Talk:Libertarianism

Template:Wikipedia CD selection Template:V0.5

Ayn Rand

Self-identification is important, and Ayn Rand said that she was not a libertarian. (See the Talk at the Ayn Rand article.) Indeed, she and her Objectivist students have been sharp critics of it. Sure, she has been a tremendous, perhaps the biggest, single influence on libertarianism. But she has also dramatically influenced some conservatives, and this was another label she rejected. She should not be called either. Oolyons (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

So this article should be organized by labels rather than tenets? Xerographica (talk) 09:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The tenets of libertarianism as defined by the CATO institute are almost polar opposites of the tenets of libertarianism as defined by everyone else for a century and a half. Finx (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

If the tenets are almost polar opposites then are we talking about different political philosophies? --Xerographica (talk) 21:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

It might be worth you rereading Long here, who indicates rather clearly that as a scholar he believes them to be related. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Why reread Long when all I have to do is look at this simple diagram? Do you think Long would disagree with that diagram? --Xerographica (talk) 22:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know exactly how to say this without sounding inflammatory, but that diagram is one of the most idiotic things I have ever seen. First of all, libertarianism used to be synonymous with libertarian socialism (and still is, outside the US), which is anarchism. Secondly, all anarchists (with the exception of Rothbard's very recent contribution) have historically been socialists. Lastly, conservatism in US history has been almost synonymous with classical liberalism. What is the basis for turning it into this kind of bizarre venn diagram? Finx (talk) 22:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

What's bizarre about the venn diagram? It reflects exactly what you are saying...it puts libertarian socialism...aka anarcho-socialism...right in between socialism and anarchism. Then it puts anarcho-capitalism right in between anarchism and libertarianism...aka classical liberalism. Then it puts libertarianism right in between liberalism and conservatism. Nobody cares about semantics...they just care about tenets. The diagram reflects exactly what you said..."The tenets of libertarianism as defined by the CATO institute are almost polar opposites of the tenets of libertarianism as defined by everyone else for a century and a half". My diagram clearly portrays libertarianism...aka classic liberalism...as being the polar opposite of anarcho-socialism. --Xerographica (talk) 02:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, he does, at length, by actually publishing scholarly opinion rather than uncited diagrams. I suggest you look at the Reliable Sources policy, the Weighting policy, and the concept of "I don't hear that" amounting to disruption. This article has had repeated attempts at disruption through attempting to reargue the topic and weight; and, the material you are using to try to reopen that debate is so far short of the quality of previous debates that it is not worth doing. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

"that diagram is one of the most idiotic things I have ever seen." I agree.

"libertarianism used to be synonymous with libertarian socialism (and still is, outside the US), which is anarchism" That's irrelevant to what the definition of anarchism is generally considered today. "all anarchists (with the exception of Rothbard's very recent contribution) have historically been socialists". Again, same thing.

Here's why I think it makes no sense: ONE- How can you both support socialism and economic liberalism at the same time? These are both referring to opinions regarding economic liberties (they're mutually exclusive). TWO- Same thing with 'capitalism' and 'economic conservatism' if we're saying 'capitalism' is free market (like the An-Caps want), which it doesn't necessarily mean. THREE-Any of those groups could be 'socially liberal' or 'socially conservative'. There are anti-abortion rights people who are generally considered to be liberal, and pro-abortion-rights people who are generally considered to be conservative. Byelf2007 (talk) 1 March 2012

When you say things like "generally considered today" I have to ask "by whom?" To many people 'economic liberty' does not mean 'laissez faire capitalism' but rather *no* capitalism, and voluntary cooperation without ownership of production and coercive labor relations. If you're talking about 'neoliberalism' your description is accurate. Otherwise, there is nothing mutually exclusive. Socialism has been associated with liberty for a long time. I don't understand why you're bringing up abortion at all. I have opinions on this too, but the only thing I'm pointing out is that none of this matches the historic record. Finx (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Check the "anarchism" article. Citations 1 and 2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism#cite_note-definition-0 Byelf2007 (talk) 1 March 2012

Those just confirm my point that anarchism has ~200 years of history as an anti-capitalist (ie: socialist) movement. Finx (talk) 14:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you substantiate your claim that Long would disagree with that diagram? --Xerographica (talk) 00:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

For one Long in the work cited in the lede, posits socialisation as one of the goals present within libertarianism in relation to property, and is aware of the genealogy of contemporary US libertarianism. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

So one of the goals present within libertarianism is to both violate and protect property rights? --Xerographica (talk) 08:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

There's no widely agreed upon definition, and even if there were, it might still refer to a group of philosophies with a definition that doesn't address the notion of property rights. Byelf2007 (talk) 1 March 2012

Yes, Ward writes about libertarianisms that seek to overturn the central role of privately owned means and tools of production in the social organisation of the economy; some of Ward's libertarians oppose private property in production, some consider it less efficient, some revel in private property in production. Some of Ward's libertarians oppose personal possession in general. Some of Long's libertarians advocate private property in the means and tools of production, some believe that it can be corrupted and requires regulation or deregulation to achieve the full potential of liberty of private property, others believe that private property in certain or all means and tools of production is undesirable. As a complex social phenomena, the scholars actually describe the social complexity of that phenomena. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

So then all anarchists are libertarians? --Xerographica (talk) 10:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Correct. Byelf2007 (talk) 1 March 2012

Are all conservatives libertarians? --Xerographica (talk) 12:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Clearly no. North8000 (talk) 12:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Why is it clear to you that not all conservatives are libertarians? --Xerographica (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a definitional issue. Some conservatives value individual liberty, but some don't. Some are quite explicit about having a collectivist view about people (albeit while supporting relatively high economic freedom). They'd say "We want to maximize productivity and we have economic liberties to accomplish that" instead of "We allow X liberties because it's moral regardless of whether it maximizes productivity. Another common thing is "because God says so and/or we must sacrifice liberties for the 'greater good' when 'it becomes necessary'. Of course, it's very arguable that the vast majority of conservatives are also libertarians. Byelf2007 (talk) 1 March 2012

First you said that all anarchists are libertarians...yet as far as I can tell neither David Friedman nor Peter Boettke have made moral arguments for anarcho-capitalism. Now you're telling me that a conservative is not a libertarian if they do not support liberty for moral reasons. Or they aren't a libertarian if they support a collectivist view...yet anarcho-socialists also support a collectivist view. Can you please try again to clarify why exactly it is that you don't believe that all conservatives are libertarians? --Xerographica (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

"neither David Friedman nor Peter Boettke have made moral arguments for anarcho-capitalism" Those aren't the only two anarcho-capitalists. "yet anarcho-socialists also support a collectivist view" They definitely say they do, but I don't regard any anarchist as a collectivist. I believe being a consistent collectivist necessarily requires that you support the existence of the state (among other things). In simple terms, if you're opposing the state, then you're opposing any mechanism to ensure a collectivist vision of society. Byelf2007 (talk) 1 March 2012

Where did I say that David Friedman and Peter Boettke are the only two anarcho-capitalists? Are you saying that they aren't libertarians because they don't make any moral arguments for anarcho-capitalism? Anarcho-socialists would have no mechanisms to ensure collective ownership of the means of production? Again, what exactly and specifically is it that allows you to consider all anarchists to be libertarians but prevents you from considering all conservatives to be libertarians? It can't just be that conservatives support the continued existence of the state...unless you don't consider minarchists to be libertarians. It can't be that conservatives have religious views...I'm sure plenty of voluntaryists have religious views as well. So what exactly is it? --Xerographica (talk) 08:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

You only mentioned Friedman and Boettke (not having moral arguments) to [I think?] imply that there must be none/few that do. It's not like you said 'I have read every single major anarcho-capitalist work, and none of them...' "Anarcho-socialists would have no mechanisms to ensure collective ownership of the means of production?" I think that's different from 'collectivism'. Minarchists want collective law, for example, yet no one (except maybe some anarcho-capitalists) accuse them of being collectivist. The basic idea of 'collectivism' is sacrificing all for all. In my opinion, if this idea were applied consistently, it would involve the use of force to ensure it took place. "what prevents you from considering all conservatives to be libertarians?" Many conservatives want to use guns to force people to accept their way of living against those persons' will, which unlike 'collectivist anarchism' is explicitly collectivist (in policy terms). Anarchists (definitionally) cannot do this, because they don't want a single organization (in terms of laws enforced) to enforce laws. Byelf2007 (talk) 2 March 2012

You're unfortunately correct that the vast majority of anarcho-capitalists do solely rely on the moral "taxes are theft" argument...so Friedman, Boettke and a few others are exceptional in this regard. My point in mentioning them was to question why you would exclude any conservatives from your definition of libertarianism on the basis of them solely making consequentialist arguments. Regarding imposing views onto others...Rothbard was extremely willing to push a button that would instantly abolish the state in one fell swoop. He is definitely not exceptional among anarchists in this regard. How's that any different from any conservatives that want to impose their views onto others? At least they try and do so through popular elections. Again, what exactly and specifically is it that allows you to consider all anarchists to be libertarians but prevents you from considering all conservatives to be libertarians? --Xerographica (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Our policies are pretty clear, articles should be organised based on the weight in the highest quality sources available. Long, Vallentyne and Ward are some of the best in their respective fields of sociology, philosophy and history of libertarianism. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It is similar to saying that Catholics and Protestants are polar opposites on such issues as transubstantiation and the apostolic succession that we should not have a Christianity article. TFD (talk) 23:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm writing this in a whimsical way but do believe that it is useful. One of the challenges of this article is that it is mostly about what thirty philosophers through the ages think. They might actually BE the topic instead of being sources on the topic. Possibly it should all be moved into a section title "terminology and classifications used by philosophers". Meanwhile for like 20,000,000 libertarians, libertarianism is simply about less government, greater personal freedom, and prioritizing those objectives. Most of those would say they have those libertarian values, and about half would flatly identify as libertarians. Whether one wants to call this common tenets, vagueness, or just the fact that the categorization systems of the philosophers are not very useful or relevant (like trying to herd cats) when it comes to these millions. For example, it could be that Ayn Rand could be identified by knowledgeable persons as being one of these, but was rejecting being "libertarian" as defined by the philosophers which may have also been the common meaning at the time. North8000 (talk) 11:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The current article also submerges the massive past libertarian movements, organisations and political parties. One of the problems is that as a "vague" sentiment, the US movement and disorganised libertarians don't actually publish reliable retrospective analyses. Another is that organisations that are notable are well covered elsewhere. Do we really want a string of Main Article links out to (for example) the CNT? Fifelfoo (talk) 23:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, anything that was massive I think that we should cover. I'm hoping to get one of our best experts on that here (Fifelfoo) to start writing stuff.  :-)  :-). My comment was not a complaint about the article, nor really proposing any big changes. It was more just a little towards our multi-year effort at figuring out how to cover this topic that deals with the main issues that have ben raised. I do plan to develop a few sentence paragraph on the 20 million "vague libertarians", which I have found sources for. I've been slow in doing that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Copyright violations

A particular addition to the lede of Libertarianism are a copyright violation by close paraphrase of Peter Vallentyne's work, specifically:

• Vallentyne, "is the moral view that agents initially fully own themselves and have certain moral powers to acquire property rights in external things"
• Your addition, "is the political philosophy that holds individuals initially own themselves and have property rights in external things"
• In particular, "own themselves and have ... property rights in external things"

This should not be in the article, as it is a copyright violation. (It also over weights one particular view on property rights, doesn't reflect the article, and is very POINTy). Fifelfoo (talk) 07:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

1. The solution to avoid a paraphrase is not to blatently misquote the source.

2. We cannot speak about "paraphrase" on so few words. Otherwise you would get in the ridiculous situation that any re-use of a word would be a paraphrase.Fsol (talk) 08:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Your persistence in copyright violation has lead me to note this to WP:AN/I. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It's at WP:AN, not WP:AN/I. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Fsol.27s_copyright_violations_on_Libertarianism North8000 (talk) 12:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks North8000, I must have made a human error or typo. I have apologised to Fsol for misdirecting them in this way. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Lead war

Being a proprietarian libertarian, it seems ironic that I'm one of the main ones bucking fsol who has been trying to war that into the lead. But when we're here we check all of that at the door and our job is a good article. Plus maintaining civilization at this article is very-important, particularly in view of it's history, and edit warring against consensus certainly isn't that.

There are discussions on this in at least two other places, one is the wp:an as noted a few lines up the other is at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Libertarianism. But I think that the main discussion should be here. North8000 (talk) 12:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Do editors remember this? I certainly do. It may be time to consider general sanctions over Libertarianism and the continuous revisitation against consensus and reliable sources the issue of the centrality of private property. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

With complete re-writes every hour, I'm having trouble keeping up with what is in the lead. But a few overall thoughts.

• Everybody stop warring! Lets develop it on the talk page.
• I've seen several arguments for inclusion in the lead that are really mixed up. One seems to be mis-reading wp:ver. Verifiabiliity is a requirement for inclusion, not a force for inclusion, and definitely not a force for inclusion in the lead. The others seem to show no clue as to what the lead should be about.
• The lead should summarize the article
• Proprietarianism is certainly not a central tenet of libertarianism. It is a variable amongst libertarians. And this is a propriertarian libertarian (me) that is saying this. North8000 (talk) 15:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: I have reverted edits by User:Fsol twice now simply to keep redlinks out of the lead until some consensus is reached. --Andrew (User:90) (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Heaven forfend you actually find the article that link is meant to redirect to? Fifelfoo (talk) 20:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Attempts to integrate the desire for a strong statement that many libertarians favour private property, while acknowledging that other libertarians do not—in the first sentence of the lede with a Vallentyne cite—failed for some reason. I'm not sure why it failed. Those attempts to integrate a strong statement about some libertarians seeking the perfection of private property certainly fulfilled the desire of some editors to strongly indicate the role of private property in some libertarianisms. I am about to suggest the application of a general sanction to this article, probably 1RR, and IDHT over the broad weight-scope consensus. Possibly with another six months of protecting the wrong version. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• I understand what you're saying, but how is it helpful to say "Libertarianism is one of a variety of political ideologies that holds that the modernist project is fulfilled by individual dominance over the state formation"? Note what modernist project redirects to (an article with no mention of the modernist project). And note that state formation does not exist. And note that there is not one mention of private property in this sentence. We may be talking about two different edits here. --Andrew (User:90) (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Lest my previous comment upset anyone, I really do understand what you're saying with regard to private property. I am just trying to keep the article in decent until a better lead can be written and discussed on the talk page. --Andrew (User:90) (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• So you'd favour full protection to stop the edit-warring?
• I wrote the lede you're discussing there, and that was an attempt to form a compromise with recently interested editors. I wrote it as a summary out of Ward, whose magisterial status in the field isn't in dispute; and based on Long's summary. It could well be better worded, and the fact that downstream redirects aren't sufficient. I meant of course what we have at Modernity, and what we have at Government. I really don't think we should limit our writing based on the poor quality of humanities theory articles in the rest of the encyclopaedia.
• Vallentyne's article is limited to the philosophically interesting portions of libertarianism, and he attempts to conflate these very strongly with his personal political views. I'm not saying we shouldn't use him, he provides an excellent constrained definition of US pro-market libertarian theory in the present day. It is just that other contexts, such as Long's comparative attempts, and Ward's works provide superior head pieces. Vallentyne is being badly misused to mis-weight and mis-characterise the property discussion in our article (which is quite good) and to falsely claim libertarianism is a moral system—some libertarianisms are, others are entirely normative or materialistic.
• Editors interested in the development of the current weight and scope consensus may wish to read the archives from 2009-2010. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that we have made progress on what was the main battle topic back then. Right now the issue to me looks like there are folks who are just not following a good process with the lead, probably not POV-driven. Who think it is BBBBBBBBBB instead of BRD. Let's just slow down and work it out on the talk page and have some fun here making this article. North8000 (talk) 21:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

First let's decide which version should sit in there while we work on it. I propose / what do y'all think about using the mid-January (e.g. 1/16/12) version just before this frenzy started? North8000 (talk) 21:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The version you mention is certainly not informative enough to be the final result everyone is looking for, but it also does not contain the controversial material either. Seems to me like we might as well put that version of the lead in place for now while a better version is crafted on the talk page. --Andrew (User:90) (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Fsol (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, here goes. North8000 (talk) 12:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I did it. To make it easy to find, I'm noting here that the version just before my change is the newest Feb 6th version. North8000 (talk) 12:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on expansion on / changes to lead

Comment. The lead should be a summary on what's in the article. Everything in the article must be sourcable. Usually the first place to put sourcing is in the body of the article and so sourcing in the lead is usually duplicate sourcing. It is fine to ask for or do that, but that does not per se set it apart from the other sourcable material regarding being a reason for going into the lead. North8000 (talk) 12:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Byelf2007 (talk) 07 February 2011

The current wrong version is manifestly wrong on property; and wrong in relation to the evidence on property in the body. All libertarians consider economic freedom as central to the project of human freedom, but with diverse theoretical and policy perspectives differ over private property; particularly private property in the means of production. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This has gotten so fast moving that I got lost. Also a lot of the overview section material got moved to the lead. Here's where I've been at / thinking in the chaos.

1. In my limited time I'm working on a little section for the body of the article that I think might be the start of a rosetta stone.in the old quandary. Basically, as discussed previously....about the 10's of millions of Americans that are "vague libertarians". Found sources etc.
2. We look and see if the body of the article looks sort of / 80% OK. If so, we decide that changes from there to be evolutionary rather than these repetitive total re-writes.
3. Knock the lead and the overview sections back to the Jan 16th, 2012 versions. (or many we should do that right now?) Agree that changes / development of those two from there to be evolutionary and discussed, no more rapid total re-writes. Have the lead summarize the article. Maybe the overview section would go, or maybe it would continue as overview stuff that didn't make it to the lead.

North8000 (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about truth, being wrong or being right. The only question that should be answered is does this definition respect the guideline for inclusion in Wikipedia? The guidelines request: Verifiability, No original research and Neutral point of view. All other discussions are interesting but irrelevant. According to the same established Wikipeida guidelines, these elements are not negociable by us (not by my standards, but by those enounced in Wikipedia's guidelines). That is why elements of the description of a concept, that can be verified using the established Wikipeida guidelines, should be included in the description of that concept in its Wikipedia article.

I agreed with Fiflefoo's consensus lede (eventhough may have been found lacking by other users) as long as it used proper sources (by Wikipedia standards).

According to the same criteria, unsourced material should not be used, or if it is being used it should not be so at the expense of properly sourced material. Which unfortunately was the case in several versions.

Again according to the same criteria, references should not be used to say something blatently different than what they say. Which even more unfortunately was the case in several other versions. -- Fsol (talk) 16:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Disagree with your paraphrasing/interpretation of policies/guidelines in several places, but that's all sidebar. Back to the main topic, what would you suggest that we do? North8000 (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll be on the web only briefly for the next 5 days. Fsol, property rights is certainly not a central tenet of Libertarianism. Please stop trying to war that into the lead. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I would just like to state that I find the lead, in its current form, rather well written and balanced. Good job, folks. KLP (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. We're trying, imperfect as the process is. North8000 (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm also happy with the lead as it currently is (not that I don't think it could be improved). Byelf2007 (talk) 23 February 2012

Why is this article in the socialism portal?

I can't think of many socialist libertarians. Capitalism is closely related to the notion of economic freedom. 213.109.230.96 (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, we generally rely on actual facts, rather than anecdotal evidence. And I guess you've never heard of Noam Chomsky. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 21:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Right, but why put it into the socialism portal rather than putting it in the capitalism portal, both portals or neither of them? I see a lack of impartiality here. 213.109.230.96 (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Another thing, I didn't say that I wasn't aware of any socialist libertarians at all, but I do assume that most libertarians gravitate toward capitalism rather than the former. 213.109.230.96 (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Your assumption is not what we write articles upon. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

For over 150 years, libertarian and socialist has meant almost the same thing. It wasn't until the public relations industry got around to contranymizing that word in the 1970s that libertarian became seriously associated with laissez faire capitalism -- and even then only in the United States. The libertarian tradition has never thought capitalism to be synonymous with any kind of liberty, but just the opposite. They believed that economic liberty is working without being subjugated under coercive employer-employee relationships and owning/controlling the means of production. More information here. I think this article comes off as a little dishonest, actually, because it doesn't state this clearly enough. Finx (talk) 01:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that all significant meanings of the term need to be covered. I think that the linked article is sort of a rant and completely misunderstands the main forms of US libertarianism (which is basically "less government" and everything that arises from that) by mistakenly defining what arises from "less government" as being core tenets. But that is a sidebar; I think that all significant meanings of the term should be covered. The article has been somewhat chaotic lately but most folks here are either committed to or OK with the latter. North8000 (talk) 11:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree, but I also think they should be covered in context. It's relevant that for centuries anarchists have rather logically believed that employer-employee labor relations are hierarchical and coercive and sought to eliminate them. Excluding capital from the language of anarchism (and libertarianism) is very new phenomenon, and it's very US-centric to this day. I wish I had some better sources on this transformation of meaning. I think it's worth looking into. Finx (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Please do, making sure that it is in regards to libertarianism. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Friedrich Hayek Notability

When I added Friedrich Hayek to the list of influential libertarians I'm pretty sure I mentioned something about partial knowledge. Yet somebody decided to remove partial knowledge from his entry. From his Nobel Prize press release...

His guiding principle when comparing various systems is to study how efficiently all the knowledge and all the information dispersed among individuals and enterprises is utilized. His conclusion is that only by far-reaching decentralization in a market system with competition and free price-fixing is it possible to make full use of knowledge and information. - Nobel Prize Press Release

The founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, cites Hayek's Essay on the Use of Knowledge In Society as the conceptual foundation for Wikipedia...so it shouldn't take much effort to understand and appreciate the value of the concept. Partial knowledge is of course contained within the economic calculation problem but the economic calculation problem is more commonly associated with Mises. Mises didn't say much/anything about the knowledge problem and was instead more focused on the private ownership of property. Therefore, Hayek's blurb should include mention of partial knowledge and Mises blurb should include mention of the economic calculation problem. --Xerographica (talk) 11:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

If there is a supported difference of opinion on this (as appears to be the case) I would suggest leaving it in. North8000 (talk) 11:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify...are you suggesting that we leave partial knowledge in Hayek's blurb? --Xerographica (talk) 12:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, based only on the above, not expertise on my part. North8000 (talk) 13:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Are All Conservatives Libertarians?

WP:SOAPBOX; please ask reference questions at a reference desk. Talk pages are for article improvement, not generic questions and discussion regarding the article's subject.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In the section on whether Ayn Rand was a libertarian...several of you argued... A) all anarchists are libertarians B) all conservatives are not libertarians The problem is that none of you could come up with any objective criteria that would allow you to simultaneously hold both views. If you have no objective standards for determining what libertarianism is...or isn't...then how can you possibly argue either A) that all anarchists are libertarians or B) that all conservatives are not libertarians? --Xerographica (talk) 12:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC) As a preface, "B) all conservatives are not libertarians" is ambiguous. An unambiguous way to say the presumed meaning would be "not all Conservatives are libertarians". To me the latter is "sky is blue" obvious, so my question would be "what specifically is the question?" "Anarchist" as a political philosophy has a different meaning that the common meaning of "anarchist" (at least here in the US). In this page we are talking the former. And, with that clarification, my thought is that it is "sky is blue" obvious, and I'd ask "what specifically is the question?" Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC) "Conservatism" is an ideology opposed to Libertarianism. While some US Conservatives claim to be "Libertarian," the opposition to Libertarian social issues (As Social conservatism is about the most authoritarian, anti-Liberty concept on the planet...) makes such a person simply "Conservative." Calling one's self a "Conservative Libertarian" is like calling one's self a "Communist Monarchist," or a "Libertarian Stalinist" or something. While their may be some overlap in regards to issues...by combining the terms, you make one of them completely meaningless...which in this case, is usually the "Libertarian" part. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 14:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC) This is sort of chaotic. "Conservatism" has a different meaning in the US vs. elsewhere, and then there are variants and context sensitive meanings even within each of those. But, very roughly speaking, in the US context, and using the US-everyday meanings of "conservatism" and "libertarianism", conservationism agrees with libertarianism on half of everything and disagrees on the other half. I'm from the US; my understanding is that per the meanings outside of the US, the two are more in conflict with each other. If there is any point that is clear from this, it's that the idea of making such sweeping generalizations is fatally flawed. North8000 (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC) You're saying that, given that conservatives are socially conservative...they cannot be considered to be libertarians. Do you also say that, given that anarcho-capitalists want to abolish the state...they cannot be considered libertarians? Or do you believe that, as far as defining tenets go, advocating for the abolition of the state does not have as much weight as social conservatism does? If it's ok for some "libertarians" to support the continued existence of the state...and it's ok for some "libertarians" to support the abolition of the state...then why isn't it ok for some "libertarians" to support social liberalism and some "libertarians" to support social conservatism? The same thing goes for anarcho-socialism. If it's ok for some "libertarians" to support socialism and some "libertarians" to support capitalism then why isn't ok for some "libertarians" to support social liberalism and some "libertarians" to support social conservatism? --Xerographica (talk) 23:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC) Whew, about 10 statements and questions with posited linkages between, that would take a book to sort out and answer. Your first question has a false premise...I didn't say that. I said that regarding conservatives per the common US meaning can't be considered libertarians. On your second question, no I don't say that. Your third sentence seems to be missing something (i.e. with respect to what?) and seems like apples and oranges, so I'm sorry that I am unable to understand it to answer it. On your 4th sentence, IMHO the second half is not related to and does not follow from the first half, but it is a matter of definition that someone who supports social conservatism is not a libertarian, at least by the common US meaninings of those terms. On your 6th sentence, the common US meanign of Socialism includes larger government, by definition the opposite of the common US meaning of libertarianism. The last part of that sentence is a repeat of a previous quesiotn, same answer as before. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Specific Suggestion for Improving This Article

In order to improve this article we need to mention that libertarianism is a form of conservatism.

Libertarianism is a form of Conservatism often considered separate from the more mainstream conservative ideologies, partially because it is a bit more extreme, and partially because Libertarians often separate themselves from other forms of more mainstream Conservatism. - Brian R. Farmer, American conservatism: history, theory and practice

Libertarianism, sometimes considered a type of conservatism, believes in the autonomy of the individual and a minimal role for the government. - Charles W. Dunn, J. David Woodard, The Conservative Tradition in America

However, most observers treat libertarianism as a strain of current conservative thought. - Michael Tanner, Leviathan on the Right

Hoover distinguishes the traditional and libertarian strands jointly constitutive of "conservative capitalism," the ideology common to both the Reagan and the Thatcher administrations - Desmond S. King, New Right Ideology, Welfare State Form, and Citizenship - A Comment on Conservative Capitalism

Again, if you're not willing to use tenets to differentiate between the various political ideologies then you shouldn't have any objections to dedicating a significant section of this article to conservatism. Of course, then we'll have to change the lead accordingly. But at least we'll be that much more closer to our goal of hopelessly confusing readers. That is our goal isn't it? To convince people that libertarians are both for and against the abolition of the state...and both for and against capitalism...and both for and against social conservatism. --Xerographica (talk) 07:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion, currently we're using a major scholarly encyclopaedia of philosophy, one of the preeminant scholars publishing on libertarianism definitions, and the major historian of libertarianism. Woodcock completely disagrees with your suggestion, Long substantively and at length, and Vallentyne is indifferent. The sources you present include a press with this abomination of a home page (here), a google ebook textbook aimed at American undergraduates only, a publication from a partisan political organisation, and a non-article (it is titled "Debates," rather than in the section "Articles") journal item specific to the analysis of the new right which claims, "I think Hoover is incorrect to use the term libertarianism to refer to all these sets of ideas. It is more helpful to group them as liberal principles, recognising libertarianism as a powerful subcategory. We do not disagree on the broad content of this category,10 but to use the term libertarianism rather than liberalism is misleading" (795). Compared to a scholarly encyclopaedia, Long's synthetic definitional work, and Woodcock's magisterial history; I don't find these sources persuasive. The best effort, King's, specifically excludes libertarianism from conservatism, even with its extreme hesitancy around the definitional debate. We'd want sources superior in quality to Woodcock, Long and Vallentyne supporting your position. Look for review articles in scholarly journals that summarise debates on the definition of libertarianism. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

George Woodcock was an anarchist, Roderick Long is also an anarchist...and Peter Vallentyne is an anarcho-socialist. Is that just a coincidence? Hardly. Clearly your biases are clouding your judgement. Either we change the title of this article to anarchism or we turn this page into a disambiguation page. It's absurd to try and pretend that we're talking about the same political philosophy here. The thing is, if you anarchists were capable of self-regulation then we wouldn't have to worry about the lead being constantly biased towards anarchism. This is definitely not a new problem and it's not a problem that's going to go away by asking you anarchists to show some discretion. Therefore, the solution has to be structural. Turning this page into a disambiguation page would allow readers to decide which political philosophy they are interested in learning about. It shouldn't be our job to make that decision for them. --Xerographica (talk) 09:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you retract the personal attacks in the above; specifically the argumentum ad hominem. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)