Talk:Libertarianism/Archive 35

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

→

Archive 40

Old spelling

The quote with the "spelling errors" is actually just using a Long s, which is obsolete. I don't see any problem with using modern versions of such letters, instead. It's not changing the spelling any more than using modern fonts does. MilesMoney (talk) 22:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Did some research and found that the WP:MoS calls for a conversion of these long s characters to their modern equivalents:

A quotation is not a facsimile, and in most cases it is not desirable to duplicate the original formatting. Formatting and other purely typographical elements of quoted text should be adapted to English Wikipedia's conventions without comment; this practice is universal among publishers. These are alterations which make no difference when the text is read aloud, such as:

[...]

• Normalizing archaic glyphs and ligatures, when doing so will not change or obscure the meaning or intent of the text. Examples include æ→ae, œ→oe, ſ→s, and y^e→the. See also ampersand, above.

The specific policy is WP:MoS#Typographic_conformity. I've already made this change. Thanks! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Back and forth over "lack of real world examples"

I think that I agree with the objection to this. Regarding Miserdub's thought, I don't think that we see that sources put it that way. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The very last source cited is Michael Lind's The Question Libertarians Just Can't Answer, which reads:

Why are there no libertarian countries? If libertarians are correct in claiming that they understand how best to organize a modern society, how is it that not a single country in the world in the early twenty-first century is organized along libertarian lines?

[...]

When you ask libertarians if they can point to a libertarian country, you are likely to get a baffled look, followed, in a few moments, by something like this reply: While there is no purely libertarian country, there are countries which have pursued policies of which libertarians would approve [...]

But this isn't an adequate response. [...] Being able to point to one truly libertarian country would provide at least some evidence that libertarianism can work in the real world.

The sentence added by User:Goethean could (and should) be phrased better and/or expanded upon, but, insofar as this particular claim is concerned, it conveys the source's criticism accurately. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you're right. Including better phrasing etc. I can think of some fundamental errors in that criticism (it is founded on the false presumption that libertarianism is solely advocating a totally different form of government, whereas the most common form is merely a set of values/priorities and promoting a shift towards them, not total replacement of the form of government. But I digress. 21:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC) (North8000)

I suggest we first edit the Criticism of libertarianism article to create a more robust lead, then copy that here. I'll get to it when I can... unless someone beats me there.  ;) -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

FYI: I have now modified the Criticism of libertarianism article and copied its lead, along with supporting citations, here. Thanks! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Nice work! A very informative section! North8000 (talk) 18:45, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Left, right, retreat.

There was briefly a version which added a "right-libertarian" heading, just before the "left-libertarian", but it was reverted as "synthesis". Actually, as far as I can tell from reading Right-libertarian, it's correct. The first section was concerned solely with right-libertarianism. MilesMoney (talk) 01:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

That has been my complaint since a long time ago. It can only be called that. Hopefully we will have the user who reverted that come and explain his/her reasons. Reverting something and just giving as reason an accusation of "synthesis" clearly is not enough for a complex issue such as this.--Eduen (talk) 06:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the reversion on two levels:

• First, the section is on contemporary libertarianism and I think that such a section should exist. There is no limitation on what type goes in there.
• Right-libertarian basically rightly establishes that term is so vague and with so many different meanings that the term has no meaning. It is also an oxymoron in many places.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

North8000, you've said that many times (regarding the incoherence of the term right-libertarian), but I believe I have shown this to be an inaccurate statement. Right-libertarian means capitalist, be it neoliberal or anarcho-capitalist--"The New Right." -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I reverted the edit because it's pretty much a textbook definition of "Synthesis". You can't just assume that anything that isn't "Left Libertarian" suddenly becomes "Right Libertarian". It's just absurd, particularly when the most common American definition of Libertarianism boils down to being Right on economic issues, but Left on social ones. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 19:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The terms left and right libertarianism are used to distinguish between what the term often means in the U.S. and what it means in the rest of the world. Since Rothbard et al. claimed that they were within the libertarian tradition, it is not a case of one word with different meanings. Compare with liberalism, which broadly speaking includes both laissez-faire and welfare liberalism, but normally denotes the former in Europe and the latter in the U.S. If North8000 can find better words to distinguish left and right libertarianism, then he should provide them. TFD (talk) :38:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Liberalism, in the American sense, is left. Libertarianism, in the American sense, is right. Unless English Wikipedia is intended to be American Wikipedia, we can't just equate libertarianism with right-libertarianism, yet that's what we're doing now. MilesMoney (talk) 17:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Left-Libertarianism is a clear doctrine, and the word has a clear meaning. "Right-Libertarianism" is just when Conservatives claim to be "Libertarian", while ignoring all of the social positions inherent in Libertarianism. Essentially, it's a cop-out for people who refuse to admit they're just a plain old "Conservative". And frankly, if you want to make a silly "Right Libertarian" section, then that's your thing...but don't put that heading over a section denoting modern Libertarianism...and including a discussion of socially Liberal concepts like support for LGBT rights. There's nothing "Right-Wing" about socially Liberal positions. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 19:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

This is the problem with the terms left and right. What is "right" and what is "left"? It has a different meaning to everybody usually based on the area you live in. Using terms such as Market Libertarianism and Libertarian Socialism may be more appropriate but then you run into other problems with some socialists believing in the free market. Libertarian Capitalism may be okay, but not all "right libertarians" believe in capitalism, but the free market. AddsDitchVim (talk) 18:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Note, also, that there is a difference between placing libertarianism upon the left-right spectrum (which usually asks where neoliberalism fits in the US left-right paradigm) and dividing libertarianism into left and right factions. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

AddsDitchVim, it may be that the terminology used is confusing, but a distinction must be made and that is all that is available. If you have suggestions for anything else please provide them. Also, the terminology says nothing about where they lie on the political spectrum, only where they are perceived to lie in relation to each other. Few would question that most people would perceive Chomsky's views to be to the left of the Koch brothers and vice versa. Bryon Morrigan, sometimes the term libertarian is used as you say, but it is also used to refer to a school of thought that emerged in the U.S. in the 50s. The term conservative is problematic too since U.S. conservatism is generally considered to be a form of liberalism. TFD (talk) 21:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The terms mean dramatically different things based on geography. On our largest-english-readership country, "right" as a noun or adjective means/ includes "social conservative" (eg wants to outlaw abortion), the exact opposite of libertarianism. We had immense problems here a few years essentially because people were (mostly accidentally) trying to impose myopic / parochial definitions (which meant exactly opposite elsewhere) on the overall article, and I am adamantly against going back into that abyss. North8000 (talk) 22:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

This appears to be a confusion of the terms left and right with left- and right-libertarianism: the former have different meanings depending upon geography, the latter do not. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 23:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

There's definitely some confusion in what editors are saying, because there are plenty of libertarians who want abortion to be illegal or who favor racial discrimination (so long as it's not by the government). That's pretty much your whole Tea Party right there. American libertarianism is not socially liberal; it's anti-government on social issues, requiring the (federal) government to stay out of the way but not actually supporting minority rights. A good example is Rand Paul, who opposes same-sex marriage and opposes the federal government's role in it, but supports the right of states to be pro or con same-sex marriage.

Anyhow, what Mr. Dub said is correct: left-libertarian and right-libertarian are well-defined, and this article is treating libertarianism as if (as it is in America) it is right-libertarian by default. This is an obvious violation of WP:NPOV. MilesMoney (talk) 23:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree with "well defined" and feel that such is clearly not the case. Aside from sourcing, and a perusal of the RL article, if such were the case we would not be having this discussion. North8000 (talk) 23:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

This argument goes on for several threads about every six months, so people might read the archives. FYI, the lead of Right-libertarianism actually has a bit of WP:OR, which I got tired of debating, since it says more than what is in the article. Sources just don't support the use of term to describe an actual ideology. IMHO, it's most frequent use is by people who don't like free markets or freedom in general and want to tarnish them with the "epithet" right. User:Carolmooredc talk 03:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Plus the most common form of US Libertarianism / common meaning of it (the one with ~50,000,000 people in the US) is just generally prioitizing increase in freedom and reduction of government with NO reading / element based on those thing that some are claiming to be definers. (such as views on property). North8000 (talk) 11:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

North8000, the left/right spectrum in the U.S. is not defined by social conservatism. As with every other country empirical evidence has shown that the more right-wing one is perceived to be, the more likely one is to be socially conservative and vice versa. Your "common meaning" by the way is just a form of liberalism. TFD (talk) 15:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are saying in your first two sentences, as they appear to be conflicting with each other. On the rest, just as with libertarianism, there are two vastly different meanings of liberalism. What you say is true by European standards, and was true in the US back when liberalism meant classical liberalism. But it is clearly false by the current US meaning of liberalism, which advocates the expansion of government. North8000 (talk) 15:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

To say it shorter: The common meaning of "Libertarianism" in the USA = the common meaning of "Liberalism" in Europe. North8000 (talk) 15:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The phrase is "more likely to be socially conservative". Its like saying tall people are more likely to weigh more than short people. That does not mean that height and weight are the same thing or that all tall people weigh more than all short people.

I agree that the term libertarian is often used in the U.S. to mean what Europeans mean by liberal. It should be mentioned in the article. The universal term is "economic liberalism."

TFD (talk) 16:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The commonly-used "short-hand" political spectrum definition of American Libertarianism (as used by the Cato Institute, Boaz, Gary Johnson, etc.) is that it is economically Right-Wing, and socially Left-Wing. Right-Libertarians are generally economically Really Right-Wing, and socially Right to Center-Right. (In other words, they're just plain "Right-Wing" for the most part.) They don't fit the standard definition of just "plain old" Libertarianism, so renaming the section dealing with "plain old" Left/Right Libertarianism as "Right Libertarianism" is completely bonkers....especially when said section explicitly denotes the "fiscally conservative and socially liberal" definition, with citations. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 16:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

In regards to the Right-libertarianism article, again you can see where the confusion lies: situating "libertarianism" (aka neoliberalism) along the US left-right spectrum is not the same thing as dividing libertarianism into left and right factions. The first fifteen sources on that page all provide consistent definitions of right-libertarianism. Anthony Gregory's "Left, Right, Moderate and Radical" first criticizes the term for referring "to any number of varying and at times mutually exclusive political orientations," then successfully identifies left-libertarianism! Samuel Konkin III correctly identifies the difference between the two. Leonard E. Read, our next "critic," speaks of how neoliberalism isn't left or right, not about left- and right-libertarianism. Harry Browne never even mentions the terms left and right! When he says, "[w]e should never define Libertarian positions in terms coined by liberals or conservatives," he's referring to the words liberal and conservative. Then we have a claim that appears to be based solely upon the title of a work by neoliberal Tibor Machan! Walter Block, then, correctly identifies the difference between the two factions as well. So, to make it clear, there is no question about what left- and right-libertarianism are. It's only obscured when neoliberals think they have a monopoly on the term "libertarianism," which I think is the oft-cited problem with this article. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

As a veteran of 3-4 years of history here (including the bloodshed which I think I more than anyone worked to end and find the middle ground (actually more of a rosetta stone than common ground)) MisterDub, with "monopoly" I think that you are reading the wrong things into history of this article. The REAL problem is that there are vastly different meanings of libertarianism, and most people don't realize this and most people sincerely think that their meaning is the correct one, and that other folks doing the same are "up to something" and/or wrong. We need to respect the different definitions, give weigh to self-identification, and find terminology (via names or descriptions) that doesn't offend, conflict or confuse. North8000 (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

And how do you propose we do that? I hope you aren't suggesting that the article as it currently stands accomplishes this well. (The history of this article doesn't mean a thing; accurate content is our primary concern.) -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:32, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The "history" part was more to say I think that I understand where both sides are coming from, and that I've been trying to lobby for the middle ground which is just have the article explain and cover things......it doesn't have to pick sides or pick its leaning between sides, it just has to inform. North8000 (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that the current article takes a reasonably good approach, but it needs a lot of work. If there is one thing I'd like to see more of it is contemporary libertarianism in practice (not just in the minds of philosophers) For example, we have a "contemporary libertarianism section" which is short on contemporary left-libertarianism. But, with some many left-libertarian experts here, instead of putting material in on contemporary left-libertarianism, they want the doubly problematic move of changing the name of the section to "right libertarianism". And BTW, if left-libertarians objected to that term i would not use it, but they seem to agree with the term. North8000 (talk) 17:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

There are some left-libertarians who use that term, but a lot of us identify as either libertarian or anarchist, without adjectives. I'm okay with keeping the section title "Contemporary libertarianism" as long as it doesn't refer only to right-libertarianism; if it's going to be a section on right-libertarianism, however, it needs to be labeled as such. The organization and section titles of the article currently suggest that contemporary libertarianism is the same as right-libertarianism, that left-libertarianism is some minor offshoot. In fact, neoliberalism, anarcho-capitalism, and the traditional libertarian/anarchist position are all described as libertarian ideologies, and the article ought to reflect this without suggesting that one subset has more claim to the term than any other. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree. I think that the obvious (and frustratingly elusive) solution is for you or Euden or other left-libertarian to put more contemporary left-libertian material into the contemporary libertarianism section. Possibly we should also eliminate that subheading / separation. I'll give that a try. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

As far as how politics are viewed in the world and in the US, neoliberalism (meaning contemporary laissez faire capitalism) is right wing politics. As such in this article the distinction between left and right libertarianism is only logical and under way already as "left libertarianism" is used extensively within this article and clearly it will guide readers of this article better. Left and right libertarians never meet in real political practice in the outside world. They collaborate as much as religious fundamentalists and atheists do with each other. They are political enemies. So ¿why keep on confusing readers? The separation must clearly be established and it is very deep way and it is over the issue of capitalism just as fundamentalists and atheists are separated over the issue of religion in a very deep way.--Eduen (talk) 02:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Based on what definition of "Right Wing"? I agree with AddsDitchVim above, the terms "left" and "right" are too vaguely defined to be useful here. Bonewah (talk) 14:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Euden, as a sidebar, I think that you misunderstand the most common form of libertarianism in the US. You are thinking that it's a many-faceted philosophy with views on capitalism, private property. It isn't. The entire philosophy can be covered in one sentence. Prioritizing "More freedom, less government." END OF PHILOSOPHY. Things that they tacitly accept (e.g. capitalism, private ownership of property) are not a part of the philosophy. North8000 (talk) 15:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

As far as how politics are viewed in the world and in the US, neoliberalism (meaning contemporary laissez faire capitalism) is right wing politics. As such in this article the distinction between left and right libertarianism is only logical and under way already as "left libertarianism" is used extensively within this article and clearly it will guide readers of this article better. Left and right libertarians never meet in real political practice in the outside world. They collaborate as much as religious fundamentalists and atheists do with each other. They are political enemies. So ¿why keep on confusing readers? The separation must clearly be established and it is very deep way and it is over the issue of capitalism just as fundamentalists and atheists are separated over the issue of religion in a very deep way.--Eduen (talk) 02:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Based on what definition of "Right Wing"? I agree with AddsDitchVim above, the terms "left" and "right" are too vaguely defined to be useful here. Bonewah (talk) 14:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Euden, as a sidebar, I think that you misunderstand the most common form of libertarianism in the US. You are thinking that it's a many-faceted philosophy with views on capitalism, private property. It isn't. The entire philosophy can be covered in one sentence. Prioritizing "More freedom, less government." END OF PHILOSOPHY. Things that they tacitly accept (e.g. capitalism, private ownership of property) are not a part of the philosophy. North8000 (talk) 15:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

It might be the fact that US politics are the most right wing in the industrialized world. Everywhere else incluiding Canada there is at least a proper social democratic party with parlamentary representation and in countries like France, the Nederlands or Sweden there are parties even to the left of social democracy (mainly old style communist parties, trotskist and green parties) with small parlamentary representation as well. Yet in the US this is not the case and you only have two parties. One is a conservative party with very right wing views and the other is a centrist liberal party which right now is commited to a moderate form of neoliberalism (the Democratic party). As such you might be failing to see that everywhere else economic liberalism is seen as right wing and US neoliberalism at times is even more radical than european neoliberalism in its anti-statism and commitment to a capitalist ideology. It also is the case that the US is more right wing than europe as far as civil libertarianism issues in many cases since whereas in western europe there is a huge tendency towards irreligion in the US there is a strong christian fundamentalist movement with representation in one of the mainstream parties. I see that it might be the fact that you are failing to see this but i am just trying to bring you a more world centered perspective which is the one that wikipedia should strive for. It seems to me your vision keeps staying within a US centered provincialism.

So because of this it is unthinkable that anarchists, which are socialists coming from a position of liberty and anti-statism, are going to want to colaborate with something as opposed to it as a strong supporter of capitalism such as US right libertarianism and so not establishing well the huge diferences between each other in this article is a serious mistake. This is the reason why anarchism and libertarian marxism and the followers of Milton Friedman and Murray Rothbard can only be political enemies and never collaborate even in the US. As a matter of fact this US right libertarianism is closer in ideology to something like the US democratic party than to something like anarchism which has been seen usually as an ultra left position even to the left of marxist Communist parties. This is because as i said before the US democratic party is almost a sort of "libertarian party" already which supports neoliberalism in economics and civil libertarianism in morality and sex issues while anarchists advocate expropriating capitalists and bringing down the state to form a federation of communes, something very close to Karl Marx´s vision of "communism" actually. This is the reason why readers of this article should be made aware that there is an abyss of separation between anarchism and economic liberalism and that the US has a very peculiar form of classifying things which does not go alongside what the rest of the world follows. This is why we should clearly establish here a difference between right wing libertarianism and left wing libertarianism..--Eduen (talk) 05:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Eduen, I disagree with you on some of the details, but agree on the fundamentals. Your view is pretty typical of the non-American understanding of libertarianism, so that's what this article should reflect. It's called "Libertarianism" not "American Libertarianism". MilesMoney (talk) 06:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

MilesMoney. Maybe you should point out to what you disagree with. I can only remind you that we are not writing an article which seeks to be to the liking of US libertarians but one which deals with its subject with a world wide perspective and accuracy as far as the facts. Left and right libertarianism stand very far from each other and readers of this article should be pointed to this fact of real politics.--Eduen (talk) 06:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, it's not that important. The part I agree with is that this article should reflect a more global view, which means not assuming that libertarianism defaults to right-wing, the way it does in America. MilesMoney (talk) 06:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, regarding article organization and content, I 90% agree with both of you, the 10% being that "right libertarian" is a terrible term to use for many reasons. Now, as a sidebar, Eduen, what you wrote indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of the common meanings of libertarianism, liberal and Democratic party in the US. I was trying to give you a rosetta stone on that and you didn't take it.Which means that you really aren't in a position to contrast the two. Here is how what you just described sounds to me. Imagine that my personal libertarian philosophy consists of ONLY three things: prioritizing reduction of government and increase in freedom, and opposition to potatoes. And your brand of libertarianism makes no mention of potatoes. Now imagine that, based on that, I said these things:

1. Euden's is a "pro potato" form of libertarianism, and I'll describe it in the article as such.
2. Euden's pro-potato form of libertarian is in direct opposition to mine

On #1, I am using my "lens" to misstate your tacit acceptance of potatoes as being a plank of your libertarian platform. And then based on that mistaken invention, I'm mistakenly saying that our platforms conflict. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Again, i think the problem stems from the differing, or often non-existent, definition of the terms "right" and "left" in this context. Im all for including non-American understandings of Libertarianism, but we need to be descriptive of what those understandings are and how they differ from the American ones. We cant simply say "right" "Left" because those terms mean vastly different things to different people. Bonewah (talk) 15:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I just realized (or had it hammered in) something that is a cause of complaints. Folks are seeing a discussion of common-US-style Libertarianism under the general banner of "libertarianism" (without an adjective like "right") as a claim by that type to the general term "libertarianism". It is not intended that way. I think it's just that we don't have a good word for it, and "right libertarian" is TERRIBLE for many reasons. Ambiguous, no consistent meaning, attempted meanings (e.g. pro-property, pro-capitalism) which are flat out wrong for the most common type, and an oxymoron for the 60,000,000 practitioners of the most common type. North8000 (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

North8000, thank you for your suggestions and edits; they have been most helpful! I changed your edit from "'US style' libertarianism' to simply "US libertarianism" and hope this wasn't too bold on my part. If it was, feel free to revert. As for the continued claim that left and right are ambiguous and meaningless, I believe I have already shown this to be false. Left- and right-libertarianism are well defined, even if there are known differences between what people in the US and those elsewhere call left and right. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the "U.S." Libertarianism heading is a much better description. I changed "US" to "U.S.", because I'm fairly certain that is the proper protocol. Perhaps a "See Also" link to Libertarianism in the United States would also be a good idea? (Though that page itself needs SERIOUS help!) --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 18:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think that that's good. It's the main place where the meaning of the (single-word) term has been changed. If someone want to swap the sub-sections so that "left" is first, that's fine with me too. I just want an informative article. North8000 (talk) 18:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Libertarian anarchists?

User:JLMadrigal has changed occurrences of the word anarchist with libertarian anarchist. Is there a reason for this? Libertarianism and anarchism are synonyms, so this seems redundant. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I have now reverted these edits, as Libertarian anarchism is a redirect to Anarcho-capitalism! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Modern libertarianism ranges from minarchism to anarcho-capitalism. Left-of-center "anarchism" rejects property and markets (capitalism), and is thus foreign to the modern libertarian movement which embraces both. While historical European egalitarianism should rightly be discussed in this article, it is not the norm. Therefore the appropriate links will be restored. JLMadrigal (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The modern libertarian movement also includes left-libertarianism, which you appear to be redefining out of existence. MilesMoney (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

MilesMoney is correct; libertarianism includes left-libertarianism/left-anarchism/social(ist) anarchism/libertarian socialism and these edits intend to remove this affiliation and present libertarianism as only right-libertarianism. We do not want this bias in Wikipedia's voice. I have reverted again. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I generally agree with MisterDub comments above and their revert, although I don't see how the above conversation relates to the last edit. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the "anarchism" to which the link directs readers precisely excludes anarcho-capitalists who make up the bulk of modern libertarian anarchism. The reader is thus deprived of an accurate description of the movement within libertarianism. Again, while I have no objection to mention of left anarchism in the article, its significance to libertarian anarchism is misrepresented. The combination of articles attempts to redefine anarcho-capitalism out of existence. If this is not corrected, I will need to tag this article. JLMadrigal (talk) 09:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I am confused by this conversation. My main themes here (as having been a powerless pseudo-moderator) are that libertarianism has significantly different meanings and this article is to acknowledge that. The article is to cover them, not exclude them, and not write as if the specialized definition of any one of them is "THE" definition. When I read your edits and post I see "exclusion" in both respects. North8000 (talk) 09:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused, too. I don't see why we should try to limit the meaning of libertarianism to favor one particular type. MilesMoney (talk) 19:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

That's hard to believe, since anarcho-capitalism has been relegated to footnote status in the article - even though it is the most significant anarchist school of thought among libertarians today. JLMadrigal (talk) 21:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism has been relegated to footnote status in articles like the main one on anarchism for a very important reason. It's because it barely deserves a footnote. It is not a historically significant movement and has almost no presence in the material world outside of western internet culture. As far as I can tell, it's a only an internet phenomenon among mostly affluent American young men, who don't appear to be politically engaged in anything. Outside of that very marginal anomaly (and, for different reasons, one or two other pretty nuanced strains trying to distance themselves from traditional leftism), talking about 'left-anarchism' is like talking about 'sour lemons' - it's inane and redundant. It's rather telling that people outside the US generally do a spit-take when you tell them about self-described 'capitalist anarchists'; because, in context, it's like calling yourself an atheist hindu. I think it should be covered, but let's be serious. Finx (talk) 20:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Atheism in Hinduism — goethean 23:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and also Christian atheism. What I'm saying, though, is that it's at the margins. That's not a value judgment. Anarchists don't consider ancaps a part of the movement, which makes sense given the history and the content, not to mention their mostly-online presence. Just like "Christian atheism" might be a footnote in the article on Christianity, ancaps are a footnote in the article on anarchism. And they don't have any more claim to the word "libertarian". Finx (talk) 16:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The you should try adding it (this time without deleting anarchism) North8000 (talk) 21:10, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Done. More to come. JLMadrigal (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

¿Libertarian anarchists? that is as redundant as saying socialist communist and fascist nazi. Who can seriously be using that word? It is obvious that all anarchists are libertarian just as all communists are socialists and all nazies are fascists.

User JLMadrigal says the following amazing sentence:

"Left-of-center "anarchism" rejects property and markets (capitalism), and is thus foreign to the modern libertarian movement which embraces both. While historical European egalitarianism should rightly be discussed in this article, it is not the norm."

I can only remind that user that we are not writing "US right libertarian wikipedia" or "US neoliberal wikipedia" but english language wikipedia. As such we have to write articles here on how the "world" is and not how the opinions of US economic liberals ´s provincialism want to see it.

Another bizarre sentence by that same user:

"That's hard to believe, since anarcho-capitalism has been relegated to footnote status in the article - even though it is the most significant anarchist school of thought among libertarians today"

"anarcho-capitalism" is mostly rejected as something that can be logically considered a part of anarchism. It is something similar as proposing satanic christianity within chritianism. Rothbard clearly has more in common with Milton Fredman and Friedrich Hayek and so it is a part of neoliberalism and right libertarianism.--Eduen (talk) 02:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Euden, as when I reverted/rejected removal of "Anarchism", any significant strand needs to be covered. I don't have expertise on "anarcho-capitalism" to know whether or it it is such. but your argument given here against coverage of it seems to be based on personal analysis/opinion. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed that you deleted anarcho-capitalism material. You need to discus big sure-to-be-controversial changes here first. And the deletion should get reverted. North8000 (talk) 13:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

i am really not arguing againts coverage of it in this article. it certainly belongs here. i am just arguing that it should be placed where it belongs, as a part of right wing libertarianism and maninly as a radical form of economic liberalism.--Eduen (talk) 05:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Ancap section reads like a political pamphlet

"Anarcho-capitalism (also referred to as free-market anarchism",[139] market anarchism,[140]"

Maybe by a few, but the mainstream of anarchism that's historically advocated markets (Proudhon, Yarros, Tucker, Spooner) has been anticapitalist.

"embracing free and competitive markets in all services - including law and civil defense.[142][143]"

Presupposes law and civil defense are services.

"in favor of individual sovereignty in a free market.[144][143]"

Seriously? Individual sovereignty?

I think it's fair to say anti state, even though that's been challenged, but maybe getting a little carried away with rhetoric here?

"In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be operated by privately funded competitors rather than centrally through compulsory taxation. Money, along with all other goods and services, 'would be privately and competitively provided in an open market. Therefore, personal and economic activities under anarcho-capitalism would be regulated by victim-based dispute resolution organizations under tort and contract law"

Actually the proponents say - this would be like that and that would be like this. Those are their arguments and their conclusions, so the phrasing doesn't sound appropriate, since it's not a given. I can say that clapping my hands would make candy fall from the sky, but that doesn't make it an encyclopedic fact.

"rather than by statute through punishment and torture under political monopolies."

More rhetoric.

Could some ancap among us perhaps make this section more encyclopedic please? Finx (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Other than the first sentence, it appears this was copied from the Anarcho-capitalism article. I don't have a problem with that, but think that the references which support the claims ought to be copied over as well. I do agree that this new section needs expansion, and added that template to draw the attention of those who are knowledgeable about anarcho-capitalism. I can get to the sources later if no one beats me to it. Thanks! (By MisterDub)

I haven't checked the main article. I'll give it a look. I think the content is basically fine, so far as I understand the topic anyway, but it could sound a lot more detached -- e.g. "anarcho-capitalists contend that a society based these principles would [such-and-such] and [this-and-that], realizing [individual-sovereignty/free-market-freedoms/happy-fun-times]. Writers like [so-and-so] see the state [yada-yada] and its statutes as [monopoly/torture/tyranny/abomination]. Finx (talk) 19:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I added "as envisioned," and some history and links. JLMadrigal (talk) 14:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Article looks biased now towards anarcho-capitalism over minarchism

As i see it the most influential, as far as impact on society internationally, version of right libertarianism has clearly been minarchism as theorized by people like Milton Friedman and Friedrich hayek who have influenced much of the world´s economic policies in the last decades. Yet someone has added a whole section on anarcho-capitalism, a position mostly just present only in the united states and rejected as non-anarchist by the anarchist movement as a whole. Anyway since these two things (anarchocapitalism and minarchism) are forms of right libertarianism i will think these are already covered in US libertarianism section and also since in the rest of the world minarchism and anarchocapitalism are seen as forms of economic liberalism and of neoliberalism. So this is an important bias which has to be corrected but it is not just bias over a particular position but it also does not deserve the amount of treatment it deserves here since, on top of being a mostly US position and too recent, it has clearly been less influential in real politics than minarchism which exists since Adam Smith. This previous post to this one has also manifested that this section on anarchocapitalism sounds like ideological propaganda.--Eduen (talk) 02:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Even though I would quibble with some of your prefaces and terms in them, I think that your point is good. IMHO we should reduce but not eliminate the section. North8000 (talk) 13:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I took a look with the intent of paring it myself, but it appears very well written and each sentence in these seems important / informative on explaining it. I don't know what to say. North8000 (talk) 13:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

discussion thread closed at request of initiator
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Changes in lead regarding US Libertarian Party Some different stuff & Goethean have been trying to war in a big change in the lead and refusing to take it to talk. Rather than report I'll start the conversation here. (in fairness to Somedifferentstuff, they only did it the first 2, Goethean did #3) The roots of that section are to have some representative/significant sourced statements of what libertarian promotes. And to include a statement by (what few or none would argue isn't) the largest libertarian organization in the world as ONE of those. North8000 (talk) 17:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC) Rather than report what? What am I refusing to discuss? Please discuss content rather than contributors. And find a secondary source for your preferred content per WP:SECONDARY. — goethean 17:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict)I don't really have an objection to this change; the information seems better suited for the "U.S. libertarianism" section than the lead. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC) @Goethean, answering your question, it was rather than report you. You just did #3 (within a few hours) of trying to hammer in the same major edit to the lead of a major article, without discussing, despite previous "take it to talk" in edit summaries. And I was commenting on warring behavior not on people. North8000 (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC) Please go ahead and report me to whatever authority you would like rather than throwing around false threats and accusations. You are the one making personal attacks, so I think that any report is likely to WP:BOOMERANG. — goethean 17:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC) agreed the revert was made without discussion, therefore plz re-read wp:BRD and self-revert your revert. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC) Find a secondary source for your preferred content per WP:SECONDARY. And note MisterDub's comment: I don't really have an objection to this change; the information seems better suited for the "U.S. libertarianism" section than the lead. — goethean 18:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC) It's a primary source used within the proper limits for use of primary sources. North8000 (talk) 18:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC) As context, Goethean and I have "history"; interactions I have with Goethean never go well. For the others, as always with this article, my "agenda" has always been topped by it being informative, not to tilt it toward one strand or another. I think that the USLP (the "party" part) is a bad idea so my comments don't come from any pro-USLP bias. I think that that paragraph should give representative examples of statements of what libertarian objectives/ideologies/priorities are, and I think that such from the largest libertarian organization is useful. A good substitute would also fulfill this. Further the sentence (I think) limits itself to common tents of libertarianism in general. North8000 (talk) 18:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC) If you start following Wikipedia policy, rather than needlessly making deprecating comments about Wikipedia contributors, there will be no problems between you and I. Nobody asked for or cares about your personal commentary on our shared history. Nobody asked for or wants to hear about your agenda or your personal views of the US Libertarian Party. As MisterDub says above, your preferred content is is a better fit for the article on the US Libertarian Party. This article is on libertarianism as a political philosophy. Adding the content here makes about as much sense as adding the platform of the US Democratic Party to the lead of the article on Democracy. — goethean 19:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC) I'll skip responding to the false accusations and insults and just respond to your last item. If the US Democratic party's priority/priority was to promote democracy then their statement of that type would be informative. But such is not the case. North8000 (talk) 20:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC) Nobody is interested in your personal political views. — goethean 20:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC) I don't know why I bother, but what the heck "political views" are you talking about. My statement was just about the self-stated priorities / platform of the organization. North8000 (talk) 23:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC) Why not just say that there are parties called "Libertarian?" TFD (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC) Maybe. But my point is not to give the party a place there, it is to have another representative statement of what (one or the other significant strand of) libertarianism is about. That's (expanding here) I said that another substitute that does not use the USLP party would be fine. But what needs to be covered is a statement covering the "short list" of common tents of nearly all libertarianism, which also happens to be the "1 sentence" version of libertarianism which has the largest following (40- 60 million people in the US). North8000 (talk) 20:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC) Then there is no reason to mention the U.S. Libertarian Party. Just say that in the U.S. the term libertarian is often used as a synonym for economic liberalism. TFD (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC) Agree on the "no need (per se) to mention the USLP". But even the shortest lists of common tenets and/or US meaning of the term are broader than just "economic".North8000 (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC) If it does, can you provide a source for it. AFAIK, "libertarian" can mean either people in the traditional of Rothbard, Nolan, Hess, Paul, etc. or economic liberalism. What else is there? TFD (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC) Quick interjection: it might be helpful for people to review what liberalism is, including classical liberalism, social liberalism, economic liberalism and neoliberalism. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 23:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC) Plus the overwhemingly most common meaning of liberalism in the US which is the opposite of most of those. :-) North8000 (talk) 00:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC) Actually, liberalism in the USA generally refers to social liberalism, which yes, does value government-provided services like education, health care, etc. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 05:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC) @TFD. The source of it is the USLP. That is how they got in the in the first place, not due to wanting to mention them. Answering you later question, they are the other 90% of US Libertarians (~20% of the US population) that you didn't mention as quantified by Boaz, roughly along the Nolan Chart definition. And a 1 sentence ideology definition (prioritizing reduction of government, and increase in freedom) where the complete philosophies / philosophers that you just listed are not even on their radar screen. North8000 (talk) 01:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC) Do you mean people who combine economic and cultural liberalism? We could add that as another definition. TFD (talk) 02:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC) In the US that's an unusual way to express it (somewhat of an oxymoron), but yes and of course you are also technically correct. The common way to say it in the US is via the Nolan chart terminology. Don't forget that the common meaning of "liberal" in the US means advocating an expanded government; the opposite of classical liberal on that topic. North8000 (talk) 02:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC) That's not accurate. Is Reagan thought of as liberal? No, but he expanded government. The schema you are using (liberal = more government = less freedom) is extremely simplistic and inaccurate. — goethean 13:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC) Yeah. I'm normally fairly on your "side", North8000, but that fairly-modern "meme" of equating "Liberalism" and "Big Gov't", and "Conservatism" to "Small Gov't" is neither accurate now, nor has it ever been. It's especially ridiculous when you consider "Social Conservatism", which has been the driving force in American Conservatism over the last century, and which advocates EXTREME government expansion into individuals' lives, and is usually seen as the "barometer" of how "Conservative" a politician's views are... Ex.: Rick Santorum, who is seen as a very Conservative politician, because of his extremely Conservative views on social issues...regardless of the fact that he is very Centrist on economic ones. (And of course, a person in America who is extremely Conservative on fiscal issues, but "Liberal" on social ones, is generally considered a "Libertarian", and not a "Conservative". Ex. Gary Johnson.) It's nothing more than a propaganda tool, designed by Conservatives to demonize the Left, and has no basis in reality, history, or scholarship. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 13:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC) Bryonmorrigan, you are absolutely right except in interpreting that we are disagreeing, where you were misled by Goethean's usual "misinterpretation" (to put charitably) of what I said which led you to mistakenly imply that there is a conflict between what you said and what I said. My comment was very narrow, merely pointing out that the term "liberal" is ambiguous because, in some respects, various meanings of it are in direct conflict with each other. In the US, by the common meanings of the terms, both liberals and conservatives advocate smaller government / more freedom in certain (different) areas, and bigger government / less freedom in other (different) areas. The Nolan diagram probably says it best. North8000 (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC) For the benefit folks not in the US, the common meaning of "liberal" in the US includes advocating increasing government in taxation, re-distribution of money, larger amounts of government programs, implementing social activism, and larger amounts of government regulation. And the common meaning of "conservative" in the US includes advocating larger or more intrusive government on security / police state matters, punishment of crime and "crime", size/funding of the military, and legislating morality. North8000 (talk) 15:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC) Here's an idea. Instead of editors trying to create a description for US style, or editors selecting an putting in a particular author's opinion, let's use the largest libertarian organization in the US (and the world) as as source. And just to be doubly cautious that we aren't giving even that as fact in the voice of Wikipedia, let's use in-text attribution wording. Oh wait, we did that already!, And by agreement!. It is in the last stable version prior to this mess. North8000 (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC) We cannot use Libertarian Party (U.S.) for what libertarianism means, any more that we could use the British Conservative or Canadian Liberal Parties for what conservatism or liberalism mean. That is prohibited by "no original research". Furthermore, the founders of the U.S. party adopted the name "libertarian" and considered themselves to be in the tradition of 19th century libertarians. Yet you continually argue that has nothing to do with libertarianism in the U.S. TFD (talk) 05:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC) TFD, let me split this into two parts. Regarding the article content, all that I think is really really needed is a sentence (in a way that uses words that aren't going to confuse half the readers) providing another / more of an expression of the common tenets of libertarianism worldwide. I think that what was in there did that somewhat well, but I am not particularly partial to it. From a process standpoint, (unlike now) that last stable version is long standing and was discussed and agreeable. But I'd rather just focus on ending up with an informative statement on common tenets. The second point is an area where I don't think that we actually conflict, but that you may not understand what I am trying to say. I think that it is important because I think that it is one of the two "Rosetta stones" that helped resolve the bonfire that this article was engulfed in ~3 years ago. While the bonfire back then was as hot as that at any article, at the roots the situation at this article was/is more promising because it was not the usual case of a real-world contest moving into Wikipedia, but instead due to a "Tower of Babel" situation. And that is simply that the most the common meaning of libertarianism in the US is a very short list of tenets, and also matches the short list of common tenets of all libertarianism. (roughly speaking prioritizing reduction of government and maximization of liberty). For example, according to Boaz, they are defined that simply, and comprise in the ballpark of 20% of the US population. And so my point is that this "short form" does NOT include any complete libertarian philosophies, such as those developed by USA and European libertarian philosophers, and not the full platform of the USLP or even the full philosophies of prominent US libertarians. In short, the common meaning in the US is the 2 tenet short version. And by lucky "coincidence" (not) those two tenets are also common tenets for all (or nearly all) libertarianism. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC) We should go to the last stable version and then decide on / consensus any changes from there. The current state should not be determined by who is more aggressive on it in article space. North8000 (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC) Right libertarianism I have to ask the user who reverted my edit to explain him/herself. Defense of laissez faire capitalism is everywhere incluiding the US a part of right wing politics and if there is a section called "left libertarianism" it is obvious to label the pro deregulated capitalism section "right libertarianism". But in fact it seems that we will have to label that section "US right libertarianism" since it only deals with the US and and it has to be that way since in the rest of the world those politics are called "economic liberalism" and "libertarian" tends to be used for anarchists.--Eduen (talk) 01:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC) Anarcho-capitalists are also anarchists, and you would define them as right- libertarians since they favor a "deregulated" capitalism (self-regulated actually). Anyway, the term "libertarianism" predates its appropriation by anarchists (left anarchists?) and in any case, nowadays has fallen in desuse (other than for historic references). The only active use in their identification comes from North American market anarchists and minarchists. In other regions other forms of anarchism are simply referred to as anarchism or anarcho-syndicalism. 81.60.184.142 (talk) 12:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC) I would also note that, although both "left-libertarianism" sections of this article seem devoted entirely to marxism/socialism/communism variants, the main article on "left-libertarianism" at least discusses what other encyclopedias (like Stanford) call left-libertarianism, under the heading of "Steiner–Vallentyne Left Libertarianism". Also, Geo-libertarianism would be considered "left-libertarianism" according to the Stanford article on libertarianism, and although this article mentions it separately, it's not in the "left-libertarianism" section for some reason. Lockean One (talk) 08:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed because Wikipedia is not a forum. Please do not modify it. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Why consider "left libertarianism" a subset of libertarianism at all? Its defining characteristic is, according to this article, specifically its opposition to (economic) libertarianism. It's not like being libertarian on some issues but not others is something new. Why not just say that? It sounds like an attempt to usurp the term "libertarianism" the same way the term "liberalism" was usurped in the U.S., as mentioned above resulting in "economic liberalism" having completely opposite meanings depending on who is using the term. If this article is to be accepted, the word "libertarian" would suffer the same fate. A word is useless if it could have two mutually exclusive definitions in the same exact context, making it necessary to explicitly define the word with each use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.198.127 (talk) 04:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC) And "Right Libertarianism" is usually used as a term by those people who are opposed to social/cultural Libertarianism. Unfortunately, such people rarely qualify their beliefs with "Right", but rather, lead the masses/media to believe that their anti-Libertarian beliefs on social/cultural issues are the Libertarian "norm", leading many to erroneously conclude that US Libertarianism is simply a more Right-Wing form of Conservatism, essentially co-opting the term. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 14:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC) I haven't heard that one myself, but it would be just as fraudulent as someone calling themselves a "libertarian socialist". Even if someone is libertarian on most issues, they shouldn't use the term libertarian in conjunction with their non-libertarian views. And even if they do, the rest of us shouldn't refer to such beliefs as libertarian. It's just silly to use terms like "libertarian speech banner", "libertarian religion enforcer", "libertarian gun banner" or "libertarian socialist". Should I start a section in this article about the "branch" of libertarianism that believes in banning speech, guns, short pants, hula hoops, and rock music? We could call it "libertarian fascism". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.215.128.90 (talk) 10:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC) And notably, the only reason libertarians in the U.S. call themselves libertarians instead of liberals is because the word liberal was usurped in the U.S. and now is commonly used to refer to (economic) anti-liberals. I wonder what libertarians will call themselves after the word libertarian suffers the same fate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.198.127 (talk) 04:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC) The structural reality is that "libertarianism/libertarian" covers a very diverse set of ideologies, but they have a few important tenets in common, as well as the name. North8000 (talk) 14:41, 28 November 2013 (UTC) IP, you have it the wrong way around - Rothbard and Nolan adopted the term "libertarian", which had already been used to describe what this article calls "left libertarianism." Furthermore, they claimed to be in the tradition of libertarianism, although they faulted that tradition for failing to support property rights. See for example Karl Hess's writings on Emma Goldman. TFD (talk) 16:29, 28 November 2013 (UTC) The fact that the word has been used fraudulently by some throughout history doesn't change the fact that it has always meant (in the political sense) "advocate of liberty". There is no legitimate reason to combine the word with another word that specifically refers to a belief in depriving people of their liberty in some way, even if not in other ways. Is someone who believes in banning speech, books, guns, hula hoops, and rock music a "libertarian fascist" just because he's libertarian on other issues? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.215.129.93 (talk) 11:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC) You cannot say the term has always meant something when it was coined by what we would call left libertarians. You still need to explain how we are supposed to distinguish between these two groups. Since liberal is a cognate word, similar issues arise. Yet liberalism has both a left and a right, and all have them have taken some rights away from some people. Hence few liberals have argued to abolish prisons. TFD (talk) 17:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC) We can't go saying that there is a burden of finding a really great way (great enough to avoid criticism) in order to avoid inserting/ using a really bad, problematic, lacking-any-consistent-definition and (in many places oxymoronic) term ("right libertarian"). And the most common form of libertarianism in the US (e.g. the 40-60 million people one) has a 1 sentence ideology that includes only the common tenets of all libertarianism. Probably the best term (which doesn't meet the "great way" criteria) is "common US type libertarianism. But the other alternative is to not try to give it a name. North8000 (talk) 18:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC) When used that way, it is not an ideology, but a view on economic policy and is "neo-classical liberalism." It actually has a much wider following but there is a dispute over how rigidly the doctrine should be applied. While that use of the term should be mentioned, there is also a group in the U.S. that self-identify as libertarians, have established a political party, think tanks and a body of literature, and developed an ideology that embraces social policies as well. Obviously it merits its own article. TFD (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC) I agree with everything that you just said but I'm not sure what you are getting at. The small fraction of US libertarians that are in the USLP, or in libertarian think tanks generally do have philosophies/ ideologies/platforms/economic policies that weigh in in many more areas, and do not fall under the most prevalent "one sentence" form of libertarianism in the US that I was referring to. North8000 (talk) 18:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC) We can easily distinguish between those two groups by saying one is libertarian on both social and economic issues while the other is libertarian on social issues but not on economic issues. Since the word means "advocate of liberty" in each case, it seems as easy as it is obvious. And the word itself meant "advocate of liberty" when coined, now, and at all times in between. It means that even if used fraudulently. Regardless, that's the dictionary definition of the word, so one would think that should settle it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.196.10.142 (talk) 17:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC) IP, the etymological approach to defining words doesn't work as well as you seem to think. For example, both liberal and libertarian are derived from the Latin liber, meaning free; however, you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who thinks these terms are synonymous. Reliable sources illustrate that libertarianism has traditionally been a socialist position, and Wikipedia ought to reflect that fact, even if you personally don't like it. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC) By "traditionally" do you mean "historically"?North8000 (talk) 18:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC) Historically and outside of the US. MilesMoney (talk) 19:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC) Yes, North8000, I meant libertarianism qua political philosophy was socialist in nature up until ~1950, when figures like Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, and Robert Nozick popularized a capitalist interpretation. This is really tangential to my point though, which is that Wikipedia does not allow us to claim that, because libertarianism has the root liber, everything we as individuals associate with liberty is therefore necessarily associated with the philosophy; we have to rely on RSs, not our personal biases. In this specific case, the IP user is stating that libertarianism is a philosophy that upholds liberty, and that capitalism is the only economic system (he feels is) compatible with a free society. Now, some people might argue this (and they do), but it's also quite evident from our sources that people have criticized capitalism for being inherently coercive and uphold socialism as the economic system of a free society. Wikipedia, however, doesn't permit us to inject our own opinion on this matter as fact, regardless of our personal, economic bias; libertarianism has adherents of both capitalist and socialist persuasions, whether we like it or not. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC) OK, I see. I haven't done slow reads of it but didn't notice / haven't found the "capitalism is the only economic system (he feels is) compatible with a free society" claim. Eith way I agree with 98% of what you last wrote. The 40,000,000+ person gorilla in the living room that you didn't mention is the renaming of classical liberalism in the US to libertarianism, coinciding with the changing of the meaning of "liberal" in the US to advocating a larger government. Also, the 40,000,000+ one sentence US libertarians probably mostly tacitly accept capitalism and even prefer it, but such does not make such a plank in their libertarian "platform". I think that non-US left-libertarians have a hard time understanding this. North8000 (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC) North8000, I'm aware of the common values of US libertarians... what does this have to do with the discussion at hand? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC) In looking through the thread, I don't even know what the discussion at hand is. My first of the last two posts was asking for clarification of what you meant, because you were suggesting that the article be guided by it. And my last post was to mostly agree with your post, and to put a 40,000,000 person stake in the ground against mis-naming or constructing an overly long platform for the most common form of US libertarianism. And to say that for the short form libertarians, the one sentence platform is their entire libertarian platform, not just common values. North8000 (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC) Then, to recapitulate, I'm not arguing any particular interpretation of libertarianism (or any subgroup therein), as you seem to think. I'm merely stating the fact that Wikipedia does not grant a forum for our personal convictions. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC) I didn't think that you were, I was just conversing and I agree. We're cool. North8000 (talk) 22:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC) MisterDub, there seems to be great confusion about what I've said. The fact that a word has a specific definition in the dictionary has nothing to do with whether "I personally like it". The fact that some delusional socialists tried, and continue to try, to fraudulently use the word libertarian to refer to using force to maintain a monopoly over the means of production, use force to prevent competition, deprive people of their liberty to produce, associate, contract, etc as they see fit is just that: fraud. It's by definition anti-libertarian. That's according to the dictionary, not what I personally do or don't like. I'd be perfectly fine with any word having any definition, the problem I have is the perpetuation of fraud. Using the word "libertarian" to refer specifically to depriving individuals of liberty is fraud, and obviously so. And I notice that I haven't read too much about what is it about socialism that is even regarded as libertarian? What liberties are being advocated? Power over others is being advocated, using the word "libertarian" fraudulently because it's such a nice sounding word and they want to sound nice. I would note that capitalism being the only system "compatible" with a free society sounds a little odd. Obviously capitalism will exist in any society that permits it. It's not like capitalism is imposed by government, or is a government program, or is a "system" at all in the strict sense of the word (coordinated scheme). Capitalism is just what people do when they are free to do so. They produce goods and services for sale or trade, employ and be employed by others, make agreements with each other, etc. Societies are referred to as "capitalist" because people are free to engage in all the things that define capitalism, not because they are forced to, or because everyone does those things. In other words, capitalism is merely a consequence of liberty. Socialism (in the normal, non-voluntary sense), to the contrary, is achieved by imposing a coordinated scheme and using force to prevent competition. (Obviously that doesn't apply to voluntary communes within a free society, but ironically, that's not what is referred to by "libertarian socialism") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.72.36 (talk) 06:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC) You need to read the libertarian writers who inspired Nolan, Rothbard and Hess. Their theory was that individuals should have freedom. They were expelled from the Socialist movement. See for example Statism and Anarchy. They saw the remaining socialists as statist, no different from the elites they planned to replace. “The theory of statism as well as that of so-called ‘revolutionary dictatorship’ is based on the idea that a ‘privileged elite,’ consisting of those scientists and ‘doctrinaire revolutionists’ who believe that ‘theory is prior to social experience,’ should impose their preconceived scheme of social organization on the people. The dictatorial power of this learned minority is concealed by the fiction of a pseudo-representative government which presumes to express the will of the people.” While American libertarians may not agree with their views entirely, you can see where they get many of their views. TFD (talk) 06:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC) IP, you have some strong misconceptions about capitalism and socialism that are not supported by reliable sources and therefore do not deserve a voice in Wikipedia. I would suggest learning about libertarian socialism instead of arguing your interpretation here. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC) Your first couple of paragraphs make my case, ie that libertarianism means advocation of liberty, even if much of it is off point, and tells me what I "need to read" instead of trying to make your case legitimately. Your last paragraph is simply wrong. You have massively underestimated my understanding of this issue, but that's pretty irrelevant except to the extent that you offer advice for me to "learn about" things instead of explaining your case. You didn't, for example, name a single aspect of capitalism or socialism that I have a "strong misconception" about, much less explain how anything I said was incorrect in any way. But this article is about libertarianism, not capitalism or socialism. The fact remains that using force against others to impose and maintain a monopoly over the means of production is anti-libertarian by definition. That fact won't just go away because nobody wants to address it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.210.12.181 (talk) 11:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC) Even though I partially agree with you on the principles (I'd don't understand how libertarian & socialism could be successfully combined/reconciled) that is not what is relevant here. This article covers the highly varied (but related by common tenets) significant forms of libertarianism, as identified in sources, and it is our duty here to do that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC) Depriving people of property is only contrary to liberty if the person has rightful ownership. Courts for example routinely deprive thieves of property, and the U.S. freed slaves owned by planters. The U.S. actually began by depriving the King of his property, the thirteen colonies, yet the colonists claimed to fight for "liberty." TFD (talk) 23:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC) Apologies for discussing the topic rather than the article, but to me it seems that any practical implementation of socialism involves larger amounts of power and control by the government. Sincerely, (North8000) 03:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC) Since the government represents monopoly capitalism, it must be smashed, and power returned to the people. In the U.K. for example that means that there will no longer be "Her Majesty's government." The most radical anarchists assassinated state leaders, such as an American president and the Austrian Archduke, and blew up symbols of the state. Their anti-statism was the inspiration for Nolan, Rothbard, Hess and the other American "libertarians." The big difference is that left libertarians thought the masses would seize the means of production, while Rothbard believed that freed from government they would rally to protect private corporations, which under statism were threatened in the U.S., the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. TFD (talk) 08:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC) TFD, while I agree with your first statement, your last sentence just isn't correct in my view. It's true that recovering stolen property from a thief does not constitute depriving the thief of his property, it constitutes depriving the thief of someone else's property. (Ditto for freeing slaves.) But the same was true of the King. He was not deprived of "his" property, he was deprived of political power over the property of others. I think it's safe to say that most (real) libertarians determine "rightful ownership" of property in the same way described by John Locke during The Enlightenment, so there is no need to repeat it here, except to point out that it logically precludes socialism. And one can't help but notice the irony in using the term "progressive" to refer to people with a pre-Enlightenment view of property rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.120.33 (talk) 10:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC) Locke said that England had lawful ownership of the American colonies through settlement and planters had lawful owership of slaves, so your reading of Locke is selective. Left libertarians go farther than you rejected Locke's view that land could be alienated from common ownership. So really your only dispute with them is whether the means of production are rightly owned by capitalists or stolen from the people. TFD (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC) IP and TFD, could you please take this discussion to an User_Talk page? It may be an interesting conversation, but Wikipedia is not a forum and this talk page should be reserved for discussion of article improvements. Thanks! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC) At issue is whether the term "right libertarianism" makes sense, with the claim made that "left libertarianism" is something else entirely. And my point is that "right libertarianism" consciously drew on the (left) libertarianian tradition, adopting their literature, arguments and even their name. TFD (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC) Then I apologize, TFD. I think the IP user just wants to debate ("Apologies for discussing the topic rather than the article..."), and I assumed you were knowingly participating in this. My bad. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC) Oops, I apologize for off-topic discussion. Still just want to understand how using force to impose and maintain a monopoly on the means of production isn't directly contradictory to libertarianism. That seemed to lead to unnecessary discussion of the issue. I'll try to stay on-topic in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.120.44 (talk) 11:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC) Not quite, TFD. My dispute with them is that I disagree that whether property is used for production or not is a legitimate factor at all in determining its rightful ownership, or that the "means of production" should be owned by anyone in particular in the monolithic sense used by socialists, or should be monopolized by anyone or any entity. Anyone should be free to build "means of production" and produce goods and services. That's the dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.120.26 (talk) 10:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC) Apologies for responding off-topic again, but yes, TFD, my agreement with Locke is selective. I agree with much but not everything he wrote, and will leave it at that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.120.29 (talk) 11:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC) Just as a quick question: Are there any traditional encyclopedias (not that "anyone can edit") that have articles or a section of their libertarianism article that mentions anything resembling "libertarian socialism" or "left libertarianism"? Other than within articles on Chomski and the like, where it is mentioned only as "self-identification"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.196.1.181 (talk) 03:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC) Stanford Encyc of Phil gives it equal time. — goethean 13:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC) Thanks, I just read their (very good IMO) article on libertarianism, but it defines "left-libertarianism" in the normal, traditional way, having nothing to do with socialism or "libertarian socialism" or anything resembling what Wikipedia is calling "left-libertarianism". Then it has a footnote about the term "left-libertarianism" being "also used to refer to political views, such as those of Noam Chomsky or Roderick Long, that are suspicious of concentrations of power in general (in government, in corporations, in social institutions, etc.)", which is still a far cry from Wikipedia's definition. It seems to treat the subject in the same way it's treated in any other legitimate source, instead of the way it's treated in Wikipedia. Not trying to slam Wikipedia, but what purpose is there to define terms differently than they are defined in all other legitimate sources?. (self-identification of self-serving groups aside). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.196.5.19 (talk) 06:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC) It sounds like socialism to me. Incidentally, "left-libertarianism" is generally just called "libertarianism." "Right libertarianism" is a comparatively recent phenomenon. TFD (talk) 07:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC) What "sounds like socialism"? Something in the Stanford Encyc of Phil article on libertarianism? It says nothing of socialism or anything similar. What it calls "left-libertarianism" is more like traditional libertarianism, not "libertarian socialism" or anything resembling it. Is that the confusion here, that you're confusing traditional "left-libertarianism", as defined by Stanford, with what Wikipedia calls "left-libertarianism"? That would explain a lot, incidentally, but they are not even close to the same thing. It's beyond the scope of this talk page to explain it, but it's obvious to anyone who bothers to read the articles. Also, incidentally, the term "left" historically just meant anti-authoritarianism, or anti-monarchy, a very different meaning than how it is used today, especially with economic issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.196.5.19 (talk) 08:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC) Is this ongoing discussion about article improvement? If not, please take this discussion to a User_Talk page; if so, please create a proposal so the rest of us know what you're suggesting. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC) It's about improving article accuracy, yes. But my proposal would be a complete rewrite. It looks like such attempts have been made in the past only to be reverted, but I'll be working on it anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.196.8.3 (talk) 21:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC) I'm curious as to how you would suggest rewriting it. For now, it seems like you have some misconceptions about socialism (e.g. your claim that it is "using force to impose and maintain a monopoly on the means of production"), and I, for one, would definitely argue against including any such errors in this article. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC) Firstly, that claim is not a misconception. Socialism, in the normal sense, is exactly that, despite their refusal to word it that way. They just use words that sound "nicer" but mean exactly the same thing. Is it not obvious that when socialists use the phrase "ownership of the means of production", they mean exclusive ownership of all of them, at least in a particular area? An exclusive right to produce goods and services? That's what the word "monopoly" means. Secondly, any rewrite of this article I would propose would not mention socialism at all, for the same obvious reason that other legitimate encyclopedias do not discuss socialism in their articles on libertarianism. Even when they mention "left-libertarianism", they are not referring to any form of socialism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.196.8.3 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 11 December 2013 No, that is not what socialism means, and a perusal of any libertarian socialist or Marxist literature would set this straight. In fact, the "ownership of the means of production," in the sense you mean it, is called state capitalism, not socialism (the state is the private entity that owns the means of production). As to your second point, the article to which TFD referred you states that left-libertarians (aka libertarian socialists) "[hold] that unappropriated natural resources belong to everyone in some egalitarian manner", and then discusses three different ways in which this egalitarianism can operate (joint-ownership, equal share, and equal opportunity left-libertarianism). Gary Chartier says that, "[w]hile rejecting capitalism, left-libertarians share with other libertarians an enthusiastic recognition of the value of markets" (Chartier 2012). Matt Zwolinski states in the IEP (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy) that "Left-libertarians, such as Hillel Steiner, Peter Vallentyne, and Michael Otsuka, grant the self-ownership principle but deny that it can yield full private property rights in external goods, especially land (Steiner 1994; Vallentyne 2000; Otsuka 2003)" (emphasis added, Zwolinski 2008). So, yes, it is quite clear that they are talking about libertarian socialism, and not the authoritarian socialism of which you speak (i.e. Marxism/Marxism-Leninism/Trotskyism/Maoism). -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 23:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC) State capitalism and socialism are both monopolies, just different kinds. Both claim an exclusive right to produce goods and services. According to Wikipedia itself, a monopoly exists when a specific enterprise is the only supplier of a commodity, and is characterized by a lack of competition in the production of that commodity. Since we are referring to all commodities, a term like "mega-monopoly" might be more accurate here. As I mentioned before, an exception might be a voluntary commune that did not claim an exclusive right to produce, but that's not what we're talking about here. And I have no idea why you would call a state a "private entity". And "natural resources" and "means of production" are not the same thing. It seems obvious that disagreeing about how natural resources should be appropriated does not constitute socialism. Am I a socialist because I don't think a river, or any other scarce natural resource, can legitimately be claimed as private property by whoever sees it first? Are you going to claim next that "caring about people" constitutes socialism? Are we done with the silly and nonsensical sidetracking? Perhaps I should restrain myself from taking the bait? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.196.14.78 (talk) 00:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC) IP, Wikipedia is not a forum, it's an encyclopaedia. Debating this with you could be entertaining, but it would be in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you would like to learn more about libertarian socialism, I would suggest reading some anarchist literature or starting a discussion on a forum for political philosophy. I could give you some recommended reading material if you'd like, otherwise I'm going to abstain from further discussion until there's a proposed edit supported by reliable sources. Thank you! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC) Indeed. If the editor is not knowledgeable on the subject (Libertarian Socialism), then it's likely he/she needs to become so before suggesting edits, rather than engaging in a debate. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 20:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC) If socialism is defined as state capitalism, then obviously libertarians cannot be socialists. However that is not the usual definition. TFD (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC) I think that MisterDub is saying that libertarian socialism is not socialism. And 70.196.... is sort of say that socialism is not libertarianism. So with that clarification maybe no disagreement. So, 70.196, (and on to article content, and if nobody says that I heard that wrong), with that clarification, would you agree that we don't have a reason to exclude libertarian socialism from the article? North8000 (talk) 22:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC) No, that is not even remotely close to what I said. -- MisterDub (talk |contribs) 22:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC) Who defined socialism as state capitalism? I merely pointed out they they have in common their claim to an exclusive right to produce, ie that they are both examples of monopolies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.193.157 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 13 December 2013 You did. You defined it as "using force to impose and maintain a monopoly on the means of production." That is state capitalism. What do you think legislators, judges, soldiers and policemen do? PS - sign your posts. TFD (talk) 00:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC) No, I didn't, you just made an obvious logical blunder. I did say that both state capitalism and socialism "use force to impose and maintain a monopoly on the means of production." The fact that two different things have something in common does not mean those two things are the same thing. If I point out that a basketball is "spherical", would you claim that I defined a basketball as the moon, since the moon is also "spherical"? To violate WP:NOTAFORUM for a moment (since everyone else is), the stumbling block that conservatives seem to have with understanding libertarian socialism is an assumption regarding property rights. To American conservatives, property rights and the status quo regarding current property claims are inalienable/sacrosanct and everything else is negotiable/negligible. This is not the case for libertarian socialists, who begin with philosophical first principles which question both property rights and the status quo regarding current property claims. Thus conservatives assume that the only way for equality to arise is for an external entity (government) to take things from the haves and to give them to the have-nots. This of course, is impossible in a libertarian context, so the conclusion is that libertarian socialism is an oxymoron. But libertarian socialism's questioning of the status quo regarding current property claims means that equality could theoretically be achieved without any external force, simply by agreement - by the public taking control (or by private groups releasing control) of the means of production. I'm no expert but this is my understanding. — goethean 22:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC) (added later)@ Goethean, using government to "to take things from the haves and to give them to the have-nots" in order for "equality to arise" does not sound like conservationism, at least not by the US meaning of the term conservative. Possibly it means that elsewhere? North8000 (talk) 12:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC) I think your understanding of conservatives is deeply flawed, certainly that's not the philosophy of ("right-") libertarianism, nor is there a "stumbling block" with understanding "libertarian socialism". Failure to agree with a philosophy does not indicate ignorance of it. The point I was making is that other legitimate encyclopedic sources describe the difference between "left" and "right" libertarianism as merely a difference in how scarce natural resources may be appropriated, not who can or does "own the means of production". It's the same (legitimate) disagreement among libertarians that has always existed, and has nothing to do with socialism of any kind. According to every encylopedic source I can find, as well as many sources even linked here, both "right" and "left" libertarians agree that anyone should be free to produce goods and services, and own "means of production". In other words, "Chomskyism" is not a legitimate example of "left-libertarianism", it's merely a less socially authoritarian form of socialism, but still has the same economically anti-libertarian features of prohibiting private production of goods and services, prohibiting private employment contracts between citizens (wage-labor), etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.193.157 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 13 December 2013 It says all not scarce resources. Since the means of production are created out of resources, the legitimacy of the appropriation of those resources draws into question the legitimacy of ownership of the means of production. TFD (talk) 00:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC) Would you use the same logic to question the legitimacy of self-ownership of one's own body, since each human body is also composed of those same natural resources? Lockean One (talk) 08:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC) I am not advocating anything, just explaining what the sources say. There are always conflicts. For example, when you are sentenced to the electric chair in your home state, does the right to self defense justify your killing the executioner? TFD (talk) 08:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC) Many would agree with you, but that's not what "left-libertarian" means according to other legitimate encyclopedias. They do not "draw into question the legitimacy of ownership of the means of production", they only draw into question whether appropriating a natural resource is a basis for requiring payment to others (taxation) for its appropriation (regardless of whether it is used to build a "means of production" or not, since no such distinction exists in libertarianism). Also, "means of production" do not exist prior to their ownership, and their ownership by someone or some entity or group (or "collective") is a prerequisite to their being built at all. So the only question is who is "permitted" or free to own, and therefore might build, a "means of production". The libertarian (left and right) answer is "anyone", according to every other legitimate encyclopedia I can find. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.192.136 (talk • contribs) 05:39, 13 December 2013 You need to sign your posts. We can all read John Birch Society websites, you need to provide reliable sources for you views. TFD (talk) 06:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC) Yes, I should and will create a user account, thank you. Edit: Done, my username is now, appropriately, Lockean One. As far as sources for my statements above (about various views, some of which are my own, some aren't, just to clarify), here are a few: Encyclopedia Britannica Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy My question that seemed to stir up so much angst was if anyone knew of any legitimate encyclopedias that discuss what Wikipedia calls "left-libertarianism" and "Libertarian Socialism" in their articles on libertarianism, or in separate articles. The only answer I got was Stanford's, linked above, but while it talks about "left-libertarianism", it defines it in the traditional way as I described above, not having anything relevant to do with socialist ideology, or who should be permitted to own property used as "means of production" or not, etc. The poster formerly known as "IP"...... Lockean One (talk) 07:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC) You again did not sign your post. Editors have patiently replied to your queries. The article is sourced and if you want to change it you need to provide sources supporting your views. Believe it or not, there are countless editors like you from places like Texas who pick up views from fringe sources and valiantly try to persuade others to adopt their views. I noticed your user name. Locke made valuable contributions to philosophy although some are outdated. His support of slavery, for example. TFD (talk) 08:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC) I have made no edits to this article and will not propose any without sourcing, but thank you for the reminder, anyway. I did provide 3 sources above for my claims regarding other encyclopedias. Which one are you referring to as a "fringe source picked up by people from Texas"? Or was that just a general statement unrelated to this discussion, just to take up more space on this page? Regardless, my recent query got one answer (that turned out not to be an answer, through no fault of the provider), but lots and lots of sidetracking with illogical nonsense, insulting non-answer replies, and assumptions of ignorance on my part as apparently the only possible reason for my refusal to adopt the language of socialism. Is that what "patiently replied to my queries" means? Lockean One (talk) 09:17, 13 December 2013 (UTC) Far From Neutral Point of View The following statement (now deleted) in intro, for starters, is extremely biased, to say the least: "While certain libertarian currents are supportive of laissez-faire capitalism and private property rights, such as in land and natural resources, others reject capitalism and private ownership of the means of production, instead advocating their common or cooperative ownership and management[14][15][16][17]". The last part of the statement seems to be based solely on Noam Chomsky alone[16], while listing 3 other sources that contradict it, at least implicitly by not saying anything resembling "others reject capitalism....". Using the phrase "While certain libertarians are" to refer to the view presented by all of the listed sources except one, as well as the views presented as libertarianism in other mainstream sources too numerous to mention, is extremely biased to say the least. To put the views of one fringe source on equal footing with virtually all legitimate sources, like Stanford's, is extremely non-objective, to put it mildly. The rest of the article is similarly biased, but deleting that sentence will be a modest start to making the article less so. Lockean One (talk) 00:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC) Really, TFD? You're going to just close any discussion of this article's bias on the talk page? Section restored. Lockean One (talk) 04:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC) For others, the above section of this talk page was restored exactly as it appeared when "closed" by TFD. Lockean One (talk) 04:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC) Wow, the opposition to questioning the neutrality of this article is pretty extreme! I have no interest in an edit war for the article itself, but an edit war to prevent discussing the article's neutrality on the talk page? Really? Lockean One (talk) 07:31, 14 December 2013 (UTC) My apologies Lockean One. I was patrolling recent changes, and saw where you had removed the {{hab}} template with no explanation. I did not intend to disparage your comments, nor to give you the idea that I am pushing for a certain point of view here. It was simply a recent change, that removed a template with no explanation in the edit summary. Josh3580talk/hist 07:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC) No problem, I'll try to remember that edit summary in the future. Lockean One (talk) 07:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC) Much appreciated. I didn't mean to "bite." But there are so many goofy kids just deleting stuff for kicks. That's what I am trying to stop, not people like you who are actually contributing to discussions. Once again, my apologies. Josh3580talk/hist 07:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC) You made the same argument above at Talk:Libertarianism#Right libertarianism. Not sure what you mean by saying the view is only presented in one source (which btw was not written by Chomsky.) Whether or not a writer endorses a view is irrelevant. I could say for example. "Some people believe in ghosts." The truth of that statement does not depend on whether or not I believe in ghosts. TFD (talk) 10:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC) I agree with the accuracy of all 5 of those sentences. None of them address my point, so I see no reason to respond further. Lockean One (talk) 11:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC) Lockean One, first you must realize the context here; this is an article what was in (now quenched) flames a few years ago, and is still a prominent article where there are lots of strongly differing viewpoints. That said, in the earlier section you had detailed discussions when they were not tied to any specific content proposals, and then now you are trying significant content changes with no detailed discussion on or justification for them. Fine to try (BRD) but it isn't flying. So now you are going to have to have specific discussions directly related to your proposed changes. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:32, 14 December 2013 (UTC) That's exactly what I'm hoping for, thank you! Lockean One (talk) 11:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC) It is a matter of fact, not point of view, that Libertarian Socialists, including Libertarian Marxists and anarchists / Libertarian Communists, reject capitalism as an authoritarian system of class domination and want to abolish the capitalist mode of production. In fact, as the article already explains, the origin of the word "libertarian" as a political label comes from a anarcho-communist. Please take time to read the respective articles. Finx (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC) I have read them, you have just missed my point. I in no way suggested that "Libertarian Socialists", etc do not reject capitalism. My point was that legitimate (encyclopedic) sources do not refer to those rejecting capitalism as "types" of libertarians in the relevant sense (economically), even if they are socially libertarian. Legitimate sources, including Stanford listed at the end of that sentence, specifically define libertarianism (partially) as the right to own property, even if it is disputed whether the appropriation of (excessive) natural resources is a basis for requiring compensation to others (taxation), as in the case of what they call "left-libertarianism". And while rejecting authoritarian forms of capitalism (like state capitalism) may be considered libertarian, prohibiting libertarian capitalism (not an imposed system), prohibiting private production, prohibiting wage labor, etc are by definition anti-libertarian, according to legitimate sources (Stanford, Britannica, etc), since the right to own (productive) property and the right to contract with each other are being denied. Lockean One (talk) 20:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC) Your argument is that libertarianism by definition would not prohibit capitalism. But that is OR, you need a source to support it. It could be that left libertarians assume capitalism cannot exist without the support of the state. TFD (talk) 21:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC) It logically could not be that, since they would logically not advocate prohibiting things that "cannot exist", and prohibiting such things would be anti-libertarian regardless. We're not referring to just abolishing state capitalism, we're referring to prohibiting things like wage labor, property ownership, private production, free exchange of goods and services, etc. If they "cannot exist", it makes no sense to advocate their abolition. Being logically coherent is OR? Lockean One (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC) This article summarizes reliable sources, not your personal musings. Get a blog. — goethean 21:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC) I agree that this article should do so, but disagree that a blog is the proper place to discuss this article's neutrality and accuracy. Wikipedia policy specifically says I should do so here. Lockean One (talk) 23:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC) Please assume good faith. I think Lockean One assumed that libertarian socialists concede that anticapitalism is "anti-libertarian" as they put it. If that was the case, the reasoning does make sense. Finx (talk) 22:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC) You should check out the AFAQ if you want a mainstream lib-soc answer without having to do a lot of research. Basically, even if it's appropriate for this talk section, your argument isn't very coherent. First off, capitalism isn't "free exchange of goods and services" -- it's a mode of production and a set of generalized labor relations, which carry with them class divisions, hierarchy and bureaucracy. Just as liberals 'prohibit' chattel slavery, anticapitalists want to abolish that system, often with liberation as the moral imperative. In other words, the USLP argues that capitalism is a liberatory force, and leftists argue that it's an obstacle to liberty. On top of that, an effective way to prevent a future house fire might be to burn down the house, but that won't necessarily produce a desirable outcome. When anarchists say they want to create a stateless, classless society, that doesn't necessarily mean they think that the state spontaneously disappearing will produce the desired results, even if the private property system is unenforceable without state power. There are many possible (sustainable) outcomes in absence of liberal property rights that many would consider worse. This is not a case you can close with an overly simplistic "logical" argument. To keep our soapboxing off of the talk section, feel free to use my personal talk page if you want to discuss this further.Finx (talk) 22:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC) With respect, you might try re-reading what I said. I agree that abolishing the authoritarian form of capitalism (state capitalism, etc) you speak of would be libertarian, and have already said so. Imposing any "mode of production" on people is anti-libertarian. But it was perfectly clear that I was specifically referring to prohibiting "free exchange of goods and services, etc", and specifically not referring to state capitalism or any other authoritarian form, as anti-libertarian, according to legitimate sources. Lockean One (talk) 23:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC) "Economic libertarianism", by its original definition, would be abolition of private property and the state which enforces those property relations. The definition accepted the USLP, for example, is very different (extensive, unfettered concentration of power in private property). So, there are two definitions, which is what the introduction explains. Finx (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC) You got a source for that (definitions of "economic libertarianism", specifically)? :) Lockean One (talk) 00:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC) Even if that was the case, then "libertarianism" would have two mutually exclusive definitions, which would require separating them into two completely different articles, clearly defining the term "libertarianism" differently as it applies in each article (as well as on the disambiguation page). It seems obvious that discussing two completely different and mutually exclusive ideologies as if they were related via the common term "libertarianism" would be inaccurate and deceptive at best, purposeful fraud at worst, under the assumption that the term itself had such a fundamentally different definition for each. Lockean One (talk) 02:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC) They are not "two mutually exclusive definitions". Rothbard, Hess and Nolan took libertarianism, including the name, and put an emphasis on property rights. However, that is a substantial difference, and accordingly we also have separate articles about each type. TFD (talk) 02:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC) "Abolition of private property" and "extensive, unfettered concentration of power in private property" aren't mutually exclusive? Really? Lockean One (talk) 02:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC) If you can think of a way to make even clearer that proponents of extreme, unimpeded capitalism and anticapitalists obviously want opposite things, please do so. So far as "anti-libertarian" -- I think there's a better case for neoliberalism fitting that label, but that's not for the article to decide. Finx (talk) 11:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC) To your first question, why not just say the difference is whether capitalism should be "impeded" (prohibited)? That seems to be the real difference. And although you and I seem to agree that those two definitions are mutually exclusive, neither of them are definitions of "libertarianism", and if they were, it would preclude discussing them in the same article this way, anyway, as I explained above. Lockean One (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC) I'll gladly continue this line of discussion with you on a personal talk page - mine or yours. It doesn't really belong here. You appear to be arguing your own views and badly misrepresenting (traditional) anarchism/libertarianism. Suffice it to say that opposing autocratic capitalist labor relations inherent in private ownership of the means of production, and many other facets of capitalism, was very much a core component of the 'liberty' they had in mind - just as those very property relations are central to the 'liberty' Ron Paul may have in mind. Anticapitalism is not a modular component. Furthermore, capitalism is not a synonym for 'free exchange' or 'markets' or what have you. Anarchists oppose the fabled "free-market" capitalism every bit as much as crummy actually-existing-capitalism (aka: 'state-capitalism'). It a critique of class domination, generalized wage labor, boss-worker power relations, etc - not state meddling in a perfect order from the left's point of view. There's anecdote that once anarchists had to explain that they don't want to only abolish capitalism, but also the state. Now they have to explain that they're not only against the state, but also against capitalism. I'll just repeat that none if this is a matter of anyone's point of view. It's on the record and thoroughly sourced throughout this article already. If you don't agree with it, that's another thing. Finx (talk) 00:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC) That's "cherry picking". One could equally argue that because cats can be black or white and black and white are opposites, that there are two mutually exclusive definitions for cats. That's "cherry picking". One could equally argue that because cats can be black or white and black and white are opposites, that there are two mutually exclusive definitions for cats. But we have three articles: cat, black cat and white cat, since both black and white cats are types of cats. TFD (talk) 03:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC) Your analogy is bad, and I engaged in no "cherry picking". The definitions I referred to are the ones presented to me in the post I responded to. I believe both of them to be inaccurate, which is why my response started with "Even if that were the case...." after I asked for a source for those definitions. Reading more slowly might prevent such misunderstandings in the future. Lockean One (talk) 04:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC) They are not definitions, they are differences among libertarians. Some cats are black, some libertarians support property rights. TFD (talk) 04:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC) You seriously need to read slower. I'm not the one who claimed those were definitions of anything, I responded to a post that claimed that. You keep arguing with me against positions that I never argued for. Take your dispute with Finx up with Finx. How much more space here are going to waste with nonsense because you won't read slowly enough to comprehend what others are saying? Lockean One (talk) 04:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC) Lockean One, I hear you and would like to have you here long term. I'd agree that (IMHO) there is a self-conflict in some forms of libertarianism, but that is not relevant here. What has been established and decided over the years here is that the significant meanings of "libertarianism" cover many widely varying things, but closely enough related with common tenets to be in the same article, and that we are to cover them in the article. Your proposal seems to be to exclude coverage of some strands of libertarianism that reject capitalism. Such would require you to (rather than debate their legitimacy) convince us that those strands don't significantly exist and haven't significantly existed. You have not even tried to do that, much less done that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC) I would not exclude coverage of libertarians that reject capitalism, I would exclude referring to advocating the prohibition of capitalism as libertarianism. There's a big difference. It's like the difference between my rejection of pink shirts and a plan to outlaw pink shirts. Some libertarians reject pink shirts, but no one would define libertarianism as one who wants to outlaw pink shirts. Lockean One (talk) 23:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC) I believe that the statement is essentially that some strands of libertarianism reject capitalism, not that such (flatl) is considered libertarianism. The question for the article is whether or not such a strand significantly exists, or has significantly existed, not whether you or I feel that their belief is self-conflicting.North8000 (talk) 23:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC) The article does not say that they advocate the prohibition of capitalist behavior. They believe that capitalism would disappear without state support. TFD (talk) 23:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC) So by "reject capitalism" they mean merely that they would just hope it would "disappear"? Would they be content to tolerate and peacefully co-exist with capitalism in the meantime? Lockean One (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC) I think that we are getting closer to a germane-to-the-article question here which is whether or not some strands of libertarianism specifically reject capitalism. North8000 (talk) 00:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC) The answer would be the same for any ideology. Some people choose violence to achieve their ends, some abhor it. TFD (talk) 00:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC) Exactly right. There is no anarchist high priest that has ruled on the matter. I would guess that most of today's anarchists would say our current private property relations are just unenforceable and unsustainable should a state collapse, but without alternative forms of social organization to replace that state, other, er, more desirable things might collapse with it - like any economy to speak of, food production and access to potable drinking water. So, the differences in worldviews here aren't exactly what you'd call a footnote. Finx (talk) 01:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC) It would seem obvious that "means of production" simply cannot exist at all without being protected, regardless of ownership. They couldn't even be built, much less operate, without some mechanism to protect them. And if that protection is compatible with libertarianism if built and operated by a "worker co-op", then it must be compatible with libertarianism if built and operated by non-socialists. It seems self-contradictory to use the term libertarian to mean to advocate that protection in one case while opposing it in the other. Again, it seems obvious that libertarianism, by definition, would have to tolerate the existence of both, instead of choosing between them.. Lockean One (talk) 02:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC) I think that the core question for the article is whether or not rejection of capitalism is a tenet of some strands of libertarianism. Is it? North8000 (talk) 01:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC) It does seem to be a tenet of "Libertarian Socialism" to not only reject capitalism themselves, but to prevent non-socialists from building and operating any "means of production", making economic agreements between themselves, and other "capitalist behavior". Under the reasonable assumption that capitalist behavior would not just magically cease to exist, their statements regarding capitalist behavior can only be interpreted to mean that they would use force to prevent such behavior. So the question isn't whether some groups have such tenets, but whether an encyclopedia should define such tenets as libertarianism, while simultaneously defining other, contradictory tenets as libertarianism. Lockean One (talk) 03:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC) You need a source that supports your theory. AFAIK, libertarians believe that once the state is abolished, capitalism would disappear, because capitalism requires the state in order to survive. TFD (talk) 04:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC) Clearly, I was not referring to those types of libertarians, It's not anti-libertarian to just hope others won't do what you don't want them to. I was referring to the types that want to prohibit capitalist behavior, as described by Wikipedia in various articles on "left-libertarianism", "libertarian socialism", "anarcho-syndicalism", etc. In other words, I was talking about the same groups that everyone else here except you are talking about. Lockean One (talk) 04:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC) They would not "prohibit capitalist behavior" because without government it would not exist. TFD (talk) 05:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC) What would prevent it? Magical socialist fairy dust? And, again, it's obvious that I was not referring to those who would not "prohibit capitalist behavior", anyway. Seriously, read more slowly. Lockean One (talk) 07:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC) You need to avoid personal attacks. What would prevent capitalism from disappearing? Magic socialist fairy dust? TFD (talk) 08:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC) The existence of non-socialists, assuming that they are immune to fairy dust. Regardless, it's irrelevant anyway, as I was specifically referring to those advocating the prohibition of capitalist behavior, not those who believe it would just disappear otherwise. Lockean One (talk) 08:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC) Read the article libertarian socialism. Your assumption is that capitalism would survive the abolition of the state and therefore left libertarians would need to establish a new state to suppress capitalism. However, they believe that the purpose of the bourgeois state is to impose capitalism, which would disappear with the state's abolition. Whether or not that would happen or if it would be desirable is debatable, but it is what they believe. Therefore they have no contingency plans to suppress capitalism, and this article does not claim they do. TFD (talk) 09:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC) Already addressed repeatedly. Lockean One (talk) 09:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC) Someone might as well just delete this section since it's been overwhelmed by, and so thoroughly derailed with nonsense, as was the goal of some, no doubt. Lockean One (talk) 01:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Self-identification

Could anyone who wishes to answer any (or all) of the following questions regarding the accuracy of this article's use of the term "libertarian"?

1. Is it legitimate to define the term "libertarian" to mean "any group who (according to a reliable source) calls themselves libertarian", and if so, why?

2. Does any other encyclopedia, etc. use a similar method to define libertarianism, or any other political philosophy?

3. Is there any legitimate reason to consider "self-identification" a valid criterion at all in defining the term "libertarian"?

4. Are there or could there be any groups that "self-identify" (according to a reliable source) as libertarian that this article would not define as libertarian?

And I would respectfully request that this section not be derailed with general discussion of the topic, repetition of the FAQs, etc. Thank You. Lockean One (talk) 02:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

You should read the policy pages. "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Libertarianism article." "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." TFD (talk) 03:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Advice noted, and I'm well aware of those policies. That's why I chose to follow Wikipedia policy by asking questions related to improving the accuracy of the article here, and asked that such discussion not be derailed by irrelevant nonsense like you just posted. Lockean One (talk) 03:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Take your first question, "Is it legitimate to define the term "libertarian" to mean....why?" Obviously we cannot call people libertarian unless reliable secondary sources call them that. But we cannot challenge those sources because of how they define the term. TFD (talk) 04:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not challenging how a secondary source defines a term, I'm discussing how Wikipedia defines a term, which should be based on "reliable, third party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and with "meaningful editorial oversight", no "apparent conflict of interest", etc. Otherwise, such a source can only be used to support a statement about what the source says, not as support that what the source says is accurate. In other words, the sources listed as (16) could be used to support a statement like "Chomsky claims to be a libertarian", but not "Chomsky is a libertarian". Lockean One (talk) 05:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

To answer all your questions, please read the WP:V, WP:N, and WP:PSTS policies. Thanks! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 03:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank You, that is useful and relevant. Would you agree that the sources listed as (16) in this article are unreliable "questionable sources" according to WP:V, since they "lack meaningful editorial oversight", "have an apparent conflict of interest", not to mention "extremist" (self-titled "Radical Priorities") and "promotional" (one even co-authored by Noam Chomsky, the other dedicated to him)? Lockean One (talk) 04:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Those sources meet rs - if you do not like that then take it up on the policy pages. In the end however it does not matter because source 16 is only used twice, and each time other sources are provided. Do you question the accuracy of anything sourced to source 16 and do you have other sources that should replace it? TFD (talk)

Those sources are not RS according to WP:V, for the reasons already stated. The other sources listed do not support the relevant part of the statement being made. And the burden of providing a source is on those who want to include the content needing the source. Lockean One (talk) 22:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Lockean, I might agree that this sometimes operates in a fuzzy area of Wikipedia, but not where you're going with it. One could argue either way It's quite possible that one could consider that Einstein's books to be unsuitable sources for the (now accepted as fact) "theory" of relativity because he was creating it, not covering it, or that libertarian philosophers are not suitable sources for some things for the same reason. I think that such is overly pedantic for sky-is-blue statements. North8000 (talk) 23:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Bad analogy for obvious reasons. In this case, an unreliable source is being used to make a statement that is not supported by the reliable sources listed. It's more like using Herbert Dingle's writings as a source for Relativity. Lockean One (talk) 23:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Lockean, first, just to be clear, I think that some of the statements that you take issue with essentially say "ABC types of libertarians espouse XYZ" and your arguments (I think) have essentially been "that should not be said in the article because XYZ is in conflict with libertarianism". But that misses what the statement actually says which is "ABC types of libertarians espouse XYZ", not that "XYZ is a tenet of libertarianism". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

No, that is not what I am arguing here. My point is that "ABC types of libertarians espouse XYZ" is not supported by a reliable source. Also that "ABC" is not referred to as "types of libertarians" at all by the reliable sources listed. ABC is only referred to as types of libertarians by the unreliable sources listed, which are unsurprisingly written by ABC. Lockean One (talk) 02:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Propose mass changes, part 1

Everyone, as some of you know, I've been drafting a new Libertarianism article in my sandbox for some time. I think it's at least decent enough to bring here and receive input. Since there are many differences between my draft and the current article, I figured I'd bring them here in small doses. Part 1 is simply the "Etymology" section, which I feel I've organized better:

Current version

MisterDub's proposal

The term libertarian in a metaphysical or philosophical sense was first used by late-Enlightenment free-thinkers to refer to those who believed in free will, as opposed to incompatibilist determinism. The first recorded use was in 1789 by William Belsham in a discussion of free will and in opposition to "necessitarian" (or determinist) views. Libertarian as an advocate or defender of liberty especially in the political and social spheres was used in 1796 in London Packet on the 12th of February: Lately marched out of the Prison at Bristol, 450 of the French Libertarians. The word libertarian was used also in a political sense in 1802, in a short piece critiquing a poem by "the author of Gebir": The author's Latin verses, which are rather more intelligible than his English, mark him for a furious Libertarian (if we may coin such a term) and a zealous admirer of France, and her liberty, under Bonaparte; such liberty! The use of the word "libertarian" to describe a new set of political positions has been tracked to the French cognate, libertaire, which was coined in 1857 by French anarchist Joseph Déjacque who used the term to distinguish his libertarian communist approach from the mutualism advocated by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. By 1878, Sir John Seeley could characterize a person "who can properly be said to defend liberty" (by opposing tyranny or "resist[ing] the established government") as a "libertarian." Libertarian has been used by some as a synonym for anarchism since the 1890s. By 1901, Frederic William Maitland could use the term to capture a cultural attitude of support for freedom. Observing that "the picture of an editor defending his proof sheets [...] before an official board of critics is not to our liking," Maitland emphasized that "[i]n such matters Englishmen are individualists and libertarians." As early as 1923, H. L. Mencken could write: "My literary theory, like my politics, is based chiefly upon one idea, to wit, the idea of freedom. I am, in belief, a libertarian of the most extreme variety." Albert Jay Nock and Mencken were the first prominent figures in the US to call themselves "libertarians," which they used to signify their allegiance to individualism and limited government, feeling that Franklin D. Roosevelt had co-opted the word "liberal" for his New Deal policies, which they opposed. In the United States, where the meaning of liberalism has parted significantly from classical liberalism, classical liberalism has largely been renamed libertarianism and is associated with "economically conservative" and "socially liberal" political views (going by the common meanings of "conservative" and "liberal" in the United States), along with a foreign policy of non-interventionism. Colin Ward writes that anarchists used the term before it was appropriated by American free-market philosophers and Noam Chomsky asserts that, outside the United States, the terms "libertarian" and "libertarianism" are synonymous with anarchism. Frank Fernandez asserts that in the United States, the term "has been hijacked by egotists who are in fact enemies of liberty." Conversely, other academics as well as proponents of the free market perspectives argue that capitalist libertarianism has successfully spread beyond the U.S. since the 1970s via think tanks and political parties and that libertarianism is increasingly viewed worldwide as a free market position. Likewise, many libertarian capitalists disapprove of socialists identifying as libertarians.

The term libertarian was first used by late-Enlightenment free-thinkers to refer to the metaphysical belief in free will, as opposed to determinism. The first recorded use was in 1789, when William Belsham wrote about libertarianism in opposition to "necessitarian", i.e. determinist, views. Libertarian as an advocate or defender of liberty, especially in the political and social spheres, was used in the London Packet on 12 February, 1796: "Lately marched out of the Prison at Bristol, 450 of the French Libertarians." The word was used also in a political sense in 1802, in a short piece critiquing a poem by "the author of Gebir": The author's Latin verses, which are rather more intelligible than his English, mark him for a furious Libertarian (if we may coin such a term) and a zealous admirer of France, and her liberty, under Bonaparte; such liberty! In 1878, Sir John Seeley characterized a libertarian as someone "who can properly be said to defend liberty", by opposing tyranny or "resist[ing] the established government". In 1901, Frederic William Maitland used the term to capture a cultural attitude of support for freedom: "the picture of an editor defending his proof sheets... before an official board of critics is not to our liking... In such matters Englishmen are individualists and libertarians." The use of the word libertarian to describe a new set of political positions has been traced to the French cognate, libertaire, coined in a scathing letter French communist anarchist Joseph Déjacque wrote to mutualist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in 1857, castigating him for his sexist political views. Déjacque also used the term for his publication, Le Libertaire: Journal du Mouvement Social, which was printed from 9 June, 1858 to 4 February, 1861. In the mid-1890s, Sébastien Faure began publishing a new Le Libertaire while France's Third Republic enacted the lois scélérates ("villainous laws"), which banned anarchist publications in France. Libertarianism has since been used as a synonym for anarchism. The modern use of liberalism in the USA refers to social liberalism, and so libertarianism has become synonymous with classical liberalism. Libertarianism in the United States is associated with economically conservative and socially liberal political views (going by the common meanings of conservative and liberal in the United States), as well as a foreign policy of non-interventionism. H. L. Mencken and Albert Jay Nock were the first prominent figures in the United States to call themselves libertarians. They believed Franklin D. Roosevelt had co-opted the word liberal for his New Deal policies, which they opposed, and used libertarian to signify their allegiance to individualism and limited government. Mencken wrote in 1923: "My literary theory, like my politics, is based chiefly upon one idea, to wit, the idea of freedom. I am, in belief, a libertarian of the most extreme variety." Capitalist libertarianism has successfully spread beyond the USA since the 1970s via think tanks and political parties, and libertarianism is increasingly viewed worldwide as a free market position.

As you can see, I've moved the information around so that the first paragraph briefly mentions the metaphysical definition (the same goes for the current version, but I did make some minor copy edits); the second and third paragraphs talk about use of the term libertarian to refer to someone who simply extolls liberty; the fourth talks about the connection to anarchism; the fifth talks about the popular meaning of libertarianism in the USA, which is right-libertarianism/neo-classical liberalism (without using the term right-libertarian); and the last illustrates that libertarianism is increasingly viewed as a free-market (aka right-libertarian) ideology, due to political parties and think tanks promoting their philosophy.

I feel that this edit will demand a change to the lead, which I will most likely propose next, assuming this suggestion is taken well. Thank you all for your time and consideration! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 23:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't an "Etymology" section at least mention the fact that the word "libertarian" already had a pre-established meaning as "advocate of liberty" prior to being explicitly "coined", due to the fact that its base word "liberty" and the suffix "-arian" or in French "-aire" (advocate of (base word)) both had well established meanings, as well as a well-established method of combining them? And while your proposed version does seem to be an improvement, both versions seem to take up a lot of space (for an etymology section) just to list a bunch of different people who (regardless of motive) used the word itself to mean "advocate of liberty", as dictated by the pre-existing meaning of its root word and suffix. Lockean One (talk) 00:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

MisterDub, there is a lot of good stuff in there, plus a some things that I think are in error or misleading. I'm not so sure about a process which presumes that "this version is going in, and people can (merely) propose changes to it" so I'm not sure what to do next. North8000 (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Lockean One, I agree that the Etymology section is a bit long and could be reduced by removing some or all of the quotations that describe libertarians as mere defenders of liberty. I'm not opposed to keeping the information either, so I'll leave this particular detail up to other editors.

North8000, please be specific about what you think is "in error or misleading"; vague complaints get us nowhere. Also, please assume good faith: I am not determined to implement my changes even without consensus. I am simply proposing significant edits to get this article to FA status, rather than let it stagnate in the rather clumsy and confusing condition in which it currently exists. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

MisterDub, please assume good faith regarding the type of faith that I am assuming.  :-) I guess you still don't know me. :-) . My note was about the possible process that we are slipping into by commenting on a larger draft, nothing about your intentions. The three erroneous / misleading areas where when describing US libertarianism, more specifically failure to account for the most common type when making statements. I'll itemize below. 01:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Or maybe you could simply refrain from making incorrect and accusatory comments? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

You are imagining things. I thought we knew each other better than that. You know that I know that you do excellent work, and that I value and seek your knowledge on the topic. If you didn't, you do now. North8000 (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the changes look great. It's much clearer and easier to read. My only nitpick is that I think anarchist communism should be changed to libertarian communism for clarity in this context, and I wonder if Dejacque shouldn't be moved up a paragraph to keep it chronological. I also think the last paragraph on Colin Ward / Noam Chomsky referring to the "appropriation" of the word gives the article much, much needed context, so if it's not covered elsewhere it should probably stay in the (admittedly long) etymology section. But, yeah, good work. Finx (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Two problems are just a matter of calibrating the wording. There are without-qualifier statements that libertarianism is considered a synonym for anarchism, and that US libertarianism is associated with non-interventionism. Both are sometimes true, neither is always (or even near-always) true. The third is, on one occasion, calling the main form of US libertarianism "capitalist libertarianism". While common US libertarianism may tacitly accept capitalism, it is not a tenet of such. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Finx! I was using anarchist communist because it is the main namespace for that article, but I think it makes sense to use libertarian communist in this context. I also thought about moving Déjacque up for chronological sake, but I think it ruins the flow. I've included this change into the draft below... let me know what you think. As for the Chomsky and Ward sources, I purposefully left those out because I think the preceding paragraphs illustrate well enough that libertarianism was used to refer to anarchism before the US libertarians popularized their philosophy. Also, I think the entire last paragraph of the current "Etymology" section introduces a combative, ideological tone that I would prefer to remove from the article.

North8000, how would you propose we solve these issues? 1) I'm not sure how would you qualify the statement that libertarianism has been used as a synonym for anarchism. Honestly, I think the following paragraphs provide enough context for readers to understand that the meaning of the term has changed away from that popularized in the late 19th century to one whose tenets have been described as classical liberalism, but I'm open to suggestions. 2) Should we simply remove the claim that US libertarianism is associated with non-interventionism? Or would you suggest rephrasing this? 3) The term capitalist libertarianism comes directly from our current article and was not intended to be a claim on my part. How would you rephrase this? In the draft below, I have changed it to US libertarianism for consistency with the article. Please let me know what you think. Thanks! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Revised proposal

The term libertarian was first used by late-Enlightenment free-thinkers to refer to the metaphysical belief in free will, as opposed to determinism. The first recorded use was in 1789, when William Belsham wrote about libertarianism in opposition to "necessitarian", i.e. determinist, views. Libertarian as an advocate or defender of liberty, especially in the political and social spheres, was used in the London Packet on 12 February, 1796: "Lately marched out of the Prison at Bristol, 450 of the French Libertarians." The word was used also in a political sense in 1802, in a short piece critiquing a poem by "the author of Gebir": The author's Latin verses, which are rather more intelligible than his English, mark him for a furious Libertarian (if we may coin such a term) and a zealous admirer of France, and her liberty, under Bonaparte; such liberty! The use of the word libertarian to describe a new set of political positions has been traced to the French cognate, libertaire, coined in a scathing letter French anarchist communist libertarian communist Joseph Déjacque wrote to mutualist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in 1857, castigating him for his sexist political views. Déjacque also used the term for his anarchist publication Le Libertaire: Journal du Mouvement Social, which was printed from 9 June, 1858 to 4 February, 1861. In the mid-1890s, Sébastien Faure began publishing a new Le Libertaire while France's Third Republic enacted the lois scélérates ("villainous laws"), which banned anarchist publications in France. Libertarianism has frequently been used as a synonym for anarchism since this time. In 1878, Sir John Seeley characterized a libertarian as someone "who can properly be said to defend liberty", by opposing tyranny or "resist[ing] the established government". In 1901, Frederic William Maitland used the term to capture a cultural attitude of support for freedom: "the picture of an editor defending his proof sheets... before an official board of critics is not to our liking... In such matters Englishmen are individualists and libertarians." The use of the word libertarian to describe a new set of political positions has been traced to the French cognate, libertaire, coined in a scathing letter French anarchist communist Joseph Déjacque wrote to mutualist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in 1857, castigating him for his sexist political views. Déjacque also used the term for his publication, Le Libertaire: Journal du Mouvement Social, which was printed from 9 June, 1858 to 4 February, 1861. In the mid-1890s, Sébastien Faure began publishing a new Le Libertaire while France's Third Republic enacted the lois scélérates ("villainous laws"), which banned anarchist publications in France. Libertarianism has since been used as a synonym for anarchism. The modern use of liberalism in the USA refers to social liberalism, and so libertarianism has become synonymous with classical liberalism. Libertarianism in the United States is associated with economically conservative and socially liberal political views (going by the common meanings of conservative and liberal in the United States), and, often, a foreign policy of non-interventionism. H. L. Mencken and Albert Jay Nock were the first prominent figures in the United States to call themselves libertarians. They believed Franklin D. Roosevelt had co-opted the word liberal for his New Deal policies, which they opposed, and used libertarian to signify their allegiance to individualism and limited government. Mencken wrote in 1923: "My literary theory, like my politics, is based chiefly upon one idea, to wit, the idea of freedom. I am, in belief, a libertarian of the most extreme variety." Capitalist libertarianism has successfully spread beyond the USA This US libertarianism has propagated beyond its borders since the 1970s via think tanks and political parties, and libertarianism is increasingly viewed worldwide as a free market position.

Hello MisterDub. You fixed one with the draft. Suggested tweaks to fix the other 2:

• "Libertarianism has since been used as a synonym for anarchism" change to: " Libertarianism has since often been used as a synonym for anarchism"
• "as well as a foreign policy of non-interventionism" change to: "and often as a foreign policy of non-interventionism"

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Nice work MisterDub! North8000 (talk) 16:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, North8000. I forgot to leave a post here letting everyone know I made the change. You may have noticed that I used frequently and often to resolve the issues you mentioned previously instead of using often twice... I hope you find this acceptable. Thanks! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Issues that need addressing before FA review

All, I have compiled a list of issues that we need to address in this article:

1. "Philosophy" section is atrocious and needs to be completely rewritten: The three distinctions listed in the article are half-truths at best. 1) All sorts of ethical and meta-ethical positions can be used to justify libertarian political beliefs. 2) the propertarian/non-propertarian distinction is the right/left division that many here refuse to acknowledge. The fact that this analysis is completely ignored by right-libertarians does not, in my opinion, merit its omission. Hopefully, we can work together to achieve a compromise on this. 3) The anarchist/minarchist distinction is only a debate amongst right-libertarians and serves as the dividing line between neo-classical liberals and anarcho-capitalists; left-libertarians are all anarchists. I think it would be far better to replace this with a description of the distinctive philosophies that use the term libertarian, i.e. libertarian socialism, anarcho-capitalism, and neo-classical liberalism.
2. "History" section needs far less anarchism: Anarchism is a fantastic philosophy, but it is not very popular. Its overabundance in this article is, in my opinion, a violation of due weight. The philosophy and history of anarchism should be summarized, leaving the details of specific anarchist currents such as that currently covered by the "Individualist anarchism," "Mutualism," and "Left-libertarianism" sections to their respective articles.
3. "Contemporary libertarianism" needs some actual contemporary material: The last paragraph of the "U.S. Libertarianism" section seems to be the only part of that section that deals with modern events. The "Left libertarianism" is better, but its first and second paragraphs could probably go. The Tea Party movement and Occupy movement should be listed here as well.
4. "Criticism" section needs expanding... badly: 'Nuff said?

I have been working up possible solutions to these problems in my sandbox, but I think it's important that we all agree on what needs be done first, before we fix each of these issues. Once the issues are fixed, a lead that accurately summarizes the new article will need to be written. The end goal here is to change the article significantly, request a review of the article, and achieve FA status. Thanks! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Sidenote (not addressing your whole post) It would need to be submitted to and pass GA before it could be submitted for FA. I'm all for going for GA, not so sure about FA. North8000 (talk) 21:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the information, but that's not vital to my overall point, which is that we ought to be making this the highest-quality article we can. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Cool.North8000 (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I was actually going to suggest that the "propertarian-non-propertarian" section be replaced with a discussion of the left-right distinction (as described in Stanford, not capitalist/socialist), on the basis that they are very different distinctions, and the left-right distinction (as described in Stanford) is a legitimate distinction between libertarians. But your statement that "left-libertarians are all anarchists" is simply false, and non-socialist left-libertarianism is not only discussed in the sources cited, it is also discussed in the "left libertarianism" Wikipedia article. The fact that some here don't seem to be able to distinguish left-libertarianism from socialism, does not mean that (non-socialist) left-libertarianism should be omitted from the article in a way that falsely implies that it merely refers to socialism. Lockean One (talk) 10:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

One ongoing underlying issue is terminology....that the term "right-libertarian" is highly problematic at several levels. Has no consistent meaning, is an oxymoron in the main places that "it" is practiced, nobody self-identifies as that, and fails to cover the most common form (e.g. roughly as identified by the Nolan chart, the "1 sentence ideology" type) which does not include any "planks" on private property ownership which some people inadvertently invent out of / confuse with tacit acceptance of those things. North8000 (talk) 10:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and the reason that few identify as "right-libertarian" is that according to the sources, like Stanford, it refers only to those who believe that unappropriated natural resources can be claimed by anyone with no restriction or compensation to society. Someone who believes that the appropriation of land and natural resources should be subject to taxation as compensation is a left-libertarian (and not a socialist) according to those sources. Lockean One (talk) 11:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually different sources give different meanings to the term, which is a part of the problem. But probably more significantly, if one were to ask each of the approx 60,000,000 Americans identified by Boaz as libertarian / libertarian voting, if freedom to claim unappropriated natural resources is a plank in the Libertarian beliefs, I think about 99% would say "no" and further that they have never thought about it. And for about 90% of those their entire libertarian platform fits into one sentence: Prioritizing more liberty and less government. North8000 (talk) 11:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. But that distinction still should be explained in this article, since it is made in the sources listed. And especially since so many here confuse that distinction with the huge distinction between capitalism and socialism. Lockean One (talk) 12:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Added "left-right" distinction in place of the "atrocious" propertarian-non-propertarian" distinction. It's very brief, and comes from only the Stanford source, but it links the main articles. Lockean One (talk) 12:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

North8000, I see you reverted that with a note you were working on a partial restoration. In my view, that "propertarian-non-propertarian" section is a basket case of misinformation and deception, and should be completely re-written if included. Lockean One (talk) 12:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, I re-added a section for left-right distinction while leaving the atrocious propertarian-non-propertarian section alone for now. Hopefully, that section can be re-written to be less deceptive and ridiculous. Fair enough? Lockean One (talk) 12:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Long story short, I'd suggest taking changes one piece at at time. This is a top level article where most of it is the result of a large amount of work and discussions, many of the tem difficult and contentious. . Massive deletions of material and sourcing are not gonna fly and also IMHO not appropriate in that context. Sincerely,North8000 (talk) 12:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

For the numerous reasons listed, I don't agree with elevating the term "right" or pretending that it has a consistent definition and a substantial amount of editors have expressed similar concerns. But there's no hurry, maybe we can fix that with wording nuances, e.g. attribution to the uses of the term. North8000 (talk) 12:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't object to leaving out that distinction completely, but if it's there, it should accurately reflect the sources instead of falsely equating left-libertarianism with socialism, or being confused with that misleading and nonsensical "propertarian-non-propertarian" section. Having left-libertarianism included in the article necessitates making that distinction accurately, and presenting left-libertarianism accurately. I also agree with taking changes one at a time, but massive amounts of that material are misleading and nonsensical. This article may be the result of "a large amount of work and discussions", but it's a basket case of inaccuracy and deception in many ways. Wikipedia policy is to be bold with editing and discuss if someone disagrees. Of course, many seek to derail such discussion instead of honestly engaging in it, but the refusal of others to legitimately discuss it should in no way stand in the way of improving the article. Lockean One (talk) 14:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Any comments on anything other than the left-right distinction? Let's not get mired in debate over one issue. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

MisterDub, IMHO things seem to be going reasonably well at the article, even if it needs a lot more work, so I don't want to overstate by using the word "issues". But if I may offer a 30,000' view, The underlying gorilla in the living room is that "libertarianism" has vastly different meanings, but some common tenets. And, for a multitude of reasons, they are covered in the same article.

• Half of of the flames that the article was in three years ago were that nobody knew what I just wrote, and so folks thought that what the other folks wrote was factually wrong. Finding the "Rosetta stone" helped a lot. And a huge RFC that resulted in setting the direction that we are to cover all (significantly covered in sources) strands helped set the course.
• A second issue that has been extant, but managed, is that some folks want to shift the article towards their particular definition of libertarianism, and to reduce coverage of the "other" type, or to state that the "other type" is invalid. A core of regulars here always rises to the occasion and prevents that from happening. And so althouge that problem keeps occurring, it is always manageable.
• If there is one other "Rosetta stone" yet to be understood, it is that some our "sources" (philosophers etc.) are actually creators, not coverers. I would oppose any reduction in the use of them, but we must realize that libertarianism is not fully defined by what is in the minds of philosophers. The rest of the story is the common meanings for libertarianism in practice. This can lead to particularly huge errors when talking about the most common form of US libertarianism, the "one sentence platform type" (prioritizing more liberty and less government) which in contrast to views by philosophers, does NOT include "planks" on the secondary topics.
• One other "issue" is the highly disputed problematic term "right libertarian", and the lack of a substitute term for it in place where it is sort of needed. Maybe use of it witih qualifiers and attribution, without overreaching would be the solution.

In short, I don't think we have burning issues, just things to recognize, and learn to work around/with. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

North8000, we don't need to hear the history of this page every week. What I'm asking is, are there any more comments, questions, or concerns with the agenda I've outlined to fix prominent issues in this article? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

At risk of repeating myself, we need to make room in this article for a broader view of libertarianism. Only in America is the term firmly attached to a particular flavor of right-libertarianism. In the rest of the world, there is such a thing as left-libertarianism, and even moderate versions that don't fit into either category. MilesMoney (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that according to reliable sources, like Stanford EOP, most self-identified libertarians in the U.S. would fit the definition of "left-libertarian" instead of "right-libertarian", since they do not believe in an unlimited right to appropriate natural resources free from all restriction and taxation. Equating the term "left-libertarian" with "libertarian socialist" is not only inaccurate, but obfuscates the fact that the term "libertarian" is being used to mean two very different things, not merely two variations on a single philosophy. As stated in the LibSoc article, it's used by LibSocs to distinguish it from state socialism, or as a synonym for anarchism, not to refer to libertarian philosophy as described in mainstream reliable sources (like Stanford EOP). Is there a legitimate reason not to accurately distinguish between the two? Lockean One (talk) 19:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Misterdub, I was trying to clarify and help chart a course in the areas where you said that a compromise needs to work out. Overall your ideas look good except for the use of the term "right libertarianism". And another lacking in the article (although recently improved in the Left Libertraian section) is a lot more coverage of libertianism in practice. The article is too focused on what is in the heads of philosophers. North8000 (talk) 16:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's usually how a philosophy article is organized. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't really agree, the article is about a lot of different things (movements etc.) that are based on agendas, philosophies, priorities etc. North8000 (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't be foolish. Libertarianism is a political philosophy. — goethean 17:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

That's one of the things that it is. North8000 (talk) 17:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you hit the nail on the head there: That's (only) one of the things it is. It has multiple meanings that are switched back and forth between in this article in a misleading way. For example in "libertarian socialism" it is a synonym for anarchism, not the political philosophy referred to in other parts of the article. Lockean One (talk) 17:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The left-libertarianism section still looks like just a continuation of the history section, and is still inexplicably dedicated to "libertarian socialism". It doesn't cover left-libertarianism as described in the Stanford source, etc, at all. Shouldn't the main left-libertarian section at least briefly describe Geo-libertarianism, Steiner-Vallentyne left-libertarianism, left-wing market anarchism, as described in those main articles, with a link to each? And shouldn't it be made clear when the term "libertarian" is used as a synonym for "anarchist" and when it isn't? Lockean One (talk) 17:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes! Thank you! Let's work toward that! Let's add information about the non-socialist left-libertarianism while retaining the material on libertarian socialism. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

That we can agree on, as long as the retained material is accurate and properly sourced. Can we also agree to clarify when the term "libertarian" is used as a synonym for "anarchism" and move the "LibSoc movement history" stuff out of the main left-libertarianism section into the history section (LibSoc subsection maybe) and replace it with brief descriptions of the various philosophies and links to main articles? And can we distinguish between "left-libertarianism" as described in Stanford EOP and "libertarian socialism" instead of inaccurately equating them? Lockean One (talk) 18:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Lockean One, have you taken a look at my sandbox? I have the "Philosophy" section organized quite similarly to how you suggest in this most recent comment. I've also moved sections that deal with the history to its appropriate section, and explicitly mentioned libertarian socialism and anarchism when treating those subjects. Please take a look and see if that is something upon which we can build. Thanks! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I took a look at it and I have to say it would be a dramatic improvement to the current article. While it covers the same material we have discussed, it is presented much more clearly and accurately, eliminating most of our past disagreements. Without going into details here, whatever relatively minor disagreements are left would appear to be far easier to work out than dealing with the current (basket case) article. Are you planning on putting it in soon? Lockean One (talk) 02:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I was hoping to bring it to the Talk page in sections to receive input/corrections/enhancements from other editors before implementing them. Before doing that, I just wanted to confirm that we are all on the same page vis-à-vis the improvements needed. Because no one seemed to have a problem with anything other than the left-right distinction, which we can work out later, I think we should go ahead with making these changes. I've got some things to do today, but I'll try to start a new discussion here today or tomorrow with a working proposal for the "Philosophy" section. Thanks! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)