Talk:Right-libertarianism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Unsupported claim?

I'm wondering if this claim about neolibertarians should be cited:

"They may also support the arrests of antiwar activists"

That seems like it should be sourced. I'm kind of new to this... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.46.224.69 (talk) 05:27, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Disparaging Term used by Opponents

The term right-libertarianism is used only (or primarily) by opponents of libertarian capitalism. One will note that all citations given for the term are from opponents of capitalism wanting to paint it as authoritarian. Proponents of capitalism rarely if ever call themselves "right libertarian." They prefer "libertarian capitalist," "anarcho-capitalist," or simply "libertarian." PhilLiberty (talk) 20:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I've been talking about doing the following starting 2 years ago at the libertarianism project but never started. I think that "Right-libertarianism" and "Left-libertarianism" aren't even real distinct topics; they are just two-word sequences used by different people for different purposes, some of them in a disparaging manner. The lack of sourcing to place the insertions in this article under that heading further reinforces this. These articles should be reduced to very small articles about the usage of the "Right-libertarianism" and "Left-libertarianism" terms. The underlying gorilla in the living room is there are not just varying strands of the term, the term has fundamentally different common meanings in the US vs. elsewhere. North8000 (talk) 20:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Note that the redirect to this article Libertarian capitalism now has identical content to this article, and is being worked on further. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 21:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that we need a bunch of AFD's on the hyphenated libertarian articles. Or reduce them to very short articles on the usages of those terms, and only when the source talks about the usage of that term. The recognized specific philosophical strands can stay or be expanded. This article would be a good place to start. Let's roll!? North8000 (talk) 22:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the matter. I was just dropping an FYI, in case someone can be bothered to resolve the copyvio with proper attribution. But good luck to whichever proposition is the more objectively sound one, assuming there's a multitude. BTW, I see plenty of discussion on the other pages's talk about why that title is unsuitable. Just wait till they notice what's happened. LOL!Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 22:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that we need a bunch of AFD's on the hyphenated libertarian articles. Or reduce them to very short articles on the usages of those terms, and only when the source talks about the usage of that term. The recognized specific philosophical strands can stay or be expanded. This article would be a good place to start. Let's roll!? North8000 (talk) 22:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I think the articles themselves are fine, but that using a derogatory term that mainly opponents use for one of them is wrong. Left libertarians indeed do call themselves "left libertarian." But it is these same left libertarians who refer to opponents as "right libertarian" in order to contrast their ideology. Georgists call libertarian capitalists "royal libertarians." Why not use that loaded term? It seems to me that a neutral term that everyone understands is libertarian capitalism."—Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilLiberty (talk) 22:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

2D Ideomap

I don't have a strong opinion, but may I debate you only for the purpose of sorting this out? What is the objective definition of the topic of this article, if such exists? And, you are suggesting a title where the noun is "capitalism". So the idea would be to define the topic of this article as a certain type of capitalism? Maybe a good idea, but I'm just putting the question on the table. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@PhilLiberty: I could be wrong, but I think that's your own POV-pushing. It's simply not true that right-libertarianism is only a disparaging term used by opponents. I don't know if he was the one to actually first coin the term, but Rothbard used the term right-libertarianism and even devoted an article talking about the libertarian political spectrum. Right-libertarianism doesn't necessarily mean it's a right-wing ideology; it just mean it represent the right-wing of libertarianism. Unlike libertarian socialism, libertarian capitalism isn't very much used. As far as I know, left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism are preferred and more common. It's just in the United States where libertarianism is generally used to mean right-libertarianism whereas internationally it still means left-libertarian philosophy such as anarchism and libertarian socialism, so that causes confusion. You claim "all citations given for the term are from opponents of capitalism wanting to paint it as authoritarian", but that doesn't make them necessarily unreliables. They aren't exactly nobody either. Or are you insinuating that anyone claiming that capitalism can be and actually is authoritarian must be necessarily biased? Furthermore, proponents of capitalism also include liberals, conservatives, Christian democrats and social democrats, among others; and they don't call themselves libertarians or with any other term you cited, unless you equate capitalism with the free market. I hate to do this, but Nazis never referred to themselves as fascists, yet political scientists consider and cite them as far-right, fascists, so just because someone claims, or doesn't claim, to be something doesn't make it so. I personally think libertarianism is simply anarchism and libertarian socialism whereas right-libertarianism is just another form of liberalism; that anarcho-capitalism and other similar right-libertarian ideologies are anti-state, private state and stateless variants or forms of liberalism rather than anarchism or libertarianism, but that's my own opinion based on what I researched about the topic. After all, Rothbard himself acknowledged that the word was co-opted.

I personally think the pages are fine, but can be further improved rather than deleted. Left- and right-libertarianism are very much a real thing and are largely differents, not just on property but even on what liberty or freedom actually means, although they may agree on a few things. Either liberty or property is equally enjoyed by all, without any privilege, or indeed it turns itself into another authority, hierarchy, or privilege for those who can't enjoy equal liberty and becomes the opposite of libertarianism. Another issue is that right-libertarians confuse liberalism with libertarianism, perhaps because they use the word libertarianism to mean what they refer to as classical liberalism. For instance, liberal philosophers such as Locke, Spencer and Summer, among others, are considered libertarians when the word itself in the political sense was coined to mean anarchism, specifically libertarian communism. They weren't libertarians, they were liberals; it is those right-libertarians that are these old-style liberals, not viceversa. So I think that the libertarianism, left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism pages should be kept, especially considering the confusion caused by the word libertarianism in the United States vis-à-vis the rest of the world.--79.53.62.185 (talk) 02:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Both libertarianism and liberalism have very different common meanings in the US-English language vs. elsewhere. Somebody speaking/writing accurately using the common meaning of terms in their language isn't "confusing" the terms. My own opinion is that many of the hyphenated libertarianism articles should be reduced to short articles about the usage of those terms. IMO they are just two word sequences that are used in differing ways by different people rather than distinct topics. For the right-libertarian one specifically, I think that it is just a classification scheme used by some authors rather than a distinct topic. Sort of like making a "Little countries" article because some authors have used that term to organize a country discussion, and then duplicating all of the coverage of smaller countries in that article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

In the Rothbard article cited above, Rothbard calls the term right libertarian "bewildering," and repeatedly uses scare quotes. Why? Because virtually no one self-refers as "right libertarian." Since all anarchism, including anarcho-capitalism, is left-wing by that one-dimensional model, "right libertarianism" is just a misnomer used by detractors. PhilLiberty (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but that's not how Wikipedia works; it's not how one self-characterize himself, it's how reliable sources characterize him and you didn't add any. You just changed right-libertarianism with libertarian capitalism even if when the source doesn't support such claim. There're better ways and solutions than just changing the term. The lead now says it refers to libertarian capitalist philosophies and I think that's enough.--213.45.51.118 (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

On your last sentence, that's even worse. Whenever the term is used, it's referring to forms of libertarianism which don't object to capitalism, not to a form of capitalism. On the earlier parts of your post, self-identification is indeed important, and sources are what cover that. Doubly so here, where the usage in sources are various categorization attempts and I've not seen any source that purports to cover the meaning of the term or says that it is the common name for US style libertarian ism. I think that this article should be reduced to a short description of usage of and meanings of the subject term. Or maybe delete it and add a short note in the US libertarianism article. North8000 (talk) 22:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you're right about that and I agree with your last edit to the lead. I think the page is fine now and I just wish more knowlegable users than me would also state their opinion. I also didn't mean to say that self-identification isn't important, but that realiable sources need to confirm that. After all, Nazis "self-characterized" themselves as "socialists" yet the consensus and realiable sources state that they were far-right, fascists. I simply disagree with renaming the page libertarian capitalism because as you said " it's referring to forms of libertarianism which don't object to capitalism, not to a form of capitalism". One issue is that socialism is both a philosophy and an economic system whereas capitalism is mainly an economic system and its philosophy is liberalism. However, as you stated above, "liberalism" has different meaning in the "US-English language vs. elsewhere", so there's this issue. I'm not a political scientist, but if there was a word to describe right-libertarianism in European terms, it would be neo-classical liberalism; in the sense that it has been inspired by old-style liberalism, but it also have several differences which set it apart. However, this wouldn't make sense in the United States due to its terminology difference, but then again this is the English Wikipedia and not the American Wikipedia. And yes, I actually thought right-libertarianism was a term specifically used to refer to this specific propertarian form of libertarianism in the United States. I don't think the article should be deleted, but perhaps an article describing libertarian capitalism could be created much like democratic capitalism rather than redirect it here.--213.45.51.118 (talk) 23:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that thorough and thoughtful post. Here's sort of my argument on the structural side. So we have lots of philosophical strands of libertarianism that accept capitalism. There are articles on all of them. If we go by actual current practice / identification by people who self-identify as libertarian, almost all of those are in the US mostly because the US is the only place where "libertarian" has such a meaning. In Europe the translation of the US term "libertarianism" is "liberalism". So those trying to organize and name libertarianism or liberalism articles are beset by a tower of Babel problem. So a few authors try to organized a discussion by inventing, inventing "for the day" definitions of and using terms like "right and left" to organize their book or article. And in some places, those temporary terms that they are are offensive and opposite to the views of the people that they espouse to cover. For example, in the US, "right" refers to the political OPPONENT of libertarianism on about 1/2 of all topics. Like a US person (where fanny means butt) calling a pack over butt as a "fanny pack" when, to a British person, "fanny" means vagina. So, IMO, my first choice is not to delete the article (we still should cover the term) , it is to make it very short covering the usage of the term. Trying to duplicate coverage of the forms of libertarianism that some authors classify as "right libertarianism" is IMO a bad idea that makes no sense at all. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

US libertarians may want to frame themselves as neither left nor right in the context of US political alignments, but in pretty much any context capitalism is seen as more to the right than socialism, so within the context of libertarianism generally the branch of it that favors capitalism is clearly on the right compared to the branch that favors socialism, even if there are also other positions in the broader spectrum that are even further to the right of any kind of libertarianism. --Pfhorrest (talk) 06:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

That is a variable division in the eye of the beholder. BTW that is only addressing my secondary reason for writing this. My main reason that this is the equivalent of starting a Small breed dogs article and then duplicating coverage of half of all of the dog breed articles in the new article. North8000 (talk) 13:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

We had this discussion several years ago. Libertarianism in the U.S, has three meanings: its historic meaning, which may or may not include the movement founded by Rothbard, Nolan and Hess, which drew on the 19th century earlier tradition; the movement founded by Rothbard et al; and as a synonym for neo-classical liberalism, which is a strand of liberalism that arose in reaction to welfare liberalism and claims to be truer to original liberal roots and now dominates all major parties in the U.S. and Europe. The French by the way use the term "libertaire" to refer to the original doctrine of libertarianism and "libertarianisme" to refer to the U.S. modification by Rothbard et al. They use the term "Libéralisme" in the same way as English-speakers, to refer to the broad tradition. Colloquially however, liberalism in the U.S. refers to modern American liberalism, while in French it refers to 19th century liberalism and is used as an epithet.

Going forward, we need to consider two rules: each article must have a main topic and each article must be named according to common name. We can't delete an article because we don't like its name.

TFD (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

PhilLiberty, while I agree that the Right Libertarianism article is problematic as-is, and agree with some of your arguments, you must stop doing what you are doing. Massive changes not only without consensus but without even one other editor supporting them.North8000 (talk) 14:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Some asshole locked both articles. After changing everything to the shitty version, of course. My new idea is to have a disambiguation at the top of the Right Libertarian article, with a link to Libertarian Capitalism. Something like:

This is a disputed POV title. For the NPOV version of this article, see Libertarian capitalism.

PhilLiberty (talk) 00:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

See below North8000 (talk) 01:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

That would make the articles POV forks, which is against policy. --Pfhorrest (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

It looks like the choice is between a POV title or a POV fork. A POV fork is less censorious. But perhaps they are two different articles. The Right Libertarian article is basically criticism of Libertarian Capitalism. PhilLiberty (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Plan and direction for this article

@The Four Deuces: What would you suggest here? IMO the only "distinct topic" here is the term, not what is covered by the term. North8000 (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems that way. Is there a topic of right-libertarianism distinct from any other article? If yes, then we need to identify it, provide the literature and write the article to reflect it. Or does it mean different things depending on context? Then it should be deleted or used as a disambiguation page. Maybe we could have an RfC asking editors what the primary topic is and to provide sources. TFD (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good. Except that a discussion amongst people involved on libertarian articles might be better than an advertised RFC. This is a pretty confusing / tower of Babel area. North8000 (talk) 17:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

There hasn't been much discussion lately and most of the discussion in the past was unproductive. TFD (talk) 00:52, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I brought this up at Project Libertarianism ("Reviving this semi-active WikiProject") about two years ago. I said that I was going to start slowy paring the righ and left libertarian article to articles about those terms. No objection stated, discussion was sparse. But I never did it. Maybe I'll start slowly doing that and see what happens. North8000 (talk) 11:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I'll try that. North8000 (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

There is an article for Libertarian socialism, so if that is worthy of an article, then so is Libertarian capitalism. But then, maybe North8000 wants to make Libertarian socialism only about the term, too. PhilLiberty (talk) 00:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, the longstanding version of Libertarian Capitalism said that Libertarian Capitalism is also a pejorative term. :-) . Yes, my thought would be to reduce the Libertarian socialism to a shorter article just about the term. And also have a short similar article for Libertarian Capitalism. North8000 (talk) 01:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 22 July 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Strong opposition for a variety of reasons. (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 20:37, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

---

Right-libertarianism → Libertarian capitalism – violates the NPOV title rule, since mainly only opponents use "right libertarian", as a pejorative term PhilLiberty (talk) 20:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). PhilLiberty (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I'd rather delete this article and use the existing Libertarian capitalism article, since I have done some work on it. PhilLiberty (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm not convinced that "right-libertarian(ism)" is mainly used by opponents. I hear the terms "right-libertarian" and "left-libertarian" used together quite frequently, and never in any kind of pejorative way. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

• If an input from uninvolved editors without a stake/bias is expected, perhaps make your arguments with sources to support your position? Without a list of sources that say(can be used as evidence that) it's used as a pejorative, nor one of those that say it's a neutral vocabulary that's used as a contrast to left-libertarianism in academia, it boils down to personal preference (WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT). Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 04:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support move. I like the term as more descriptive of the nature, and more neutral. I also think the United States tends to frame things as dualism too much, and it is misguided to be stating it as if it fits to a linear left-right and that is the key aspect. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 11:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support move. Actually what I think should really be done is reduce this to a short article about the term and it's usage, but this is real action towards fulfilling that objective. This is not a distinct topic, and certainly not by the ill-concieved name which is not only pejorative but also an oxymoron in the US. It's just a two word sequence that has been used by different authors for different purposes. But the proposed move is some real action towards that end. We could include a few sentences on the R-L term at the target article. One more of the several problematic hyphenated libertarian articles taken care of. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose move - Right libertarianism is the WP:COMMONNAME for this political ideology. I have never heard of "Libertarian capitalism", and I've been around the block a time or two. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. (Don't count it if only registrated users can vote. It's always the same IP; I don't change the IP, it automatically change itself. I just want to state my opinion since I got involved.) While there may indeed be problems with the page, this discussion was based on the lie that "only opponents use "right libertarian", as a pejorative term". I'm happy to hear a smilar scepticism from Rreagan007 and Beyond My Ken about it, so I'm glad it wasn't just my impression and research. While I thank North8000 for his kindness and help in previous discussions, I have to disagree that "[it] is not only pejorative but also an oxymoron in the US". I thought this was supposed to be the international Wikipedia of the English language, not the American Wikipedia. The American-style libertarianism/neo-classical liberalism is just as an oxymoron elsewhere. While I don't deny it's use as a pejorative, it's also been used neutrally to highlight the difference between left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism. Libertarian capitalism sounds more neutral only if you see right-libertarianism as a non-neutral, but that's in itself a POV. I also disagree that it's "just a two word sequence that has been used by different authors for different purposes"; I mean, I don't deny this, but I also believe that both left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism are two different, although related in some ways, philosophies/schools of thought/whatever you want to call it. While I agree with TFD's discussion below, I would say that left and right liberalism are mainly used as synonymous for social liberalism and conservative liberalism, respectively. Rather, I see left- and right-libertarianism more like left- and right-populism and as a result I support their current naming. Either way, I agree with Usedtobecool calls to "perhaps make your arguments with sources to support your position". I'm willing to change my mind and support whatever decision will be taken only on what reliable sources say. I would have done this myself, but I'm not good in these kind of researches and I wouldn't know how to start, that's why I hope you can help in finding what realiable sources actually say and base the move on them. Furthermore, how the current article actually is? Are the sources reliable? Only PhilLiberty seemed not to think so, but he also didn't put any new sources in their place; as far as I can tell and I could be wrong, he simply changed the word right-libertarianism everytime to libertarian capitalism without adding any new source and even when the source specifically spoke of right-libertarianism; and to me that's unacceptable. While everyone has his own bias, I think PhilLiberty is POV pushing the same POV he's accusing and wants to remove. I would like to highlight that I have nothing personal against PhilLiberty or any other user. It's nothing personal to me, I just strive for the truth (by this I don't mean an objective truth, but what reliable sources say) and as I already stated above I'm willing to change my mind. However, there's been nothing that convinced me so far; they're all different personal opinions. There should be a discussion about left-libertarianism too, especially if this page is moved; and if it's moved, then the main libertarianism page should concern libertarianism as anarchism and libertarian socialism rather than what's called right-libertarianism, only highlighting that in the United States libertarianism means a different thing. I also don't see right-libertarianism as libertarianism in the United States, but rather as American-style libertarianism or neo-classical liberalism. While right-libertarianism seems to be the mainstream and more popular view of libertarianism in the United States, right-libertarianism also expanded globally since the 1970s due to globalisation and the rise of neoliberalism, among other things; that's why you see British people like Maproom, or more generally English-speaking people, understanding libertarianism as libertarianism in the United States; it's just a proof that this kind of libertarianism has indeed expanded globally, but globally it remains a minority and only in the United States is the mainstream view. I would also point out that the same French libertarian communist who first coined the word libertarian in the modern political way also first coined the word libertarian while he was in New York, so even in the United States for many years it was exactly like the rest of the world and indeed anarchists, including individualist anarchists like Tucker, used the word libertarian first. Likewise, the 20th century people who used libertarian to mean classical liberalism didn't create a new ideology, didn't create libertarianism; they simply renamed one, namely liberalism, libertarianism and even then that only happened in the 1970s. Either way, as a compromise with PhilLiberty, I propose that libertarian capitalism shouldn't direct here, but should have its own page, if possible. Not all right-libertarians would describe themselves as supporters of capitalism (as in it actually exists), but rather of the free market, although the two are often conflated and confused with each other. As I proposed above, libertarian capitalism should be similar to democratic capitalism and should describe it as an economic system. Unlike socialism, capitalism is mainly an economic system. As a result, the philosophy of so-called libertarian capitalism is what's called right-libertarianism. This way we could have left-libertarianism vis-à-vis right-libertarianism and libertarian socialism vis-à-vis libertarian capitalism; that is, if the page is kept as right-libertarianism, which as of now I still support. Finally, I'd have welcomed a discussion about the page to analize it, what improvements can and should be made, so as to fix the problems and only then start a discussion about this.--95.235.190.133 (talk) 13:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Because there's nothing pejorative, contradictory, or otherwise wrong about the title "right-libertarianism", that's a perfectly cromulent description of the position that is anti-state but pro-capitalist. --Pfhorrest (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose the premise for the move is objectively false as a quick search on Google Books shows. GScholar gives about 366 hits for the proposed change[1] and about 508 for the current title.[2] Where's the guideline/policy reason to support the move? Doug Weller talk 18:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

Although for any ideology, it makes sense to speak of of left and right-wing versions, generally that does not mean that for each ideology these are discrete topics. For example, some sources use the terms left liberalism and right-wing liberalism, but what each of these terms means depends on context and there is no article for either one. The one exception I can think of is right wing populism. But that's a clearly defined topic with extensive literature. Before saving this article, I would like to see a reliably sourced definition of the topic and evidence that it is distinct from any other topic for which an article exists. TFD (talk) 05:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree. And I think that we both know that the rs'd definition and evidence of distinction don't exist. And I think that such is even a bigger reason for some type of change at this article.North8000 (talk) 13:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Beyond my Ken, I agree regarding Libertarian Capitalism, but my support was based on this still being as step in the right direction. But I have to disagree on your common name statement. Aside from the fact the subject really doesn't exist as an entity (just a two word sequence used differently by different authors and people) where would that be the most common name? This is an English term. By far the largest english-as-a-primary language country is the US, and most common practice of what the article is referring to is the US. Yet in the US the term doesn't exist, would be an oxymoron, and (in many ways) exactly contrary to the ideology of the people practicing what this article describes. North8000 (talk) 13:33, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Just looking at Ghits, "libertarian+capitalism" gets 23,800 hits [3], while "right+libertarianism" gets 56,000 [4]. And that doesn't even account for the fact that I'm not sure they're the same thing. It looks to me that the right is just as fragmented as is the left. I use to laugh at the Workers' Socialist Party versus the Socialist Party of the Workers versus the Worker's Socialist Party (Trotskyite) versus the Worker's Maoist Socialist Party of the Workers versus the Syndicalist-Socialist Workers' Party versus... It seemed that when 5 lefties got together they belonged to at least 8 different parties. It looks to me as if the ideologies of the right are something like that as well. I couldn't tell the Maoists from the Trotskyites without a program, and I doubt I could do the same thing here, so I'm going to leave my !vote above, because I still think it makes sense, but otherwise back off from this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:39, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Doug Weller, I notice that the search you provided shows a lot of articles about "left libertarianism," but none about right libertarianism. I don't think we can just assume that because there are articles about left liberterianism, that right libertarianism is a topic. Can you point to the literature that discusses it? By comparison, North American English is a topic, but that does not mean that South American English is. TFD (talk) 05:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

On my iPad so details too difficult but all those sources mention right-libertarianism and some say specifically or implicitly that right-libertarianism is the more familiar concept. But it's true that there are more articles on left than right. Doug Weller talk 19:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't see that. The first article, "Left-libertarianism: A Review Essay" uses the term left-libertarianism to refer to the Steiner–Vallentyne school. This school drew on the philosophy of Nozick and Rothbard, which they called right-libertarianism. But is that its common name? Why are there no books or articles about it if it is older and larger than left-libertarianism? TFD (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: I'm not arguing that. But there is at least one academic book on it, "Towards a Right-libertarian Welfare State: An Analysis of Right-libertarian Principles and Their Implications"[5] I can find a few articles on it but my point is that the articles that mention left-libertarianism in my search also mention right. The point is that it's a common name for a political philosophy and I see no evidence that it's simply an alternative name for right capitalism. If it were, wouldn't a search on both terms bring up more than 3 hits?[6] Doug Weller talk 18:05, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

We really need a 2nd RFC because IMO the involvement or potential substitution of the "right capitalism" term is sort of a red herring. IMO they are both just two word sequences used by different authors with different meanings. Like if a particular "dog" book author divided his book into "big dogs" and "small dogs".North8000 (talk) 18:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Doug Weller, here's a link to the intruction of the book. It uses the term left-libertarianism to refer to the Steiner–Vallentyne school. The key difference between the two schools is whether natural resources should be publicly or privately owned, according to the book and all other sources that mention right-libertarianism. There are however no books or articles about right-libertarianism that I could find. It's a bit like articles about British people referring to non-British people. British people is a topic, but non-British people is not. They're just people who happen not to be British.

North8000, if you have another RfC, perhaps you could ask editors to explain what the topic is and identify literature. It seems that it is a term used when writing about the Steiner-Vallentyne school, which is called left-libertarianism. But left-libertarianism is a part of the Nozick-Rothbard school, not to be confused with left-wing libertarianism, which is anti-capitalist. Also, I would avoid saying the term is pejorative, which is a distraction. It will turn some editors against your proposal.

TFD (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Last sentence of first paragraph.

There's several odd things about the last sentence of first paragraph, which I would correct if the article weren't protected.

1. "the common meaning of libertarianism in the United States is different than elsewhere". That should be from elsewhere.
2. "the common meaning of libertarianism in the United States is different than elsewhere, where it continues ...". Does "where" refer to the United States, or to elsewhere?
3. "widely used to refer to anti-state socialists such as anarchists and more generally libertarian communists and libertarian socialists." Wtf? Socialists generally aren't anti-state; and "libertarian communists" sounds like a contradiction. (I'm British, and to me and people I know, "libertarian" means leaving things to the market, rather than having a control economy. It tends to be a right-wing view. Libertarians oppose nationalised industries and the (UK's) National Health Service.)
4. Nine references for one statement? That's a giveaway that something fishy is going on. If your purpose is to establish the truth of something that's true, one or two references is enough. You only see more than four references for the same statement when someone is trying to mislead the reader.

Maproom (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Good thoughts. I think that most of those of those two-philosophy titled libertarian articles need to be reduced to short articles about the term and it's usage. North8000 (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Maproom, regarding your point #3, it sounds like you are unfamiliar with the broader history of either socialism or libertarianism. (That seems quite common in America, and I guess the English-speaking world more generally if as you say there's a similar common misconception in the UK). The wiki here has an article on libertarian socialism that might be a good starting point for learning more, but the one-point summary is that "socialism" is not synonymous with "command economy", it's just the opposite of "capitalism", which in turn is not synonymous with "free market". Libertarian socialists are market socialists: anti-capitalist, pro-market. (There are conversely also such things as state capitalists, who are both anti-libertarian and anti-socialist). --Pfhorrest (talk) 05:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Historically, socialism was anti-state, because the state is the tool of capitalists. Right-libertarians criticized modern socialists for abandoning their anti-statist roots. It was only in the post-war era that socialists came to believe that the capitalist state could be used to improve the lives of the working class. Hence socialists historically opposed the welfare state. Some on the far left today even chant, "Smash the state!" That's why oddly enough American right-libertarians found inspiration in socialist and anarchist writings, named their movement libertarianism and adopted their symbols, terminology and even part of their pantheon. TFD (talk) 06:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request

Brian Morris links to a DAB page with no relevant article. I suggest that he should either be unlinked or redlinked as Brian Morris (political theorist). Narky Blert (talk) 11:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@Narky Blert: -  Done 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposed NPOV title - "Modern Libertarianism"

I've just discovered this article, and in order for it to be accurate, either the title will need to be changed or the content will need to reflect the distinction between center-north libertarianism (which this article describes) and the view among living libertarians that distinguishes those who hold to right-of-center views such as pro-life, centralized military, immigration restrictions, trade restrictions, legislated morality, and other viewpoints that align to some extent with those on the right (i.e. Republicans).

The vast majority of modern libertarians describe themselves as north-of-center, and consistently employ the Nolan Chart to describe their ideology. As can be seen above, there is considerable resistance by today's libertarians to grouping it together with obsolete POVs regarding the nation state - who the current title more accurately describes. To reflect current realities, the bulk of libertarianism must also be distinguished from POVs now generally considered obsolete regarding property and the marketplace - which describe the left.

JLMadrigal @ 13:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the issue is that you're confusing libertarianism in the United States with right-libertarianism. Right-libertarianism is a term used to describe both mainstream libertarianism in the United States and the more social and cultural conservative variants, but which all agree in supporting capitalism and property rights, hence why they're put together and termed right-libertarian vis-à-vis the non-propertarian/anti-propertarian left-libertarianism. I repeat that the right/right-wing in libertarianism doesn't refer to the ideology's position on the political spectrum. Furthermore, while what these self-described libertarians think matter, ultimately it's what reliable sources and scholars say that matter. Beside, you can't just pick any name that comes off your mind; it must be corroborated by reliable sources. To me, this just seems your own POV issue in that you and PhilLiberty don't want libertarianism associated with the right despite it being explained many times why it's called like that and how it is NPOV.--79.27.160.51 (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

The lead of the article does not help. It describes the words "right-libertarianism" rather than what they refer to, inevitably inviting questions about the point of view behind the words. If it more clearly defined the political philosophy itself, then we might all end up talking about the same thing (or going to a different article to talk about what we thought this article was about!), and then it might become clearer what the best article title was. So long as the article starts "... has been used by some authors to refer to...", there is always going to be trouble. Lithopsian (talk) 15:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm actually opposed to that as well, it was @North8000: who added that. I, too, believe it should describe the political philosophy itself, which I believe it is and not just a term.--79.27.160.51 (talk) 21:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

(Edit conflict, written before Lithopsian's post) IMO this is not a distinct topic and the title is just a two word sequence with no consistent meaning. Most of the material in the article is duplication of material covered elsewhere, and it's inclusion is not supported by sourcing. Instead it's inclusion is mostly by synthesis. In essence, a wiki editor developing their personal meaning of the term and then deciding to include material based on that, even when the source didn't say it was right-libertarianism. If this was done based on there being a clear-cut distinct topic, IMO that would be fine but IMO such is not the case here. IMO we should reduce this article to a short one about the term and the usage of the term. And even if it were more of a distinct topic than it is, it would simply be a lens to what is already covered in other articles. It's sort of like if we had a dogs article, and hundreds of articles on specific dogs. And "Right-libertarianism" is the equivalent of starting a Big dogs article which just duplicates what is already in the other articles, selected by each source's viewpoint of what constitutes a big dog. So my idea is that we should reduce it to a short article about the term and the usage of the term. If this picks up a little steam I'll propose it more "formally". North8000 (talk) 15:49, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

"the right/right-wing in libertarianism doesn't refer to the ideology's position on the political spectrum."

This statement perfectly sums up the issue with the title. If "right" is not "right" and "left" is not "left" how can such an article not confuse the reader. And if it is true that the right/right-wing in libertarianism doesn't refer to the ideology's position on the political spectrum, this fact, more than anything else should be made abundantly clear in the lede (if this article is to be preserved in any form at all). JLMadrigal @ 16:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I think that comment you're responding to was poorly worded, and the intention behind it was probably that the "right" refers to this variation of libertarian's position within libertarianism, rather than within the broader political spectrum. Right-libertarianism is the right wing of libertarianism even if that still isn't near the right wing of politics generally. --Pfhorrest (talk) 17:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

For an analogy: "eastern Kansas" doesn't mean some part of Kansas (or one of several places called Kansas) that's on the east coast, it just means the part of Kansas that is more east than the rest of Kansas, even though all of Kansas generally is still in the middle of the continent. --Pfhorrest (talk) 17:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

On the Nolan Chart, Ron Paul would be found to the right among libertarians, and Bill Weld to the south (in the libertarian quadrant). JLMadrigal @ 17:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You are right, and so much so that the term is an oxymoron in the US, the place where the majority of English-as-a-first language readers are. North8000 (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with JLMadrigal. Either reduce this article to links to other articles, or at least make it plain that this is a viewpoint article about what lefties call "right libertarianism." Pfhorrest, libertarian capitalists do not see themselves as right/right-wing even within libertarianism. "Right" is being used by detractors as a term of disparagement. Libertarian capitalists, as mentioned, see themselves as pro-liberty and against authority, a dimension othogonal to the left-right spectrum. And we consider the outdated term "left" to mean against existing authority, which puts libertarian capitalists on the left and anarcho-capitalists extreme left. Anyway, I put in a note about the term being mainly used by oppositional authors, and cited that Rothbard article. PhilLiberty (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

It may be an oxymoron in the United States, but this isn't the United States Wikipedia. Beside, Rothbard himself ultimately became a right-wing popoulist, just like Rockwell and Hoppe, or what they call paleolibertarianism, which is American right-wing populism, so I don't see what's the problem with that. Once again, I reiterate that the issue is that you're thinking in terms of and referring to libertarianism in the United States. Right-libertarianism is used to refer to the propertarian/capitalist vis-à-vis the non-propertarian and anti-propertarian/socialist libertarian philosophy. I even added a diagram image that explained this. And yes, I was referring to the right-wing within libertarianism. Either way, we just had a discussion about this, so either you show sources or it's all worthless. Beside, PhilLiberty continues to perpetrate the lie that right-libertarianism is a disparaging/non-neutral term and that it's used only by opponents; it may be true in real life within libertarians, but it certainly isn't in political science. Baradat 2015 refers to it as a reactionary ideology as it wants to dismantle the welfare state. The problem is that this libertarianism (right- and in the United States) isn't a new ideology; it's just another name for 19th century liberalism. These libertarians may not see themselves as right-wingers and may consider themselves as above it and it's stated in the specific section, but there're also reputable sources that disagree with that. I reiterate that if the name is the problem, then create a Libertarian capitalist page that doesn't redirect here so that we can have left-libertarianism vis-à-vis right-libertarianism and libertarian socialism vis-à-vis libertarian capitalism, if you can find sources that support it. In the end, I have to agree with what @Beyond My Ken: stated above.--79.27.160.51 (talk) 21:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

"the issue is that you're thinking in terms of and referring to libertarianism in the United States."

If it were true that this contemporary strand of libertarianism is exclusive to the US (which, I believe, can be disproved empirically), then the solution to this dilemma would simply be to merge the article with the preexisting Libertarianism in the United States article. Nonetheless, I believe that "Modern Libertarianism" is the most accurate - since the Austrian school encompasses modern libertarianism internationally. JLMadrigal @ 23:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

JLMadrigal @ 23:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Here is just one example demonstrating the predominance of modern (center-north) libertarianism in a country other than the US:

• Libertarians_(Brazil)#Ideology

JLMadrigal @ 00:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

"Modern libertarianism" is a radically biased title because there are still contemporary left-libertarians/libertarian socialists, for example Noam Chomsky. Honestly this whole dispute feels extremely biased, like right-libertarians are trying to claim that their flavor of libertarianism is the one true (current) variety that is completely neutral and centrist and unbiased, and that left-libertarianism is some historical deviation from "true" (right) libertarianism. You're aware that many left-libertarians see their variety of libertarianism as the kind that doesn't need a qualifier; see for example the common anarchist argument that anarcho-capitalism simply is not anarchism at all (where many such anarchists also consider "libertarianism" synonymous with "anarchism", if that connection was unclear). The "left" and "right" modifiers are used to a comparative context to avoid giving either side precedence, and demanding that they not be used for one side is unabashedly biased in favor of that side. --Pfhorrest (talk) 02:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I completely agree with @JLMadrigal: and I'm glad I'm not the only one to think this and that I have done my homework well. I would also like to thank him for explaining it better than I could. Either way, the majority of libertarians worldwide are anarchist/libertarian socialists. Ever since the 1970s, this American-flavor of neo-classical liberalism (a more appropriate name) has indeed expanded globally, but it remains a minority; it's only in countries like the United States that is the mainstream view, although even in the United States the term was first coined by Déjacque while he was in New York and was exactly like in the rest of the world until the 20th century when it was used to refer to so-called classical liberalism and then became used to refer to a new form of the latter, hence neo-classical liberalism.

Having an article about right-libertarianism is perfectly fine - as long as it is not used to describe the views of most contemporary libertarians which the article currently does (in which case the title would need to be changed as I stated above). The term "right-libertarianism" more accurately describes the views of someone like Ron Paul, who identifies as a Libertarian, but tends to favor policies that are right-of-center such as abortion and immigration restrictions. To keep its current title, the article requires considerable revision. JLMadrigal @ 03:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

You're missing the point that it's not the social views that makes right-libertarianism right relative to left-libertarianism, it's support of capitalism. Left-libertarianism is libertarianism that supports socialism; right-libertarianism is libertarianism that supports capitalism. What you're calling "modern libertarianism" is not centrist on a scale of socialism-to-capitalism, it's explicitly pro-capitalism, and so is right relative to left-libertarianism. --Pfhorrest (talk) 03:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Pfhorrest, the socialist v. capitalist view of reality is a simplistic and exclusively leftist POV. Modern libertarians have come to realize that economic liberty is just as important as personal liberty. Those are the two factors quantified. The term "capitalism" has been used by the left to describe vague, emotion-laden concepts such as "wage slavery". Libertarians - including those mistakenly described as "right libertarians" - do not support any type of slavery. They consistently support the freedom to decide - including decisions regarding employment (by both employer and employee). So they cannot be described as "right" - which would imply support for limitations on personal decisions.

JLMadrigal @ 12:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@JLMadrigal: is right when he/she said "it's not the social views that makes right-libertarianism right relative to left-libertarianism, it's support of capitalism". I'm sorry, but I have just come to believe that you're simply this flavor of libertarians who are trying to push your own POV and that you don't want to be associated with the right-wing. We all have our own biases and POV, but I try to stay objectively and I have no problem to admit I'm wrong; however, this isn't the case. Just the way you said "the socialist v. capitalist view of reality is a simplistic and exclusively leftist POV" further validate my point. Go tell this to actual political scientists. You just have a very narrow view of liberty and freedom. Capitalism is freedom for the capitalist and slavery for the workers who have no access to capital and who have no choice but to sell their labour power and work for somebody else; whether you agree with it or not, or like it or not, that certainly sounds like slavery to certain people. It's also not true when you stated that "Libertarians [...] do not support any type of slavery"; there have been so-called libertarians who actually endorsed voluntary slavery and ultimately is perfectly compatible with capitalism, where everyone and everything is for sale and with the right-libertarian view of contract; it's the so-called left-libertarians who oppose it in any way. So-called economic freedom is the freedom for the capitalist; just because the worker may be better off, it doesn't mean they're truly free. Economic freedom could just as easily mean freedom for the workers to keep the value of their labour, why should your view be prioritarised? You know, there're actually many models that don't predict the employer-employee relationship. There's also the view that everyone should be self-employed and a producer; neither master not slave; and if workers want to associate themselves and work with others, they would be free to do so, but they would be paid according to their labour and not to capital which in many cases was actually created not by the owner, but by the workers he/she employed when the factory was first created; and that by your own labour theory of property, it should be the workers themselves to actually own the factory and not just the one who employed them since they were the ones to actually mix their labour with it. This was the socialist POV and just one example to show you what I believe to be your narrow view about freedom. There isn't one single view of what is freedom.--79.52.17.197 (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you and well put. To JLMagrigal I want to add: you realize that left-libertarians wouldn't characterize themselves as being "against economic liberty" in any way, right? You realize that left-libertarians are not in favor of state wealth distribution or anything that you probably think of when you hear "left" or "socialist", but actually want the state to do less than right-libertarians want it to do, namely they want it to not side with and protect capitalists? That they see capitalism as an institute supported by the state, and are against it as part and parcel of being against the state and for freedom? You realize left-libertarians support free markets, just not capitalism? It sounds like you're only capable of framing the difference between them from a right-libertarian point of view, which thus biases your perspective on what is neutral. --Pfhorrest (talk) 16:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I would like to add that there're also left-libertarians who support decentralised planning in which individuals themselves plan together and don't let the market become a form of state or authority; planning isn't in any way authtoritarian, it has been practiced under capitalism too and there have been arguments that corporations are an examples of this, although highly centralised annd hierarchical in themselves, which is what these left-libertarians oppose. Either way, many left-libertarians really support free-markets too and argue that a truly free-market cannot flourish under the private ownership of the means of the production under because in this case there must be both states and classes, with the higher classes conquering the state to sway power to their favour in markets ("the class differences and inequalities in income and power that result from private ownership enable the interests of the dominant class to skew the market to their favor, either in the form of monopoly and market power, or by utilizing their wealth and resources to legislate government policies that benefit their specific business interests") whch is exactly what happened; and that a truly free market would flourish under the social ownership of the means of production or usufruct property rights in which capitalists have no privileges.--79.52.17.197 (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I am reinserting the title POV-title tag as there is considerable dispute regarding its accuracy. The previous dispute was different in that it had to do with article placement. Do not remove this tag until either the title is revised satisfactorily or the article accurately reflects the current title. JLMadrigal @ 12:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Then please explain what changes you would propose. I'm all for improving the page, just not based on a supposed POV which to me and others too just seems a way not to be associated with the right.--79.52.17.197 (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

One sidebar comment. The relevance of the meaning of the term in the US is important, but not for the "straw man" reason that the US should dominate Wikipedia. When you want to know the meaning of a term in a particular language you need to look at what it is where it is spoken as a first language. And there are more of those by far in the US than in any other country. And so the fact that the term is an unused oxymoron in the US is very relevant for that reason.North8000 (talk) 16:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree, but I believe in this case the oxymoron is just a POV in that these users don't want to be associated with the right.--79.52.17.197 (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with JMadrigal and PhilLiberty that the article should not stay as-is. I agree with most of their other arguments, but think that there are even bigger reasons than the ones that they gave. I wrote those reasons above. But I don't agree that "Modern Libertarianism" is NPOV; it makes it sound as if some type of libertarianism is the modern type. I think we should reduce this article to a short one about the term and it's usage. My second choice would be to delete it. North8000 (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I think that right-libertarianism may merit an article of its own, and would like to keep the article, if possible. But this, as I stated, will require major changes. There is a faction within contemporary libertarianism that supports immigration and abortion restrictions, and that leans toward a strong military that engages in nation building, &c. The article, if it is to survive as a full article, would need to limit itself to describing this faction - and clarify the limited use of the term by outsiders to describe center-north libertarianism. The revised article will also need to clarify that the term is rejected by most of the latter when used in such a context.

JLMadrigal @ 17:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The thing is that right-libertarianism doesn't refer to the right-wing of libertarianism in the United States, but it is used to refer to both centrist libertarians and right-wing libertarians due to their support for property rights and capitalism vis-à-vis left-libertarianism (non-propertarian/socialist libertarianism). Whether you agree with this, that's what the sources say, as far as I'm aware. Anyway, I'm glad you believe it merits an article of its own, which I agree with; and I'm willing to improve it. However, it's important to understand what the word actually means and what reliable sources say. I don't understand why we should reduce this article to a short one only about the term, or even how it would look like/be such an article, when right-libertarianism is also a specific philosophy (much like left- and right-populism) which include different variants; should we do the same with left-libertarianism too? Left-libertarians could be just as opposed to this since they reject this division as well, considering themselves the true libertarians and right-libertarians as another school of liberalism (neo-classical liberalism, if you will) rather than a full, new ideology. However, until now I have just seen personal opinions based on not wanting to be associated with the right.--79.52.17.197 (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

My main argument boils down to this analogy. Let's say there's already a dog article and many articles on dog types. And maybe some dog books use the term "large dogs" in varying ways. But we really shouldn't be starting a large dogs article. It would duplicate material, and it's not a distinct topic. North8000 (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Answering your question, I sort of think the same thing about left-libertarianism, but less so. First, it's not an oxymoron in the places that it is prevalent. Second, the terms seems to be used more in sources than right libertarian. Also, the term is not an anathema to those who practice it as the right libertarian term is. Finally, taking it further, some who practice it self-identify by that term. Which means not only is it not pejorative to them but that (unlike right libertarianism) it has a valid meaning in the English language in the places where it is practiced. North8000 (talk) 18:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I understand your arguments and reasons, but I don't think it makes sense in this case. To me, it's more like libertarianism is dog, left-libertarianism is Labrador Retriever and right-libertarianism is Golden Retriever, or literally any other dog's breed, really. Nazis also didn't used the term Nazism and called themselves National Socialists, but Nazism is the common name and it's what reliable sources and scholars use; likewise, right-libertarianism is used by reliable sources and scholars in a neutral way and not just in pejorative way. Sure, some left-libertarians may self-indentify as such and more left-libertarians may self-identify as such rather than right-libertarians as right-libertarians, but they're just as opposed to it; and to me it seems more that right-libertarians simply don't want to associate themselves with the right rather than a sourced argument. Rothbard himself ultimately went further to the right and became a so-called paleolibertarian in a right-wing populist way along with Rockwell and others; Hoppe himself seems to be on an anti-left tirade; and while they may reject the political spectrum, political scientists don't and so they're referred to as such even if they themselves may reject that (it's not like there's isn't even a Contention over placement on the political spectrum section which address this issue and state their views about it). Beside, I thought there was a consensus not just to move the page but also that the name wasn't a pejorative and that it was fine; at least, that's what several users said in explaining their opposition to the move, so I don't know what to say anymore and I have to agree with what Beyond My Ken told you.--79.52.17.197 (talk) 01:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Right-libertarianism is the term that a breakaway group of libertarians invented. They call themselves left libertarians. The term is only used in reliable sources in discussion about left libertarianism. The problem is that the term libertarian refers to three things: a movement that began in the nineteenth century, a movement created by Hess, Nolan and Rothbard that considers itself a successor to 19th century libertarianism and free market capitalism in the mainstream Republican and Democratic parties.

I think that the French Wikipedia could guide us in what articles to have. It has articles for Libertaire, Libertarianisme and Libéralisme économique. Left-libertarianism is called Libertarisme de gauche. There is no article about right-libertarianism. It is referred to as le courant libertarien classique (anarcho-capitalisme, minarchisme de droite, etc), but libertarien classique links to Libertarianisme.

TFD (talk) 02:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

It is historically inaccurate to call left-libertarians a "breakaway group". The original libertarianism was a synonym for anarchism, which was the remainder of socialism that did not take up Marxism; IOW, Marxism was a breakaway from early socialism, and what was left of early socialism was anarchism, which also called itself libertarian socialism, or simply libertarianism, to distinguish itself from Marxism. Libertarianism as a rebranding of "classical liberalism", meaning the branch of the original left/liberalism that adopted capitalism and did no go on to become early (libertarian) socialism, is the newer kind of "libertarianism", and what we call left-libertarianism to distinguish from that newer right-libertarianism is not a breakaway from it, but something that long predates it. (I recently doodled a little diagram to help illustrate this branching descent of different political ideologies.) --Pfhorrest (talk)

As I wrote above, left libertarianism is the term used to refer to the Steiner-Vallentyne group which broke away from the Hess-Nolan-Rothbard group (which they call right libertarians) on the issue of whether or not natural resources should be privately owned. Otherwise they share the same beliefs including being pro-capitalist. It does not refer to the libertarianism that developed in the 19th century. Libertarianism includes Hess-Nolan-Rothbard libertarianism which includes Steiner Vallentyne libertarianism. TFD (talk) 04:48, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

That may be one use of the term, but it's the newer and not the original or exclusive use of it. See for example the sourced sentence from the lede of our own left-libertarianism article, "In its classical usage, left-libertarianism is a synonym for anti-authoritarian varieties of left-wing politics such as libertarian socialism which includes anarchism and libertarian Marxism, among others." That sentence is followed by a sentence about the newer sense that you mean. Right-libertarianism arose in between those two varieties of left-libertarianism, and the term "right-libertarian" is used to distinguish it from both of them, not just from the kind that broke away from it, but from the kind that came well before it too. --Pfhorrest (talk) 04:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

The most common usage of the term left-libertarianism is to refer to the Steiner-Vallentyne group as is apparent from a google books search.[7] Since each article should have a separate topic, could you please provide a source that defines right-libertarianism so that we can determine what should be in this article. TFD (talk) 05:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I think that TFD's question is an important one. The source should describe the meaning of the term, not just use the term. North8000 (talk) 12:06, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Modern Libertarianism is better than the current title, but not as accurate or NPOV as Libertarian Capitalism. At the very least, we should add a disclaimer saying that "right libertarian is an oppositional or pejorative term. I just did that. PhilLiberty (talk) 15:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

structure of conversation

Before I read all that, can someone please close any conversations deemed irrelevant? It's not clear if " Take 2" means I should still be responding to the original one. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: I don't think I can officially "close" any conversations deemed irrelevant, but it looks like nothing new has happened outside the "Take 2" thread in a week, and most everything has been gone over again in the "take 2" thread (and can be reiterated again if needed, if not). --Pfhorrest (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll just put a few notes there that discussion has moved. North8000 (talk) 02:10, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Overall structure to resolve this

This discussion has moved. I suggest making no more edits in this section. North8000 (talk) 02:13, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Step 1 Decide whether or not we are going to rename the article. I think that "No" is a near-certain answer. The previous RFC (which failed) was basically a "rename" one to the most viable possibility, and there are no other ideas that have gained even the tiniest bit of traction. But it's an important step in the process.

Step 2 Decide between remaining a full article which requires treating it as a distinctive topic or move on to step 3 to deprecate it.

Step 3 (only if chosen in step 2) Deprecate the article in one of these ways: A. Reduce it to short article just about the term. B. Make it a redirect to some established existing article. C. Delete the article.

Any objections? Should any be a full blown published RFC, or should it be just a discussion among st the current participants. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I think that is a good structure, and you’re right that renaming seems unlikely. I think step 2 should require at least an RFC as it’s suggesting deleting most of this article which I think definitely is on a notable topic in its own right and should not be deprecated. —Pfhorrest (talk) 21:41, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Do you think that the RFC should be one where the bot advertises it? Or an "in between" level of advertising (e.g. at project libertarianism and Libertarianism)? Or just for the people who are watching this page? North8000 (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the more eyes the better for something like this. —Pfhorrest (talk) 21:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

OK then maybe an official one advertised by the bot (are there choices we have to make (that we should discuss) when doing that?) plus at project libertarianism plus at the Libertarianism article? North8000 (talk) 21:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

The first request for comments under Step 1 should be an invitation to commentators intimately familiar with the topic of right-libertarianism and/or the content of the existing article, rather than those who have a left-libertarian or "anticapitalist" bias - which, either way, is outside of the scope of this article. Some possible names should be presented for comment - such as "Anti-Statism", "Negative Rights Libertarianism", "Individualist-Libertarianism", "Mainstream Libertarianism", "Laissez-Faire Libertarianism", "Propertarian Libertarianism", "Free-Market Libertarianism", "Center-North Libertarianism", "Modern Libertarianism", "Nolan Libertarianism", and "Rothbardian Libertarianism", among others, and the commentators should be invited to make additional suggestions for an alternate title, to describe the existing content with only minor revision required, if possible, and with minimal overlap with existing articles. Since the use of "right-libertarianism" to describe every libertarian who favors private property is highly controversial, a name change would be the most straight-forward and long lasting solution to the controversy. If it fails, Step 2 will require a major rewrite to clearly familiarize the reader, early on, with the controversy surrounding the term, and curtail future conflict among editors.

JLMadrigal @ 04:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

That sounds fine. BTW, step 2 is deciding between a full "distinct topic" article and deprecating it; you seemed to be saying that getting to step 2 means that the former was already decided. North8000 (talk) 12:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

If Step 1 fails, and the decision is made in Step 2 to remain a full article as a distinctive topic, it must be made known that a major rewrite will be required, expounding on the controversy surrounding right-left placement. JLMadrigal @ 13:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but I suspect that if we do step 1 we are going to have to decide what it is that we are naming. We might be stuck in a chicken-and-egg quandary there that might call for changing my proposed structure. You can't talk about renaming something without pre-supposing that there is a distinct topic to rename. Maybe step one should be to decided "Is there a distinct topic here". A "Yes" anser would inevitably required defining the topic. What do you think? North8000 (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

That is a good point, and I think you're right that your steps 1 and 2 should be reversed. First we need to settle whether there is a distinct topic here (I think there is), and if there is one then how to name it (I think right-libertarianism is fine), and if there's not one then what to do with the article. --Pfhorrest (talk) 17:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Madrigal, while it's of course important that people involved in this process be familiar with right-libertarianism, it sounds as though you want to make sure that the process be conducted from a right-libertarian point of view, which is not how Wikipedia works. The article needs to conform to a neutral point of view, that does not state controversial claims biased toward right-libertarianism in the encyclopedia's own voice. To make sure that that happens, we have to be sure that there are editors with a variety of viewpoints involved. You wouldn't limit an article about Christianity to only editors who are Christians.

Most of your proposed name options are very problematic for reasons already explained, BTW. All varieties of libertarianism are "Anti-Statism" so that's far too wide for this narrow topic, likewise "Negative Rights Libertarianism", "Laissez-Faire Libertarianism", and "Free-Market Libertarianism" which all apply to all forms of libertarianism; there are individualist varieties of left-libertarianism too so likewise "Individualist-Libertarianism" is too broad; "Mainstream Libertarianism" and "Modern Libertarianism" are both biased against other current and active varieties of libertarianism; and "Center-North Libertarianism" presumes a biased answer to the question of where on the political spectrum right-libertarianism is located. --Pfhorrest (talk) 17:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

This discussion has moved. I suggest making no more edits in this section. North8000 (talk) 02:13, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed overall structure to resolve this - Take 2

In my first attempt I think that I may have skipped over some fundamental questions. My second attempt is to suggest starting by resolving these underlying questions:

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:34, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Question #1 Terminology aside / ignoring terminology Is there an inherent distinct topic that should have a separate article? If you think "yes" please describe the topic (descriptively, not relying on the R-L term) and make the case for it being an article.

The existing topic is a description of today's libertarian movement - excluding only anti-capital anti-property sentiment, which itself is distinct to a particular group - which has its own article. So, no, it does not merit an article of its own in Wikipedia. All of these topics are discussed elsewhere. One topic, however, that, to my knowledge, does not already have its own article is the distinct political viewpoint, especially in the US, that combines elements of nationalism, and other views identified with Republicans, with those held by the Libertarian Party, as stated in their Platform, and the majority of Americans who identify with it. Such an article may merit consideration.

JLMadrigal @ 13:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, there is an inherent distinct topic that should have a separate article. The article at Libertarianism simpliciter covers the whole range of different libertarianisms across history, as it properly should: from the earliest anarchist/socialist sense of the term, through the 20th century capitalist appropriation of it now common in the United States, and newer anticapitalist offshoots of the latter. We have an article specifically about the socialist/anticapitalist varieties of it, and we should also have another article about the capitalist varieties of it (which we already do: this one), as neither of those has an uncontroversial claim to "libertarianism" simpliciter. --Pfhorrest (talk) 17:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@Pfhorrest: OK, if we look at only the meaning of R-L that you are discussing, would you say that "dividing line" is consistent? Anti-capitalist vs. strands that accept or advocate capitalism?

Yes. With the important note that capitalism is not equivalent to free markets; both sides are pro-market. It's about ownership of the means of production. --Pfhorrest (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Agree, and this is an important distinction. Unregulated markets are not, generally, free markets. They are just "free" from government interference. ---- Work permit (talk) 17:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Lack of third-party interference is what defines free markets. Only the left can get away with differentiating free markets for products and services from free markets for capital - AND making it a dividing line between right and left. JLMadrigal @ 23:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I didn't mean to hijack this thread by bringing up the distinction. In economics, a free market is a system in which the prices for goods and services are determined by the open market and by consumers. In a free market, the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government or other authority and from all forms of economic privilege, monopolies and artificial scarcities.---- Work permit (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

These free markets are precisely what these libertarians would like to see - and what the subjects of this article describe as "capitalism" (contrary to the foggy definitions from the left). There is no line. JLMadrigal @ 04:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Madrigal, it's really clear that you haven't read the first thing about left-libertarianism, so you don't even know what you're arguing against. They aren't advocating for any kind of third-party interference. They're arguing against interfering in ways that capitalists, even libertarian capitalists, still support: states defending private parties' claims to things that, left-libertarians claim, do not rightly belong to them. See the earlier example of enclosure of grazing land, which at one point was available for anyone to use, and then was declared, by the state, to be only for the exclusive use of its designated owner, with the state using force to interfere with anyone else's attempt to use it against that decree. That is the kind of thing that left-libertarians are against. --Pfhorrest (talk) 01:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

You will search in vain to find even a tiny minority of those described in this article supporting state interference in market processes. As I have stated earlier, territory is natural in the plant and animal kingdoms. Abolishing property and capital, however, requires interference. Furthermore, enforcement of tort, property, and contract law does not even require a state (see subrogation). JLMadrigal @ 04:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

The statement "territory is natural in the plant and animal kingdoms. Abolishing property and capital, however, requires interference" is exactly the statement that these two groups of libertarians disagree about. Regardless of whether or not it is true, there is clearly one group who says it is, and one group who says it is not: that territory and other natural resources are naturally free for public use, until someone seizes them by violent intervention for exclusive private use, which violence constitutes the establishment of a state. (IOW: that in a truly free market, you would have to continuously pay off other potential users of such territory/etc enough to persuade them to voluntarily let you have exclusive use of it, and that instead using police or military or other violence to force people to not use it because it's "your private property" is interference in that free market where exclusivity would naturally cost the "private owner" payments to the public). It's not our place on this talk page to argue about who is right in that disagreement, but you cannot deny that there is such a disagreement in effect, and that is the disagreement that defines the difference between these two kinds of libertarians. --Pfhorrest (talk) 05:17, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Grazing land is a classic example. A more recent one is intellectual property. Copyright and patents are monopolies granted by the government to private parties. I understand left-libertarians oppose this government-mandated protection to inventors against competition and "free markets".---- Work permit (talk) 03:14, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Neither does support for Copyright and patents define this "group". They have no consistent position on the issue - certainly not enough support to merit it being the dividing line (which does not exist in reality). JLMadrigal @ 04:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@JLMadrigal:Do you think that "not anti-capitalist" (vs. anti-capitalist) defines a group worth covering / having an article, per my "tentative yes" post below?

If you are suggesting renaming the article "Not Anti-Capitalist" (or "Non-Anti-Capitalist-Libertarianism"), and keeping it essentially intact, substituting each occurrence of "Right-Libertarianism" with "Non-Anti-Capitalist-Libertarianism", then I will respond with a tentative yes. But I'm hoping that there is a shorter term available (other than "Capitalist-Libertarianism" due to the misuse and discoloration of "capitalism"). Even the term "capitalism" is not consistently used by the described group in its discussion of the freed market which it advocates. We may have to settle for the longer name. JLMadrigal @ 14:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

"Non-Anti-Propertarian-Libertarianism" may be more accurate - or even "Anti-Collectivist/Anti-Statist Libertarianism" would describe the movement (without the dreaded double negative) in its metamorphosis from a previous life, and cleanse it from the stigma of collectivism without resorting to philosophical dualism. JLMadrigal @ 14:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

"Anti-Collectivist/Anti-Statist" is too broad of a title because all libertarians characterize themselves as such, including the ones (left-libertarians) that this article is not about.

All libertarians characterize themselves as anti-collectivist? WTF?

More generally though, all of these titles reek of original research. I doubt you're going to find anyone in any sources using anything like them. The only sourced titles for this topic are going to be from sources discussing the difference between this kind of libertarianism and the other (left/socialist) kind. TFD has complained that those sources are all left-leaning, but if that is true then it suggests that right-libertarian sources just don't even acknowledge the existence of left-libertarianism, so if the only sources comparing the two are left-libertarian, then that's where the common name for this variety of libertarianism (distinguished from libertarianism more broadly) is going to have to come from. --Pfhorrest (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I would have a lot to say on the naming topic but the structure I proposed delayed tackling that issue.North8000 (talk) 18:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes there is a distinct topic. The topic, as discussed, is the relatively modern pro-capitalist branch of libertarian thought. I do believe the sections Right-libertarianism#History, Libertarianism#Modern_American_libertarianism and Libertarianism in the United States need some cleaning up but that is for another question.---- Work permit (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Tentative yes I'm starting to get swayed  :-) . So it looks like the largest branch of libertarianism has no article except this one. Even though few of its adherents would define their libertarian philosophy as pro-capitalism (but they tacitly accept capitalism as the norm) the main thing that distinctly defines it / separates it from the other strands of libertarianism is that it is not anti-capitalist. Vaguely speaking, US people of this ilk are called "libertarians" by US observers, and Europeans of this ilk are called "liberals" by European observers. (the tower of babel is that those two words have very different common meanings in the US vs. Europe.) So now I'm thinking that this topic needs an article North8000 (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• No The term is primarily used to distinguish the main group of U.S. libertarianism from a strand that calls itself "left libertarianism," which is only left in comparison with right libertarianism. It's like using the term "rest of the world" when discussing the U.S. While it makes sense to have articles about the world and the U.S., we don't have articles about the world excluding the U.S. TFD (talk) 18:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: I'm only pressing you on this because for many years I have had a lot of respect for your expertise here and would like to make sure we know your opinion on the "is it a topic" issue. You seemed to instead being weighing in on the term. Also because I'm sort of flipping from a "no" to a "yes" on this based on the reasoning in my "tentative yes" post immediately above. Would very much value double checking on what you meant or any critique of my post. North8000 (talk) 18:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@North8000:, sorry I missed your ping. The term right libertarian is generally used to contrast Vallentyne's school with the Rothbard school, hence it is not a topic. The term is also used to distinguish between use of the term libertarianism as developed in the 19th century and as a synonym for laissez-faire liberalism. That is a topic, but I find the term right libertarian to be not the best one for an ideology that has dominated the world for most of the past three centuries. A lot of this has to do with the fact that there is no uniformity in the use of terms to describe various schools of liberalism. Our challenge is to clearly identify them and use distinct terms for each one. Take for example social liberalism. That article is about liberalism that supports the welfare state, rather than cultural liberalism, which the article social conservatism is about cultural conservatism, not conservatism that supports the welfare state, which is another definition. TFD (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Tentative result on Question #1

This is just for the purpose of going to the next step of the discussion, this is not an official RFC or a decision-with-weight. Unless I'm mistaken....JLMadrigal basically answered "NO, if titled "R-L", yes if not." TFD answered with an objection to the R-L term, I'm sort of reading that as "not if titled "R-L". The "cover it?" question aside, there seems to be agreement on what the topic-in-question is. Vaguely speaking, it's the current content of the article, or the form(s) of libertarianism that don't object to capitalism. I think that we have a strong consensus to cover this topic conditional on not-titling it "right-libertarianism". Without that condition, I think that we have either a weak consensus to cover it, or "no consensus yet". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:56, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I think that is a fair summary, assuming there are no editors who strongly oppose covering the topic if it is not titled "R-L". I for one would not oppose having the content if it were under another appropriate title.---- Work permit (talk) 15:18, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Question #2 Underlying topics aside, should the term "Right Libertarianism" be covered as a term in Wikipedia? Whether it is as having one meaning, or differing meanings that are related by all being types of libertarianism. Possibly coverage could include libertarian taxonomies which they imply?

The term "Right Libertarianism" has two distinct uses:

1) An ideologically biased description of libertarian views colored by admittedly left libertarians to pigeonhole those who do not subscribe to their views regarding property and capital.

2) A distinction among libertarians primarily within Libertarian Parties combining stated libertarian positions with those to their right (i.e. Republicans). This topic will be receiving increasing attention in the coming years as the Libertarian Party continues to expand and establish its identity in relation to the major political parties.

JLMadrigal @ 13:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@JLMadrigal: Do you believe that the term should be covered? North8000 (talk) 12:53, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Sure, but only for the purpose of disambiguation, since the term is ambiguous and multifaceted. There is no clear line between right and left libertarianism - other than that described by Nolan (which is also controversial to those on the left). Even, as we have seen, the term "capitalism" (which seems to be the bone of contention) is interpreted as something other than free-market by some on the left. ::::JLMadrigal @ 13:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

There is a clear line between left-libertarianism of any variety, which are all anti-capitalist in the sense of against private ownership of the means of production (while also being pro-market and anti-state), and varieties of libertarianism which are pro-capitalist and therefore to the right of the former varieties. Of course you could subdivide either of them further into the left and right sides of themselves, but I've yet to see any indication that "right-libertarian" ever means the right half of the pro-capitalist kind of libertarianism, while we have an entire article -- this one -- that's all about right-libertarianism as in pro-capitalist libertarianism. --Pfhorrest (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Left-libertarianism as the term is normally used supports private ownership of the means of production. It differs only in how individuals can acquire natural resources. Left libertarians believe this can only be done with the consent of the majority. That describes any country once government has been established. You can't put a fence around a lake in the Alaskan wilderness and claim you own it. There's nothing particularly left-wing about that. TFD (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

You keep saying that that newer kind of left-libertarianism is the "normal" if not only meaning of it, and still haven't addressed how we have an entire article filled with sources (one of which I've quoted here) that disagree with that. --Pfhorrest (talk) 22:56, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the term deserves coverage as the obvious counterpart of "Left Libertarianism", and discussion of taxonomies is entirely appropriate. --Pfhorrest (talk) 17:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

The left-libertarian article combines sources that use different definitions of left libertarianism and sources that Wikipedia editors think are referring to left libertarianism, whether they use that word or not. Sorry but I can't find the source you presented here, could you please tell me what it is. I suggest too you check google scholar for "left libertarianism.""left+libertarianism"&btnG= None of the results on the first page use your definition. 00:03, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that the term should be covered. It is used, and in varying ways, The coverage needed to explain the uses goes far beyond a dictionary, and the varying uses and meanings are related. Wikipedia is the place to do that. North8000 (talk) 12:51, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Question #3 Presuming that there is a distinct topic which is (roughly speaking) that covered by the current contents of this article, what should the title of the article be?

Lets just start with discussion before asking for final answers. North8000 (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to try really hard to avoid "right libertarian". The common names for this philosophy are "libertarianism" in the US and "liberalism" in Europe. A tower of Babel situation. So maybe there is no "common name" that is widely acceptable and we need to try something else. If we were to try to use sources to settle what the "common name" is, we need sources that reflect on the common name question. A libertarian writer who merely uses the term is not a source on that question, they are a participant. Plus there is a lot of strong pushback against the R-L term/title. Plus we are writing to communicate in English, and in the largest English-as-a-first-language population(the USA), the term is an oxymoron, and, for the people that it is referring to it is either somewhat of a pejorative or naming them by a political philosophy which they are in opposition to 1/2 of the tenets of. North8000 (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

When you look at this, the underlying tough problem isn't differences in strands of libertarianism or claims of primacy for one strand or competitions between strands, it's differences in the common meanings of the term (and also the term "liberalism") in common US English vs. common European English. What if we used that understanding to sort this out? So name this article "Libertarianism (common USA meaning)"? And explain the situation at the beginning of the article. So we're not claiming that there is a single US form of libertarianism, merely that the common meaning of single-word "libertarianism" in the US is what's in this article. Other forms just get a longer name. Just like European writers make up a longer name "right libertarianism" when referring to something that is different than the common meaning of "libertarianism" in Europe.

Perhaps even do something similar for left libertarianism, although I think that the need there is less pressing. Being a smaller group, I think that it is more common to add the word (to make it "left libertarianism") when discussing it. North8000 (talk) 23:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I have no objection to "Libertarianism (common USA meaning)" or "Libertarianism (U.S. usage)" as a title. JLMadrigal @ 03:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

North8000, what about my suggest below, laissez-faire liberalism? TFD (talk) 00:03, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm thinking not. The term is sort of redundant for European readers and and oxymoron for US readers. = confusing for both.  :-) North8000 (talk) 01:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why it would be confusing. Liberalism has the same meaning in Europe as it does in the rest of the world. The only difference is that colloquially it refers to what Americans call libertarianism. Note that the article Liberalism is not about modern American liberalism or what is colloquially called libertarianism in the U.S. And see the French Wikipedia,[8] A lot of people outside American see no significant difference between the two brands of U.S. liberalism. They are both pro-capitalist and differ on such things as whether the maximum tax rate should be 36% or 38%. Both Nancy Pelosi and Elizabeth Warren have sung the praises of capitalism. Anyway, we shouldn't assume that readers are ignorant. TFD (talk) 04:46, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, the readers are intelligent but not usually political scientists. They also often know (only) the meanings of words in their own brand of English. My guess is that only about 1% of US people know what classical liberalism is, or that it is / there is an alternate meaning for the word liberal. This isn't about talking down to people, it's about communicating in their language, or at least explaining when using foreign/different meanings of their words. BTW the liberalism article does cover the difference and the US meaning issue, albeit IMO possibly while under-acknowledging the language diffrence issues. As far as the naming / topic approach on the liberalism article, it is the single-word top level article (analogous to Libertarianism) covering all meanings and treating the US meaning as a special case. I think one difference (compared to libertarianism) is the the general initial meaning of liberalism is still very widespread, and goes by that name where it is most prevalent. And so it's not too confusing to cover it thoroughly in the one-word top level article, and treat the US special version as a two-word variant. And so the top level one word article covers it. Nobody is suggesting that a separate Liberalism (Non-US Meaning) article is needed. But if it was, I think that they would have the same / analogous naming problem that we're having here. Imagine that after studying the US variant (the liberalism that prioritizes increasing government social programs and the taxes to cover them), an author used the term Right-liberalism to describe the most prevalent type. I don't know where I'm going with all of this, I guess I'm just discussing / trying to sort it out. North8000 (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I think your suggestion has a lot of merit. Call this topic Libertarianism (U.S. usage) or something like that. I think we mostly agree the topic is the post-war, pro-capitalism branch of Libertarianism. In the United States this branch is commonly called Libertarianism. ---- Work permit (talk) 02:03, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

There may be considerable overlap with the Libertarianism in the United States article. Are the topics distinct enough to avoid a merge? JLMadrigal @ 16:33, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I've been thinking the same thing and earlier suggested the sections Right-libertarianism#History, Libertarianism#Modern_American_libertarianism and Libertarianism in the United States would need some "cleaning up". One idea would be for this article to focus on the philosophy and its underlying academic literature, while the Libertarianism in the United States article would focus on the post-war political movement.---- Work permit (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Libertarianism in the United States is about a small movement that began in the 1960s, while this article is about the strand of liberalism that dominated the developed world from the late 1700s to the Second World War and again from the mid 1970s until today. TFD (talk) 16:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

That's a good way to put it.---- Work permit (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Would there be a distinction between the pre-war strand of liberalism that you mention and what is called Libertarianism in the United States? Does the thread that started in the mid 1970 include with it a specific lens on "liberalism" dating back further? My sense is that it does.---- Work permit (talk) 17:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Just brainstorming/discussing.....Per the discussions under question #1 I think that this is a distinct topic not fully synonymous with libertarianism in the US. There are other types on libertarians in the United states (abiet a tiny fraction of US libertarians) and there are the type in this article outside of the US, possibly where they are even called libertarians rather than liberals. To e4mphasise, where I keep mentioning the USA, and in my title idea, it is to be cognizant of the meaning of the term is US English. North8000 (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Note that in American English, words can have more than one meaning and different words can mean the same thing. Not only that, but articles can use any national variety of English that the editors choose. When this occurs we need to follow Wikipedia:Disambiguation. I note too that the articles on liberalism, conservatism and social liberalism do not follow the Great American Semantic Confusion and there are dedicated articles to modern liberalism and conservatism in the U.S. TFD (talk) 23:11, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm just analyzing, not making a point....Those examples are the top level articles, analogous to Libertarianism. Those articles provided the decoder ring in the body of the article. Usually by describing the US version as a (poli-sci based) 2 word version e.g Liberal conservatism (a term that is Greek and an oxymoron to USA people) and then explaining that Americans have abbreviated that 2 word name to the top level name. Then the mid level two-word articles seem to have the same types of questions / questions that we are dealing with. :-) North8000 (talk) 01:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

In 1932, Roosevelt, who had supporters and opponents in both parties, decided to call his supporters liberals and his opponents conservatives, and eventually the terms stuck. He could just as easily have called his supporters conservatives and his opponents liberals, or used colors, directions or big endiens and little endians. It had nothing to do with what these terms historically meant and there is no reason to redefine these terms. Both Roosevelt's opponents and supporters were primarily within the liberal tradition.

Although America means the United States to most Americans, they understand that the place called South America is not in the U.S. We don't need to rename South America so that Americans aren't confused.

TFD (talk) 05:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Again, I'm just analyzing, not making a point.... Well, one thing that I think is undisputed is to fully explain the situation in the body of articles. So then it's down to which libertarian articles articles exist and what to name them. To utilize your reasoning above, one needs to (names aside) start with is deciding what the entities are. If the topic of this article is a synonym with liberalism or classical liberalism then that would in essence be an argument for deletion of this article because those articles exist already. If you consider the topic of this article to be similar but not identical to those, then this article is about a primarily (but not exclusively) USA phenomena. A phenomena which USA people call "libertarianism" and which non-USA people don't have a common name for. North8000 (talk) 10:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

The liberalism article is about the ideology that developed in the 1600s and came to dominate the world. The classical liberalism article is about the liberalism that developed during the classical period of liberalism (late 1700s to mid-1800s) that would be abandoned but influential in neo-classical liberalism, social liberalism and socialism and every other modern ideology. But both terms are also used as synonyms for this article. TFD (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

If "Libertarianism (common USA meaning)" has not already been decided, I would also like "Mainstream Libertarianism" to be considered. Any takers? JLMadrigal @ 18:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I've already voiced my strong objections to "mainstream libertarianism" as unfairly biased in favor of (I'm going to keep using the terms we have now) right-libertarianism over left-libertarianism, especially in an international context where right-libertarianism is far from the mainstream meaning of "libertarianism".

And "Libertarianism (common USA meaning)" and others still smack too much of original research. We need to find sources that discuss the difference between the different things called "libertarianism" and use whatever terms they use to distinguish between them as our titles.

Consider for comparison Football, American football, and Association football. In common parlance people in any country just say "football", but they all mean different things by it. In America, the most internationally most common kind of football is called "soccer", but most people who play that game don't call it that and would object strongly to it being called that; they just call it "football". But in America (and Canada, and Australia), "football" simpliciter means something different (a different game entirely in each of those countries). In a comparative context, when talking about the different kinds of games, the internationally most common kind is called "association football", even though nobody who plays that game calls it that; they just call it "football". The different national varieties each have their own names too, for example what's played in the NFL is American football, even though nobody who plays it calls it that, they just call it "football".

We have a similar situation with "libertarianism", except not quite so cleanly divided by country, and we need to find sources that discuss the different kinds comparatively and find what terms they use to distinguish them, like how "association football" is used for the game most commonly called "football" or "soccer", even though nobody who plays it calls it that.

The only terms I'm familiar with being used in that comparative context are "right-libertarian" and "left-libertarian", but if there are other well-sourced names I'm open to considering those as well. --Pfhorrest (talk) 20:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Consider for example the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on Libertarianism, section 4. Libertarianism, Left and Right. --Pfhorrest (talk) 20:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I already have a pretty good idea how you feel about "Mainstream Libertarianism" (and every other libertarian adjective including the one used by leftists), Mr. Pfhorrest. JLMadrigal @ 02:23, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

It's a pretty moot point because throughout the world since all natural resources are either privately or government owned. You can't just stake a claim of land or gold and own it without securing legal title. Jed Clampett's ancestors got their farm through settling where no recognized government existed, but that's not how the modern world works. TFD (talk) 02:54, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

So your position is "left-libertarianism is irrelevant, right-libertarianism is the only libertarianism anymore"? Sounds like you're maintaining a nice neutral point of view here /s. The different views on legitimate acquisition of natural resources are relevant in today's world for their impact on who does or does not have legitimate current claims to those resources; if they were initially claimed illegitimately in the past then ongoing claims to them in the present may be challenged.

In any case what we editors personally think about the merits of different positions is irrelevant. There are a range of notable sources that hold a range of different views on what proper libertarianism is like, and the encyclopedia must not favor any of them over the others. Your entire objection is a non-sequitur to the point that there's one reliable source right there (SEP) discussing those different points of view and differentiating them with the terms "left" and "right". Your turn to find a source comparing them using different terminology. --Pfhorrest (talk) 03:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

No, I am saying that the left-right distinction in the school that Rothbard et al. founded is fairly minor. As your source mentions, they differ on "how exactly [the Lockean] proviso is to be understood." Because it does not challenge existing ownership of natural resources or challenge future appropriation of natural resources. It merely challenges the original justification for ownership. So maybe you own your house lot because your ancestor combined his labor with a natural resource. Or maybe your ancestor received a grant from the Crown or a relevant government. But today your ownership is accepted by the government so the means of original acquisition is irrelevant. If you think what I have said is irrelevant, please find a source that finds the distinction significant. TFD (talk) 04:09, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

The very same article I already linked reads that, in the views of the most left of libertarians, "...those who thereby acquire more than their share (understood in terms of per capita value) owe compensation to others. This constraint is enduring significance. It applies at the moment of appropriation, and encumbers subsequent through time." (Emphasis mine, typos in source). And once again, this is non-sequitur. We have a source, on libertarianism generally, discussing the distinction between left and right libertarianism, under those names, without playing one up as the major strain or the other down as a minor strain. Wikipedia as it stands already mirrors that structure, and you are the ones wanting to change that, so you need to provide a source to back up that proposed change, some general treatment on different strands of libertarianism that uses some other terminology to distinguish them. --Pfhorrest (talk) 07:21, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

By most "the most left of libertarians" you are referring to left libertarianism which is pro-capitalist and follows the libertarianism of Rothbard, Nolan and Hess, except for their theory of the origins of land ownership. Their argument is not new btw. Liberals including Margaret Thatcher have mostly challenged aristocratic land ownership to some degree. And few have challenged the right of municipalities to levy property taxes. Liberals historically saw ownership of capital as being in competition with aristocratic land ownership. But again, that is not a significant issue today in the developed world where land is now treated very much like capital in that it can be bought and sold. TFD (talk) 00:53, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

No, by "the most left of libertarians" I mean, to quote the same source (that it seems you didn't read) again, "What we might call equal share left-libertarianism—advocated by Henry George (1879) and Hillel Steiner (1994), for example...". Note that one of those example proponents predates any of the figures you're saying they "follow" after by about a century, clearly connecting the 19th century left-libertarianism you insist is unrelated to the newer Steiner et al left-libertarianism you at least admit the existence of.

And again, you're making a non-sequitur argument about the merits of the different views, when all that matters for our purposes is that different people hold those views. You're saying that contemporary political regimes conform to a view of property rights more like those of right-libertarians than those of left-libertarians, but that's not relevant to whether or not left-libertarians exist who contest the rightfulness of those property claims.

Also, and this is again going off the relevant topic which is just "sources say left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism are a thing": you seem to take "capitalism" to mean just "free markets". This question of the justness of claims to land etc is very much the question underlying capitalism vs socialism as left-libertarians / libertarian socialists understand it. If they are right that "those who thereby acquire more than their share (understood in terms of per capita value) owe compensation to others" in a way that is of "enduring significance ... and encumbers subsequent through time" then private ownership of the means of production is being challenged, and that private ownership of the means of production is the defining characteristic of capitalism, not free markets. You are free to think that they are not right in that claim, but there's a reliable source saying that there are notable people who make that claim, that those people are called left-libertarians, and that libertarians who disagree with it are called right-libertarians, and that's all that matters for our purposes. --Pfhorrest (talk) 01:33, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think you are reading the source correctly. Left-libertarians do not think that the the means of production should be publicly owned. They are against redistribution of capital and income and oppose income tax, sales tax and corporate taxes. They believe however that society can tax land (but not buildings), since it was originally in public ownership, unlike businesses which were created by their owners. In some circumstances society may reaquire title to land and natural resources that were improperly appropriated. So for example they might oppose Bundy's ranch which he appropriated from federal land without public permission. But none of their economic positions are left-wing in any sense. Hillel Steiner in "The right to trade in human body parts" argued that it was not exploitive. The only types of exploitation are theft and taxes. Now I am sure some socialists might trade in body parts, but it's not something they openly advocate. TFD (talk) 02:52, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes; No; Libertarian capitalism. The topic is libertarian capitalism. It is separate from traditional libertarian socialism due to its support for free markets and private property. Right-libertarianism is an oppositional and pejorative term, so I suppose this article could be, in effect, criticisms of libertarian capitalism. Thus, there is room for two separate articles, Libertarian capitalism for the NPOV article, and this one using the pejorative term for criticisms. PhilLiberty (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

That would be a WP:POVFORK which is not allowed. --Pfhorrest (talk) 17:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Then the Criticism of socialism and Criticism of Islam articles (among many others) are POV forks, too. PhilLiberty (talk) 20:33, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Sources

Can someone please provide a book or article about right-libertarianism that explains what the term means and provides a detailed explanation of its main tenets, history, literature and leading proponents. I can find this type of source for socialism, communism, fascism, liberalism, conservatism and other ideologies, but not for right-libertarianism. TFD (talk) 15:55, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I believe most modern U.S. books would call "right-libertarianism" simply "libertarianism". The Libertarian Mind: A Manifesto for Freedom may be a good place to start.---- Work permit (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Boaz is using the term libertarian as a synonym for what Ian Adams calls "laissez-faire liberalism." According to Adams, it "adheres to three basic principles: the free market, the miniumum state, maximum freedom and responsibility for every individual." It developed from Locke and Smith and other writers and is still influential today.[9] A number of social scientists writing about the U.S. also use the term libertarianism in this way, while in Europe or South America they may call it liberalism. In fact it is a form of liberalism, not a form of libertarianism as that term was traditionally understood.

If we use that as a definition for this topic, that means that the Rothbard-Nolan-Hess school (and discussion of self-ownership) has little weight and requires its own article.

But then the question arises why this article should be called right libertarianism.

TFD (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

It appears to me the article as it stands does generally hue to the concepts Boaz lays out. Is that really not the case? I will fully admit, I am no expert on the various strands and nuances in this broad "pro-capitalist" branch of libertarianism, assuming that really is the topic covered in this article.---- Work permit (talk) 18:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Then we get statements such as: There is a debate amongst right-libertarians as to whether or not the state is legitimate, the non-aggression principle (NAP) is often described as the foundation of present-day right-libertarian philosophies, Right-libertarians are economic liberals of either the Austrian School or Chicago school, right-libertarianism developed in the United States 1950s. There's an entire section about anarcho-capitalism, although it forms a tiny part in the history of laissez-faire liberalism.

As Boaz used the term, libertarianism was the driving ideology from the late 18th century until it was challenged by welfare liberalism. That's a pretty vast history.

TFD (talk) 20:00, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

That is a good point. Each branch claims the other has hijacked the term.---- Work permit (talk) 02:07, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

For that reason I still really think we should stick to sources that discuss the difference between these two kinds of libertarianism to find what names those sources use to distinguish them. A lot of the name suggestions so far smack of original research. Also I think this discussion has grown beyond just the scope of this article and should be moved somewhere more about libertarianism generally so we can discuss both this and left-libertarianism and the relationship between them and between each and libertarianism simpliciter. —Pfhorrest (talk) 04:03, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

On the face of it a good idea but it would probably get hopelessly large and mired down. Maybe better to start "small" here? North8000 (talk) 12:04, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

In the section above I linked to a Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article that discusses what makes a form of libertarianism left or right. That answers TFDs initial request in this section.

I've also notified WikiProjects Philosophy, Politics, and Libertarianism asking for more eyes on this discussion, as I suggested above. --Pfhorrest (talk) 03:54, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

So why not change the title to laissez-faire liberalism or something similar? TFD (talk) 21:07, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I've just reverted a move

I can't understand why anyone would move this page against considering that we've just had a discussion that was closed as no move. That sort of thing can get an editor blocked. Doug Weller talk 17:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

As much as I have some partial agreement with PhilLiberty's arguments, their approach has been very out of line, and I have asked them several times to quit it. I consider them to be a newbie on the Wiki learning curve, but IMO at least a short block or something should be done if they do it again. North8000 (talk) 00:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have to agree that something must be done about @PhilLiberty: this was clearly not in WP:Good faith and was perhaps the worst kind of editing in that he literally just changed the words (despite sources not supporting his views; he didn't even add any sources to support his arguments, he just changed words) to fix his own POV. He also moved the page without any warning or discussion; and to top it all, despite the fact we just had a discussion about it.

P.S. I even put one of his suggested image and another to show off the categorisations and differences to try to appease, but apparently it didn't.--79.27.160.51 (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Plus, it left at least a dozen broken redirects. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• Noting here that that editor also created Modern libertarianism as a WP:POV FORK; now redirected here to be resolved with the below discussions czar 13:59, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Pejorative Description

We need to make sure that the reader knows that this a about a pejorative term used mainly by opponents. PhilLiberty (talk) 22:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Whether or not the title is a pejorative at all is still under debate above. See Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy for an example using it in a purely comparative neutral way. --Pfhorrest (talk) 23:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Of course it is okay to stipulate that libertarianism can be thought of as a continuum. That is a far cry from endorsing the term, and is not denying that it is pejorative. (Article> "Libertarian theories can be put on a continuum from right-libertarianism to left-libertarianism, depending on the stance taken on how natural resources can be owned.") PhilLiberty (talk) 17:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

POV forks

@PhilLiberty recently recreated/created Libertarian capitalism and Modern libertarianism in what appear to be POV forks of right-libertarianism. Given the above discussions, this talk page should arrive at a consensus on whether/how split the content for reasons other than POV. czar 19:39, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposed overall structure to resolve this - Take 2 Arbitrary Break

If I may attempt to summarize, there is no broadly used common name for the topic of the article. In the USA the common name is "libertarianism"; in Europe the name for the similar phenomena where it exists in Europe is "liberalism". However, they are not exactly the same phenomena. We're not just talking difference in forms; we are talking about fundamental differences in the common meaning of terms in US English vs. English elsewhere. So there is no easy or really good answer for naming; so we probably should forge ahead and decide on an imperfect name. I guess that there are these categories of where to go for a title:

1. Based on the predominance of current common usage, a title that lets it somewhat appropriate the term. Like "Modern Libertarianism" Or "Mainstream Libertarianism" or "Current Libertarianism". "Contemporary libertarianism" added Sept 2nd per suggestion.
2. Descriptive term that goes by the meaning e.g. "Libertarianism (common US meaning)". "Libertarianism (US style)" meaning the most common US style, not the overall topic which is Libertarianism in the United States
3. Terms used by writers when tackling the taxonomy of this topic. For example "Right-Libertarianism". I used the term "writers" instead of "sources" because in this case I would consider them to be participants in name usage, not sources on it. I suspect that any source on name USAGE is not going to come up with a single name due to the dilemma described at the beginning of this summary.
4. Other

May I suggest we jump in and choose an imperfect title? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:35, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

What about merging into economic liberalism? It's the same topic. TFD (talk) 15:40, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

My suggestion is "Libertarianism (common US meaning)" but I'm willing to support whatever seems to be gaining a consensus North8000 (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the third option is the only viable one. The first option biases this form of libertarianism over others by deeming it "modern"/"mainstream"/"current" when there are current/modern proponents of the other form and outside the US this form is far from mainstream. The second option is original research. We have to see what other notable sources comparing the different kinds of libertarianism call them; that's the only way we can remain neutral without making things up ourselves. --Pfhorrest (talk) 18:36, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the article on economic liberalism defines the topic well, but here is a description from p. 1 of P Political Failure by Agreement: Learning Liberalism and the Welfare State: "economic liberalism [is] a conception which seeks to minimize the role of the state....All advocates of economic liberalism seek to foster market development which requires economic liberty, whereas the state has to guarantee economic rights such as property rights, the right of abode, the freedom to choose and free trade." That seems to be the same topic as this article and therefore the two should be merged. TFD (talk) 20:51, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Pfhorrest, just to sort things out, may I debate you a bit on "The second option is original research."? I don't think that a title alone can violate WP:NOR. The question arises when you put material into the article. Typical presence in the article is a sort of implicit statement that the material falls under the subject of the article, and so it becomes a requirement that that implied statement is sourced/sourcable. I think that there is a lot of precedent and practical interpretation in Wikipedia that if the sourcing shows that it clearly under the topic of the title, that the source does not have to use the exact wording of the title to support this. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:04, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I would prefer option 2 assuming sources can back up that meaning. I fully admit I am not a libertarian scholar, but from a quick perusal of literature it appears to me that many US authors use the word libertarianism to mean the topic in the article. Of course, they don't call it "US Libertarianism". They call it "Libertarianism" and they all happen to be from the US. The literature is fairly recent. They discuss the long history of libertarianism but through a "private property" lens.---- Work permit (talk) 00:54, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I prefer Option 1 and would add "Contemporary Libertarianism" as a possibility - assuming that it can be reasonably assumed or documented that the majority of self-identified libertarians subscribe to this ideology. I am a little hesitant to apply Option 2, because this brand of libetarianism is not unique to the US, but would favor it over the current title. I would apply Option 4 if it can be documented that anticapitalist libertarianism is mainstream, and would add "Negative-rights Libertarianism" or "Center-north Libertarianism". Perhaps a runoff vote is in order. JLMadrigal @ 02:22, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

The number of contemporary “anti-capitalist” libertarians in the world seems to be a tiny fraction of libertarians of the American variety. 4.5 million people voted for the Libertarian candidate for President, Gary Johnson, in the 2016 election. This number does not include apolitical libertarians of the American variety. In contrast, Spain, has the greatest number of anti-capitalist libertarians, estimated at about 30,000. Therefor, a generous estimate for all left-libertarians worldwide would put the number well below 1 million. In terms of numbers, it is safe to say that the American variety of libertarianism is the mainstream of libertarianism. JLMadrigal @ 03:19, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I think that it was Boaz who estimated that 20% of US voters vote libertarian (i.e are against half the platform of each major party in a libertarian way), which would put it at around 40,000,000 / half of that turning out for any given election. Only a tiny fraction vote for Libertarian Party candidates.....with zero chance of winning in the US 2 party system, a USLP vote is often considered to be a wasted vote at best. North8000 (talk) 23:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

See again the situation with football. Just because association football players vastly outnumber American football players doesn’t mean that there’s something wrong with calling that sport what we do here in this comparative international context. —Pfhorrest (talk) 02:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I was just putting out info, not implying anything by it. The football example is a good example of the tower of babel situation we have here. The top level article libertarianism uses the same approach, covering both. From there on out I'm not so sure it's analagous. Difference are that the US form American football is very distinct and clearly closely related to the US. North8000 (talk) 12:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

There seems to be consensus on fixing the title and converting the existing title to a disambiguation page. How do we proceed without an "edit war"? JLMadrigal @ 12:43, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I see no such consensus evident here. --Pfhorrest (talk) 17:08, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Make that, a strong majority consensus. JLMadrigal @ 17:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any such consensus; can we remove the template. I'll be mostly gone for 8 days. Maybe we can wait 8 more days  :-) for more input and then, since we've come this far, bring this to some type of a decision? North8000 (talk) 22:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I provisionally removed the tag in the hope that we can settle this matter soon among ourselves. JLMadrigal @ 07:38, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any clash here, or even strong opinions for any particular outcome. Just a bunch of editors trying to figure out how best way to handle this. North8000 (talk) 12:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't see it, North, but I predict that Pfhorrest is not going to budge on fixing the title. To date, he has not offered a single alternative. JLMadrigal @ 15:49, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I've not offered any alternatives because I don't think there's anything wrong with it as it is. I've suggested a place to look for acceptable alternatives: reliable sources comparing the different kinds of libertarianism, to see what they name them. I even went and looked up the first one that came to mind (SEP)... and it used the names we already have, confirming my opinion that it's fine how it is. --Pfhorrest (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2019 (UTC)