Talk:Libertarianism/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Definitional issues

I understand that saying there's no general consensus on the precise definition is troublesome, however, we imply in the definition that there's general consensus on our definition (which has no source!--this is not to imply it's a bad definition, as it was the product of a lot of good discussion, and I've no problem with that discussion being considered a source, outside of the fact that it would go against the rules of the site, of course).

I mean, my no precise definition thing gets taken out because it has no source, but we leave the definitional sentence in? I'm not implying that this means (a) that anything that can go in should or (b) that the definitional sentence needs a citation or (c) that it's a bad definition. However, I think the issue of the fact that there's no general consensus even that libertarianism is a *group* of philosophies ought to be addressed.

What if we say "Libertarianism is generally considered to be the group..."?

In short, the reader will assume that there is general consensus on the definition of libertarianism as we define it unless we say otherwise. There is no such general consensus. Therefore, I think we ought to have something (I don't know what and I'm very open to suggestions) to clear up this ambiguity. Byelf2007 (talk) 10 September 2012

I think that it's pretty good as is. Except that the typical reader is going to think of the common meaning of "violent" and misunderstand, so that word should be replaced. I think that your proposed change is not the greatest prose. The lead does not necessarily need to be cited, but should summarize the article, which I think that that sentence does. We should be open to changes, but I think that they should get a bit of talk before making them so that we don't go back to everybody putting in a new version every week. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

That all sounds good. Byelf2007 (talk) 10 September 2012

So, "without coercion" has now been changed to "without, or with limited, coercion"? It's of course true that there are many strains of libertarianism and therefore no precise and absolute definition (which is why I support "No general consensus on a precise definition"), but from my understanding from almost every libertarian theorist (and thinkers often referred to as "libertarian") across the spectrum, the lack of coercion is a defining element of this political philosophy, regardless of whether one is coming at it from a right-libertarian or left-libertarian position, etc.

At this point, it just seems like we're past "no general consensus" and have gone to diluting what the very concept is altogether. --Adam9389 (talk) 02 October 2012 —Preceding undated comment added 00:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

We're fine. I think the only problem is this "without, or with limited, coercion" bit. That's confusing. The sentence says it emphasizes X. Saying it emphasizes something "without" this other thing makes the use of "emphasize" not work too well. Furthermore, this is already implied by "voluntary association" at the very least. Finally, it's pretty cumbersome. I'm taking it out. I haven't seen justification for it/discussion on it, and, at this point, any alteration of the lede should be justified here first. Byelf2007 (talk) 3 October 2012

How about minimizing coercion overall? —Tamfang (talk) 01:21, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Byelf2007 (talk) 6 October 2012

"No general consensus on a precise definition"

I support having this in, until and unless someone proposes something I think it better to address the ambiguity issue (see above). Byelf2007 (talk) 10 September 2012

Me too. It's in the lead and I think a really really really safe summary of what is in the article. North8000 (talk) 00:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Re the above, I think that either way is fine. North8000 (talk) 00:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

"freedom" vs. "political freedom"

I'm pretty sure this has been discussed before, but shouldn't we have "political freedom" in the lede instead of "freedom" (which, correctly, links to "political freedom")? "Freedom" can mean a lot of different things (like "free will"), so I don't see why having "freedom" linking to "political freedom" or having "freedom" link to "freedom" or having "freedom" link to another page other than "freedom" or "political freedom" is preferable to just straight-up going with "political freedom". Byelf2007 (talk) 08 October 2012

As libertarianism generally emphasizes freedom in all sectors of life, I think we should leave the word as is, regardless of whether you want to direct it to the Freedom article or Political freedom. A lay-reader might see the word "political freedom" and think Oh they just mean free elections or something like that.

I think it's important to not lose sight of the fact that libertarianism means liberty across the board, even if that requires some abstract wording. --Adam9389 (talk) 12:28, 08 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we should change it somehow (not sure how), because "freedom" links to a "did you mean...?" page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom ). Perhaps there is something broader than "political freedom" we can link to that is more precise? Byelf2007 (talk) 08 October 2012

what do the sources you're relying on say, what are the sources you're relying on for this. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

That's a good question. We don't have a source for our definition of "libertarianism" because there are so many different definitions, so our definition has been cobbled together after a lot of discussion. So we'll have to go through a bunch of sources and try to discern what they have in common, assuming we agree on which sources to consider and which to not consider, so that's a pain. I'm not sure how we ought to proceed in any specific detail. Byelf2007 (talk) 08 October 2012

I'm happy for notable opinions—ie: following one of the major definitions we use, and notable in and of themselves as an opinion holder in relation to it—to be attributed or differentiated, for example, "freedom (meaning x for thinker y; a for tendency b) Fifelfoo (talk) 00:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Good luck. We've been working on it here for years. There are very different meanings, and major variations created by different contexts. And many of the "sources" (e.g. philosophers) are actually participants rather than sources. I think that this article has been doing a pretty good job at it, FAR far better than any single source. Of course, more work is needed. North8000 (talk) 00:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Adam Smith

From my perspective, Adam Smith was by far the most influential libertarian philosopher. Are there any objections to his inclusion in the list? --Xerographica (talk) 10:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards opposed. One, he was much more influential as an economist than a political theorist. Two, while influential as political theorist, he, to my knowledge, isn't nearly as influential as anyone else on the list. And I've literally never heard/read anyone ever say "You know, Adam Smith is a huge influence on how I think about morality/politics". He may have had a heyday, but he hasn't 'stood the test of time' so to speak, and we need to have a cut-off point. If we keep adding people who are almost as influential as all the others, then the list will grow ad infinitum.

What I think we need to do (to address similar issues in the future, as well as this one) is zero in on where we want that cut-off point to be and by what standard we decide who can make the cut and who can't. Byelf2007 (talk) 10 October 2012

There are a number of philosophers from the past who have influenced libertarianism, which is a modern philosophy, but cannot be considered libertarians themselves. TFD (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Great point. I'm not really sure Smith qualifies as a libertarian. Byelf2007 (talk) 10 October 2012

What would prevent Smith from qualifying as a libertarian? According to this article...nearly everybody qualifies as a libertarian...anarchists...socialists...you name it they qualify. So it's pretty funny that now you want to start being picky when it comes to including the most influential libertarian thinker. Adam Smith is really where you're going to draw the line? That's rich. --Xerographica (talk) 20:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

We are supposed to follow sources, not develop our own theories. Who says that Smith was a libertarian? TFD (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

If this article is a result of following credible sources...then it should be very easy for you to use this article to tell me exactly what would prevent Adam Smith from qualifying as a libertarian. Would advocating for public ownership of the means of production disqualify him? Would advocating for the abolition of the state disqualify him? Would founding modern economics on the basis of his invisible hand concept disqualify him? If you don't know what would disqualify him...then go back to reading your credible sources until you've figured it out. Then come back and tell me exactly what would disqualify him from being a libertarian. --Xerographica (talk) 22:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Chomsky traces his libertarianism back to Smith, while the Rothbard (and his followers) saw him as too statist to be considered one.[1] However, you need a source that says he is considered to be a libertarian. TFD (talk) 23:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

What's your source, what does your source say, why should we give WEIGHT to your source in a peak article? (Guy Debord's libertarianism isn't particularly relevant to this article, for example). Fifelfoo (talk) 21:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The lead

There is a dispute about a change to the lead.[2] Party of it is unsourced, and therefore should not be added. The other is a rephrasing of a source by Roderick T. Long that changes its meaning:

Original text: "Likewise, many libertarian capitalists disapprove of socialists calling themselves "libertarian."

Revised text: "Likewise, many free market individualists disapprove of socialists calling themselves "libertarian", and see this as a manipulation of language similar to the use of the word "liberal" by social democrats."

Source (p. 304): "Today, for the most part, libertarian capitalists begrudge socialists, and libertarian socilialists likewise begrudge capitalists, the title "libertartian".[3]

Long says nothing about "manipulation of language" and does not mention liberals or social democrats at all. No reason to change libertarian capitalists to free market individualists, the other group of libertarians may consider themselves free market individualists too.

(by TFD) 05:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

If I understand what you are getting at, I agree. Also strongly disagree with people trying to war in huge undiscussed changes in the lead, include a significant deletion of a IMHO rosetta-stone-level summary. Finally, the lead should be a summary of the article, not a place to give a narrower fact or opinion greater prominence. North8000 (talk) 10:38, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Few, if any, philosophies have universally agreed upon definitions. The lead structure's emphasis on this lack of a universal standard is not paralleled by any other philosophy article. 108.28.165.186 (talk) 21:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Lead (2)

"Libertarians generally advocate a society with a much smaller government compared to most present day societies."

This can be interpreted as necessarily referring to non-anarchists (advocacy of a 'smaller government').

I think it needs to be rewritten, or we can take out the sentence and leave the first one. Byelf2007 (talk) 1 November 2012

I was thinking that the main impression of that sentence covers the common meaning (smaller but not zero government) but technically covers anarchists because "zero government" is a subset of "smaller government". But I could be wrong. North8000 (talk) 16:38, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

How about using "less" instead of "smaller," as this would cover both a reduction and an abolition of governance? Fifelfoo (talk) 03:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I support. Byelf2007 (talk) 2 November 2012

Support (as implemented) North8000 (talk) 23:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Stabilize the first sentences in the lead

This article has a long complex history, previously very contentious, and always very complex on a complex topic. While consensus on the talk page is a bit of a high bar for changes in the lead, some sort of a discussion and partial agreement is to be expected at this point before making major changes in the first sentences. I'm getting tired of complete rewrites of the first sentence to match the "personal opinion of the day" of/by some individual that just drops into the article, without even reviewing or addressing the content of the article, which the lead is supposed to summarize. Agree/ disagree? North8000 (talk) 23:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Yep. Too bad those who do it usually won't read this prior. :( Byelf2007 (talk) 3 November 2012

Agreed, but at the same time, it's difficult to blame them for such a reaction. This article is a mess and a joke and any layperson wandering through cyberspace can click on this page and see that. I would love to try and help get this article back on track, but I have little to no idea how to go about that without getting lynched by the anarchists and socialists who feel like, if they cannot hijack the term for themselves (which, I'll be honest, is really what appears to be the aim here) to add to their already-plentiful array of labels, then they can at least water it down conceptually into nothingness -- until it's too broad and abstract to have any real definition at all ("humanist" is a good example of such a phenomenon).

My real concern is the fact that countless people -- for better or for worse -- come to Wikipedia to do research or at least to gain some headway & get a grasp on what something is. So take libertarianism for instance: They come here (a subject's Wikipedia page is almost always near the top of the search results), and they read those four paragraphs that more or less say "Well, see, we don't really know what libertarianism is. Something about freedom or liberty or agents' moral powers, blah-blah-blah. I guess they're people who think liberty is a good thing, I don't know. Did I guess right?"

Contrast that impression with the article's crisp 2005 version when it was a featured article:

“ Libertarianism is a political philosophy that holds that individuals should be allowed complete freedom of action as long as they do not infringe on the freedom of others. This is usually taken by libertarians to mean that no one may initiate coercion, which they define as the use of physical force, the threat of such, or the use of fraud to prevent individuals from having willful use of their person or property. In the economic realm, they generally oppose taxation and government regulation of business activities, and aim to reduce the size and scope of government. To the extent that libertarians advocate any government at all, its functions tend to be limited to protecting civil liberties and economic liberties (by protecting private property and a free market) through a police force, a military (with no conscription), and the courts. ”

The good old days when libertarianism had a definition. In my mind, the "to the extent" sentence throws a bone to both the anarchists and the minarchists. But if that's not good enough for the anarchists, it could always be addressed in the following paragraph, still in the article's intro. But evidently, such an option wasn't acceptable either, for some reason.

The years go by, we wind up with this:

“ Libertarianism is a political philosophy which upholds individual liberty, especially freedom of expression and action. Libertarianism includes diverse beliefs and organizations—all advocating either the minimization or the elimination of the state, and sharing the goal of maximizing individual liberty and freedom. ”

A lot more abstract, but still not quite the postmodern painting it is now, as it contains at least a hint of concrete information.

But nowadays, it's not even one, but a "group" of political philosophies, rather than one with different strands (as conservatism is often thought of, for example). And instead of the rejection of coercion that has always been a hallmark of libertarian philosophy, it is "Okay, well, we want to minimize coercion, anyway".

So, libertarianism means liking freedom and tempering down coercion a bit. All right, excellent, we've narrowed this philosophy down to about...most sane people on Earth.

Again (and I've raised this concern before), I still don't really know what was so unacceptable about either of those lead paragraphs. --Adam9389 (talk) 10:39 6 December 2012

Because, Adam, the word refers to both persons who wish to maximise the circulation of the value form in a fantasy world where value does not concentrate in its motions, and to persons who wish to abolish the value form, and this schism runs so deep and permanently through the complex relationship between anti and pro-capitalist libertarians such that both currently exist in political movements today, one at the apex of parliamentarianism in the leading imperialist state, the other in revolutionary movements throughout the world. Both exist. This article has for a long time recognised that both need to be discussed here. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree, and I'm not trying to weigh this article toward the pro-capitalist or anti-capitalist side. But, again, I still don't see how either of the more-articulate lead paragraphs I quoted above (especially the second one) exclude common-ownership libertarianism. Correct me if I'm wrong, but both sides have in common the maximization of individual freedom and the rejection of the initiation of force & coercion, even if they may interpret said concepts differently. The second lead paragraph I quoted stands for itself. Regarding the first one, we may disagree on private property rights, but in my experience both sides tend to agree that the people are the preferred regulators of the market (if there may be one) rather than the state. Again, interpretations and views as to how that would work differ, but the anti-state and anti-coercion sentiment is universal (or it wouldn't be libertarianism) and I think we could do a far better job at articulating that. I just want to bring some much-needed clarity and definition back to this heading -- something that will do justice to all strands of libertarianism. --Adam9389 (talk) 22:11 6 December 2012 —Preceding undated comment added 05:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

My first paragraph in this section pretty much sums up what I meant by "stabilization"; it does not include locking in the lead against discussed changes. I also think that you have many good thoughts and insights. But there are also numerous complexities that changes need to acknowledge. One (forgive my imperfect 30,000 ft view) is that wherever/whenever "liberalism" somewhat means classical liberalism, (e.g. historically everywhere, and now in Europe) the common meaning of "libertarian" leans more towards the more extreme folks (anarchists, farther left etc). Quite different than in the US, where it roughly means the mainstream folks who advocate less government in all respects. And then folks who look to define it along the lines of strands defined/created by philosophers end up going into another universe that departs from common meanings. And folks not in the US see the US in a different lens, which mistakenly calls things that are tacitly accepted by common libertarians in the US (e.g. capitalism, private property) as being defining tenets of common US libertarianism, which is also a mistake. North8000 (talk) 11:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

And, ironically, regarding "political" affiliation, the largest groups of folks whose beliefs follow the core tenets of libertarianism are called "liberals" in Europe and "independents" in the US. :-) North8000 (talk) 11:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Ayn Rand was not a Libertarian

Objectivism is not Libertarianism. Capitalism is not Libertarianism. See "Libertarianism, the Perversion of Liberty" in The Voice of Reason, Essays in Objectivist Thought by Ayn Rand for a discussion of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkb100100 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but the article explains that she was influential among libertarians. TFD (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Objectivism is libertarian according to 99% of reliable sources, the opinion of Objectivists notwithstanding. Byelf2007 (talk) 14 November 2012

if 99% of the reliable sources are wrong, they're still wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkb100100 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. There are two important consequences to this. The first is that sometimes things that are true cannot be included. The second is that sometime things that are not true are included. The second of these is often frequently infuriating to those who know the true. It means that Wikipedia is wrong.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is wrong. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

In this case I think that it is both sourced and right. The meaning has also changed / expanded. My guess is that if she was alive today she might eveen call herself a libertarian. North8000 (talk) 23:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe. She associated the term with the anarchy sense of the word, which she strongly opposed. Of course, many self-described libertarians also strongly oppose anarchy. In any case, it is supported by sources. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

One thing that I've slowly learned is that the common current meaning of "libertarian" in the US roughly equates to the common meaning of "liberal" in Europe. So, with the basic "just want less government" people in Europe being called "liberals", the common meaning of "libertarian" there leans more towards the wilder folks like anarchists. I'm guessing that in Rand's time, the terminology in the US was more like the terminology in Europe and that that context is needed to know what she meant. North8000 (talk) 20:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to separate section "history" into right wing libertarianism and libertarian socialism

As this section stands now, it is very confusing for uninformed readers about the issue. It seems to me it is also a bit absurd to try to join two tendencies of thought so clearly opposed to each other and with clearly differing historic lines in one single history. Also since we also have to mention in this article libertarian marxism.--Eduen (talk) 05:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I've been looking through the various articles in the Libertarianism sidebar and agree that the different "schools of thought" fall along this distinction. Many secondary sources of which I'm aware differentiate between right- and left- libertarianism or USA and non-USA, capitalist and socialist, or propertarian and collectivist strains (the latter in each case usually referring to anarchism). I think we ought to identify these two major branches of libertarianism and give the history of each. Because anarchism has its own article, we can summarize it here and deal mainly with the USA's right-libertarianism, per North8000's comment below. If I have some time this weekend, I'll try to work up something in my sandbox... unless there are objections to this. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Maintaining a neutral point of view will need to keep space of both forms (US capitalist liberalism and libertarian socialism)

keeping in mind history. As such US capitalist liberalism started using that name only from the mid 20th century onwards and all that is already covered. A detailed history for all that can be done in the article Libertarianism in the United States.--Eduen (talk) 01:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Original Research:On "libertarian schools of thought" and the suggestion of a single "libertarian" movement

Clearly suggesting differing "schools of thought" within libertarianism in this article as it was suggested in the introduction, and still in the "philosophy section" is original research (WP:OR). What exists in political history and contemporary political discussions is on the one side a long line of thought within socialism using the name libertarian while in the US since the 1950s or 1960s a section of pro-capitalist right wingers starting to call themselves libertarians. That is all we can establish here. As such the readers of this article have to be shown an enormous difference exists here which is not reducible to mere pro-capitalism/anti-capitalism but it also has to do with very distanced genealogies. Since this is the situation we can only establish these differences and not try to theorize here commonalities between two lines of thought and what unites a hypothetical single libertarian movement. To anyone who wants to do that wikipedia clearly is not the place for that and so for that an original academic essay can ber suggested. As such a supposed "consequentialist/dentological" distinction within libertarian socialist tendencies is as foreign to them as a distinction between plants and animals. From this point of view the whole section titled philosophy is composed entirely of original research.

I want to cite WP:OR in order to show what is wrong here: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article."

To me the best solution will be a clarification in the introduction of the problem of two very different things calling themselves "libertarian" and the "philosophy" section deleted since it has no secondary support at all alongside with the removal of all mentions of "libertarian schools of thought" in the article. Also as i suggested before this, a division of history in a section titled "libertarian socialism" and another called "right libertarianism" will be the best option.--Eduen (talk) 06:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Euden, I consider you to be an extremely valuable editor to have at this article, but I disagree with about 2/3 of what you just said. Since you said a lot, I'd have to write a zillion word post to fully respond. Instead, I'm going just say a few things about one underlying structural item. IMHO the morass that this article was in during its warfare 2 years ago was partly due to a structural problem which was to try to see libertarianism just through the lens of it as defined by various complete philosophies put forth philosophers rather than also giving significant recognition and coverage to the common meanings of the term. I feel that you are seeking to repeat this error. The biggest collision was that it failed to cover the common meaning of the term in the place in the world with the largest number of people calling themselves libertarians, which is the USA. (The common meaning in the USA is "advocating less government across the board, and setting that as a priority") Not only does this lead to "fail to cover" but it also leads to false results when one tries to pound / categorize the square peg of a simple meaning / common tenets like that into to the round hole of complete philosophies defined by philosophers. This leads to mistaken views such as your defining them as "pro-capitalist right wingers". In fact, in the USA, libertarians are in direct conflict with /opposition to a large chunk of the conservative platform, namely the whole "social conservative" half. It may be that most US libertarians tacitly accept (believe) that football is the game played with points on the ends of the ball, and that capitalism is good, but beliefs on football and capitalism are not definers of the common meaning of the word in the US. North8000 (talk) 12:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I really don't see a huge problem with the Philosophy section. The three categories of distinction seem well supported by sources. And there are clearly different "schools of thought" in libertarianism although that phrase may not be the best way to characterize these distinctions. (I can't think of a better term or phrase... just throwing that out there.) -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The phrase "school of thought" seems appropriate given the Libertarianism sidebar. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

There is an economic right wing and a social and moral right wing. Social/moral right wing refers mainly to social conservatism and religious conservatism while economic right wing views will refer to defense for big landlords and hierarchical rural societies (Tory and junker politics are good examples) but in contemporary times for support for the capitalist class and laizzes faire capitalism (Check Right-wing_politics#Economics). I also don´t know where you get your statistics for saying that the most people who call themselves libertarians are US people but anyway the use of libertarian as anti-state socialism goes as far as the mid 19th century and the use in that way is more widespread around the world so we cannot just stay in nationalist statistics also considering the fact that "libertarian" as linked with socialism also exists and has existed since the mid 20th century in the US while in other anglo countries such as the UK, Australia and even Canada both senses coexist while the use of "liberal" fluctuates also between social liberalism and economic laizzes fair economics.

As far as "schools of thought" that certainly needs support. As it stands now it is an invention of some or of a single editor of this article. Considering the references that we have now we can only talk about two conflicting uses of the word with different genealogies, or else I don´t see where one can find a crosspoint somewhere between on the one side Bakunin, Emma Goldman, Noam Chomsky and Murray Bookchin and on the other side Ayn Rand, the Austrian School of neoclassical economics and Milton Friedman. The wikipedia libertarianism sidebar cannot work as a reference in support of an affirmation here.

The problem is even worse in the "philosophy" section where the level of originality is even worse there. Like i said before the whole "Consequensialist" problematic is completely foreign to libertarian socialism and anarchism and the natural rights problematic is only of interest of the 19th century US individualist anarchists within anarchism for a little time and shortly afterwards they mostly dropped interest in it and embrace Max Stirner´s philosophy which sees talk of natural rights as abstract idealistic nonsense. It is clear that that whole problematic is only of interest within liberalism. So for me the things will be set clear if we just establish the main contents of one the one side US liberal laizzes fair pro-capitalism and on the other libertarian socialism.--Eduen (talk) 01:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Eduen, I don't think that I disagree with very much specific which you just said. I do think that you are trying to use an erroneous approach to define common US libertarianism, which is trying to trying to define it in a framework of full belief sets as put out by philosophers. Also IMHO the term "right libertarian" is not useful because each author has a different meanign of the word "right" in this phrase.

BTW my comment that the US has the largest populations identified as libertarian is only because they have another label in Europe for the general "less government / more freedom" folks, and that word is "liberal" We don't have that other word in the US (liberal in the US means something different which includes bigger government in a wide range of areas) and so "libertarian" becomes the word for for that larger group of folks. North8000 (talk) 02:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

US Right wing liberalism

So i create this section in order to hear arguments why the section called "Twenty-first century" has to be called "In the US" and not "US right libertarianism". I have to remind you that the use of "libertarian" in the sense of libertarian socialism also exists today in the US as can be seen in the cases of intellectuals Noam Chomsky, Robin Hahnel and Michael Albert and the US anarcho-communist organization called Common Struggle – Libertarian Communist Federation. the same problem exists in the section titled "Tewntieth century" where clearly the section titled "in the US" should also be called "US right libertarianism". I suggest those interested to check the old wikipedia article "Right-libertarianism".--Eduen (talk) 02:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Free market anarchism in the lead

Free market anarchism has recently been added to the third paragraph in the lead, which discusses the differing levels of government supported by various libertarians. Because this section has nothing to do with economics (and since free market anarchism is rather specific), I see no reason for this to be in the lead at all. I didn't revert it previously in the spirit of cooperation, but the more I read it, the more it sticks out. Anyway, since I've been obsessing over it, I figured I'd leave it to consensus to decide. Thanks! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Personally i will agree with you that it does not belong in the introduction. Anyway the phrase "free market anarchism" is non-existent in the main historical and philosophical works on anarchism. As I read the article "free market anarchism" it is clear is a synonym with the bizzare mainly US based invention called "anarcho-capitalism". Anarcho-capitalism is a highly controversial issue within anarchism since it proposes that anarchism can be conciled with a highly hierarchical socio-economic system such as capitalism and as such obvious definitional problems, if not sheer absurdity, arise alongside the fact that it is never mentioned in historical works on anarchism. As such anarcho-capitalism must be treated as a more radical version of laizzes faire pro-capitalism than the views of Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman and clearly a less influential form of such liberal laizzes faire capitalism which exists in the US Libertarian Party. Clearly both tendencies share the same genealogy which goes to neoclassical economics of the Austrian School, the 18th century laizzes faire economics of Adam Smith and the propetarian political philosophy of John Locke.--Eduen (talk) 02:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Eduen, you don't need to go into that level of detail; I'm an anarchist and am familiar with the history and philosophy thereof. And you're right, there is even a proposed merger of the free market anarchism and anarcho-capitalism articles. I will go ahead and remove that content from the lead.

As a personal note, you can use the colon character (:) at the beginning of a line to indent your comments. This is quite helpful on Talk pages in differentiating between various editors' comments. And, just 'cause I'm anal retentive (I mean no offense), it's laissez-faire not laizzes faire. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Additional note: We had discussed that since libertarianism is the secondary place for coverage of anarchism, (the primary being anarchism) that we would lean towards briefer coverage of anarchism here. North8000 (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

North8000, thanks for that information; that makes sense. Do you think it would be worthwhile to put a hatnote on this article? Something like, "Libertarianism may refer to Anarchism"? That almost doesn't sound strong enough, but I don't want to be too specific either (i.e. "Libertarianism outside of the USA often refers to Anarchism). -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know the best way to do it. Maybe it's just trustably-neutral folks that have been at the article for a long time to remind people of stuff like this. North8000 (talk) 19:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, nevermind. I see there is already a hatnote that leads to the disambiguation page, which explains that anarchism is often used as a synonym. I don't think it needs to be more explicit than that. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Maintaining a neutral point of view will need to keep space of both forms (US capitalist liberalism and libertarian socialism) keeping in mind history. As such US capitalist liberalism started using that name only from the mid 20th century onwards and all that is already covered while "libertarian" has been used in anarchism since the mid 19th century. So the historical point of view forces us to do things in this way. A detailed history for US pro-capitalist libertarianism can be done in the article Libertarianism in the United States.--Eduen (talk) 01:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Etymology first?

There's been a lot of discussion lately I haven't caught up on, so I'm sorry if I'm like a child who wanders into the room in the middle of a movie and wants to know what's going on, but why is the etymology first? I find this very peculiar--we're told what the etymology is before we get a complete explanation of what libertarianism is (because we haven't been told everything about the distinctions between groups, which is necessary to understanding what it is, especially because of how vague it is).

However, I think I understand the rationale--of all the "isms" out there, this is probably the one with the least level of consensus on the meaning, it being basically a term of convenience. So the etymology is a bit special in this case, and we might benefit from getting to know the story of the use of this term before we go into a full explanation (based on our definition--the worst except for all the others), and, there is still a good deal of info on the factions of libertarianism in the lede.

Still, I lean towards having etymology after the "Philosophy" section, believing that, generally speaking, the first thing we need to know after the lede is, comprehensively, what the X (article subject) is, before we talk about etymology or history or how it relates to other things, etc. I'm interested in the rationale behind having etymology precede history.

Since there's no general agreement on the use of the term, perhaps we should just integrate the etymology info into the lede? Byelf2007 (talk) 14 December 2012

Byelf2007, that was my doing (and no, you haven't missed anything on this particular subject). The reason I made this change is because in every Wikipedia article I can remember, the "Etymology" section has come first. Just clicking around a little bit, I found that all pages that have this section conform to this style (dolphin, patrician, bourgeoisie, and etymology); it seems to be somewhat of an implicit standard. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Keep Etymology at top following the lede. Besides, the lede is a short summary of the major points of the article, so integration is not appropriate. (A layout guideline often ignored.) --S. Rich (talk) 07:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

MisterDub: FYI, there are multiple styles on the site. Etymology generally doesn't go first in medical articles, for example (not that I'm implying a specific policy on this issue). I generally prefer the medical article format, but I think libertarianism is a good exception due to the history of the use of the word. Byelf2007 (talk) 16 December 2012

What is the etymology of the word 'libertarian'?

This article sorely needs a history of the word. It is fine to add thinkers who are proto-libertarian (those who took positions which were only later labelled as libertarian), but it would be clarifying to know who first called their own political thought 'libertarian' as a distinct political outlook? Was the word used more generally before that time?

Historian Jennifer Burns in "Goddess of the Market" (page 48, no citation) claims that Alfred Jay Nock and H.L. Mencken "were the first to call themselves 'libertarians,' a new coinage meant to signify their allegiance to individualism and limited government, now that Roosevelt had co-opted the word 'liberal.' " This might (?) be true in the U.S., but it's my sense that the word was used in Europe before that time, though I can't recall specific examples. AECwriter 19:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)AECwriter

I think that this has subsequently been resolved. North8000 (talk) 11:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Concentrated benefits and diffuse costs - Proposed for Deletion

The "stub" I created for concentrated benefits and diffuse costs has been proposed for deletion...Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concentrated benefits and diffuse costs. If you get a chance please look over the sources and weigh in on whether the concept is notable enough to warrant its own entry. Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 21:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Scope of Government - Proposed for Deletion

The "stub" I recently created for the scope of government has been nominated for deletion...Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scope of government. How notable is the concept? The concept has been the primary topic of political debate since the beginning of recorded history. But the entry wasn't proposed for deletion because it lacks notability...it was proposed for lack of quality. What can I say? It's a stub with plenty of room for improvement. If anybody who's actually familiar with the concept would offer their two cents then that would be really great. Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 21:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

POV tag?

I don't see any specific POV issue even alleged or under discussion. North8000 (talk) 22:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Same. I've alerted Varnam06 about this so he or she can join in the discussion, but have since removed the tag per Template:POV ("When to remove: It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given; In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.") -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Specialized strain

The lead has been changing a lot, so I figured we ought to bring some things to discussion. One such change was to label the common meaning of libertarianism outside the USA as relating to "specialized strands of libertarianism." If anything, the USA's meaning is the specialized one: Murray Bookchin in The Ecology of Freedom writes that libertarian is "a term created by nineteenth-century European anarchists, not by contemporary American right-wing proprietarians", a claim supported by the information in the Etymology section in this article. It is further supported by Max Nettlau's A Short History of Anarchism, Colin Ward's Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction, and Noam Chomsky's interview with Z Magazine.

Can we say something other than specialized? Or perhaps we should remove the sentence altogether? We've explained that the USA uses the term differently, so do we need to mention that the rest of the world has not made this change? I'm okay with either solution. Thanks! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that the core explanation is immensely important, (including on the topics that had this article in flames 2 years ago) including explaining to US readers that it's common meaning elsewhere is somewhat different. But I'm wide open on how we explain it. I started with saying that the meaning leans towards non-statist socialism and anarchism, but someone objected to that. My "specialized" word was just my second attempt. Ideally someone with non-USA perspective could summarize which way the "outside the USA" meaning leans. North8000 (talk) 16:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I didn't see a problem with the previous phrasing. The user who objected did so because it was an "unsourced point," but then goes on to suggest "the source of this view has to be the linguist Chomsky." As the claim is well sourced in the article (by Chomsky and others), I don't think the removal of this material was justified. I support reinstating the previous phrasing of this sentence. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Cool with me.North8000 (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that the lead matter-of-factly describes the US strain of late 20th century libertarianism as resurgence of classical liberalism, which is a real but highly disputed claim. According to several prominent libertarians, historians and political scientists, the neoliberal ideology stands in stark contrast and opposition to classical liberalism as defined by the writings of Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, Wilhelm von Humboldt and others. I can source this, if someone thinks a rewrite of that part would be appropriate. Finx (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

'less authority' vs 'less government'

My main issue with 'less government' in the introduction is that it's a highly politicized and ambiguous expression, because when used that way by political commentators or political figures it's often very unclear what either 'less' or 'government' means. It could imply a lower state spending, less authoritarian legislation prohibiting certain actions, more public control (and thereby less state/governing-body control), more state control (and thereby less public control), more deregulation, more privatization, fewer trade barriers, fewer capital barriers, or any combination of the above. It could mean anything from a dissolution of limited liability (since corporations are artificial collectivist entities legally created by the state) to a devolution to, well, just about anything really. 'Authority' seems more or less unambiguous and covers multiple strains of libertarianism fairly uncontroversially. The anarchist side of libertarian thought may not object so much to governance, as such, but specifically to state reach and control. There may be a better word still to use, but I'm just not sure what it is. Thoughts? Finx (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I forgot there was a request to back up the idea that anarchism "has government" in the edit summaries. Real world examples would include national confederation of Anarchist Spain after the Spanish Revolution, which could be described, to my understanding, as stateless government without top-down authority. Hypothetical examples proposed or endorsed by anarchists include Libertarian municipalism and Participatory politics, and there are others. If this isn't 'government' as such, it's definitely some kind of governing system, and I'm not sure what you would call it exactly. Finx (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit conflict, responding only to first paragraph) You seem to be saying that the problem with "less government" is that it is too broad. (I think that some of your examples don't hold water, but I get / they convey your point) But that would argue against your proposed change because "authority" is even broader (and a superset of) "government". Second, this article gone through great effort to be a "big tent" regarding the varying meanings of libertarianism, and the summary should include strands specifically focused on government. Lastly /mostly, the lead, and the opening of the lead should be a summary of what is in the article. With government generally being the only practical way of full authority, and the content/ libertarianism universally focused on reduction or elimination of government, IMHO that is a good summary. I support that some exception exist (e.g. of opposing authority that is not government) but IMHO the opening summary really has to hit the overwhelming mainstream rather than cover all of the rare exceptions. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It may be just as broad, but it's less ambiguous, and does not scream implicit contradictions, because it conveys that the goal is 'liberty' across the board (as seen by whichever kind of 'libertarian'), and people disagree over what constitutes coercive/unwanted/illegitimate authority. I don't agree that government is the only way of full authority. There is, for example, the hierarchy of a business or a parent-child relationship, so brevity does come at a cost. But I think the ambiguity comes from equivocating government and state. Libertarianism is indeed universally focused on the elimination of government for a particular definition of government. So, if your intention is not to exclude the mainstream, which historically has been anarchism for well over a century, as it remains outside the US today, it is necessary to make some sort of distinction. I'm almost tempted to say "less state", but that sounds kind of weird, no? Finx (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Can we settle on "less state control" or do you think that's too narrow? Finx (talk) 23:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me even though I prefer "government". North8000 (talk) 23:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

May I ask why? My reasoning is that state often signifies the governing body or governing class (the people and institutions with the power of governing), according to Webster, rather than being a blanket term for any system governance, including those without top-down authority, in generally accepted good standing with the principles voluntary association mentioned just before this sentence. Finx (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I guess its that government (by the common meaning of the term) is the only real ultimate power over an individual at issue. To quibble on your examples, "hierarchy of a business" "authority" means only that either party in an employer/employee relationship can impose conditions on the other as a condition for continuation of that relationship, and that's pretty much the extent of it. And I don't see libertarians advocating for removal of parental authority over their children. North8000 (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

As far as parental authority, that was precisely my point. 'Authority' should be qualified whenever possible. Concerning employer/employee relationships, a sizable chunk of self-identified libertarians would certainly disagree, as there are many libertarian thinkers (Déjacque, Proudhon, Bakunin, Tucker, Spooner, Goldman, Bookchin, Chomsky and many others) who basically uniformly describe the relationship as a compulsory and unmitigated tyranny, with little distinguishing it from chattel -- in fact, this was a very common and mainstream libertarian view, so prevalent that it was even articulated by Lincoln's Republican party. And while this view has not carried over to late 20th century neoliberalism, it is one of the most significant traditionally libertarian ideas. But back to 'government' -- there are two ways to take, discarding the ambiguity I've mentioned above. It can mean 'governing system,' which is wrong as a blanket statement for all libertarians or it can mean 'the people presently occupying state institutions' which is really strange, because libertarianism of any variety engages in an institutional and not a personal critique. Does that make sense? Finx (talk) 00:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

You first three sentences are accurate regarding libertarianism. But you asked for my own opinion and that was the question that I was answering. On your last 2 sentences I did not understand what you were intending to say. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Please don't take this as my insisting that you should change your opinion; I was only trying to better explain my reasoning for the edit and better understand yours. This wasn't meant to be a probing of your personal views, if that's how it came off. I only want to accurately describe this 'big tent' as you called it, without leaving any significant libertarian positions in the cold. My two sentences were in regard to the semantics of 'government,' which (apart from the frequently used "less government") can either colloquially mean "some nonspecific type of system for governing a society" or alternately "the people presently in charge of a particular state." While the first definition is overreaching and unrepresentative of the breadth of libertarian thought, because many anarchists (with the possible exception of some primitivists, for example) are not opposed to 'governing', the second definition would imply being against specific people rather than certain types of power systems and institutions. Finx (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem, this is fun. Still not following, but one comment. While we need to also be cognizant of terms of art meanings, when we write to readers, the way that it will be taken (and thus the form of communication) is the common meaning of the term. I think that such for the word "government" is pretty obvious. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I have to disagree. What I started this talk section with, concerning different and sometimes contradictory interpretations, was exactly to explain that it isn't obvious. It's subjective and confusing. I understand that words are taken on common meaning, but I also think it's important in cases like this to use words that are correct. While a state means the centralized organizational structure of a polity bestowed with coercive power and authority over society, a government is simply the means by with any polity is organized or governed. The article on state goes over this briefly, just under the introduction. I know that 'government' is sometimes used as 'state' but it's not the right word. I just think it doesn't make much sense, unless we confuse the terms. Finx (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding content, we already settled it....as indicated, "state" is fine with me. And the discussion is enjoyable too. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that state is a much less ambiguous word, if at all. In Anarchy, Errico Malatesta even specifically says that we should use the term government instead of state: "For these reasons, we believe that it would be better to use the expression 'abolition of the State' as little as possible, and to substitute for it another, clearer, and more concrete --'abolition of government.'" (source) -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Also Finx, you've stated that anarchism has government, but I doubt any anarchist would say such a thing (I know I wouldn't). Whereas the government is an authoritative body, anarchism has an "administration of things": an amalgamation of non-hierarchical groups that organize labor. Yes, anarchist groups have organization, but that is not the same thing as government. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what else you would call a confederation of communities and labor organizations that cooperate to coordinate their affairs. It's certainly not a state, but if we take 'to govern' on Webster's word, that makes it a governing body, just not a conventional one. Either way, I think the point is clarity and concision, not the best way to advertise anarchism. Finx (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you or I would call it, saying an anarchist society is a government based on a dictionary interpretation is WP:OR and stands in direct contradiction to the sources, which are quite clear in this regard. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)With all of the complexities and variations regarding libertarianism, the first couple sentences need to be pretty general, covering the common and semi-common quests of libertarians, and using words based on their common meanings. Based on that, my preference is for "government", but I think that "state" is also fine, but think that "authority" is not so good. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

North8000, I agree with your assessment. I tend to use government and state interchangeably (as do most, I think) and don't mind which term this article employs, but authority doesn't seem to fit. I'd prefer government more because it makes an easily understandable and compact sentence, compared with state which is then forced into an adjective describing some aspect of this institution (even ones as ubiquitous as control or authority). -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The definitions I've used are thoroughly cited in the article 'State (Polity)', under 'Definitional issues.' Those are not my own research or interpretations. They're commonly accepted definitions that distinguish between the centralized authority of a polity and a polity's means of governing. There are also many prominent anarchists who make it a point to say 'state' rather than 'government' -- Noam Chomsky being one example. I'll quote:

Government has a flaw that General Electric doesn’t have. The government is potentially democratic. There’s a way of influencing the government and participating in it. I’m not joking, just think about it. When you’re saying that the government is doing this and that and the other thing to us, yes, the government is reflecting the interests of the people in it, but they could be representing us - there is no way for private tyrannies to be representing us. So yes, they would like you to hate the government. There is a lot wrong with the government, there is a lot to be hated about it, there is a lot to be changed about it. But the main thing about it is you can participate in it. And there are ways of changing what it does, and therefore, for at least people who believe in democracy, gives us advantages that other systems of powers don’t have. It is potentially our system of power, and the private corporations aren’t. So I kind of half-way go along with what you’re saying. To the extent that the system is not democratic, it’s not zero or a hundred percent - it’s somewhere in there and it changes. But that is because we’ve succumbed to a propaganda offensive and institutional arrangements, which have in fact kept people separated and isolated into atoms of consumption and not dealing with each other, hating each other, and so on. Now that’s within our control.

-- “Prospects for World Order,” Dr. Noam Chomsky, October 24, 1995; transcript here.

I'm not going to be beat this issue like a dead horse, but I think I've made my take on this clear: one phrase is correct and another is broadly wrong (in two ways mentioned above) or only correct for a colloquial niche definition. I understand that you use government and state interchangeably, but they provably do not mean the same thing. Finx (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Finx, I'm not sure what you're getting at, as your examples are contradicting your statements: the State (polity) article says "[t]here is no academic consensus on the most appropriate definition of the state", and Chomsky uses the term government far more than state, which isn't even found once in the excerpt you've quoted (and only three times in the entire transcript). Like I said, I don't mind too much which term we use, but your justification is severely lacking. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm really at a loss as to how I can make this any more clear. When Chomsky, for just one example, explains what his understanding of anarchism/libertarian-socialism is opposed to, he uses the term state, to mean the power systems and formal magisterial institutions operational within a polity's borders (as well as those borders themselves), while pointing out (as quoted above) that it would be foolish to oppose government. So, again, a leading authority on libertarian socialism does not want 'less government' (if anything, he's argued for extending welfare state programs and spending in that same lecture), but 'less state': less concentrated authority and a dissolution of national borders. If you read below the sentence about 'academic consensus' in the Wikipedia article on state, you will find the most commonly accepted definition of 'state' and a section just below that contrasting it with 'government', which, at least in modern academic language, signifies something entirely different. I apologize if I'm not making myself clear, but I don't know how else to explain it when it's plainly written in black and white. Finx (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

If you would like a source where Chomsky addresses 'state' specifically, by the way, I can provide a reference... or a dozen. Finx (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that the framework used to look at it will vary the answer. Even the prominent philosophers referred to as sources aren't really sources in a coverage sence, they are creators of their person definitions of these terms. I have no doubt that everybody here is right in some framework. I think that the common meaning of "government" is what Finx is referring to as "the state" and the definition of "the government" used by Finx and the writings that they refer to is a different (also correct) meaning of "government" which is the particular set of folks with that power. North8000 (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Sources are much appreciated. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

In contrast to his denunciation of neoliberal/Reaganite/Thatcherite 'anti-government' sentiment as exemplified by CATO/Charles Koch Foundation and the US Libertarian Party, to name a few (broadly considered to be a rabid form of statism by the libertarian socialists):

• "I don't believe there is a need for any state in this world; I think they're all illegitimate." - Television program "The Agenda with Steve Paikin" (video+ts)

• "A state is a structure of violence. It responds to the distribution of power typically." - Face to Face with a Polymath (November, 2001)

• In a long interview, using the metaphor of a 'cage' to describe the state: "And we intend to destroy the cage. But not by attacking the cage when we’re vulnerable, so they’ll murder us. That’s completely correct." - Expanding the Floor of the Cage (April, 1997)

• "My own judgment, since childhood and still today, is that among these alternatives, the no-state solution is by far the best (not just in this region) " - Advocacy and Realism: A reply to Noah Cohen (August 26, 2004)

• "I mean, you can talk about a one-state solution, if you want. I think a better solution is a no-state solution." - Noam Chomsky on US Expansion of Afghan Occupation, the Uses of NATO, and What Obama Should Do in Israel-Palestine (April 3, 2009)

• "You know, states are not moral agents. They act in their own interests. And that means the interests of powerful forces within them." - Rogue States Draw the Usual Line (May, 2001)

• "What's called libertarianism in the United States is a significant deviation from traditional libertarian thought. Traditionally, say in Europe, "libertarian" meant the anti-state wing of the socialist party." - Noam Sayin'? The High Times Interview with Noam Chomsky (July 29, 2011)

• "So here, the term "libertarian" means the opposite of what it always meant in history. Libertarian throughout modern European history meant socialist anarchist. It meant the anti-state element of the Workers Movement and the Socialist Movement. It sort of broke into two branches, roughly, one statist, one anti-statist . The statist branch led to Bolshevism and Lenin and Trotsky, and so on. The anti-statist branch, which included Marxists, Left Marxists -- Rosa Luxemburg and others -- kind of merged, more or less, into an amalgam with a big strain of anarchism into what was called 'libertarian socialism.' " - Activism, Anarchism, and Power (March 22, 2002)

Will this be sufficient to prove my point? Finx (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, no. Those are just people using the term state, not explaining what it is or how it differs from a government. This doesn't really matter much to me though because, like I said before, I'm okay with using state; my objection is more on grammatical grounds. I think the change has made the sentence clunkier. One way to fix it would be to use government again, but another solution would be to change that sentence to read: "Libertarians generally advocate a society with a greatly reduced state or no state at all." Thoughts? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 02:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Those are not people using the term state, but the person we were discussing expressing anti-state views while denouncing the idea of being 'anti-government'. Look, I just gave you the references you asked for, showing that he:

• describes the libertarian movement as anti-state (repeatedly)
• characterizes his own views as unambiguously anti-state
• expresses that anti-government ideology, in the neoliberal sense, is opposed to libertarianism and expands the power corporations, which he sees as tyrannical bureaucracies (can cite, if you want) empowered by the state (i.e. - statism)

In other words (and this is not original research because it's stated explicitly) that he believes libertarian socialism should be opposed to state and not to government.

I'm starting to question if you're reading any of my comments at all. Finx (talk) 02:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

So... any thoughts on my suggestion? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 02:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Must have been wiped in an edit conflict. Yes, I think your second suggestion ("greatly reduced state or no state at all") is perfectly appropriate. The first one not so much, unless this article is specifically about the US definition. Sorry if my last post came off as rude, but I'm just running out of ways to make the distinction. Finx (talk) 02:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that "greatly reduced state or no state at all" is a good compromise. North8000 (talk) 02:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

{ec}No problem. Since that point really doesn't matter to me, there's no need to continue arguing over it; I'm glad we were able to find common ground. I went ahead and made the change to the article. Thanks everyone! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 03:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Benefit principle

I recently created an entry for the benefit principle. If you're interested in the topic of libertarianism...then you might be interested in working to help improve that entry. Basically, the definitive theoretical justification for our tax system can be found in this paper by the Neo Keynesian economist Paul Samuelson...The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure. It's been cited over 5,000 times. Samuelson's argument was that the benefit principle had a very limited scope because of the preference revelation problem...a problem which tax choice would effectively solve. That's our tax system in a nutshell. So in order to better understand the current balance between autonomy and authority...I highly recommend looking over the references that I shared in the benefit principle's entry. --Xerographica (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Changes made to the comparison between anarchism and libertarianism

I changed the wording for the comparison between libertarianism and anarchism. I feel like it is 100% complete propaganda against libertarianism to associate them with anarchists... There is a clear distinction between where the two stand. Anarchists prefer NO government, while libertarians insist on a small government. These two are no interchangeable. Period.

--Jim Flager 76.21.51.72 (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Jim, multiple sources in the article explain that the word libertarian has been used as a synonym for anarchism or "left anarchism." I think you'll need to find some good sources to support your claim. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Here are those good sources to support my claim...

1)List of Synonyms from http://thesaurus.com/browse/libertarian regarding libertarians...

autonomous, common, communal, constitutional, egalitarian, equal, free, friendly, individualistic, informal, just, libertarian , orderly, populist, self-ruling

- it says in the actual list of synonyms that constituional is a synonym, well a constitution is a government system.

2)List of Synonyms from http://thesaurus.com/browse/anarchist

agitator, insurgent, insurrectionist, malcontent, mutineer, nihilist, rebel, revolter, revolutionary, terrorist

- terrorist? so if they are one in the same, then you could say supporting the constitution is a synonym for terrorist...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

-------------------------------------------

According to the U.S. Libertarian Party, libertarianism is the advocacy of a government that is funded voluntarily and limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence.

- wikipedia and libertarian party defining the libertarian party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

--------------------------------------

Anarchism is generally defined as a political philosophy which holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful,[1][2][3] or, alternatively, as opposing authority or hierarchical organization in the conduct of human relations.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10] Proponents of anarchism, known as "anarchists", advocate stateless societies based on voluntary associations.

wikipedia own definition of anarchism..

Here's some google definitions real quick that can clearly spell out the differences between the two political beliefs.

an·ar·chism

/ˈanərˌkizəm/

Noun

Belief in the abolition of ALL government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or...

Anarchists as a political force or movement.

lib·er·tar·i·an·ism

/ˌlibərˈte(ə)rēəˌnizəm/

Noun

An extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens.

- how can you have minimal state intervention if you are the same as anarchism, which is for the abolition of ALL government...

I think you will have to try really hard to prove the two are interchangeable... and this topic is definitely disputed.

76.21.51.72 (talk) 22:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

-Jim Flager

Nobody said interchangeable. Anarchism is considered a strand of libertarianism. There is immense sourcing for this. And such and inclusion was decided in an immense RFC. Please see talk history. North8000 (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

oh ive been reading the talk history, dont try to rule me out by default. i just got done reading a line from the wikipedia article that says libertarianism is a synonym for anarchism... not "left anarchism" or "right libertarianism" it was flat out libertarianism and anarchism... i believe the line is gone but there are more scattered throughout im sure... the reason im disputing is because it is misleading to someone who comes to the website to learn about libertarianism because they will be instantly turned off with the anarchism propaganda riddled throughout... the point of wikipedia is to clear up confusion as to the specifics, not to create confusion based on technicallity and word placement...

take for example this line...

"Libertarians differ on whether government is desirable. Some favor the existence of states and see them as necessary while others favor stateless societies and view the state as being undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful.[34][35]"

both of the sources listed have absolutely nothing to do with libertarianism, they are simply definitions of anarchism... on top of that, the second part of this said sentence is a 100% copy paste definition from the definition of ANARCHISM but yet its being used to define libertarianism... watch...

"while others favor stateless societies and view the state as being undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful." compare this half of the sentence with the definition of anarchy i posted earlier and you can see that someone simply copied and pasted it from the wiki page for anarchism as if it was a definition for libertarianism. its not. and if you are talking about branches of libertarianism, or if they are "closely or loosely related" then that needs to be clarified which parts are similar and which are different. the deception of this page is off the charts?

-Jim Flager

76.21.51.72 (talk) 22:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

BTW, I am a libertarian of the common USA type (wanting just less government, consider the existence of government to be essential) so I have no anarchist POV. I was speaking more as someone who has been a 1/2-way pseudo-moderator here for a long time. North8000 (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

{ec}Jim, nothing in those sources has disputed the claims made by the reliable sources in the article. It does appear you are taking disparate sources and composing original research to get your desired outcome, especially when it comes to the thesaurus entries. You've also apparently cherry-picked sentences from both the Libertarianism and Anarchism Wiki articles, as both articles show that libertarianism is associated with anarchism. Please bring reliable sources to support your claim; you may also like to read WP:DICTS for the proper way to use dictionaries as sources. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

71.202.13.20 (talk) 07:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC) heres an excerp from Murray Rothbard from the 1950's this is the last paragraph of the essay (on "are libertarians anarchists?") that can be found here. http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard167.html

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

Jim, it may be that the article needs improvement, and it may be that it too much anarchism stuff in it, but if you are trying to exclude inclusion of anarchism from this article it ain't gonna happen....that would be going against sourcing, reality, and an immense RFC. We HAVE agreed to minimize coverage of anarchism because the primary coverage of it is elsewhere. Maybe there's too much on anarchism in it now.

If you live in the USA, you may not understand that the common meaning of libertarianism (and also of liberal/liberalism) is different in the US than in Europe, which could lead one to believe that this article misses the point. Those explanatory sentences in this area aren't just little thoughts, they are a a rosetta stone for understanding. Very vaguely, in the current USA, (where we have corrupted the term "liberal" to mean bigger government) the mainstream meaning for libertarianism is folks who want and prioritize less government and more freedom. And vica versa. In Europe, those folks are called liberals, and the word libertarianism is more associated with more "extreme" folks like anarchists. That's my flawed-but-hopefully-useful thought. North8000 (talk) 12:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I cannot find the specific reference you have made where i claimed to want every trace of anarchism removed from the page. This is what i was after from the start.

[someone simply copied and pasted it from the wiki page for anarchism as if it was a definition for libertarianism. its not. and if you are talking about branches of libertarianism, or if they are "closely or loosely related" then that needs to be clarified which parts are similar and which are different. the deception of this page is off the charts]

saying there are two types of libertarians and then to copy paste a definition of anarchism, is not actually defining libertarianism... all thats happening here is that youre adding the definition of anarchism to the end of another word and calling it the "new definition"

someone mentioned that you had 30 or more people in a discussion to reach a conclusion... seems like a kinda half-assed effort to capture the true definition and meaning/beliefs behind libertarianism. and its most definitely misleading to anyone who doesnt have a clue what libertarianism is... i never asked one single time for anarchy to be removed from the page entirely, however its clear to me that this page needs some serious revision because you guys that decided to include anarchism have set this page up to look like they are directly related or even worse, one in the same. and they are not! there needs to be more to differentiate the two from each other, or possibly a different page where a certain/specific off-branch of libertarianism gets linked to (where that specific branch is more directly related to anarchy than the tradition libertarianism)... libertarianism is clearly regarding small state to carry out police services, etc. and to uphold the constitution and anarchism is CLOSE but NOT CLOSE at the same time whereas they believe that there should be absolutely NO government whatsoever. i don't see this difference pointed at one time, in fact you guys did the opposite blending both definitions into one definition for libertarianism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.51.72 (talk) 02:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Depending on who you talk to, they are one and the same, as sources illustrate (see Chomsky, Ward, Fernandez, and Nettlau's citations in this article). For most of the history of the term, libertarian meant anarchist: the term was coined in 1857 to describe anarchism and only recently became associated with capitalist and minarchist ideas (since approximately the 1950s). Even today, despite the increasing popularity of US propertarian libertarianism worldwide (where this "right libertarianism" originated and gained popularity), most people in countries outside of the USA use libertarian as a synonym for anarchist. This appears to be well-documented in the article, so I don't understand why you are insisting that libertarianism is fundamentally different from anarchism.

In an effort to progress this discussion, what change do you propose? You don't want anarchism removed from the article, so... what do you want changed? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes Jim / 71..., yes, why not start with a specific proposed change to discuss. North8000 (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, but what do your feelings have to do with reality? The word 'libertarian' comes from 'Le Libertaire' a 1861 periodical by a communist anarchist. That's the meaning it's had everywhere in the world since -- until up popped the Charles Koch Foundation in the 70s and the neoliberals decided their ideas should also be called 'libertarian' for some reason, despite being almost entirely contrary to what was called libertarian everywhere in the world. Practically everywhere except the US, it still just means anarchist.

So long as we're throwing out Rothbard quotes:

“One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, ‘our side,’ had captured a crucial word from the enemy . . . ‘Libertarians’ . . . had long been simply a polite word for left-wing [sic!] anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over . . .” (The Betrayal of the American Right, p. 83)

That's about as clear as an issue can get. Your edit was based on a misunderstanding. Finx (talk) 15:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

In this thread I think that there have been overstatements in opposite directions. The consensus has been to cover anarchism here but to limit the coverage due to, amongst other reasons, that there is a separate anarchism article. On the reverse side, USA libertarianism is the gorilla in the living room in terms of present usage of the term simply because in the USA (unlike elsewhere) it is the name for classical liberalism and such is not the case elsewhere. So in the USA we have millions of people who self-identify as libertarians, and maybe 50 million people who have libertarian politics, by the US meaning of the term. And outside of the USA (where the term "liberal" hasn't been corrupted) the term is more associated with anarchists than it is in the USA. So I think that taking this article to either extreme isn't gonna fly here. While 76.21.51.72 overstated the case, it's possible that we need to shift a half of a notch in that their direction. That is one of the reasons why I agree that they should make a specific proposal. North8000 (talk) 16:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what notches you want to shift or why, but I think an encyclopedic article should just cover what history has provided us and tell the truth -- about well over a century of anarchism, organized labor struggles, anti-state socialism, left-Marxism, and other related movements concerned with maximizing liberty and autonomy, and then a few decades of neoliberal minarchism. The term for classical liberalism is classical liberalism. I don't agree at all that this recent strain of US libertarianism is classical liberalism reborn. This is a contentious claim, that's been ruthlessly criticized and disputed by more than a few prominent people with some authority on the subject -- easily enough to warrant a mention. If anything is already overstated, it's that -- just mentioned in passing like it's a fact. But whatever you consider 'corrupted' or 'not corrupted' liberalism -- there is no shortage of other words to describe the ideology advocating rights of owners and investors above government: neoliberalism, laissez faire, thatcherism, etc. It's not our duty to capture more words for Murray Rothbard and company. This one is still in use and I don't see why CATO should get to push living libertarians, in the traditional sense, into obscurity. Finx (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Well I disagree with many many things that you just said. But rather than start 10 new threads debating them, let's just stick to the open question. I think that there is just one specific one. Jim Flager / 76...... sort of feels that we should leave anarchism out of this article. I think that everybody else (You, me, MisterDub) who has expressed an opinion disagrees. North8000 (talk) 17:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's a clear violation of the not a dictionary policy. Rather than bundling readers to death with every meaning of the word "libertarianism"...this entry should be turned into a disambiguation page. Then the readers could choose which meaning of the word that they were actually interested in learning about. There are far more reliable sources which cover individual meanings than reliable sources that cover every meaning of the word. Don't mind me though, I'm just an advocate of choice...reader choice, consumer choice, taxpayer choice. --Xerographica (talk) 07:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree about the NAD violaiton....it's quite common for an article to cover closely related meanings of the term. The disambig idea was unsuccessfully raised at the big RFC and I was sort of an advocate of it then, but not now. The change of heart is that this article can do the important (and bigger-than-disambig) job of explaining the relationship between the meanings, now and through history. And I think that it works. The main problem is that people want to pull it to one or the other end of the spectrum, as can be seen right here in talk over the last couple weeks. North8000 (talk) 13:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

i like nonarchist. A valid point as anarchist oppose contract law, libertarians require such. Imho, outside the USA the distinction twix the two terms is blurred and most often derogatory, like neanderthal or hooligan. Libertarian is not used much outside the USA and almost nonexistant in politcol parties or races, unlike the USA which has a large group. I think article is incorrectly weighted to the non-US understanding of the term, which is far-less sought by the average english speaking WP user. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you're right, but think we should still cover both. North8000 (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that there is too much information about anarchism in this article. As part of my proposal in the section below, I suggest removing a great deal of the anarchist information, as little of it has to do with the history of libertarianism (especially individualist and egoist anarchism, which were primarily literary phenomena). I think we ought to summarize the history of anarchism here and leave the details to its appropriate article. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

THANK YOU. I agree with MisterDub on this point. My God, it's painful just to look at this article now... --Adam9389 (talk 13:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Restructure "History" section

Hi, all! I've been working on restructuring this article to present a more coherent history, and believe this restructuring will clear up the confusion of how the term libertarian relates to both anarchist and propertarian philosophies. I have a rough draft in my sandbox in which I've divided the history section by prominent theme, instead of arbitrary half-century. For example, the history section now begins with Libertarianism's "Philosophical foundations" within the Enlightenment, then goes on to describe the origin of the term and its anarchist affiliation ("Origins"), and finally summarizes the histories of left-libertarianism ("Anarchism" and "Libertarian Marxism") and "Right-Libertarianism" (primarily covering US propertarian libertarianism, but also mentioning "Georgism", "Anarcho-Capitalism", and Ayn Rand's "Objectivism"). I think this new structure will accomplish a couple of things: first, it will clear up the confusion associated with the term libertarian by explaining its distinct associations with anarchism and liberalism, and second, it will summarize much of anarchism's history, allowing us to remove information that is better suited for, or repeated within, the anarchism article.

A couple of notes on the content in my sandbox version: the "Philosophical foundations" section needs to be expanded. Right now, this section throws the reader into a description of Hobbes and Locke's state of nature without explaining how this relates to libertarianism. I'd like it to explain how Enlightenment thought (i.e. Liberalism) promoted liberty, democracy and private property, and end with Proudhon's view of property (which sets up Déjacque's introduction of the term). I also want to expand the anarchism section beyond one paragraph, but keep it under five or so. I've incorporated the previous "Etymology" section into the lead, so that has been removed along with the "See also" section, but other sections remain intact. Thanks for your consideration! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

This article is the result of an immense amount of work (and an immense amount of discussion, RFC's and compromise) by an immense amount of people. Any changes are going to have to come about in the normal manner, (generally proposed reviewed individually as changes to this article) not substituting the entire article with one that you developed. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand... creating a revision in a sandbox is a "normal manner" of improving articles; there's no Wikipedia policy stating that changes must be made sentence by sentence. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't implying that a total substitution is against policy. This was my strongly held opinion for this case, and I think likely the opinion of others. At first glance I saw lots of good stuff and lots of big problems. I'm not willing to use a whole new substitute article as a starting point for content, review and discussions, especially considering this article is the result of an immense amount of work (and an immense amount of discussion, RFC's and compromise) by an immense amount of people. And what's there is a whole new article, not a new history section. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

It's only a whole new article in that the "History" section comprises the bulk of the article's content; other sections are left intact. What problems do you see with this proposed revision? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

(Sorry to write fast and blunt...I'm in a hurry today.) Just the history section? Huh? First thing I spotted was a major re-write of the lead.North8000 (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

It would take hours and hours to do a "compare and contrast" to review what changes you are implicitly proposing. But the coverage of US libertarianism seems to have omitted the main concepts and much of what's there shows a general misunderstanding of it. Also use of the highly problematic (chaotic and thus worthless) term "right libertarian". Overemphasis on esoteric historical/philosophical definitions and thus failure to explain the modern meanings. And the like "where did that material that we've been evolving for years disappear to?" That's my impressions / things noted on the minus side from the first 2 minutes.North8000 (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the lead is a summary of the article, so as the article is changed, so does the lead. I wouldn't characterize this change as a "major rewrite" however: I think it presents roughly the same information as the previous lead, except more coherently (instead of saying "some schools do this" all the time, it actually describes the differences in the common meanings of the term). The US libertarianism section can certainly be amended to include/exclude information, but do you have specific examples of material that is missing?

I'm not quite following the other problems you've identified. Why is right-libertarianism highly problematic? This right-left distinction is the most prominent means of organizing libertarianism, and it's used in multiple citations (e.g. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Peter Marshall's Demanding the Impossible, and Encyclopedia of Ethics). -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 23:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the term "right libertarianism" it is so inconsistently used and ill-defined that it is meaningless. It's basically a word that authors use on an ad hoc basis to organize books (like "pretty landscapes" or "big cars") not as a term with any consistent meaning. Further nobody self-identifies by that term. "Left-libertarian" has fewer such problems, and so conflating those two confuses the matter. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The left-right distinction seems well-defined to me:

"The different schools of anarchism have also engaged in sectarian disputes, the most sustained being that between the individualists and the communists. Social anarchists, who wish to abolish the State and Capital, have nothing but contempt for the right-wing libertarians who wish to get rid of the State in order to achieve an unfettered laissez-faire in the economy." (Peter Marshall's Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism p. 650)

"Both endorse full self-ownership, but they differ with respect to the powers agents have to appropriate unappropriated natural resources (land, air, water, etc.). Right-libertarianism holds that typically such resources may be appropriated by the first person who discovers them, mixes her labor with them, or merely claims them—without the consent of others, and with little or no payment to them. Left-libertarianism, by contrast, holds that unappropriated natural resources belong to everyone in some egalitarian manner. It can, for example, require those who claim rights over natural resources to make a payment to others for the value of those rights. This can provide the basis for a kind of egalitarian redistribution." (Peter Vallentyne's Libertarianism)

"Libertarianism is sometimes (and increasingly) understood as the thesis of full self-ownership. So understood, a distinction can be made between right-libertarianism and left-libertarianism, depending on the stance taken on how natural resources are owned. Right-libertarianism (the traditional form of LIBERTARIANISM) holds that natural resources are initially unowned and typically may be appropriated without the consent of, or significant payment to, others. It holds, for example, that whoever first discovers, or first mixes her labor with, a natural resource owns that resource as long as certain minimal conditions hold (e.g., Locke's "enough and as good for others"). Left-libertarianism, by contrast, holds that natural resources are owned by the members of society in some egalitarian sense, so that appropriation is legitimate only with their consent or with a significant payment to them." (Becker and Becker's Encyclopedia of Ethics p. 1562)

Do you have an example where these terms are used in a different sense? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed total rewrite of the article

Your question addresses only the faults in the term, not the even bigger flaws in opining that libertarianism divides into "right" and "left" based on property views. But a quick perusal of Right libertarianism gives about 6 more meanings of the term. North8000 (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

And all those meanings are in agreement with each other: right-libertarianism is a propertarian ideology, whereas left-libertarianism seeks an egalitarian distribution of natural resources. I'm not understanding where your confusion lies. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

rewrite, dividing libertarian into left and right is a combination of "me too" and an attempt to debase/confuse the commonly understood english langauge meaning of the term. on history, Laozi was the first libertarian according to Rothbard, Murray (2005). Excerpt from "'Concepts of the Role of Intellectuals in Social Change Toward Laissez Faire,' The Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol IX No. 2 (Fall 1990)" Darkstar1st (talk) 15:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite - agreed with Darkstar1st on all points. Plus, I've already voiced my numerous objections to this current article in the past. However, there are still a couple points I want to reiterate: 1) That the Right-libertarianism and Left-libertarianism articles be merged into the new Libertarianism article. As North8000 points out, they are purely academic and not terms that anyone really uses. Of course make the distinction between the different libertarian factions on the new article, but these two arbitrary terms do not warrant separate articles. Those two articles are just attempts at appeasing ideological factions that have entrenched themselves on Wikipedia. 2) How can I say this... Libertarianism has certain anarchist roots in its history -- yes, okay, we get it. But it's now branched into a separate ideology and it's not an excuse to transform this page into some messy combination of Anarchism and Libertarian socialism. Last I checked, the anarchists, the libertarian socialists, the social anarchists, the "left-anarchists", the collectivist anarchists, etc., already had their own articles. They don't need to re-appropriate this one and they sure don't need some "left-libertarianism" article. I mean, what can I say? How redundant and biased can people get? 3) I really think we need to re-assess this whole notion that individualist, capitalist libertarianism is only the "American definition of the term." A quick look at the ideologies of other groups and parties around the world that identify as libertarian would show you that that definition is becoming quite widespread -- almost universal. The idea that everyone outside the U.S. equates libertarianism with anarchism has become exaggerated and overblown on here. Not saying it's not still true in many places; but I'd say the free-market definition has become just as widespread. --Adam9389 (talk) 08:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

There may be a bit of confusion here. I added the subheading "proposed total rewrite" not to propose a total rewrite, but to provide a more honest title for the top level title.....the "Restructure "History" section" proposal was actually a proposal to totally rewrite the article. Other folks supporting a total rewrite which is exactly opposite to the total rewrite which misterdub proposed. I'm sort of in the middle. North8000 (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Darkstar1st and Adam9389, thanks for your input. Adam9389, I agree whole-heartedly with your first point. Much of what I was attempting in this draft is to get a comprehensive history of Libertarianism that includes both right- and left-libertarianism, allowing us to dispose of those separate articles. I also want to make mention that I'm not wedded to those terms; I used right-libertarianism because it is supported by sources and avoids the pitfalls of saying "In the United States" (as Adam9389 noted, this particular brand of libertarianism has become popular outside the USA as well). Any suggestions on better terminology is much appreciated, though I must admit I have no problem with the right-left distinction. What I'm trying to do here is get rid of the disjointedness of the current History section and remove unnecessary information regarding anarchism by summarizing it here, thereby preserving the historical connection without making this another anarchism article. We need this article to regain its FA status. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I care far more about accurate and informative than FA. Misterdub, most of what you just said sounds pretty good, but IMHO but what you worked up is miles away from that, and also I think that an en masse change to an article rewritten by you is not a realistic way to pursue this. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

It appears that I'm not the only person who thinks this article needs a change of this magnitude, and I have brought the draft here so we could all work together to improve this article. I'm looking for constructive criticism here, not a blanket rejection because you personally don't like it. If there is inaccurate information in this draft, please note it here so we can fix it; your vagueness is not helping and, frankly, is giving the impression that you are simply unwilling to work with me. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal is unsourced twaddle. And worthy of ignoring. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

For example, this OR, "In a natural state, Locke viewed all people as equal and independent, and everyone had a natural right to defend his "Life, health, Liberty, or Possessions".[18]" If the aim is FA this proposal would be rejected, and doesn't make B criteria. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Misterdub, you have misread my position and intentions; if I may throw out a few points to clarify.

• This article has a history (and a participant list) of people who want to to it to one extreme or the other. One one end folks like yourself who want it to be more about anarchism and related strands and to downplay and cover the US strand from that "lens" and the folks that want to do the opposite, including getting anarchism totally out of this article. For the last couple years I've been one most actively working to strike a balance.
• As an intelligent editor from one end of the described spectrum (and who I think has good knowledge of that end) I think that you could be a valuable contributor here.
• When you said "I'm not the only person who thinks this article needs a change of this magnitude" the other folks want the exact opposite article than you do.
• The process that you are proposing (creating your own totally reworded version of the article for total replacement of this one, which your would be then new starting point for "proposed changes") is extraordinary and rarely accepted in Wikipedia. Opposing that process is the norm, not "simply being unwilling to work with you"

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

North8000, thanks for your comments. I must not be presenting my intentions clearly, however, as I've stated repeatedly that I do not want to make this an article about anarchism; I, too, want a balance. In fact, I lean more toward this article primarily covering right-libertarianism, as anarchism already has an article. This article has too much information about anarchism, and I'd like to see less of it, though it should not disappear entirely. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

What are your sources for your proposed WEIGHTing? Generally they'd be required to be magisterial field reviews. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not quite following. I'm going by the WP:CFORK and WP:SUMMARIZE policies to ensure we don't repeat information unnecessarily (there's already an anarchism article, so this article ought not to have the same information). Hopefully that answers your question. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, I somehow overlooked your comment about the OR, but would like to point out that this information is in the article now; it's not something I've added. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Keep most of current structure and tweak: To bring in another voice, a few comments:

• the overall structure is best I've seen so far on this article, though certainly tweaks could be made throughout with better sourcing and slight structural changes, per below or as otherwise might become clear.
• I found a few new good sources when rewriting Right-libertarianism to make it clear that it is a phrase bandied about, not something that you'll find more than a couple people identifying themselves as being.
• I found MisterDub's version to be less organized; creating a whole section on "right libertarianism" is not supported by sources. (And Darkstar1st is well known from past editing here for wanting to knock any and all mentions of any kind of left-wingism or anarchism of any kind from the whole article. So he's not on your side MisterDub. See this talk page history and the various attempts to have him community and topic banned because of his severe disruptiveness.)
• I'd like to see the philosophers section integrated into history and organizations expanded
• I'd like to see a couple paragraphs on criticism. I haven't even read that article but hopefully it bears some relation to this one.
• From edit I just did I can see that a) there is still LONG UNSOURCED stuff just hanging around. And there is important information left out. I'm trying to focus more on libertarian articles lately and have three major related ones in the works. So hopefully I'll come over here in next month or so and tweak away :-) CarolMooreDC 18:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks CarolMooreDC for the constructive criticism. I have to admit that I'm surprised you found my version less organized than the disjointed mess that exists currently, but I will try to improve upon that when I get some free time. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

[Insert]Ok, now I know what you specifically had in mind. Did I miss an explicit new outline? Merging the types of libertarianism more explicitly into a historical framework could work. However, I had a problem with the content and order of 2011 principles and did like the three distinctions. However, they DO need an intro that shows the commonalities between all of them and not just a listing of divisions, something statists would just love to encourage. Nothing like libertarians fighting among themselves while apparatchiks consire to maintain and boost state power!

2011	2013
3 Principles:State and economy, Ethical foundations, Political tactics	Philosophy (3 distinctions)

So a nice outline always help when one is making proposals. CarolMooreDC 15:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Carol, if you are going to drag up the past, please tell the whole story and perhaps this isnt the forum. TFD, you really need to ease off on your efforts to drag Darkstar1st to ANI. It's giving the appearance that you're taking every opportunity to "catch" him in some technical violation or another. What you're doing is bordering on harassment at this point. is how they all end. [4] Darkstar1st (talk) 01:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

What can I say, seeing same person saying same things in same manner as 3 years ago can give on PTSD. CarolMooreDC 15:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

perhaps you have said enough? So he's not on your side MisterDub you may be creating a wp:battleground with you accusations. wp doesnt have sides, you should know this by now. please adhere to wp:civility, as i plan to do. i have no problem with your edits and agree with 99%. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Le Grand Solution

Let me kill a couple birds with one stone here. First I'll share a couple great books and then I'll, yet again, offer my super simple solution. Here are the entries that I just created for two books by the UK economist Julian Le Grand...

• Motivation, Agency, and Public Policy (2003)
• The Other Invisible Hand (2007)

The first book was criticized by a Harvard professor because "Le Grand’s argument does not speak to libertarians; rejecting the welfare state, they part from him long before he calls on them to cheer for transforming service users into queens. Nor does his argument entice liberal egalitarians." In the conclusion of his second book, Le Grand acknowledged that his ideas "have not, as yet, been embraced either by the social democratic left, or by the conservative or liberal right."

"Liberal right"? Does he mean what we here in the US think of as "libertarian"? Probably... right?

For those of you who weren't around for the first libertarian article war...which is pretty much everybody except for North and Darkstar...my super simple solution is to organize the relevant articles by tenets...rather than labels. Then turn this page into a disambiguation page...and look over the page view statistics for the various "libertarian" articles. If one of the articles receives substantially more views than the rest...then that article should be placed here. The question is...how much more popular would one of the articles have to be in order to achieve consensus that it was popular enough to be placed here? Anyways, I have other articles that are higher priorities for me...but just wanted to take a few seconds to share a couple great books and again share my solution to this problem. --Xerographica (talk) 22:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Whew, there's a lot there. I'll just comment on a few points.

I had thought about the "make this a disambig" idea before. Then I thought that there are no terms or even short phrases for the various strands for the disambig page, plus these are confusing. So then a substantial explanation / clarification for each would be required. Once you have that, voila, you basically have (90%) THIS article!. North8000 (talk) 02:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

No, I think what he means by "liberal right" is what in the U.S. would be called conservative, like Bush, McCain or Romney, although possibly including Clinton and Obama as well. (See pp. 156 ff.) We already have an article, neoliberalism. TFD (talk) 02:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Those books are not "libertarian" in nature, nor do they discuss libertarianism. Why are they relevant? The reviews you quote might be relevant, I suppose, to show what libertarianism is not.

The idea of organizing by tenets, rather than by labels, seems good. But why use books, neither by, nor about, libertarians and libertarianism to describe the tenets? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

i like Xeno's idea of a disambiguation page as it is clear most english speaking searches are looking for something like the LPUSA definition of the term. In the past i proposed a similar bargain, The capital "L" Libertarian is a person who identifies with the Libertarian party. Lowercase "l" is about the philosophy. A similar distribution could be made by simply removing the redirect from LibertarIAN, and allow that article to be about people identifying as such and allow libertarianism to be this page. the reality is few outside the usa belong to a libertrian party or identify themselves as such, rather is it mostly used as a synonym for anarchy and often derogatory. "welcome to libertarian paradise, Somalia" [5] Darkstar1st (talk) 08:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that the points that you make are correct. Regarding disambig, my concerns above remain. As long as we can keep this article balanced and fend off the folks that want to pull it to one extreme or the other (or wanting to cover one strand as seen through the lens of another strand) what we have here now is sort of the best of both worlds.....sort of a disambig article on steroids. But there is one hitch. The "less-government-more-freedom-that's-it" strand only really has one name and that is single-word-identified "libertarianism" (probably because it is by far the largest) So there is no suitable title for that strand to disambiguate to. "Right" libertarian has so many different meanings that it has no meaning, much less be a name for that strand. And although it is big in the US (probably 30,000,000 self-identify that way and 60,000,000 vote that way) other strands exist in the US as well, (plus it exists outside of the US) so "US libertarianism" isn't a usable term. North8000 (talk) 14:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Libertarianism (disambiguation) exists. I know Darkstar1st wants to move EVERYTHING not in his personal view of libertarianism over to it, one of several ways he disrupted the article. I see he came back and got blocked from editing here at least once after I stopped editing it. I congratulate those of you who had the patience to deal with making this a good article! It's one of the few I have quit in frustration!! CarolMooreDC 18:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back Carol, you think anarco-capitalism is libertarian, i do not. the elimination of the state in favor of individual sovereignty, I think anarco-capitalism is the same as anarchy, you do not. anarcho-capitalism is a fringe term, libertarian is not. anarco-capitalist are a tiny minority, exposure here should be eliminated or minimized. anarcho-capitalism and anarchism have their own article, libertarian does not. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see an overly strong reason to remove this page and leave only the disambig. It seems to me that there are three subjects that use the name libertarianism: the metaphysical position that we have free will, the political philosophy of anarchism, and the political affiliation associated with the US Libertarian Party. Because anarchism already has an article and most people seeking information about libertarianism will be inquiring about the political affiliation, the latter should be the primary topic. In order to preserve the historical use of libertarian as a synonym for anarchist, I think we ought to summarize the anarchism article, but leave the bulk of this article for US Libertarianism/right-libertarianism/whatever you want to call it. I know at least North8000 objects to using the terms right- and left-libertarianism so I'm open to suggestions, but these terms are supported by reliable sources and really do explain well the differences between traditional, anarchist, "left" libertarianism and the relatively recent, propertarian, "right" libertarianism. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree overall, but I have several quibbles on the smaller points. In the US (my guess) only about 1% of people who say they are libertarian are in the US Libertarian party. Second, their definition doesn't include anything on being propertarian. You can't define a strand by something that is not on its list of tenets. Finally, my concern about the term "right" libertarian is not based on any claim that the term is not used in sources. It's that the term is used with so many different meanings, and with ad hoc meanings that it does not define any strand of libertarianism. Sort of like saying that since the term "nice looking tree" is widely used, then "nice looking" should be a term/ division in our coverage of trees. 19:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

This is essentially a topic and weight argument, and I'm not seeing sources of magisterial quality being deployed, such as Woodcock. Topic and weight really needs widely or universally respected third order sources: scholarly "field reviews," theory category and typology papers, history of ideas papers. And they need to be widely respected. Ideally we'd want someone like Woodcock publishing a total field review on the history of ideas of what is libertarianism in a journal like Philosophy. The two sources at the top of this section contribute little to an argument on weight and topic. This page isn't for discussing our own personal views on the typology of libertarianism. It is for discussing the views of the best sources we can possibly locate. Fifelfoo (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

North, addressing your earlier points...this page really shouldn't be a monstrously overgrown DAB page with various groups fighting for greater coverage. Instead, it should be a painfully simple DAB page with...

• Libertarianism (limited government or whatever), narrow scope of government and strong property rights
• Anarcho-capitalism, no scope of government and strong property rights
• Anarcho-socialism, no scope of government and collective ownership

That's it. It's really as simple as that. Then we watch the page views and see if one of the articles receives far more hits than the rest. If there is a clear "winner"...be it anarcho-capitalism or anarcho-socialism...then that article would be moved to this page. If there is no clear winner...then this page would continue to be a DAB page. --Xerographica (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Sections relevance to libertarianism needs to be proved

Only sources that directly discuss the term "libertarian" in the material being discussed can be used. Sources that generally talk about "anarchism" or "anarcho-capitalism" or "Market liberalism" without mentioning the word libertarian or libertarianism do not belong in the article. I have a strong feeling they are being used. Removing them is one thing I intend to do when I go through the article. This is how we find out what the uses are. Also, there are lots of high quality sources in there now, as well as some questionable ones. CarolMooreDC 04:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

While I do like the overall structure, once I actually started reading the article I couldn't believe how it had flipped back from being an overly propertarian/US oriented article to one that's more about European Marxism with barely a hint that "libertarian" is word/concept/etc. foremost in the minds of the activists/ideologies described. Pretty rediculous. Original research may be what is needed on top. I don't know who wrote it. Anyone want to tell me so I can go to their talk page and ask them to better source and remove. Thanks. CarolMooreDC 05:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Could you clarify what your question at the end of your post is? Thanks. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

There is a difference between libertarian thrown in as an adjective once in a whole book/chapter/section about anarchist communism and it being used in a source which describes a coherent libertarian philosophy. When I get a chance soon I will go through every one of those refs and if libertarianism as a philosophy isn't central to the summarized material, out it goes. Just that simple. CarolMooreDC 19:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I did not write the section. Here are your sources: Libertarian Communism (Isaac Puente), Libertarian Communism (Sébastien Faure), Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists (Dielo Truda). That's just a few of the writings with the verbatim string "libertarian communism" in the actual title. Will that suffice or does the work need to repeat "libertarian communism" 'all work and no play'-style for a few pages? Finx (talk) 08:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

This is about 2 big sections, not the little one I later removed. Once I finish other project, or perhaps to take a break, I'll start checking sources and you'll see/hear my responses. CarolMooreDC 16:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Undue weight

I created a subpage to illustrate what this article would look like if all the anarchism was removed... User:Xerographica/Libertarianism. Here's the before and after...

• 14 to 4 pages
• 6,748 to 1,616 words
• 40,815 to 9,854 characters no spaces

Like I said, the long term solution is simply to turn this page into a DAB page with three links...

• Libertarianism (limited government or whatever), narrow scope of government and strong property rights
• Anarcho-capitalism, no scope of government and strong property rights
• Anarcho-socialism, no scope of government and collective ownership

...and then wait a few months and compare the page views. Here are the current page views..

• anarcho-socialism - 20,750 views in the last 30 days
• anarcho-capitalism - 19,117 views in the last 30 days
• Libertarianism (limited government) - ???

If one of the articles receives more than the other two combined...then that should be the article at this page. If not, then this page will continue to be a DAB page. --Xerographica (talk) 09:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that there are some weight problems. But this is a important top level article with over 1.5 million views per year. I'm not for converting it into such an experiment. North8000 (talk) 12:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

i agree with both of you. if this page gets 100k views a month, and Anarcho-capitalism, Anarcho-socialism each get about 1/5th the views, it appears most are searching for the limited gov version. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

This one gets about 130,000 views per month. North8000 (talk) 14:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Some weight problems? Here's what you wrote earlier...

If you will look at the history here you will see that in my 2 1/2 active years here I have been the middle of the road stabilizer here. And that has included resisting efforts to pull the article to either extreme. [...] For the last couple years I've been one most actively working to strike a balance.

Given that the large majority of this article is about anarchism...clearly, whatever you are doing is not working. And given that you are not proposing doing anything significantly and fundamentally different...there's no reason to believe that you will be able to actually strike or maintain a balance that reflects each ideology's proper weight.

Converting it into such an experiment? I don't understand. The objective is to determine whether readers are interested in learning about libertarianism or anarchism. If the article on libertarianism receives far more views...then that's the article that would be moved here. If not, then this page will remain a DAB page

What I'm proposing aligns perfectly with the primary topic policy. Is there a primary topic for the word "libertarianism"? Who knows? It's hard to tell given that there is no article dedicated to limited government libertarianism. So in order to determine whether libertarianism or anarchism is the primary topic...we should convert this page to a DAB page.

If there is no primary topic, the term should be the title of a disambiguation page (or should redirect to a disambiguation page on which more than one term is disambiguated). The primary topic might be a broad-concept article, as mentioned above.

Step 1...let's find out if there's a primary topic for the word "libertarianism". That requires converting this page into a DAB page or redirecting it to the currently existing DAB page. If it turns out, based on views, that there is no primary topic...then no further changes will be made. --Xerographica (talk) 19:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

It's difficult to determine weight if most of the sources about anarchism only throw in "libertarian" here and there as an adjective in a whole book/chapter/section about anarchist communism and it being used in a source which describes a coherent libertarian philosophy. What we have to do is go through every one of those refs and if libertarianism as a philosophy isn't central to the summarized material, out it goes. IF that is done the amount on leftwing anarchism will be reduced to it's true proportion of importance. I'm going to do it soon, unless someone else wants to get busy. Maybe later today or tomorrow I'll start with the first relevant section and clean that up to show you what I mean. If it gets reverted, we go to WP:ORiginal research noticeboard cause that's what we are talking about. CarolMooreDC 19:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

[Insert]So you kick out the anarchism now...but please explain how you prevent it from being gradually re-added. What are you going to do differently? You let it happen this time...what are you going to do to ensure that it doesn't happen again? You can't guarantee that you'll be more "vigilant". The best long term solution is to disambiguate this page. We clearly delineate the articles based on tenets. If one of the articles receives more views than the rest combined...then that should be the primary topic. --Xerographica (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not talking about kicking out anarchism, I have nothing against it as long as it isn't forced on me. I am talking about removing WP:Original research. And I am about to remove a whole section of it as an example. CarolMooreDC 20:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not original research...the content is all based on reliable sources...but reliable sources on anarchism. I have nothing against anarchism either. My best friend is an anarchist (not really). But the basic fact is that the word "libertarianism" has vastly different meanings. Trying to make this page cover every meaning of the word "libertarianism" is a violation of WP:NAD. --Xerographica (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

{ec}But anarchism already has an article. WP:UCN would suggest anarchism be covered under "Anarchism," and therefore any anarchist information herein is a content fork that should be summarized. Maybe that's why I don't understand making this page a DAB. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Because for some, the word "libertarianism" is synonymous with "anarchism". That's why "libertarian socialism" is the same thing as "anarcho-socialism". The problem with this page is that it violates the not a dictionary policy...

Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc., whereas a dictionary entry is primarily about a word, an idiom, or a term and its meanings, usage and history.

The word "libertarian" has various meanings. Right now this article is simply a dictionary entry that tries to cover every single meaning of the word "libertarianism". When a word has different meanings...then the correct procedure is to create a DAB page. If one of the meanings is popular enough...then that is the primary topic and it should be placed on term's page. --Xerographica (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

There are forms of anarchism and individualist anarchists which also freely use the word libertarianism, and they belong here. What doesn't belong is long descriptions of events/trends/individualsgroups only marginally related to an explicit libertarian philosophy. In Wikipedia we go by what the sources say. Don't waste time discussing on the talk page. Go through the refs, section at a time, and cut out all the WP:Original research. If you don't know what that is, study policy. CarolMooreDC 20:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Again, it's a violation of Wikipedia policy for this page to be about the word "libertarianism". Clearly there are completely different meanings which is exactly why this page should be turned into a DAB page. If it turns out that one of the meanings is sufficiently popular to be considered the primary topic...then it should be moved to this page.

And in case you missed it, I already did go through the article with my scalpel... User:Xerographica/Libertarianism. Once you remove all the anarchism...there's barely anything left. But there are plenty of reliable sources that define libertarianism in terms of accepting and understanding that the government has a necessary but limited role. As I said, every single one of the Nobel Prize winning libertarians is an LGL. --Xerographica (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Freedom of choice - AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freedom of choice. Does this count as canvassing or appropriate notification? --Xerographica (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:CANVASSING. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

It's canvassing because...? Because the audience is, in theory, all pro-choice? If that's the case, then should I also post it on the socialism talk page...because they are, in theory, all anti-choice? --Xerographica (talk) 01:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

It is the epitome of canvassing. Why are you even asking? Capitalismojo (talk) 02:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

No canvassing has taken place! The article was nominated and I see that SPECIFICO has posted a neutral notification to editors who have worked on the article in the past. Posting a notice about the afd on this project page WT:ECON (as participants in the project are/should be non-partisan) would be appropriate as well. But posting on particular article talk pages, which have no connection to the freedom of choice article (such as socialism) or on various (unspecified) project talk pages, which may be partisan, may be inappropriate. – S. Rich (talk) 03:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Revised to reflect the fact that I was mistaken as to what talk page I was on! (Duh! The title is right above in bold print!!) Capitalismojo is right. Posting here is inappropriate is it for a partisan audience. 03:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

According to the canvassing policy....it's appropriate notification when it's posted to the "talk page of one or more WikiProjects (or other Wikipedia collaborations) directly related to the topic under discussion." Obviously the topic under discussion is directly related to libertarianism. And there's no real difference between posting it here or on the Wikiprojects for libertarianism or capitalism. --Xerographica (talk) 03:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Phica, if you wish to demonstrate respect for WP policy I suggest you strike your canvassing here. Consider the costs and benefits. SPECIFICO talk 04:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

So, post the notice on the Project page. This is an article talk page. (I know people can get confused as to what page they are talking on. I did it myself above.) By sticking to WikiProject pages, we avoid problems with "mass posting". E.g., the camel's nose does not get under the tent of particular articles. ("If it's okay to post on this article talk page, why not A, B, C, D, etc. talk pages.") Also, this talk page is about improving the Libertarianism article. Not about other articles. I think I'll collapse this discussion as off-topic. – S. Rich (talk) 04:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Anarchism is a branch of Libertarianism?

Anarchist is a derogatory term attached to libertarian in an effort to discredit those practicing such. Anarchy, anti-leader, from Greek, is the natural state of animals which long predates politics, therefore it can't possibly be a branch. To "acquire property rights" implies there be law to protect/grant such rights, otherwise how is it a right? If there be no state, how can there be law? rights structure the form of governments, the content of laws, so rights are necessary for government, should one be present, both are. In Anarchy a "right" is protected by the rightee or his allies, in Libertarianland, rights are protected by complete strangers, united in defense. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Umm... no. First, anarchy means without ruler, which is why anarchism is traditionally anti-statist, anti-religious, and anti-capitalist. Second, libertarianism is historically linked to anarchism because these terms were synonymous for ~100 years. Third, there are plenty of people who have overcome the negative connotation associated with anarchy and proudly use it to label themselves. I suppose viewing anarchism as a branch of libertarianism isn't blatantly wrong, but it is a bit of an anachronism. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

uhh...ya, first Archy: from Latin -archia, from Ancient Greek ἀρχός (archos, "leader"), ANarchy means anti or sans leader. second, just because some people confused the terms, doesnt mean their meanings changed. Third, who cares what anarchist call them selves. fourth, actually it is wrong since one cant have a branch before having a tree. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

That's closer to accurate, but still misses the mark. anti- means "against"; a or an means "without". Saying "anti-leader" is just a remarkably poor way to interpret that word. Aside from this, though... what is the point you're trying to make? I don't see a proposed change. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

please accept my apology, i was/am a remarkably poor student. I propose what others above are proposing, we remove the undue material about anarchist. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

While I'll agree that we have an overabundance of anarchism in this article, I don't support removing it all (not sure if that's what you're proposing). I think most of the information in the History section ought to be summarized as a content fork of the anarchism article and more right-libertarian information needs to be added. If this is what you're proposing, I support it. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Radical or as some would say consistent libertarianism is indeed anarchism. --MeUser42 (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so every part of that is provably false. Anarchism means 'without archons.' The first person to politically self-identify as a libertarian was an anarchist communist named Joseph Déjacque. For 150 years, everywhere in the world until a local, aberrational re-definition in the US in the late 20th century, libertarian has meant anti-capitalist anarchism, in opposition to private property. You can't just erase that history. That's the traditional definition of libertarianism, and very recently it's taken on right-wing connotations, basically in one country only. Concerning defamation, if anything, (that is if we care about chronology and commonly accepted usage) it's the other way around. Finx (talk) 05:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

you realize archons means ruler? if anarchism is a branch of libertarianism, and it predates politics, what was it a branch of before libertarianism was invented? Darkstar1st (talk) 05:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. Can you phrase it more coherently? The semantics of "anti-leader" (whatever that means) aside, what I'm trying to explain is that libertarianism etymologically comes from anarchism. They've been basically synonyms since the mid 19th century. Anarchism (a movement against industrial capitalism, to dismantle the capitalist system and the state) was described as "libertarian communism" or "libertarian socialism." That's the origin of the word libertarian, whether you like it or not. Later some people in the US started using it to describe laissez faire capitalist ideologies. Alongside it, anarchism was also re-branded along neoliberal lines (with 'anarcho-capitalism'). Neoliberalism, however, is not traditional definition of libertarianism. So if there's any 'defamation' going on, reverse the order please. Finx (talk) 05:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Anarchism (a movement against industrial capitalism... no, humans have lived for millenium as anarchist, long before industry or capitalism, other animals even longer. wolves voluntarily associate to hunt, this is anarchy, no government or elected leader, rather free individuals agreeing to live/die by a code, those who dont, simply walk away to form new packs. Libertarians want government to protect the rights of every individual including property, anarchist do not. similar yes, synonymous, no. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The widely accepted meaning of words change. Liberal meant something a lot different in 1800 than it meant in 2000. Libertarianism actually has changed less. It meant free will in 1789 when it was first used. It mean liberty when Dejacque first used it in 1857, cobbled to a socialist view point, which it still does to many. But if obviously wasn't that suffused with socialist meaning by the 1930s or people like Albert Jay Nock and H.L. Mencken would not have started calling themselves libertarians! Today more people see it as meaning the right to be free in every way and to own property (though there are all sorts of divisions on the definition of rightly held property even among strong supporters of property rights). Get used to it. Do you really think you'll change history by hijacking the meaning for this article? Or threatening sneaky edit warring and aggravating NPOV editors so they stop editing? I don't think so. But you might eventually get topic banned for disruptiveness. CarolMooreDC 06:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

It's very telling that this argument always comes down to "I'm right because I say so." If your assertion that "more people see it as [...] the right to own property" is correct, it would seem appropriate to start a section on when libertarianism, by consensus, took on its opposite meaning, with adequate references to back up the claim. I'm not aware of any. Maybe you could also provide a source where H.L. Mencken refers to himself as a libertarian. Your accusations of my "threatening edit warring" are completely baseless. I've had one confrontation with an abusive editor who was repeatedly blocked for violating policy -- I've been cited for violating WP policy, well, never. Honestly, your attempts at intimidation are disgusting and I don't wish to continue this conversation if you cannot have a civil discussion. Please continue to rewrite history to your liking as you please. Finx (talk) 07:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Did you not see this box below of material removed from the older version? I'll be looking through a few of my best saved versions for other such stuff.

"Right libertarianism" has been described as better-known.

• Johnathan Wolff (1998). "Libertarianism". Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Vol. 4. Taylor & Francis. p. 617. More typically it is associated with a view which champions particularly pure forms of capitalism.
• Stanford Encyclopedia. the better-known version of libertarianism—right-libertarianism.
• Peter Vallentyne (2007). "Liberalism and the State". In Jeffrey Paul and Fred D. Miller (ed.). Liberalism: Old and New. Cambridge University Press. p. 187. The best known form of libertarianism - right-libertarianism...

Re: edit warring, I was speaking about another editor who wrote "proponents of anarchism will still continue to sneak in content". There's no reason to sneak stuff in if it's properly ref'd and not WP:Undue attempt to unbalance the article. CarolMooreDC 16:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

First of all, that didn't sound like you speaking about another editor. It came of like a direct accusation. But let's put that aside. In addition to the library I've already linked you to, littered with the word libertarian, literally everywhere, for over 150 years of anarchist writings, let's address the definition.

• "Conversations with History; Institute of International Studies, UC Berkeley".:

"The United States is sort of out of the world on this topic. Britain is to a limited extent, but the United States is like on Mars. So here, the term "libertarian" means the opposite of what it always meant in history. Libertarian throughout modern European history meant socialist anarchist. It meant the anti-state element of the Workers Movement and the Socialist Movement."

• Noam Chomsky, Peter Mitchell. Understanding Power. Penguin Books India PVT, Limited.:

Man: What's the difference between "libertarian" and "anarchist," exactly?

Chomsky: There's no difference, really. I think they're the same thing. But you see, "libertarian" has a special meaning in the United States. The United States is off the spectrum of the main tradition in this respect: what's called "libertarianism" here is unbridled capitalism. Now, that's always been opposed in the European libertarian tradition, where every anarchist has been a socialist—because the point is, if you have unbridled capitalism, you have all kinds of authority: you have extreme authority

If you want more, let me know, because there's no shortage of scholars repeating the same view. You haven't proven your case by citing a couple of snippets. There's an article already for what you're describing: Libertarianism in the United States -- specifically, the 'current' section. This article needs to be better cited. Not gutted. Finx (talk) 20:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:OR section removed

As an example of the problems with the Content of this article, at this diff I removed section Propaganda of the deed and illegalism per edit summary: sources do NOT mention libertarianism; Table of Contents not a ref for that sentence; only relevant material is Alain Pengam on DeJacque's person[al] views which should be put elsewhere if not WP:Undue) Any excuses for irrelevant material and WP:Original research?? Feel free to add a sentence or two of interest to mention(s) of Dejacque.

NOTE: if a book doesn't have a link it usually can be found at books.google or scholar.google or a general search. If it's in a Foreign Language one can request a translation, or link to one through google translate. If neither works, request a translation that shows the actual context of statement and relation to libertarianism. If there is no link to the original material anywhere, you can request a quote of relevant material and make sure you get page numbers. After all libertarianism might be mentioned once on page 2 and all the material may be from page 456, long after "libertarianism" has been forgotten by readers or the author. CarolMooreDC 20:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

A source does not have to use the word "libertarianism". You know why? It's simply because Wikipedia is not a dictonary. The focus of this article should not be the word "libertarianism"...it should be on one specific meaning of the word. Assuming of course that there is a primary topic. So which meaning of the word "libertarianism" are you using to determine whether or not a reliable source is relevant to this article?

For example, are you using the meaning that has been embraced by all the Nobel Prize winning libertarians?

The anarchist utopia must be acknowledged to hold a lingering if ultimately spurious attractiveness. Little more than casual reflection is required, however, to suggest that the whole idea is a conceptual mirage. - James Buchanan, The Limits of Liberty

--Xerographica (talk) 21:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Xerographica, I agree with you for the most part, but we must also include the history of the term, yes? It seems misleading to talk about libertarianism as only the US, propertarian version without mentioning that the word libertarian was coined to describe anarchism or that these terms were synonymous for ~100 years. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Have you guys NOT read WP:Original research?? (emphasis from the policy page)

Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented...

As for the Buchanan quote, where's the source that it exists and that anyone says it is a definition of libertarianism and that it is embraced by all Libertarians. WP:OR in talk pages also can be annoying.

Mr. Dub, I don't think anyone wants to remove properly sourced material (except where excessive verbiage/WP:Undue),including DeJacque's definition. I was referring to this Alain Pengam source which has a lot of Dejaque but did not really explicitly refer to libertarianism and the material it allegedly was sourcing. I think the definition does need some better/more varied sources and will supply them, thus the temporary tag I put on the relevant paragraph. CarolMooreDC 22:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Carolmooredc, the majority of this article discusses anarchism...so clearly the topic of this article is anarchism. There are plenty of reliable sources that say that "libertarianism" is "anarchism". Yet, here you are removing content that is reliably sourced...claiming that it is "original" research.

Here's how it should work. First you establish the tenets of an ideology and then you use those tenets to identify which sources are relevant to the article. Is Buchanan's quote relevant to this article? Sure, but only in the criticism section. But then you have an absurd situation where there's a Nobel Prize winning "libertarian" critiquing "libertarianism". All because you violated the policy that states that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Xerographica (talk) 23:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

MisterDub, each article should be about a well delineated concept...and it should mention any "words" that have been used to refer to that specific concept. The tap root of limited government libertarianism (LGL) is "classical liberalism". An article on LGL should cover the history of notable people who have understood the importance of keeping the Leviathan on a very tight leash (Smith, Bastiat, Spencer, Mises, etc). It should not cover the people who have advocated that the Leviathan be destroyed (Proudhon, Bookchin, Godwin, Rothbard, etc.). These are two completely different and distinct concepts. Combining them is the epitome of misleading...and a clear violation of Wikipedia policy. So we turn this into a DAB page and see if one of the articles receives enough views to be considered the primary topic. It's really that simple. --Xerographica (talk) 22:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Xerographica: Where in policy does it say "each article should be about a well delineated concept...and it should mention any "words" that have been used to refer to that specific concept" You are using your imagination. What part of the sentence below from WP:OR do you NOT understand?

To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.

Once again you are talking WP:OR. Who says all pro-property libertarians think in terms of "classical liberalism"? Who says your distinctions above are anything but your own WP:OR? Some of us actually can write an article that gives the different perspectives their due. CarolMooreDC 22:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

CarolMooreDC, thanks, but I think the problem is that we have reliable sources equating libertarianism with anarchism, so anything related to anarchism is pertinent whether or not sources explicitly use the term libertarian (WP:MNA). The reason we ought not to repeat the information here is that we would be duplicating information from its commonly named article.

Xerographica, there is no reason to make this a DAB: Anarchism has an article, as does the metaphysical concept of libertarianism. This article should be about LGL, which still uses the term libertarian (meriting its mention, as you suggested). I agree with you as far as people, but we should note that the term traditionally referred to anarchism and not Liberalism. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 23:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The point of turning this page into DAB page is to recognize that the word "libertarianism" has completely different meanings. Once it's converted into a DAB page...then we can see if any of the meanings receive enough views to be considered the primary topic. If, and only if, one of the meanings receives enough views...then will that meaning be moved to this page.

You're basically skipping a step and saying that LGL is the primary topic. I supported your approach in the past but there was no consensus. It doesn't seem very likely that it will receive enough support now either. So that's why the DAB approach is a completely neutral, fair and evidenced based method of determining whether any meaning is sufficiently popular to be considered the primary topic.

The only real reason for somebody to oppose this method is if they are pro-anarchism but they believe that LGL truly is the primary topic. The existence of the supporting evidence would prevent them from using this high exposure page to promote anarchism. --Xerographica (talk) 23:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

LGL is obviously the primary topic for this article per WP:UCN, as I explained earlier. Anarchism's common name is anarchism, so the only competition for primary topic comes from the metaphysical concept of libertarian free will, which is already disambiguated to "libertarianism (metaphysics)". I don't support the DAB approach because it's unnecessary; it has nothing to do with my personal feelings. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 23:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I had to look back for what LGL means (limited government libertarianism) though I don't see any WP:RS making your distinctions. Guess what, a lot of libertarians think that individual liberty and civil liberties and non-interventionism and limited OR no government (or decentralism where you decide in your own community how much to have) are the big things that make people libertarians and minor differences over who should own what factory or what river or what pair of underpants can be decided in a nonviolent fashion. This (sick patriarchal, IMHO) obsession some have with dividing libertarians by economics should not be used as an excuse to violate wikipedia policies which is what this is about. CarolMooreDC 23:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

MisterDub, I completely agree that it is obviously the primary topic...but "obviously" others disagree. They've disagreed in the past and they'll certainly disagree in the future. That's why I'd like to solve it once and for all by having some actual concrete evidence in the form of page views. Even with that concrete evidence...proponents of anarchism will still continue to sneak in content related to other uses of the word "libertarianism"...but at least we'll have concrete evidence to support the clear delineation of this article. Don't get me wrong...I love opposing viewpoints...but that's exactly what the criticism section is for. --Xerographica (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

You are proposing to take things even farther into the area of WP:OR. This will only lead to a frustrating detour that is not going to help improve the article. SPECIFICO talk 00:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

RE: WP:MNA claim

Wikipedia:MNA#Making_necessary_assumptions does not mean libertarianism equals anarchism.

• Loading up on left wing sources that barely mention libertarianism and then claiming that means that libertarianism = anarchism is totally specious, especially if you’ve deleted ones that do not support your definition

• Let’s look at what was removed from the article last year:

"Right libertarianism" has been described as better-known.

• Johnathan Wolff (1998). "Libertarianism". Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Vol. 4. Taylor & Francis. p. 617. More typically it is associated with a view which champions particularly pure forms of capitalism.
• Stanford Encyclopedia. the better-known version of libertarianism—right-libertarianism.
• Peter Vallentyne (2007). "Liberalism and the State". In Jeffrey Paul and Fred D. Miller (ed.). Liberalism: Old and New. Cambridge University Press. p. 187. The best known form of libertarianism - right-libertarianism...

• Search books.google for “Best known forms of libertarianism” and see what you get.
• Do a google search of “libertarianism equals anarchism” 7 returns, mostly people denying it; and a search of “libertarianism does not equal anarchism” 27 returns, people agreeing it does not.

That’s just a tiny start on the evidence that can be provided to contest your bogus claims that there is a left wing form of libertarianism so well known that it should own this article and shunt any other version off to some other article. I've written up my WP:ORN notice. Will hold back on sending for now as more rational voices enter the discussion. CarolMooreDC 00:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Where do you think the term "libertarian socialism" comes from? For many who follow Chomsky...the word "libertarian" is synonymous with "anarchism". That's why "libertarian socialism" is the same exact thing as "anarcho-socialism". But that only establishes that the word "libertarianism" has widely divergent meanings...which is exactly why this article should be turned into a DAB page until we can establish whether one of the meanings is sufficiently popular to be considered the primary topic. --Xerographica (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

{ec}CarolMooreDC, I think you may be under the impression that I want this article to be about anarchism; I do not. Yes, right-libertarianism (LGL) has become "the better-known version" and we should be covering that primarily, but libertarianism was synonymous with anarchism for a long time and that should be noted. This blog post has several citations detailing this history, if you'd like. Just to reiterate, though, I think this article needs to be about right-libertarianism, but with a few paragraphs explaining the term's origin and history, including its association with anarchism. If the reader wants more information about anarchism, he or she can click to a SeeAlso template under the section heading. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 03:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Have you looked through previous versions of this article? If you look back far enough you'll find articles that almost perfectly match your description. So please explain what will be done differently to prevent this article from again giving far too much weight to anarchism. --Xerographica (talk) 03:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with most things that most people have said except one quibble with Xerographica. Wikipedia articles by policy and merit often cover a set of related concepts as defined by a term. North8000 (talk) 02:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Right, unless the "term" has completely different meanings in which case a DAB page is created for the "term". --Xerographica (talk) 03:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Re:Term and disambiguation. Now what WP:OR term was it that Xerographica wants to use? This whole conversation is so deja vu...

User:Xerographica: As long as we are WP:SoapBoxing without refs, if you want the most popular kind of libertarianism it's about individual liberty and civil liberties and non-interventionism and limited OR no government (or decentralism where you decide in your own community how much to have) - differences over ownership of resources or how much private property you are "allowed" to own are not obsessed upon by the majority of people. Finding processes to deal with conflicts over property without aggression and violence is the main issue in that regard. (After all the average male ape will always want the most territory and goodies so he can get the best females - or prevent more macho males from getting it if he's a socialist?? ha ha - so he will obsess on economics.)

MrDub, I did get impression you wanted a balanced article. Again, I'm not for booting any kind of anarchism, just for removing WP:OR - and WP:Undue - material and adding new (or adding back old unnecessarily deleted) material so that the article better reflects reality. CarolMooreDC 04:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

If you want this article to better reflect reality...then why not turn this page into a DAB page? Then we'll look over the page view statistics to see which political ideology is truly the most popular. If one of the ideologies receives more views than the rest...then that ideology will be the primary topic. Limited government libertarianism (LGL), anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-socialism can not all be the primary topic. There can only be one...or none. I'm happy to allow the readers to indicate which topic they are most interested in learning about. Why aren't you? Why do you want to make the choice for them? --Xerographica (talk) 08:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Quite right Carol. MNA isn't relevant. Woodcock's magisterial work's conflation is sufficient. Doesn't exhaust the scope of course. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: "Do a google search of “libertarianism equals anarchism” 7 returns

Good point. In other news, a Google Book search for "nazism is fascism" also produces seven results, some repudiating the claim and "nazism is not fascism" returns ten. I guess, by this rigorously empirical method, we'd better go over to the article on Nazism and correct the lead's assertion that it "is a variety of fascism." Now let's do a Google search for "bigfoot shot JFK" 1,640 hits -- incredible! Mystery solved. Finx (talk) 08:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Glad to see you took the google search joke in humor with which it was offered. And that we agree MNA isn't relevant. CarolMooreDC 16:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality

Please remove the neutrality warning. It is misleading. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 15:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree. There is no real neutrality discussion going on. North8000 (talk) 17:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

If not a neutrality warning (I'm assuming it was placed in reference to the confusing mess caused by anarchist/minarchist war), I feel like there should at least be something at the top clarifying that the confusing and redundant nature of the article (especially the intro) is due to it being fought over. You can decide what would be most appropriate, but it's too poor of an article and this fight has gone on too long for there not to be some kind of warning. A sound article should clearly and concisely communicate a concept to any lay-Internet-user that clicks into it. This article does not do that. Instead it's little more than a jumbled-up, gridlocked hodge-podge of vague technicalities trying to appease two internal factions. Also, just as an aside, is it really necessary to link the word 'state' in the lead not even to 'State (polity)' but to the 'Definitional issues' sub-section? That sub-section is right below the intro; there's no need to re-direct it straight there. Let's not confuse people even more by continuing to throw in their faces how devoid of concepts we've become. Minarchist and anarchist alike, we're all anti-statist types -- It's an insult to all of us and degrading of our ideals if we can't even put forth what the state is anymore. Also, I've added a Citation Needed at the end of the last sentence of the intro as it's a disputed statement and, in my view, an overblown exaggeration. I've already made my case for that above. I know he's pretty much a god in certain circles, but regardless of what Noam Chomsky said, the perusal of many libertarian party/organization platforms from around the world will reveal the so-called "American" definition of libertarianism is more widespread than many would like to believe. I'm sorry but you can't just ignore that, and pretending capitalist libertarianism doesn't exist outside the U.S. doesn't magically make it true.

Anyway, to sum up my main point: it doesn't have to be a neutrality warning (thought I don't think it's far off the mark), but there should be something. --Adam9389 (talk) 10:56, 08 February 2013 (UTC)

The reality is is that are very different meanings, but with enough in common (both in concept, in terminology, and in the common meaning of the term) to be a single article. So we need to cover the various meanings, and one meaning should not be covered through the lens of the other. And, (only) one of the meanings has a real cohesive word (anarchism) which covers it to the point where it has it's own, cohesive article, which would tend to make coverage of that here a bit less. I think that this article is somewhere near to striking that balance. Invariably folks from both extreme ends of the spectrum come along who think that "bias" means "not pulled to their end of the POV spectrum" or "not as viewed through the lens of their strand of libertarianism". North8000 (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

i think it is time we reexamine the whole euro vs usa definition of the term. i have lived in the EU for years and recently met an Italian who called himself a libertarian and believes the exact same as the LPUSA. I suggest much of what is submitted as RS supporting the euro def. of the term was written by Americans with little or no experience in the EU. ex: others reject such private ownership and often support common ownership instead (libertarian socialism) written by Peter Vallentyne, born in Connecticut, lives in Missouri. his POV on this topic is in a tiny minority and should not be included here, perhaps the comment would be better placed at the term which it references, libertarian socialism, something quite different than libertarianism the Europeans describe to me. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I feel it's important for the lead to note that right-libertarianism has become popular outside of the USA, which is why the USA-Europe dichotomy isn't so cut-and-dry. In my sandbox version, I've included the following in the lead: "In the 1950s, many with classical liberal beliefs in the United States began to describe themselves as libertarian, and this right-libertarianism has since propagated beyond the US via think tanks and political parties. Libertarianism is increasingly viewed worldwide as a free market position." I think an edit along these lines will more accurately represent how the use of the term libertarian has changed over time.

I would also like to point out that there are multiple sources claiming this connection between libertarianism and anarchism outside the US; it's not just Chomsky. Max Nettlau, Frank Fernandez, and Colin Ward (just from sources in this article) also make this connection. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree, other than we need a better name than "right". North8000 (talk) 21:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know of a better descriptor, but I'm open to suggestions. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Put POV template back on top writing: filled with material about leftist views that barely mention the word libertarianism; crappy and too short section on modern libertarianism Sorry, tenuous connections, or an adjective just thrown in with a bunch of others does not justify overwhelming the article with the activities of those who do not first and foremost call their philosophy libertarian. I don't even see the groups that DO use the phrase represented much at all. Pretty sad. CarolMooreDC 05:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Have a read. In the actual collection, about thirty titular mentions, spanning a century and a half, under the umbrella of (still can't believe this actually has to be qualified, but... anti-capitalist) anarchism. Scan through some of the literature and you'll see hundreds of mentions by prominent authors. I really don't understand why this article has to be mutilated into some neoliberal shrine. Then again, I don't have the spare time on my hands try and prevent it, and I suspect all mentions of what libertarian actually means will be purged eventually. Pretty sad indeed. Finx (talk) 06:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The first sentence of above anarchistlibrary link reads: As is well known, anarchists use the terms “libertarian”, “libertarian socialist” and “libertarian communist” as equivalent to “anarchist” and, similarly, “libertarian socialism” or “libertarian communism” as an alternative for “anarchism.” This is perfectly understandable, as the anarchist goal is freedom, liberty, and the ending of all hierarchical and authoritarian institutions and social relations.

The only problems are a) it is not well known and b) it is mostly left anarchists who know all this. Most people think it means some sort of free living/free loving/pot smoking/free marketeering/gun toting hippy reality.

I feel like I'm fighting with Zionists who insist God gave them Israel 4000 years ago and everybody knows it so they can kick all the Arabs off, kill them if they resist and use the Samson Option and nuke the world if it dares to stop them from fulfilling God's will. Geezz.. CarolMooreDC 06:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your opinion, but I don't understand why it's more valid that 150 years worth of libertarian history. You can denounce it as a religious position, that encyclopedic articles maybe should fairly reflect the simple truth about recorded history -- but you've decided for everyone that it isn't well known. Here is another possibility: it is not well known by you. It's certainly well documented. Finx (talk) 06:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with documentation presented as refs in article. I'm just tired of hearing "We have lots of refs to prove that there have been (and still are?) libertarian leftists and since we filled the article up with a few such refs, and a lot of other stuff relevant to them even if the sources don't mention it (and removed a lot of that "capitalist crap"?), the whole article should emphasize this view." So the counter balance to this POV has to be a) remove all material that does not directly mention/ref "libertarianism" per policy and b) add more info the the more commonly know type of libertarianism, include the fact that sources say it is the more commonly known. Which I'll put back soon. But I have another major libertarianish-related article working on where DO mention lefties but having these stupid arguments is slowing me down. CarolMooreDC 16:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way about these "stupid arguments" slowing you down from writing a libertarian article about "lefties" -- (that's how I use quotes, by the way -- if I'm quoting someone; IIRC, I never used the words "capitalist crap" -- so no point in putting that in quotations). I feel the same way about your "stupid arguments" by the way. The more "commonly known" type of libertarianism is plainly anarchism -- which is to say the anti-capitalist, anti-state group of ideologies. The US is 5% of the world's population, the positions of CATO and USLP notwithstanding. Finx (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

You'll have to pardon my frustration with going over this whole topic yet again for the umpteenth time - (though mostly in the past its been defending the right to put properly ref'd left libertarian material in here). So what's your version of International Society for Individual Liberty (formerly Libertarian International and wish they hadn't merged with a less impressive group and changed the name). It has a "network" of over 3000 groups in 80 countries here. At the very least groups that would not scream "remove me" from you list; at best a few hundred that are highly in sync with them. And why aren't they listed under Libertarian organizations section?? CarolMooreDC 21:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

You can easily claim 300,000 organizations if they're 99.9% PR shell companies and don't do anything. But okay, a few: libcom (stands for libertarian communism), FNB (identified as libertarian, can cite), ALL (L stands for libertarian, multiple cities), ALF (L stands for libertarian), CLM (L stands for libertarian), AL (L stands for libertarian), LWG (L stands for libertarian), CLJP... I can go on. Are we done yet? I would indeed love to wrap up this stupid, stupid argument, as you yourself put it and move on to something more dignified. Finx (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

So what's the problem with listing them if they describe themselves as libertarian in some major way. (I certainly wouldn't list any groups that didn't and have removed some that others have listed in past from this article and other lists/categories over the years.) (Oh, and stupid arguments are ones that are not policy based but personal view point based; more from another person who has refused to provide much in the way of support for their arguments.) CarolMooreDC 02:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

ISIL? I don't see any problem with listing them, so long as it's clear what their purpose is. Do you see a problem with listing various socialist/communist organizations? Where are they, by the way? They seem to be conspicuously missing from that section. Finx (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

A small step forward....what NOT to cover

Without tackling the bigger question, I think that one thing that we should put to bed is that we don't need to cover misconceptions from places that aren't familiar with it. This includes:

• The common meaning of anarchist in the US is someone who riots, throws firebombs and motorcycle gangs who take over towns. It is not "Eurocentric bias" to leave this definition out of our anarchism description.
• Persons who don't understand the common meaning of "libertarian" in the US (which is basically just two items: prioritizing less government and more freedom) and who keep trying to describe it in irrelevant terms (proprietarian, minarchist, "right" etc) It is not US-centric bias to leave these errors out of the description of common US libertarianism.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The first point isn't exactly correct: we anarchists have earned our association with terrorism because of incidents of propaganda of the deed, and this is not unique to the USA. There is no Eurocentric bias here because there's no Eurocentricity. This association is explained in the anarchism article, as it should be. I'm fairly certain the second point is directed at me, but I want to make clear that I refer to US libertarianism in these ways only on this Talk page. I have proposed using the terms left- and right-libertarianism to better organize this article because they are supported by sources (and yes, with congruent definitions), but consensus is against this. I have requested better terminology, but received no response; therefore, I will continue to refer to it as I have until a suitable replacement is found. The association of libertarianism with property rights, too, is relevant and worth inclusion, though not as a definitional statement. This information would work well in a "Criticism" section, as most of these are attributed to left-libertarians (i.e. anarchists).

In short, I disagree with omitting relevant information in both cases. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you find a scholarly source discussing how this "common sense" definition differs from say, Robert Long's scholarly and clear indication that the US movement centred around the USLP has very clear views on bourgeois property? Compare as a distinction the scholarly study of Labourism as opposed to Socialism in the labour movement context, even though Labourism isn't a clearly evoked singular ideology, it was a populist conception of the world, it has been subject to appropriate scholarly study (Browns' From Labourism to Socialism for example). Fifelfoo (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't argue that because I don't disagree with that regarding the portion of US libertarians (maybe 2%) centered around the USLP The USLP has a full platform, and so ascribing things (beyond my short list of two items) to that philosophy (e.g. views on property) is not in error. There IS sourcing that says that about 10% of the US self-identifies as libertarian, and about 20% votes libertarian (selected Democrat and Republican candidates) which means that USLP folks are about 1/2% - 2% of US libertarians. North8000 (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Slightly smaller because of evaluations of the IWW, NEFAC, etc. But the core of the point is that if you want to talk about a broad social ideology, you need scholarly sources. And in relation to an article where scholars don't even speak on the same page, we ought to deal with the highest order scholarly works: scholarly surveys of scholars themselves. I know we've mentioned this to each other before, but with the discourse on this page attempting to reason from unique personal readings of Greek, it bares saying again: field reviews, multiple field reviews. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Keeping in mind that I am conversing with the person with the highest sourcing standards of anyone I've ever met on Wikipedia. :-) I think that there is sourcing in the article on this. And there is some overlap between the normal degree of summarization that is the backbone of Wikipedia articles and what is precluded by a fully rigorous interpretation of wp:nor/wp:synth. BTW what I'm talking about it's not really a broad ideology.....it's just 2 item component of political beliefs that prioritizes reduction of government and increasing personal freedom. And in a narrower sense, a widespread common meaning for the word which is only that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

(I seriously relax my sourcing standards on uncontentious pop-culture). While I think you're right, I think we're still waiting on a major contribution to the social and political history of the United States that does focus on this. It certainly has been a streak inside populist self-conceptions, but it still needs to be written up and comprehended. Particularly if the claim is that some organisations (USLP / USLP registered preselecting voters) conflate the general "vibe" with their own party, and that the vibe itself needs significant discussion. The more contentious the article, the more vigorous the discussion of appropriate sourcing. (And this article isn't one of the most contentious). Fifelfoo (talk) 04:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

If you are writing an article mostly about 19th century events/movements/individuals, sure you need mostly scholarly refs. When you are talking about phenomena of the last 20 to 25 years particularly, news sources are perfectly WP:RS - and often are what scholars rely on, including on papers/books yet unpublished. Libertarianism is an evolving philosophy, not something stuck in 1899... CarolMooreDC 18:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Should Libertarianism be a cross-reference page?

A Cross-reference page is a relatively new concept described in the WP:Cross-reference essay. While it is currently just an essay, there is a proposal to promote it to policy, here. There is a category listing all current cross-reference pages, here.

Though all the various forms of "libertarianism" are somewhat related, I've always thought the concept of a single umbrella topic covering all forms was somewhat artificial, and generally such usage is not supported by reliable sources (most references to "libertarianism" in reliable sources refer to some specific meaning of libertarianism, not to the umbrella meaning that this article tries to cover). Perhaps the solution here is to make Libertarianism be a cross-reference page, with links to all the specific uses of libertarianism covered in reliable sources? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Just like the good old days. It's like meeting somebody who shares your common last name and assuming that you're related. That's why the DAB page is far more appropriate..."A disambiguation page links to various articles about possibly unrelated topics known by the same name" The only thing that these ideologies have in common is that they are all political ideologies. That being said, a cross reference page would certainly be an improvement. It would give us the opportunity to see if any of the topics received enough views to be considered the primary topic. --Xerographica (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that the key point is that it is about a group of meanings for the same word that, while they are different, are related enough to where non-expert people think that they are the same meaning. Words in a similar situation are Global warming, Folk music, Assault weapon, World music. Also where the word itself (not just what it represents) needs coverage. North8000 (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I think non-experts can differentiate between limiting or abolishing the government. They can also probably differentiate between private and collective property. These aren't "minor" details. These are fundamental differences. These ideologies are not tangentially opposed to each other...they are diametrically opposed. For example, Ayn Rand hated anarchists. Mises thought that they suffered from "absurd illusions" and Buchanan said that "little more than casual reflection is required, however, to suggest that the whole idea is a conceptual mirage." There's a strong consensus regarding the necessity of government and the importance of strong property rights. Anything that is more than a couple standard deviations away from this consensus is not the same ideology. Bundling all these diametrically opposed ideologies together and saying that they are "libertarianism" is a violation of WP:NAD and WP:ALSO and a huge disservice to readers. --Xerographica (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I meant that non-experts would answer that libertarian is A political ideology/philosophy, not a bunch of different ideologies/philosophies. And that, in order for this to happen, those philosophies/meanings must have some similarities And that that (combined with the common name being the same for all of them) means that it's common and accepted to cover them in one article. So it's not like "orange" the color and "orange" the fruit. North8000 (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I think if this was put before the Wikipedian community they would agree with the following proposal:

Since the left/socialist/communist libertarians are so upset about having anything to do with people who have a different view of private property than they do, even though various WP:RS do discuss the relationship of the different types of libertarianism, their views can be a hat note in the Libertarianism article to the new Libertarian socialism (disambiguation). The Libertarianism article henceforth only will discuss the more commonly known version [REFS PROVIDED] which is more pro-property and only differences over definitions of private property among those libertarians will be discussed in the article.'

I think that neatly solves the "yuk factor" problem that so obviously has oppressed various "left" editors of this article for years. CarolMooreDC 20:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

My main 2 agendas are to make sure that common US libertarianism gets suitably covered in the libertarian article and to avoid descending into painful warfare. So on the latter, I've been the one sort of arguing for the "middle" and at for least briefly covering all significant strands. But I'm not married to that idea. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

As an "in the middle" person whose taken grief from both sides, I'm pretty fed up, especially now that I realize I have to go back and clean out all that WP:OR and add back perfectly good material that was deleted. (And update too since a lot of that material is 4 years old, before I became an expert with books.google, etc.) But mostly because I have to waste so much time discussing it here. Plus I just want to give them a heads up on what I will do if they continue with the disambig/cross reference propsals. (The latter I'll have to study tonight and opine on the RfC since this article probably will be a prime example relevant to something or other there.) CarolMooreDC 21:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Still waiting on something convincing to back up that bombastic and completely unhistorical "more commonly known version" claim. Finx (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

[Insert]:Hint: search this page for phrase "Right libertarianism" has been described as better-known. For three four-year-old refs. I haven't even tried to look for other ones, using slightly different terms.CarolMooreDC 02:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that it hasn't been described that way (though the context is muddy). I'm pointing out that it's also been described as the opposite: the most recent, aberrant and least significant strain localized in the US. You seem to want to promote the right-wing claims to uncontested truth, and I'm only telling you it's not uncontested. Finx (talk) 08:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

[Insert]: First, I'm one of those who object to any inference of right-wing-ism and see it as a personal attack. Find me any libertarians in WP:RS who call themselves "right wing." (A couple confused nobody bloggers who really are conservatives don't count.) CarolMooreDC 18:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I completely agree with North8000 on this one. In order to be useful, a disambig page would have to be an article in itself. I think this is a very bad idea. If anything, maybe a blurb at the top to say "For the political party, see <link to LPUSA> Finx (talk) 00:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

What more would need to be said than this...?

• Libertarianism (limited government), narrow scope of government and strong property rights
• Anarcho-capitalism, no scope of government and strong property rights
• Anarcho-socialism, no scope of government and collective ownership

Would you want to put anarcho-socialism first?

• Anarcho-socialism, no scope of government and collective ownership
• Libertarianism (limited government), narrow scope of government and strong property rights
• Anarcho-capitalism, no scope of government and strong property rights

No problem! Do you want to put LGL last?

• Anarcho-socialism, no scope of government and collective ownership
• Anarcho-capitalism, no scope of government and strong property rights
• Libertarianism (limited government), narrow scope of government and strong property rights

Again, no problem! It would be just like Goldilocks and the Three Bears. So where's the difficulty? Why not allow the reader to choose which bed they want to sleep in? Why not allow them to choose what they put on their plate? Why not give them the freedom to choose the ideology that most closely matches their preferences? --Xerographica (talk) 00:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

For one thing, there's no such thing as "anrcho-socialism" -- it's redundant. For another, like others have pointed out, they're not concepts totally alien to one another. The propertarian strains are related to other forms of libertarianism, even if they disagree on central tenets. Finx (talk) 00:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Is there such a thing as "libertarian socialism"? If so, is it also redundant? Regarding aliens...the above tenets very clearly delineate the proper scope of each article. Obviously that's what's needed to prevent the vast majority of one article from being dedicated to the topic of another article. --Xerographica (talk) 01:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The 'libertarian' in lib-soc qualifies the type of socialism, distinguishing it from 'vanguardist' or 'state-socialism.' The word after the prefix 'anarcho-' qualifies the type of anarchism (eg: feminism, syndicalism, primitivism). Since the only exception to anti-capitalist anarchism is Rothbard, and most anarchists (including Rothbard, oddly enough) don't consider ancap a form of anarchism... Finx (talk) 02:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

So are you guys going to try disambig without consensus? If so please say so loud and clear here. Otherwise, we can discuss my next set of clean ups, which probably won't be earlier than this weekend.

By the way left a funny note on Cross reference discussion. I can see that proposal is going no where, thank heavens!!! CarolMooreDC 02:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Just to repeat, I'm not in favor of disambig or cr, so I hope 'you guys' wasn't meant to include me. Also, apologies, but I'm still not entirely clear on what you're planning on changing, after reading over your posts again. And if the intention is to de-emphasize the capitalist/anti-capitalist distinction (by either whittling down the anti-cap sections or purging explanations of differences), I still don't understand why or see how it's "sick patriarchal" not to do so. Finx (talk) 02:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not in favor of converting it to a disambig at this time, and do not see anywhere even near enough support to do that. North8000 (talk) 02:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I definitely see there is not a consensus to create disambig. All I'm going to do soon is"

• go through references and take out material that is not clearly referring to libertarianism the philosophy per you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. and obviously is POV/WP:Undue. I'll do a bit at a time so people have time to re-check and see if I erred.
• But if I think a point is important and should be sourceable I'll either put proper source on it or put citation needed on it. I could see the section I totally removed obviously was most problematic. Others probably aren't quite as bad and just need some removal here and there and perhaps merging with other sections once they are cut down to a WP:DUE/NPOV size.
• I'm also going to go through the most recent version before article got totally changed during the first two weeks of February 2012 (plus take a look at last version before I stopped watching page) and add back important material that was removed, starting with "the most common version of libertarian refs - and find some more as well. CarolMooreDC

And just to reiterate one more time, your "most common version of libertarianism" claim is highly dubious at best, and contradicted by dozens of other sources, not to mention well over a century worth of history. Finx (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

[Insert]:Hint: search this page for phrase "Right libertarianism" has been described as better-known. For three four-year-old refs. I haven't even tried to look for other ones, using slightly different terms.CarolMooreDC 02:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

There is sourcing for the size of that form. BTW, it simply due to the fact that renaming "classical liberalism" to "libertarianism" (as has somewhat uniquely happened in the US) creates gajillions of people called "libertarians". North8000 (talk) 21:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

There are vague public opinion polls showing, mostly, that a significant chunk of the US population identifies more with 'libertarian' views than those of the two mainstream political parties. There's also tons of polls showing that the majority of the population leans social-democratic, again, in opposition to both parties. I don't think that's at all surprising, but it still leaves us with two problems. First, again, the US is not the world and only represents 1/20th of the world's population. Second, there's the question of what those people consider libertarian (non-interventionism? more social liberties? less corporate accountability and regulation? abolition of limited liability? who knows! they don't ask that). As far as the renaming of classical liberalism, with neoliberalism (or rather neoliberal-themed libertarianism) reclaiming the values, here's a number of scholars refuting that claim (video). I think if classical liberalism is dragged into this issue, this perspective should be included. Finx (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Please tell me we're not going to have this battle again. Both I and Darkstar1st already mentioned above how capitalist libertarianism is by no means limited to the United States (or even to North America). So this "American definition" or "unique to the U.S." nonsense is just that. In fact, at this point, there are probably just as many libertarian organizations worldwide that identify with capitalism as there are that identify with socialism. No, we cannot ignore socialist variants nor the certain anarchist roots of libertarianism, but by the same token, you cannot ignore the fact that, as English is a living language, definitions can change over the course of time. Yes, things were different once upon a time, but it's 2013, not 1900. The minarchist/capitalist strain of libertarianism is indeed a thing, it is not limited to the United States, and as much as you might want to pretend otherwise, you can't. I do not want this article to ignore the anarchist or socialist strains of libertarianism, but it seems you want to do exactly that to us. You can't just use it as a vehicle to marginalize the free market, individualist wing just because you don't like it. Anarchism and socialism already have countless articles devoted to each and every one of their little variants (again, as I've already mentioned). You've got Left-libertarianism, Left-anarchism, Social anarchism, Libertarian socialism, Collectivist anarchism, etc. But this is just...not enough for you, Finx? --Adam9389 (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2013

I've provided scholarly sources for what I said (they're on this page, do a ctrl+f for "Conversations with History") and I can provide more. What are your sources? Personal anecdotes? That's all I've heard so far. Someone knows a guy in London who says he's a libertarian and reads lots of articles on mises.org. I don't want to exclude neoliberalism. I want you to stop making baseless, unsubstantiated and bombastic claims. If you want total global appropriation of the term's modern usage, back it up. No amount of thumping and screaming "I'm right" is going to change this matter. Finx (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Who says that views on proprietarain vs. non-proprietarian, capitalism vs. anti-capitalism, or how far to take reduction of government must be defining components of every strand of libertarianism? Are we to say that a strand of libertarianism that has no single stance on any or all of these three questions can't / doesn't exist? North8000 (talk) 01:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

There's another "Distinction" missing that applies to all forms of libertarianism: gradualist vs. radical strategy. I mean sounds like Chomsky wants to keep social welfare programs til everything else has been abolished (Including the police forces necessary to collect taxes to pay for them?). I'm sure there are lefty libs who would disagree. But have not researched the point with refs, so shall not opine further at the moment. CarolMooreDC 02:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

My post / challenging question was an attempt to avoid some of the naming confusion. And the incorrect & unsourced practice of assigning adjectives based on things that are not even dealt with in their tenets or "platform". North8000 (talk) 12:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Dang, he wants to stay on topic :-) I won't say what the alternative is (again) til I've proved it. :-) CarolMooreDC 18:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)