarianism (idiosyncratic usage of the US and Canada) (or just Libertarianism (US)), and Libertarian socialism with Libertarianism (in the European tradition) (or just Libertarianism (Europe)) redirecting to the latter? Or the article can be at Libertarianism (Europe) and Libertarian socialism would be the redirect to it? It's just a question. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

No. BigK HeX (talk) 23:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


Actually, I have long thought it useful to describe that there are sources which make a distinction in the senses of unqualified "libertarianism", with some holding that there is a useful difference in the sense within many English-speaking nations and the sense taken elsewhere. I knew Chomsky felt that way, but I felt I should come up with more sources before proposing such an addition. BigK HeX (talk) 23:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


RE: "the linguist said it's too ambiguous, period"
Pretty obviously, he mentioned the ambiguity IN THE CONTEXT of describing himself. BigK HeX (talk) 23:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Chomsky did happen to make that declaration about the term liberarianism being "too ambiguous" in the context of describing himself, but there was nothing in what he said that tied it exclusively to that context. He basically said that he did not use the term "because it's too ambiguous". It was a general statement about the term. How can a term be too ambiguous to clearly mean something for one purpose, but not be ambiguous in general? Can you give an example of a term that is "too ambiguous" to clearly mean something in some particular context, but not ambiguous in general? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I could give examples, but find it a pointless line of discourse. In any case, if you want to work on Libertarianism (US) ... you'll be happy to know that it already exists. A proposal to "split" this article at Libertarianism is yet another proposal on scope, and we know the general feeling that editors on this talk page have for that topic.
Bottom line: Chomsky (and Widerquist's) view on distinctiveness of the variants may be notable ... still does NOT dictate that we re-form the article in disregard for opposing views. With sources that describe the ideas as being facets of the single philosophy called Libertarianism, discussion of the ideas should be available to readers at the article entitled Libertarianism. BigK HeX (talk) 23:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
The article Libertarianism in the United States is not about the philosophy commonly known as libertarianism in contemporary US/UK/Australia and Canada; it is about the politics of that philosophy in the U.S., just as Libertarianism in the United Kingdom is about the politics of that same philosophy in the U.K.

Also note that the references to that philosophy and that same philosophy above refer to the political philosophy commonly referred to in the contemporary English-speaking world as libertarianism, and is distinct from libertarian socialism.

What do you mean by "opposing views"? What views in what sources oppose Chomsky's views on the two distinct uses of libertarian in contemporary English, and how credible can they possibly be compared to the preeminent linguist of our time? --Born2cycle (talk) 00:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Again stepping out of the deeply indented and entrenched discussion, I do think it's safe to say that the three questions presented at the topic of this section, to whit:

  1. Are there any prominent left-libertarians or libertarian socialist individuals? If so, who are some of them?
  2. Are there any prominent left-libertarians or libertarian socialist organizations? If so, what are some of them?
  3. Most importantly, are any of the above referred to as libertarian or libertarianism in reliable sources? If so, where?

have clearly been answered in the discussion, with yes to all three. Having said that, I'm somewhat confused about what the current goal of discussion is. siafu (talk) 23:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree all three answers are yes, though I'd say the support for #3 is very sparse, especially in usage among contemporary English sources. The current goal is to get consensus about:
  1. Renowned linguist Noam Chomsky sees two distinct uses of the term libertarianism when used to reference political philosophy.
  2. Chomsky's observation about usage is correct.
If we can get consensus on these two points (in the subsection below this one I just created), then we can discuss what that means to the article. I suggest we either need to be more clear about the distinction in the article, or split the article into two (a separate article about each use). --Born2cycle (talk) 23:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Guys its time to disengage. This issue has been resolved for some time and indulging a solitary editor who doesn't like it has gone on long enough. --Snowded TALK 05:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Chomsky's distinguishing of "libertarianism" from Libertarian socialism

Though it's derisive because he's not a proponent of it, Chomsky clearly distinguishes what he refers to as "libertarian" (always in quotes), and describes as "ultra-right individualist anarchism", from what he refers to elsewhere as libertarian socialism (see quotes and discussion in subsection above this one, at #break A), or "genuine" libertarianism:

There isn't much point arguing about the word "libertarian." It would make about as much sense to argue with an unreconstructed Stalinist about the word "democracy" -- recall that they called what they'd constructed "peoples' democracies." The weird offshoot of ultra-right individualist anarchism that is called "libertarian" here happens to amount to advocacy of perhaps the worst kind of imaginable tyranny, namely unaccountable private tyranny. If they want to call that "libertarian," fine; after all, Stalin called his system "democratic." But why bother arguing about it? [1]

... Parliamentary democracy within this framework does merit sharp criticism by genuine libertarians, and I've left out many other features that are hardly subtle, ... [2]

These sources, in addition to the ones I cited above, make it clear that Chomsky believes there is a sharp distinction between "the weird offshoot of ultra-right individualist anarchism that is called "libertarian" here [in the U.S.]" and what he believes is "genuine" libertarianism, and refers to as libertarian socialism, or "libertarian in the European sense".

It also appears that when Chomsky refers to the "European sense", he is talking about non-English Europe, as indicated here:

...these (quite central) tendencies in anarchism draw from the best of Enlightenment and classical liberal thought, well beyond what he described. In fact, as I've tried to show they contrast sharply with Marxist-Leninist doctrine and practice, the 'libertarian' doctrines that are fashionable in the US and UK particularly, and other contemporary ideologies, all of which seem to me to reduce to advocacy of one or another form of illegitimate authority, quite often real tyranny. [3]

Note that here Chomsky refers to 'libertarian' in quotes, as being fashionable in the UK as well as the US, and being contemporary. Clearly he's again referring to "the weird offshoot of ultra-right individualist anarchism that is called 'libertarian' here [in the U.S.]", only this time he's saying it's in the UK too.

Folks, I don't care what you call them, but according to the preeminent linguist of our time, Noam Chomsky, it is abundantly clear that there are two very distinct linguistic uses of the term libertarian in English to refer to two distinct political philosophies. Chomsky also happens to be an adherent of one of those distinct philosophies that was traditionally referred to as libertarian (and still is in non-UK Europe), but is now more commonly known as libertarian socialism. The only way he seems to refer to the other use is, simply, "libertarian".

I don't know about the rest of you, but this seems to clear up all the conflict, and explains how to interpret earlier uses of the term libertarian from most contemporary uses in the US, Canada and the UK. It's pretty funny to find Noam Chomsky backing up exactly what I've been saying all along. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

He's also very clear that both are called "libertarianism". Sources I've presented show that all forms of libertarianism have a common basis, namely "full self-ownership". Long also points out that libertarianism is also "any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals". So we have two points that form a basis for general libertarianism, with the variants being defined by differences on other topics.
While Chomsky can be used as a source with respect to the form of libertarianism he believes in, he is being polemical here. This is not a good source for the form of libertarianism he clearly disdains. He is also not writing as a linguist, a career he abandoned decades ago. Yworo (talk) 01:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Chomsky's word is basically being promoted as gospel now? Seriously?
I'd suggest that eliciting good faith will be difficult in the face of repetitive arguments that can be construed as pretty tendentious POV pushing.... BigK HeX (talk) 01:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
For the record, my previous argument about usage was derided for lacking basis in sources. I argued that since it was about usage, there are unlikely to be any sources about that, and that's why editorial issues of scope and naming are normally not based on explicit statements from sources, but from looking at usage in sources, like with WP:GOOGLE tests. That argument did achieve consensus approval, so I dropped it.

Now I'm shocked to actually find a source support exactly the argument I'm making, which I present, and I'm warned that this is tenditious POV pushing. Talk about stretching good faith to the brink. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually.... ya know what? I'll say GO FOR IT! Since the only sources that seem to matter to you are those that have some portion that may back your argument, I won't stand in your way here. By all means, come up with a draft of the article at Libertarianism written to represent Chomsky's views on the ideology. Shoot me a link when you're done, and if it does indeed represent Chomsky's views and you want to replace the current content at Libertarianism with it, then I will cease opposing your efforts! BigK HeX (talk) 01:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Notice Chomsky calls it a "weird offshoot" of a type of libertarianism, individualist anarchism. Mises, Hayek and Buckely all thought that American liberalism was not true liberalism, Trotskyists thought Stalinism was not true Communism, Ian Gilmour claimed that Thatcherism was not true conservatism. Ironically Stalinism did develop out of democracy and right-wing writers, like Courtois and Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn attack it on that basis. Chomsky accepts right libertarianism as part of the family but sees them as heretics. TFD (talk) 02:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Born2cycle, you do seem to have painted yourself into an awkward corner here. If you argue that Chomsky is a reliable and defining source as to the meanings of libertarianism being distinct, you must also accept his determination of which meaning is the correct one and which is the idiosyncratic misuse. You have claimed in the past that it's a matter of "semantics". And who would know better which is the correct semantic usage of the term than a linguist? Quite the Catch-22, isn't it? Yworo (talk) 03:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Chomsky can be used once to give his opinion about the word libertarian. He's hardly the final judge on uses, from any point of view. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

:::::I second. Have people seen the template above reading: "General warning regarding disruption 1 October 2010 03:28 UTC through 1 April 2011 03:28 UTC – 'A six-month moratorium on discussions about the topic and coverage of this article is currently in place. The community of editors has clearly and repeatedly discussed this topic and reached a consensus position, and continuous attempts to dispute this consensus disrupt the encyclopedia. If such discussion occurs, editors should feel free to take the matter to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or to collapse the discussion. The purpose of this general warning is to prevent disruption, not to prevent editorial opinion. After the sanction expires, editorial opinion on topic and coverage, backed up by policy and reliable sources, will be considered as normal. Discussions on due and undue weight for subtopics of the article, backed by reliable sources, are fine: they don't go to topic or coverage, but to extent and focus of coverage. Such discussions haven't been disruptive." CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[Later note: deleted this after learned that template not created by admin.]

Yworo, I have not seen any sources for Chomsky in which he refers to the use of 'libertarian' in English-speaking countries (US, UK, Canada) to be a misuse. He does say this usage is idiosyncratic relative to the traditional European (mostly non-English) usage, and that's also consistent with what I've been saying all along. It's another way of saying that the two usages mean very different things, which is peculiar or idiosyncratic. As to "misuse" of the term, I've only seen reference to that when BigK said that Chomsky has only called himself a libertarian in the context of "misuse" of the term - which also agrees with what I've said (it's inappropriate to refer to Chomsky as a libertarian, and he agrees, using libertarian socialist instead). Where's the Catch-22? --Born2cycle (talk) 16:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment (duplicate of RFC above)

Latest comment: 14 years ago18 comments7 people in discussion
Duplicate of RFC above -- consensus is that it is unneccessary.

Does the CNT (National Confederation of Labour) belong in this article about libertarianism?

  • Argument For - (would an involved editor please put arguments for here thanks)
  • Argument Against - As an obvious anarchist group i feel they have no place within an article on libertarianism, there are literally hundreds of sources describing this group as anarchist, the sheer preponderance of sources saying this should surely be enough to prove they are anarchist and not libertarian. Quite a few academic publishing houses describe them as such. University of California PressPolity Press Liverpool University Press Berghahn Books Univ of California Press Routledge A search of google books for Anarchist CNT 558 hits "libertarian CNT" gets 6 hits Clearly they are known as an anarchist group and really do not belong in an article about libertarianism

Comments from uninvolved users

Comments from involved users

Legitimacy of Process

It has been clearly established that some libertarians are anarchists, this is in effect a form of forum shopping, raising the issue yet again in another form. --Snowded TALK 20:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes some, but not all. Hence this RFC, please make a statement for above so the RFC can be launched mark nutley (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to get in an edit war with MarkNutley, but I think that someone should remove this entire RFC. It's a duplicate of the above RFC, and is simply MarkNutley disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. I've already attempted to fix his disruptive edits twice, and don't want to get blocked for 3RR, so someone else is going to have to deal with it. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of pointing out the blindingly obvious, I've already commented in "this" RFC. Any chance we could continue the RFC that people have commented in, and lose this redundant one? TFOWR 20:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Tedious Mark, you can't keep raising the same issue again and again with only slight differences. Its game playing and I'm not playing. Agree the RFC should be closed --Snowded TALK 20:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry no, the previous one was disrupted five times by three editors and is void. Please move your comment down here though. This RFC has not yet launched btw mark nutley (talk) 20:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Anyone that wants to can just go ahead and delete it. It's clearly disruptive and unnecessary. (Just remember to rename the section for the original RFC, because MarkNutley changed that as part of his stunt). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Deletion of this will lead to ANI. It is not disruptive as it has not yet even been launched. For christs sake, why can one of you not just make your argument? mark nutley (talk) 21:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
By all means, please take it to ANI when it is deleted. I would welcome that. I think the reasons that nobody is willing to comment here are (1) they've already commented when you filed the exact same RFC above, and don't see a need to repeat themselves just to placate you. (2) They realize that it's just going to be deleted anyway, and don't care to waste their time. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
All else aside, Mr. Nutley, you do seem to have broken the RfC page with the mess above. siafu (talk) 21:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
How? I no wikied everything did`nt i? mark nutley (talk) 21:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
You can't require people to take part in a disruptive and unnecessary process Mark, and if you want it to take to ANI please do so --Snowded TALK 21:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok so your saying you and two other editors will mess around 5 times with an RFC, then complain when it has to be reset due to your messing? Why am i not surprised by this. mark nutley (talk) 21:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Snowded -- can you or someone else just go ahead and collapse or remove this entire section, so we can stop wasting everyone's time. I've already got two reverts on this article, and can't do it myself. If you collapse it, make sure to remove the RFC template, so that it isn't listed twice at the RFC page. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Best a less involved editor does it, I've had too many encounters with Mark's POV here and elsewhere to be "uninvolved", not to mention having to repeat arguments made here on my talk page! --Snowded TALK 21:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear editors: I have no involvement in the discussion, article, or even the topic. My interest is curiosity only and I am completely uninformed as to the issues involved. But I do see an edit war going on and I think blanking is not the way to resolve any issue. Accordingly, I urge the contentious editors to WP:RELAX.--S. Rich (talk) 22:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Well said. I'm putting this on my list of favorite quotes on my user page. Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Because this (and these) issue(s) of group inclusion aren't being discussed in a very rational fashion (and have two RfCs??) I'm not bothering to read or comment on either RfC except to say please stick to reliable sources and got to WP:RS if people think they aren't reliable enough or not enough reliable sources.

Sokal's Hoax

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
IP soapboxing on Scope October 2010 - April 2011
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Is the current Libertarianism article another Sokal's Hoax? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.2.12 (talk) 00:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is a densely peer reviewed environment, and Libertarianism is clearly marked and assessed as "B" grade material at the moment. In the case of the Sokal Hoax, the work was deliberately submitted to a non-peer reviewed forum. Additionally, unlike the Sokal Hoak, the Libertarianism article has been created out of the attempts of many editors to actually address the subject. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Confederación Nacional del Trabajo as a Libertarian organization? Sokal's Hoax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.2.12 (talk) 05:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Try Moving On and Deceptive Template

Latest comment: 14 years ago14 comments5 people in discussion

Born2, how bout we see how well we can make this go with the disparate forms of Libertarianism INCLUDED in the article. Go a month or two and see how it goes? I plant to, for at least a month, start actively opposing any discussion about excluding strands of Libertarianism with the word Libertarian(ism) in them on the basis of them being too disparate/different. Discussion about exclusion based on the RFC closing (due to not shown to be significant based on RS's) is not included in this.

Someone just pointed out that template which one person put up. With as wording as-is it's a bad idea at best, and "impersonating Wikipedia" at worst. A "6 month ban on (in the article's talk page) discussion "about the topic and coverage of this article"  !!! You can't be serious! And putting specific dates and times on the ban to give it the appearance of having come from some official Wikipedia mechanism or place is deceptive AT BEST. I ask that the person who put it up take it down or significantly modify it as a graceful resolution of this.

OK, I probably just got EVERYBODY mad at me. Whether that means I'm middle ground or far off base is up to you to decide. :-) North8000 (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

North8000 (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I think your efforts here could bear fruit on finally getting to more nuanced issues (wording, weight, clarity, etc). Quick question though ... what is "impersonating Wikipedia"? BigK HeX (talk) 15:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I meant that the wording and expiration date and time made it appear that it came from an official Wikipedia mechanism or authority. North8000 (talk) 15:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
OK. Though, what makes you think that it didn't...? BigK HeX (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I guess I could answer that from two directions. One is that it got there by just being inserted by one editor. The other is that there is nothing establishing that it did, which is the norm in WP. North8000 (talk) 16:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Was it an editor in good standing, who was attempting in good faith to create a notification reflecting some of the general decisions reached on this page about scope, etc? If so, then that's not really "impersonating" Wikipedia, and is more like reflecting Wikipedians. BigK HeX (talk) 16:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
That said, I think the wording in that notification could be a bit clearer. BigK HeX (talk) 16:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I announced the sanctioning, a number of other editors agreed with it, nobody strongly opposed it. The editor whose actions prompted it (their actions weren't egregious in particular, and it wasn't designed to sanction them for their immediate action) didn't seem troubled by the concept. Given that the sanction I announced was for six months (about the time the revisiting of scope and topic had been occurring for) would push the warning off the page, and due to the high interest in the page from editors just joining the article, a clear announcement that wouldn't be archived was required. A variety of template talk pages exist, and I picked one close in style to existing warnings on this talk page, which had also been in their time, added by individual editors. Another editor not closely involved in the article copyedited the general warning in the template at the top of the page. Further, when the use of collapsing topics came up at ANI, I noted what I had done, and no editor there seemed distressed by it. The boldness of the process was noted in the discussion of it (still on this talk page) and not protested, and the boldness of this process was made clear by me at ANI, where it raised no questions.
  • Six months is a good time for revisiting major decisions. Given that we have a long running semi-protect, and a long running full-protect of the page, and that the disruption was caused by the revisiting of debates, six months also gives plenty of time for a very well crafted, cited, sourced RFC on scope and topic.
  • I too very much liked your contribution starting this discussion. Fifelfoo (talk) 16:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
You certainly didn't make me mad at you. You actually just dramatically increased my faith in your ability to be open-minded, and to change a firmly held opinion in the light of new information. Many people are unable to do that, and I commend you on this. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 15:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks!  :-) North8000 (talk) 15:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
What they said. Yworo (talk)

Fifelfoo created the template? I assumed it was the editor who protected the article from the ANI. If not, it should be described more accurately, i.e., that RfC's mean we aren't supposed to keep discussing broad vs narrow and that continued discussion could lead to editors filing an ANI for WP:Refusal to get the point. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to tweak template

With further investigation I see that it was "proposed" above at Talk:Libertarianism#General_warning_regarding_disruption, but not as a template. And I generally agreed with the wording - but not as a template. How about this wording? Main changes being 1) info on protection (and making dates same for both) and 2) shorten and clarify statement 2, removing unnecessary and confusing words:
General warning regarding disruption 1 October 2010 03:28 UTC through 1 February 2011 03:28 UTC –
1. An administrator has fully protected this article until February 1, 2011. Go to this {{editprotected}} link to learn how to use the tag to propose any non-controversial or consensus-based changes to the article, and an admininistrator will come along and make the edit.
2. Due to months of disruptions by discussions about the breath of libertarian ideologies discussed in this article, the community of editors has clearly and repeatedly discussed this topic and reached a consensus position, and continuous attempts to dispute this consensus disrupt the encyclopedia. If such discussion occurs despite warnings, editors should feel free to take the matter to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or to collapse the discussion. The purpose of this general warning is to prevent disruption, not to prevent editorial opinion. Discussions on due and undue weight for subtopics of the article, backed by reliable sources, are fine. After the sanction expires, editorial opinion on topic and coverage, backed up by policy and reliable sources, will be considered as normal.
Hearing no more tweaks, I’ll change it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Go for it. Not perfect, but hopefully our progress here will make it a moot point. North8000 (talk) 00:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Seeking protection for article

Latest comment: 14 years ago64 comments10 people in discussion

I've really had it with the number of changes and reverts [some against policy like replacing WP:RS material (like LP statement about itself) with obvious WP:OR material (like their own summary of the platform)]. I think this article needs to be protected so people are allowed only one revert a day. And I think the worst WP:OR offenders have to be reported to WP:ANI though I don't feel like doing the work of documenting everything. Today anyway. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Carol, if you are speaking of the LP statement in the overview, I believe that the "assertion of common tenets" characterization is the most accurate one. It's not a statement about themselves, nor is it a summary of their platform. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
This article was under semi-protection until February 2011. I have changed the protection level to full, without changing the expiration date. There appears to be a content dispute going on. Work out any changes on this talk page, and use the {{editprotected}} tag to propose any non-controversial or consensus-based changes to the article, and an admin will come along and make the edit. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Carol, the lp statement was sourced to a book as well, not just to itself, i am unsure why you think fpp is needed at this time? mark nutley (talk) 06:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Does there need to be a template on top of the article so new people passing by will understand it is protected and how to get an edit done? First time I've dealt with this myself and just read page for first time. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
There is a template there already. See the gold padlock in the upper right corner of the page? I can change a parameter on the template so that the page will blare out a big message box at the top of the article instead, but I felt that would detract from an otherwise decent article. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have specified I meant a template on the top of the talk page. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not aware of such a talk page template. That doesn't mean there isn't one, although I don't recall seeing one. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I just noticed the new template. Don't know if others have. Does it need to be further up the page, like under skip to talk? CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


Lemons into Lemonade? (Protection)

With FP on the article, everyone can either go to work trying to game the system / manipulate the administrators (via wiki-lawyering or whatever) , or we could take a breather and more calmly define and settle the core questions, and also support the concept that only changes with some discussion and some degree of consensus on this talk page (and maybe those noted here and supported by the related scope workspace sub-page) get made.

Also, the FP as currently configured (including 2011 expiration date) is overkill. We'll have to get a consensus to get that changed.

And so, I say to admins, please only make changes that have some degree of discussion and consensus in this talk page.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm working on heavy core sourcing issues, to build a source base, which will allow editors to evaluate the topic in the scholarly and popular RS discourses, and thus build consensus towards weight and article structure. Don't expect quick results from me on this. I'll announce the projects I'm working on to Wikipedia:WikiProject Libertarianism when they're ready for beta. In the meantime I've seen excellent suggestions on expanding the sourcing for Libertarianism in Country or Libertarianism and topic articles which are in the WikiProject's list of todos. Libertarian perspectives on contracts is a redlink, as is Libertarian perspectives on sex and Libertarian perspectives on sovereignty. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Cool North8000 (talk) 14:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Just FYI: If there's any manipulation .. it's people manipulating themselves into a position well-deserving of blocks. BigK HeX (talk) 14:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand, but it sounds like warfare. Lets move on. North8000 (talk) 14:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

If full protection doesn't sit well with the editors here, I can revert it back to semi. If I lift the full protection, however, I will impose a strict 1RR probation, and require that all reverts must be discussed on the talk page. Violations will result in blocks. I'm watching this page; let me know what you decide. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd give it a week or two before lifting the full protection. At least then, we'll have a chance to try a more earnest attempt at consensus-building. BigK HeX (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I think that BigK's idea is also good, I was originally going to suggest that. North8000 (talk) 17:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
support removing block i wish we could get the mediator back, our progress was greatly increased having a 3rd party act as marriage counselor/judge. most of the warring had stopped, and the issue of weight was being address methodically. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I think that we were making progress on the warring part and on the article at the time of the new block. The reasons given with the request did not hold water. I don't see the RR was the problem. But at a pace of 35 or 40 edits a day it was getting hard for anyone to follow. We need a practice here where significant edits are at least discussed in advance, even if a consensus is not achieved. I support removing the block and putting the article on probation of going back to FP if we can't start cooling this down a little. BigK's "1-2 week cool down" idea is also a good one, that was what I was originally goig to suggest. North8000 (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Support week cool down and 1RR block. 1RR block was what I originally requested, having seen it work very well on another article with a really bad edit war. A week to allow cool down WOULD be a good idea. It's gotten to the point there are just so many changes - and a certain percentage blatantly vs. policy - that no editor trying to be accurate, NPOV, and all good things, can possibly keep up with it all. Note that we've been trying to get an informal mediator with no luck and probably should look for a formal one next, per first posting. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Comment I like the "cool down" purpose, but also to add what BigK wrote: "to try a more earnest attempt at consensus-building" North8000 (talk) 10:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Keep things as they are right now for a fourtnight and decide later Fifelfoo (talk) 01:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Evidently people are not in a hurry to unprotect, which is fine with me. I have one big bugaboo which is reason I asked for protection in first place and probably tomorrow will re-propose it and hopefully we can agree and an outside editor can fix it.<signed belatedly> CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Just place an {{editprotected}} tag on this page after gaining consensus for the change (if it isn't uncontroversial) and I or another administrator will make the change. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


Definition of libertarianism

According to sources, the defining characteristic of libertarianism is "full self-ownership". Sources that make this distinction include:

  • G. A. Cohen, Gerald Allan Cohen. Self-ownership, freedom, and equality, pp. 118-119. Cambridge University Press, 1995. ISBN 0521477514.
  • Thomas Christiano, John Philip Christman. Contemporary debates in political philosophy, pp. 138-145. Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. ISBN 1405133228
  • Lawrence C. Becker, Charlotte B. Becker. Encyclopedia of ethics, Volume 3, pp. 1562-1563. Taylor & Francis US, 2001. ISBN 0415936756
  • Ellen Frankel Paul, Fred D. Miller, Jeffrey Paul. Liberalism: old and new, Part 1, pp. 190-192. Cambridge University Press, 2007. ISBN 0521703050
  • Ronald Hamowy. The encyclopedia of libertarianism, pp. 246, 288. SAGE, 2008. ISBN 1412965802

This gives us a common basis for all the forms of libertarianism and the lead sentence definition for the article.

Any comments about how we can use this to word a definition and structure the article? Yworo (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of topic or scope between 1 October 2010 and 1 April 2011
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There is no question that there is support for the broad interpretation of the term libertarianism in reliable sources. But thanks for reminding us again.

However, there is support for the broad interpretation of cat in reliable sources too (to refer to the family that includes lions and tigers), yet the scope of the article at Cat is limited to the more specific topic, the domestic cat.

Given that you're appealing to general policy that applies to all WP articles (include Cat) and not to policy that applies only to articles about political philosophy articles, why do you think mere support for a general use of a term in reliable sources means the article named by that term must be about that general use for this particular article, when it clearly does not mean that in the case of other articles, like Cat? Or is there more to it? If so, what is it? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

  1. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
  2. Per my response to you above, I don't think that the article cat is really speaking to the proper question. If there had been a time when the general understanding of the word cat included lions and tigers in common speech, it might be more relevant, but this was never the case. siafu (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay, so you're taking into account the significance of what the term meant decades ago as opposed to how it's typically used today. I don't know if there is much if any precedence for that view in WP, do you? I mean, giving preference to usage today over usage decades ago is hardly a case of WP:RECENTISM. But, at least this is a reasonable answer to my question. Thank you for that. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
The sources mentioned are current. In any case, general articles like this give the full historic picture. The current topical sources give the full historic picture. We follow and summarize current sources. Not doing so would be without precedence in WP. See for example Conservatism, Liberalism, etc. In any case, this thread is not about your pet topic (pun intended), so please desist with off-topic comments. Yworo (talk) 21:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
The original question for the RfC, which is how I came to this discussion, was about whether or not Libertarianism should be construed narrowly only as the modern, American, right-wing Libertarianism that we all know so well. Doing that in particular is very much a case of recentism (and also Amero-centrism, I would argue), and was answered rather clearly by the RfC. The more subtle question we seem to be arriving at is what the relative proportions of this article should be, in order to satisfy due vs. undue weight. To that end, I think that it would not be unfair to note that particularly in American discourse, the two terms have been treated synonymously by and large, but I think it would be a mistake to conform this article to that narrow understanding. If I may propose my own analogy, schizophrenia is believed by many people to be identical to dissociative identity disorder but the two, in fact, are entirely different. The fact that the most common meaning for schizophrenia is multiple personalities would, I think plainly, not lead us to conclude that the article on schizophrenia should adopt that meaning. The solution used there simply makes note of the fact that common usage commonly treats it that way, mentioned in the lead. Here, I think we should take it further than just the lead itself, but make clear in the article proper that this is the most popular current form of libertarianism, and spend a good deal of space on that, but not to the exclusion of other definitions, whether they be currently popular or not. siafu (talk) 21:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
What is the source of the notion that the use of libertarianism to refer to the political ideology that celebrates individual rights including the right to own property (i.e., right-libertarianism) is American or Americo-centric? This has been shown multiple times (most recently in Lester just above) to be common usage in British , Australian and Canadian English too. I'm still waiting for a single reference to property-rights-denying left-libertarianism as "libertarianism" in any variety of English. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Regardless whether the usage was exported to Australia, Canada and UK, its origin was American. In addition, all the sources above include left-libertarianism within the definition of libertarianism and use both right and left to distinguish the two. One of the sources below identifies left-and-right-libertarianism as both belonging to a subclass, natural rights-based libertarianism, of an even broader definition of libertarianism. We do not use colloquial language to define topics, we use topical academic sources. Yworo (talk) 23:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Including left-libertarianism within the (broad) definition of libertarianism is equivalent to including lion within the (broad) definition of cat; neither is an example of using the term libertarianism or cat to refer specifically to left-libertarianism or to a lion, respectively.

I'm still waiting for even a single specific and exclusive reference to property-rights-denying left-libertarianism as "libertarianism" in any variety of English, and even from any time period. Have you (or anyone else) ever encountered such a source? --Born2cycle (talk) 00:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, all five of the sources listed above. Yworo (talk) 00:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
You added the word "exclusive" to the above comment after I'd answered the question, which isn't cool according to talk page policy. It doesn't matter though, there's no Wikipedia policy which requires exclusivity of the type you are attempting to require in the use of a term. So it's a moot point and my answer stands. Yworo (talk) 00:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that the lead should summarize common tenets of significant strands, and you have done a good job of identifying and sourcing one of them. North8000 (talk) 20:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Why not just tell us how you think it should read? CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Not there yet, but we should probably also incorporate Long's definition from the linked previous discussion. The point here is that there are commonalities: they should be introduced first. I guess I'm looking for whether other editors have additional sourced commonalities to include in the initial definition. Yworo (talk) 21:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Long is good because is best for bringing together all threads. But I think the books that come up first in books google search on libertarianism probably should be looked at. Ie: Libertarianism: A Primer - David Boaz - 1998 (his definition is very good, even if wordy); Libertarianism: for and against - Craig Duncan, Tibor R. Machan - 2005; and Libertarianism: A Political Philosophy for Tomorrow John Hospers - 2007; Libertarianism defended Tibor R. Machan - 2006; Also: Anarchism/minarchism: is a government part of a free country? Roderick T. Long, Tibor R. Machan - 2008. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Primary difference between left and right libertarianism

Again, according to sources, the difference between the left and right forms of libertarianism is the treatment of ownership of natural resources.

The above source distinguishes a third type of libertarianism, consequentialist libertarianism, proposed and advocated by Friedrich Hayek, and contrasts this with natural rights-based libertarianism, which includes both left and right-libertarianism.

Several of the sources in the previous section also discuss the distinction between left and right libertarianism as being in the area of the treatment of ownership of external resources. Hamowy (2008), pp. 288-289; Cristiano & Christman (2009), pp. 137-150; Paul, Miller & Paul (2007), pp. 191-203; Becker & Becker (2001), pp. 1562-1563; Cohen & Cohen (1995), p. 118.

So, these sources give us a basis for distinguishing two or three broad forms of libertarianism.

Any comments about how we can use this to word a definition and structure the article? Yworo (talk) 20:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Why not just tell us how you think it should read? Also what's your ref for Hayek? I personally don't know what left libertarianism base their ethics on. Also I think contractarianism is important. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Unless there are other sources that make this distinction, I don't think it's worthwhile. Hayek definitely recognized and advocated for the right to own property, so he's right-libertarian in that sense. Bevir is not the only one note that libertarians (meaning right-libertarians) arrive at the same belief via either the Hayekian practical route (it's what works best) or the Randian/Rothbardian moralistic route (it's the right thing to do), and some by both. But the destination is the same in all these cases... right-libertarianism (property-rights-recognizing advocacy of individual liberty). --Born2cycle (talk) 23:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
You know, we don't write articles based on how you classify things. We write them based on how reliable sources classify things. This deserves a mention in the article, especially if other sources also use the term. Yworo (talk) 23:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Of course we don't write articles based on how I classify things. But, we need to do something coherent, if all the sources do it different ways. Otherwise we end up with, well, an incoherent hodgepodge. For example, if one source uses "left-libertarianism" and "libertarian socialism" synonymously, as Sapon does, while another source states that "left-libertarianism" and "libertarian socialism" are distinct ideologies, as Widerquist does, they are labeling different ideologies with the same terms. If we ignore that we end up saying something nonsensical like:

Left libertarianism (libertarian socialism)[Sapon] is a distinct ideology from libertarian socialism [Widerquist].

That's a problem.

I'm okay with noting the consequentialist distinction in the article, but if readers get the impression that Hayek did not support property rights (is not a right-libertarian), that would be incorrect. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It's really quite simple, b2c, when significant sources take different positions, we simply describe these differences in position in clear language. Surely you're good enough at logic and writing to help accomplish that. Yworo (talk) 23:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm merely pointing out that just because two (or more) sources use the same terms does not mean they are referring to the same concepts. Do you not agree?

Therefore, if we mix and match what sources say without regard to to what each means by their use of any common term, we will get gibberish. The resulting error might not be as blatantly obvious as in my simplified illustrative example above, but would be just as wrong and misleading. Just something to watch out for.

In other words, you can't just cut and paste stuff out of sources without thought to context and meaning of the terms in the quotes. And before you cry WP:OR, consider what WP editors have to do when we rely on foreign language sources. It's obvious we have to interpret and adjust terminology in that case. We have to do it with English sources too; it's just more subtle. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree in principle, however, in this particular case, I don't agree. The sources appear to use the terms fairly consistently. You've constructed as an example a mistake no attentive writer would make. In other words, it's a straw man argument. Same applies to your ridiculous cat analogy. There, you've been answered. Yworo (talk) 00:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Huh? Where did I say anything about whatever sources you're talking about? Communication is more productive if you don't try to read between the lines. I try very hard to be explicit about what I mean, so if you feel you need to read between the lines, there is probably a miscommunication of some kind. I'm just saying it's a general consideration that should be made, and am bewildered by your obstinacy and hysterical claims of creating strawmen to this rather obvious (but easy to overlook - which is why I'm mentioning it) point. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
The sources in question are the topic of this discussion thread. If you're not talking about them, then you are disrupting this thread with your incessant soapboxing. Yworo (talk) 00:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Dude, we were talking about hypothetical sources in general terms if they were found - see the "if" in your comment at 23:14... "especially if other sources also use the term.". If at some point after that you started to refer to the specific sources you later found and listed below you forgot to tell me. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Don't call me dude. I started this thread and it's about specific sources listed at the top of the section and how to use and integrate them. Please stop with the disruptive soapboxing. Discussing hypothetical sources is an intentional waste of time and simply not the topic of this thread. Yworo (talk) 04:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Consequentialist libertarianism

We've got a number of additional sources using this classification for a particular type of libertarianism which includes Hayek's and others work.

  • Edward Craig. Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy: Genealogy to Iqbal, Volume 4, p. 618, Taylor & Francis, 1998. ISBN 0415073103
  • G. W. Smith. Liberalism: Rights, property and markets, p. 4. Taylor & Francis, 2002. ISBN 0415223598
  • Norman P. Barry. On classical liberalism and libertarianism, p. 42. Macmillan, 1986. ISBN 0333325915

I think it should be mentioned in the article. One of the sources goes on to identify three versions of consequentialist libertarianism: the 'Chicago' School, the 'Austrian' School, and the 'Virginia' School. Yworo (talk) 23:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

If the sources are there to support it, then it surely should get a mention. However, there may be other things that be easier to tackle first. BigK HeX (talk) 02:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
my research has found this to be a tiny minority, thus ineligible for inclusion here. Darkstar1st (talk) 02:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Please provide sources that substantiate that. Yworo (talk) 04:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

So where do we start?

A few ideas:

  • Start working on and consensusing a (possibly revised) overview section in the talk page
  • Decide one by one, and once and for all which strands do and don't meet the "significant, as determined by RS's" criteria for inclusion. (this will need to be followed by explaining them in the context of Libertarianism, common tenets, differences, prevalence)
  • Start building the "practice of" type section (major organizations, movements, think tanks, political parties, publications). Specifics could include adding think tank and publicaitons sections, as well as adding larger past organiznations

North8000 (talk) 16:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


Aside from possible trouble with right-libertarian ideas for property, I think the best place to start would be to flesh out the common tenets as found in reliable sources. There's quite a bit of discussion in the article about differences in the various strands of libertarianism, but little on the broad similarities. The stuff from Long is a good start, IMO. BigK HeX (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's do it North8000 (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)I agree with North's idea to include both disparate forms in the article. I submit that the vast majority of sources that use the term libertarianism are using one or the other, and not some watered-down usage whose meaning is limited to the vague tenets common to both (a few tertiary sources excepted).

    I also caution against the use of "right-libertarianism" to refer to Chomsky's "idiosyncratic/US/UK/Canadian" usage, because within that domain there are sources that further divide it into left and right libertarianism. To diagram what Chomsky and other sources are saying (which illustrates why Chomsky says libertarian is "too vague"):

    • Libertarian socialism (usually "libertarian socialism" in contemporary English usage, but often "left-libertarianism" and rarely just "libertarianism" a.k.a. socialisme libertaire; known as "libertarian" in contemporary continental (non-English) European usage, in English usage prior to the 1950s; anti-individual-property-rights; e.g.: Chomsky)
    • Libertarianism (Usually "libertarianism" in contemporary US/UK/Australia/Canada usage; 'idiosyncratic' per Chomsky; a.k.a. classical liberalism and simply "liberalism" in early 20th century and prior; pro-property-rights)
      • Right-libertarianism/Minarchism (morality based justification of libertarianism; usually: "libertarian"; e.g., Ayn Rand, Nozick, Boaz)
      • Left-libertarianism (includes anarcho-capitalism; utilitarian-freedom-based justification of libertarianism; usually: "libertarian": e.g., Karl Hess, Murray Rothbard; Herbert Spencer )
Note that left-libertarianism is used in some sources as a synonym for anti-propertian Libertarian socialism, and in others for propertian individual liberty that has its roots in classical liberalism.

As long as the article accurately reflects what sources say and how they use these terms (which I submit is represented reasonably well by this outline), I'm fine with it. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Maybe we should start that "outline" section in a similar manner to the common tenets section below. North8000 (talk) 17:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Looks like it's already started. Does anybody mind if I separate it? North8000 (talk) 18:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Separate it from what? What's wrong with where it is? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you mean it's incompatible with the main title of the section, "Develop description of common tenets of strands of Libertarianism". How about just changing that title, then? Perhaps, "Develop key ideas for article"? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
It's VERY compatible, but also divisible. My move idea was ONLY because it's such a major topic, to give it its own section and structure just like the "common tenets" section. North8000 (talk) 18:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I just added yet another subsection to separate out the non-common tenets from the others. How about we leave it as it is for now? If it becomes unmanageable then we can split it up? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Libertarianism/Archive_26&oldid=1136905546"