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)

All anarchists either make their arguments concerning political policy in terms of individual liberty, or they don't, but their position of being anti-state is inconsistent with their collectivist justifications; some conservatives both don't argue for political policies in terms of individual liberty and support the state. Byelf2007 (talk) 7 March 2012

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)

I'm seeing alot of OR here. Do WP:RS call Ayn Rand a libertarian? Do WP:RS say Ayn Rand was not a Libertarian? Citations could clear up this issue.Gsonnenf (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

According to WP:RS that indicate that "libertarianism" is anarcho-socialism/capitalism then no...they would not say that she was a libertarian. According to WP:RS that indicate that libertarianism means limited government...aka classical liberalism...then yes...they would say that she was one of the most influential libertarians. According to WP:RS that indicate that "libertarianism" is everything except for conservatism...then yes...errr...no...they do...don't say that she was a libertarian. If you're seeing OR it means that you haven't read enough WP:RS. Stick around for a year or two and you'll be qualified to write your own WP:RS. --Xerographica (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

What is of more interest is the quality of the RS that makes a claim. I'd suggest that a review article from the peer reviewed Journal of Ayn Rand Studies (Ulrich's lists this as peer reviewed), would be the best. Lacking that, the preponderance of opinion from JARS regarding her relationship with libertarianism should be used when considering whether to mention her, and what to say. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

For example, Block W (2011) "AYN RAND, RELIGION, AND LIBERTARIANISM" JARS 21 notes she wasn't. Nobody else mentions in the title or abstract whether Rand herself was "libertarian". Fifelfoo (talk) 02:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

How is that of any interest? I have no idea what your conclusion is regarding how much coverage Ayn Rand should receive on an article on libertarianism. Maybe you should try and read some more RS so that you can come to a conclusion. --Xerographica (talk) 13:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't go around proving null hypotheses. JARS is very interested in libertarianism's interface with objectivism. Block is the only author in 22 volumes that bothers to discuss Rand being libertarian herself, where he notes she wasn't. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

This ridiculous discussion only highlights the absurdity of trying to pretend that we're talking about the same thing here. You can't even make up your mind whether Ayn Rand should or shouldn't be discussed in this article. --Xerographica (talk) 07:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Xerographica—we don't edit articles based on making up our minds, we edit them based on secondary sources. I looked into one place, the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies where I had a reasonable expectation of finding a discussion of Rand and libertarianism. I found one paper directly discussing it in its abstract, where Walter Block—a practicioner in the US pro-capitalist mould—notes that Ayn Rand was not libertarian, despite the deep links between her thought and pro-capitalist US libertarianism. On the basis of reading Block, who through past extensive discussions here, and reading his works, I have some reason to believe is an expert in relation to US style pro-capitalist libertarianism, I would draw the conclusion that Ayn Rand should be in a "See Also" section of this article, but not noted in the body. That's the process of reading reliable sources and drawing conclusions based solely on what reliable sources say. I am of course open to this changing—Block's paper in a peer reviewed scholarly journal is only one contribution, other papers may weight the discussion of Rand differently. Then we'd need to look at the preponderance of scholarly opinion, ideally in the form of a review article. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

If you reread this discussion you'll read that I wrote this..."According to WP:RS that indicate that "libertarianism" is anarcho-socialism/capitalism then no...they would not say that she was a libertarian." What was your response? Blah blah blah blah...one anarcho-capitalist says that Ayn Rand was not a libertarian. Great! The thing is..."we" do not need to look at the preponderance of scholarly opinions...given that "I" have already done so. So "you" go ahead and make the effort to learn what limited government libertarians have to say on the subject. --Xerographica (talk) 03:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Rand is a libertarian (in a variety of its popular definitions). This has been established by multiple reliable sources. Block alone ain't enough. Byelf2007 (talk) 15 March 2012

Go order someone else to work for you. If you feel confident regarding the preponderance of scholarly interpretation, edit the article and cite. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised that you'll only do enough work to support your anti-government bias. Why don't I edit the article? Because I'm boycotting it. I'm just sticking around on the talk page to make it clear that you are using this article to promote your anti-government beliefs. Feel free to report me again for calling you out on this. --Xerographica (talk) 03:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Please do not edit wikipedia to make a point. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I just said that I'm boycotting this article. What part of that sentence did you not understand? --Xerographica (talk) 04:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

There may be an end-run route around this available. Not try to classify her. But, take the approach / stance that whether she was or wasn't a libertarian, she's still relevant to libertarianism and germane to the article. (?) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

My entire argument is that we should organize political philosophy articles by tenets rather than labels. So I could care less what you call her...but if you're writing an article on limited government libertarianism then she merits coverage in proportion to her influence. Given that this article is both for and against property...both for and against capitalism...both for and against anarchism...then you might as well both include and exclude her from this article. --Xerographica (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

My "gut feeling" is the same as yours, but IMHO once you started trying to implement that you'd get mired down in issues and difficulties. Would yo prefer separate articles, and, if so, what would their names be? Keeping in mind that the names have to come from the real world, not something that we make up here. And then what specifically would you put in there? I belieeve that after about a year of thinking about it you would come to the conclusion that you should start building the material that you feel is missing in THIS article. I think that there is a lot missing from this article, but that there is no deliberate omission of anything from this article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Xero I will comment on your following post. If you're seeing OR it means that you haven't read enough WP:RS. Stick around for a year or two and you'll be qualified to write your own WP:RS. I am already qualified to write WP:RS, I publish these in peer reviewed journals. Though, your assertion that I'm not qualified is advised against by WP:OWNER. It would be best not to make such arguments.

Back to the point, if you establish a criteria of libertarian and then look for wp:rs that describe these criteria, then conclude they are a libertarian because they match the criteria, it is WP:OR and should not be done. Gsonnenf (talk) 05:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

You're qualified to write RS on libertarianism? If so, then why did you have to ask if RS consider Ayn Rand to be a libertarian? --Xerographica (talk) 11:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I said WP:RS, not your strawman WP:RS on ayn rand. You entirely miss the point which is YOU DO NOT WRITE WP:RS IN WIKIPEDIA.Gsonnenf (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't understand your point at all. Let's try again. You accused us of OR. But it wasn't OR...it was critical thinking based on the gazillion RS that we've discussed at one time or another in the past year or so. We already know what the RS say. That you thought that there was a disparity between what we were saying and what the RS say...clearly indicates that you have no idea what the RS have to say about the subject. If you did know what the RS had to say about the subject then you would have just shared your own critical thinking on the subject which would of course reflected all the gazillion RS that you had previously read. So far, you haven't had a single thing to say...referenced or otherwise...about whether Ayn Rand was...or wasn't a libertarian. --Xerographica (talk) 12:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

It is philosophically impossible for a Libertarian to be "for" Social Conservatism. That's absurd. Social Conservatism = Authoritarianism. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 12:28, 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)

Which part of my argument was not relevant to the topic in question? Are you trying to tell me that it's just a coincidence that the three "experts" you referenced all happen to be anarchists? --Xerographica (talk) 11:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Immediately retract your accusations that I have edited based on politics, and your aspersions that I hold particular politics. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Xerographica, this article is a work in progress regarding how to cover libertarianism. Neither perfection nor completion is claimed. And maybe your proposed statement is an attempt to remedy some actual issue with the article. But IMO saying that libertarianism is a form of conservatism is a statement that most would call in error, and which would be very confusing rather than informative. North8000 (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

What are your objections to turning this page into a disambiguation page? --Xerographica (talk) 11:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

First and foremost it's a top level subject that needs an article. North8000 (talk) 11:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

No, first and foremost it's a word that needs to be disambiguated. --Xerographica (talk) 12:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Deleting a 10+ year old article on a major topic just isn't going to happen. Why don't you tell us what your main point/objective/concern really is? North8000 (talk) 12:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

My point is that this article continues to give undue weight to anarchism and clearly there's nothing that you can do about it...assuming you've even tried. Compare the lead for right-libertarianism and left-libertarianism. Do you notice a difference? Half the lead on right-libertarianism is dedicated to left-libertarianism yet the lead for left-libertarianism doesn't even mention right-libertarianism. The anarchists are going to push their views anywhere they can...which is exactly why we should just convert this article to a disambiguation page and allow readers to decide for themselves whether they want to learn about anarchism or libertarianism. Why would you object to allowing readers to decide for themselves which political philosophy they want to learn about?

There needs to be one article entirely dedicated to the limited government libertarianism of Nozick, Hayek, Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, Mises, Herbert Spencer, Bastiat, Adam Smith...where anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-socialism are only mentioned in the See Also section. Trying to mix everything into this article just isn't working...and it will never work given that if you give the anarchists an inch they'll try to take a mile...as they have consistently demonstrated. So step one is to turn this article into a disambiguation page and then step two is to think of a name for the article dedicated to limited government libertarianism. --Xerographica (talk) 15:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. That is helpful. And I think that I agree with you about the imbalance, but not on it's causes. After seeing this article go through warfare and calm, stability and instability for the approx 19 months I've been active here, I don't think that the current state is a result of POV'ing by anarchists. I think that it is a result of being on a track of mostly being about philosophies rather than practice. So the article is about what 20 people have philosophized on libertarianism, using those 20 people as sources on themselves. What it needs is more material on the rest of the story. For example, I plan to put a section on the 20,000,000 person US "libertarian vote" (I have sources) but I have been slow to do that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The thing that Xerographica seems to be confusing is the definition of "Conservatism," and how it relates to the concepts of "Small/Limited Government" and Libertarianism. The word "Conservatism" has nothing to do with being in favor of "Small/Limited Government," nor does the word "Liberal" mean "Big Government." Any quick check of the Wiki pages for such concepts, and Left/Right in general, will quickly show him/her the fallacy of such thinking, both in a historical and philosophical context. Also, most of the people he/she just mentioned (Rand, Hayek, Friedman, Mises, etc.) were primarily only concerned with economic/fiscal matters. Yes, Conservatism (in the modern US, at least) is fairly Libertarian on economic issues. But that's just half of the equation. Social Conservatism, which is an enormous factor in US Conservatism, is completely opposed to Libertarianism...which is why Libertarian philosophers and organizations generally describe US Libertarianism as being "Socially Liberal, but Fiscally Conservative." (See Boaz, Cato Institute, etc.) If Libertarians were simply "Conservatives," then there would be no need for any term to differentiate them from the Conservatives. (Same goes for Anarchism, by the way...) If you believe in the economic theories of Rand/Hayek/Mises/etc., but believe in the "Big Government," Socially Conservative positions of being Anti-LGBT Rights, Pro-Drug War, Pro-Christian Supremacism/Anti-Separation of Church/State, etc., (and/or "Big Government" Conservative foreign policy positions of being pro-interventionist in foreign wars) then you are just a "Conservative," and not a "Libertarian." You don't get to redefine terms to make them mean what you want them to be... --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 16:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It could be a matter of definition, or it could be a way that they are using that channel to pursue a concern. Whether it be in the fireworks that we had early fall 2010 or in the comments of people that have wandered through sort of goes like this: They are one of the 250,000,000 people in the USA to whom the term means simply "more freedom, less government". And maybe half of them could go a little further and say "conservative on economic & size of government issues and liberal on social issues. 99% go no further than that into any particular libertarian philosophy as defined in this article. And to them anarchists Z(per the mainstream US definition of the term) are the people who break windows and throw firebombs or motorcycle gangs that take over towns. (per the common US meaning of all of those terms). And then they come to this article and see what you see here and say "this article seems to be about the fire bomb throwers and motorcycle gangs (anarchists) and obscure philosophers and arcane terminology that I never heard of, and has little about what the 250,000,000 of us consider to be libertarianism." Of course I see both sides, but that's one of them. North8000 (talk) 23:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

You've been working on this article for 19 months...yet you didn't feel qualified to offer an informed opinion when I brought up Hayek's partial knowledge concept in the above section. Hayek's partial knowledge concept forms the basis of the economic arguments for libertarianism. If you don't understand the economic arguments for libertarianism after working on this article for 19 months...then what are the chances that somebody interested in libertarianism will learn about the economic arguments for libertarianism after reading this article? Are you familiar with Bastiat's opportunity cost concept? Do you understand that the time we spend trying to fix this article could be better spent writing a new article where we don't have to worry about anarcho-capitalists or anarcho-socialists? Let's cut our loses and spend our time working on an article that can help people better understand the economic arguments for libertarianism. With that in mind...do you have any objections to creating a new page called Limited government libertarianism? --Xerographica (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually I've refereed here a lot more than I've edited the article. :-) Not sure about the title, but I think that some type of an additional article along those lines is in order, possibly to replace the one that never should have existed Right libertarianism. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure about the title either. It sounds redundant doesn't it? Can you think of a better one? I mean...we shouldn't necessarily let a title bog us down...given that we can always change it at a later date. The point is to have a space solely and entirely dedicated to libertarianism...not anarcho-capitalism/socialism. Anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-socialism already have their own dedicated articles. Given that libertarianism as we know it is 10 times more popular than anarcho-capitalism/socialism...it stands to reason that the libertarianism of Nobel prize winners such as Hayek and Friedman merits having its own dedicated article. Including the term "limited government" in the title of the article would help people understand that it is not intended to cover any "no government" political philosophies. --Xerographica (talk) 02:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

When disambiguating articles where there is no solid term, wouldn't the use of brackets, such as Libertarianism (limited government) be a better suited title? I'd suggest you locate which works actually differentiate this libertarianism in comparison to other libertarianisms. I'd suggest Long, because he actually pays attention to all libertarianisms and publishes in a scholarly mode. This would give any term derived from Long much more weight in supporting the article, and the particular differentiation and specific coverage of the article. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. We'll rename this article to Libertarianism (anarchism) and we'll use the Libertarianism page as a disambiguation page to allow people to decide whether they are interested in learning about Libertarianism (anarchism) or Libertarianism (limited government). --Xerographica (talk) 03:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I oppose creating a "libertaranism (limited government)" page. "Libertarianism" has come to refer to (among other things, which get their own articles) a group of political philosophies with some similarities. I don't think we should get rid of it because of the particular difficulty of this article because of its unique issues. "Libertarianism", in this sense, is not the same as "limited government", if only because one (maybe) refers to advocacy of limited government (though this is bound to become a very controversial topic, just like whether or not libertarianism necessarily includes advocacy of private property was also controversail), but "limited government" refers to just that. It's just like how we have a "communism" and a "communist state" article, and a "minarchism" and a "night-watchman state" article.

Having "libertarianism" go to disambiguation page sounds good to me (this already occurs with "libertarian". Byelf2007 (talk) 7 March 2012

The dab argument would require a fair amount of argument, given that this article covers libertarianisms that support limited government already. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

That's a joke right? Because it sure makes me laugh when you say that this article covers the libertarianism of the Nobel prize winners Hayek and Friedman. Especially if you're trying to say that this article covers their libertarianism in proportion to its importance to society. Perhaps you don't believe that Nobel prizes are an objective measurement of the importance of libertarianism (limited government)? In any case, this article has clearly been taken over by you anarchists so there's no point in me trying to waste any more time trying to fight you guys for space on this page. We tried that approach last year and obviously it didn't work. We'll deal with the dab argument once the Libertarianism (limited government) is developed. --Xerographica (talk) 03:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Please stop being so petty. No one "takes over" a wikipedia page. Byelf2007 (talk) 7 March 2012

Go read Long and Woodcock. Woodcock's history notes Bastiat; Long deals with all forms of libertarianism. Wikipedia is written from the taxonomy contained in reliable sources, in this case reliable sources of the highest quality. We don't derive our taxonomies from personal inspiration. You have been mentioned at WQA for personal attacks, point and battleground disruption. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

When I search on JSTOR...do you have any idea how many more references I find for Nozick, Friedman and Hayek than I do for all your anarchist experts combined? Personal inspiration my foot. What a laugh. Speaking of funny things...it's amazing how quick you anarchists are to report people for frivolous reasons. --Xerographica (talk) 04:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an anarchist. Byelf2007 (talk) 7 March 2012

So you're a statist? --Xerographica (talk) 03:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

If your definition is "supports the existence of the state" then yes. Byelf2007 (talk) 8 March 2012

On your page it says that you "adhere" to the Austrian School of economics. This is the first time I've ever encountered an Austrian economist that wasn't an anarcho-capitalist. Why do you support the existence of the state? --Xerographica (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

This isn't the place for that. I'll put my email on that (my) info page. Byelf2007 (talk) 9 March 2012

This is the perfect place given that I'm trying to understand why this article on libertarianism is so skewed towards anarchism. --Xerographica (talk) 02:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that has to do with making suggestions/resolving problems, which is actually what the talk page is for. It's probably (in part) because there's more widely known/influential anarchist-libertarian history/theory than non-anarchist libertarian history/theory. Most of the 'first wave' libertarians were anarchists. Also, I've personally put a lot of stuff from the anarchism page in here. Other pages (like right-libertarianism) aren't as well developed. Otherwise, I guess anarchist contributors to this page are disproportionate. Finally, I'm not sure how your understanding my reasons for being a statist would aid you in your endeavor regarding the anarchist skew. Byelf2007 (talk) 9 March 2012

"there's more widely known/influential anarchist-libertarian history/theory than non-anarchist libertarian history/theory". This is incredibly untrue. By any objective standard...Adam Smith, Bastiat, Herbert Spencer, Mises, Hayek, Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, Nozick...are far more widely known and incredibly more influential than any anarchist theorists. That you believe that anarchist history/theory is more widely known/influential than non-anarchist history/theory does help me understand why this article is skewed towards anarchism. --Xerographica (talk) 02:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Most of the people you mentioned are influential is the U.S., but not so much worldwide. People like Proudhon, Stirner, Kropotkin, Bakunin, Tolstoy, and Chomsky are generally influential both in and outside the U.S. Also, Mises and Hayek did very little political theory. Libertarianism is about politics, not economics. Byelf2007 (talk) 9 March 2012

Proudhon ("is considered among the most influential theorists and organisers of anarchism."), Stirner ("one of the fathers of nihilism, existentialism, post-modernism and anarchism"), Kropotkin ("one of the world's foremost anarcho-communists"), Bakunin ("well-known Russian revolutionary and theorist of collectivist anarchism"), Tolstoy ("a fervent Christian anarchist and anarcho-pacifist"), and Chomsky ("Ideologically identifying with anarcho-syndicalism and libertarian socialism"). "Libertarian socialism" is better thought of as anarcho-socialism. Clearly we are talking about two entirely distinct political ideologies...I'm talking about "libertarianism" and you're talking about "anarchism". We don't need two articles on anarchism. It's a moot point though...at least for now. You guys can continue to use this page to promote anarchism and I'll work on the article on Libertarianism (limited government). --Xerographica (talk) 03:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

We establish the main topic, structure and weight of articles based on what field reviews say, not the opinions of individual editors. Again, I refer you to read Long, Vallentyne and Woodcock; all of whom indicate that libertarianism covers both pro- and anti-statist positions, all of whom indicate that property is a serious issue of question within libertarianism, with both Long and Woodcock indicating positions taken for and against private property in the means and tools of production. I encourage you, again, to find a propensity of sources of equivalent or higher quality, that are field reviews of libertarianism and not merely publications of a scholar's opinion, that supports an alternate construction of this top level article. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Renaming this one and making libertarianism a DAB is a whole new question. Not sure, but I think I disagree. The libertarianism article needs to try to make sense out of the term. Maybe one could view that as a DAB article. North8000 (talk) 03:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Let's at least have an article that does justice to libertarianism...and then we can debate the DAB options. Should we sit on the title for a day or two? Or is Libertarianism (limited government) good enough to get started? --Xerographica (talk) 04:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, this is only a decision to start a Libertarianism (limited government) article. If so, I support that, either by that term now to get started, or first noodle a bit more on what the title should be. North8000 (talk) 04:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see. That's fine (as long as we keep this one). Byelf2007 (talk) 7 March 2012

I couldn't think of a better title. Do you want to create the page or shall I? Or should we first develop the outline on a practice page? --Xerographica (talk) 03:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in making the page, so you can go ahead, practice page or no (I may have objections to some of it, but I'll put them on talk first). Byelf2007 (talk) 8 March 2012

My suggestion. Make sure you/we have an idea what the article is about, with a title to match. (to be honest, I'm not sure what either is) Then write a stub with a couple of references (to immediately adress wp:notability. Then develop on the article and talk page. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 04:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Now, if you were to ask for my recommendation of what to do overall, it would be to build material in THIS article. Lose the accusations and nastiness, recognize that those novel taxonomic theories/questions are not a useful place to start. And then start building in THIS article. Move in and have some fun. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

How could I contribute to this article? This article is primarily about socialism and anarchism...so should I just build material in the section on the criticisms of "libertarianism"? In the criticisms of "libertarianism" section I'd refer to Mises, Hayek, Rand...and all the other "libertarians" that dedicated their lives to debunking exactly what this article is about...anarchism and socialism. Naw, no thanks. Last time I tried to contribute to this article...each time I turned around my contributions were removed. That's not my definition of fun. --Xerographica (talk) 14:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

As you describe and via whole new sections. IMHO you are misunderstanding the situation here. But that's your choice. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm just going to stick this here. Libertarian_Party_(United_States). Might be something useful in the ideology section of the Info box.Gsonnenf (talk) 18:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

How can Wikipedia maintain any degree of credibility when it contains trashy articles like Libertarianism - an article that would surprise and disgust just about everyone who would describe themselves as being ideologically "Libertarian" in 2012? This is why Wikipedia will never be accepted as a reliable and credible encyclopedic source - dishonorable hacks with too much free times on their hands (aka. the unemployed and mental health patients) have wantonly sabotaged this article in their efforts to censor Libertarian ideas and push their own political agendas. And, typically, the absurd morass of Wikipedia's incoherent rules and guidelines have been used to crush anyone who attempts to fix the appalling errors and lack of balance in this broken article. While most Wikipedia articles contain a few errors, the Libertarianism article is rife with absurd misrepresentations and blatant nonsense which can only be the result of a deliberate and sustained effort to sabotage the article. A pox on Wikipedia and all those who allowed this appalling situation to develop. 122.60.93.162 (talk) 11:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that you have a few good points in there but buried inside of all of that nastiness, vitriol, insults and attacks against other well-meaning editors, nobody is going to notice them. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 11:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

That's just it - while you are a well-being editor, it is abundantly clear that far too many editors are not "well-meaning". As the current nonsensical state of the Libertarianism article and the absurd sophistry in the threads (above) on this talk page illustrate. I can just picture the truly well-meaning editors bashing their own heads on their keyboards before they log-off in frustration. The Libertarianism article is missing critical information while being packed with misrepresentation and abject nonsense. An innocent researcher who arrives here in search of information about Libertarianism is going to leave confused and hopeless misinformed. And that is no accident. 122.60.93.162 (talk) 12:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

If you came here thinking that the word "Libertarian" is a synonym for "Conservative," then yes...you'd bang your head in frustration, as that is not, and never has been historically, the case. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 13:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Who said anything about Conservatism? What has Conservatism got to do with Libertarianism, aside from a considerable over-lap (by no means complete) in economic policies? Why are you throwing this needless tangent into your response? Discussion around here are as pointless, dishonest and infantile as I remember. I already regret poking my head in for another look. 122.60.93.162 (talk) 21:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, because that is usually the reason that people get upset about this page. Sorry for assuming. (And you're absolutely correct about "Conservatism." --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 12:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

If anything deserves criticism it is the absurd predominance of Anarchism in this article. How the hell does Chomsky - a world-famous (Syndicalist) Anarchist - warrant mention in the Lede? How is it that Rand - probably the most well-known (neo)Libertarian philosopher of all time - rates nothing more than a single mention in a list of so-called "Libertarians" that is dominated by Anarchists like Bakunin and Bookchin. The Libertarianism article is an appalling farce that blatantly misrepresents Libertarianism and fatally misinforms the curious reader. A pox on Wikipedia and those who have deliberately sabotaged this article. 122.60.93.162 (talk) 12:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

"an article that would surprise and disgust just about everyone who would describe themselves as being ideologically "Libertarian"" "The Libertarianism article is missing critical information, while being packed with misrepresentation and abject nonsense." So what exactly are these problems? I don't see that you've listed any. I think you should explain what your objections are so we can consider them. If you came here to just complain about wikipedia, then I'm not sure how you can present most wikipedia editors as being more silly than you. I mean, you're here on wikipedia contributing by writing this without explaining what your objections are, but you're also complaining on how most wikipedia editors use the site. I can't help but wonder if you're unemployed or a mental health patient. Byelf2007 (talk) 15 March 2012

I'm outta here, lest I feed your obvious troll. Your user page says you subscribe to the Austrian School. I assume that you were being ironic (or setting up an ambush) when you put that reference in there, as your posts suggest you are far FAR removed from the laissez-faire philosophy of Hayek (et al.). Or perhaps you simply have no idea what the "Austrian School" means but you like the idea of personally paying less tax while welcoming government intervention into the lives of everyone else (God knows, I've met enough of those in my time). 122.60.93.162 (talk) 21:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

There are some really biased edits in the review history, Byelf2007 has been systematically removing content he finds personally disagreeable. Will objective people please review his edits for reason. There is a lot of confusion with the american and European definitions of libertarianism which he has really not understood. There is a page for Right-libertarianism as well as Left-libertarianism and Centrist libertarianism, so please lets keep this page as an overview for all libertarianism. Ayn Rand is listen here as a libertarian , so lay off the European libertarian anarchists Ahahaha373 (talk) 05:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Ayn Rand gets a single mention in a list. How mightily informative. I guess that makes up for a Wikipedia page on Libertarianism that resembles a brochure from some college Anarchist club... 122.60.93.162 (talk) 06:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

So add content on Ayn Rand. Byelf2007 (talk) 19 March 2012

Conservapedia is hiring guysAhahaha373 (talk) 08:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I added some content on Rand. It's amazing what you can accomplish when you're typing in the article and not the talk page. Byelf2007 (talk) 19 March 2012

Will start on new subsection

I noted previously that I was going to start on a new subsection of the zillions of "vague libertarians", I have sourcing on a place to start. I'm planning on slowly buildign it in place rather than building it elsewhere and dropping it in. The things happen more slowly so that people can see, comment etc. So please excuse the stub etc. in the meantime. I plan to start now, probably in an obscure place such as under "21st century" Now I plan to actually start that. North8000 (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I think grouping the LPUSA and essentially all American Libertarians under the umbrella of "Right-Libertarians" is incorrect. LPUSA is the classic example of how American Libertarianism is truly "Socially Left and Fiscally Right." Right-Libertarianism, in my understanding, is pretty much only concerned with economics. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 12:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree. I didn't do that. Actually, I don't think that "right libertarianism" is even a real term. Just a two word phrase that various authors have used under various meanings for various purposes. North8000 (talk) 12:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

"Right Libertarianism" is not a term used in the real world. It seems that term was used by a few editors only in this talk page as a way to distinguish real Libertarianism from the Anarchist ideologies that just happen to use the word Libertarian, such as Left Libertarianism and Libertarian Socialism. It speaks volumes for how much ignorance is plaguing this article that editors think "Right Libertarianism" is a popularly recognised version of the Libertarian ideology. 122.60.93.162 (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Amount of anarchism material

We had decided (over strong objections) to include coverage of anarchism terminology and philosophy here because one of the meanings of the term (BTW, not the common US meaning) anarchism is intellectually subset of libertarianism. Also, it seems that anarchism has significant components that are not within libertarianism. So, on both levels, they are not synonymous nor is it fully within libertarianism. Additions have started to treat this as the Anarchism article and I think that it is starting to get too heavy in that area. There IS an Anarchism article. I stopped sort of reverting but IMO this should be pared and condensed. North8000 (talk) 11:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The complaint from you and others seems to be "this article is heavily weighted towards anarchism". That's true.

My suggestion is that this problem gets solved. Just because there's a lot of anarchism material doesn't mean it shouldn't be there. Anarchists ARE libertarians and most of the early anarchists were libertarians, so it shouldn't be surprising that there's so much anarchism material here compared to non-anarchist material, as this will likely be the case for some time.

If the objection is that much of the anarchism material shouldn't be there (in terms of what we want our ideal article to be), that's one thing, but the complaint at this point just seems to be that the implication of its inclusion within the context of what else there is is that the article is implying that anarchism within libertarianism has a greater presence that it really does. That's true. But are we supposed to take it out (even though it makes sense to include, or at least no one is saying it doesn't) just because we haven't included the rest of the material we should in order to eliminate the bad implication about anarchism within libertarianism?

That strikes me as very odd. I personally would rather the article have this implication and more info that should (in principle) be in there, and therefore be more complete, than to deliberately not have relevant info in the article until we include all the other stuff we want to. I also think it's relevant to point out here that most articles are going to have some skew at any given time, so the solution seems to me to be including the material we need to to improve the article that removing material that's relevant.

But let's say it's true that this skew is a worse problem than incompleteness (perhaps because of the large size of the skew itself). This brings me to technically separate issue, but I think I'll just put it here.

Why are the people objecting to this skew not doing much about it (I'm not talking about you, but the others who are complaining about all the terrible 'bias')? I'm not saying this to be mean-spirited. Pointing out what a person sees as a legitimate problem is always good. But I don't understand why (multiple) users will go on this page and type several sentences about the bias without adding a single sentence to the article (perhaps one so uncontroversial that getting a citation isn't that pressing of a matter, like "Rand is very influential among capitalists" or whatever). That would take less time than some of what I've read (not including the pointing out of the anarchism skew).

There are people on talk who are basically saying "This reads like an anarchist page, so I'm gonna complain about this 'bias' and then not actually do anything to fix it". Perhaps they're assuming I'll just edit out what they put it? On what grounds? That I eliminate material that I don't think belongs there? How is this different that any other wikipedia user? Like I'm really going to object to "Rand is very influential to capitalists"? If someone says "There's an anarchism bias", then I'm more likely to go "Oh, hey, they're right, I better fix that". So I did. I put more non-anarchist material in here (the guy who apparently just wants this to be an anarchism page). I admit I probably wouldn't have done this as soon as I had were it not for multiple people pointing out the issue, but the personal attacks are unnecessary.

Just because I put a lot of anarchism info in the article doesn't mean I'm against including other stuff. If I'd put in a corresponding amount of info in the article about non-anarchists, then maybe these complaints wouldn't have happened. Maybe people would have said "Wow, a lot more info on this page. It doesn't appear to have produced a skew in the article. All the info seems relevant. I am therefore happy with this change because the article is more complete now". If that's the case, then it seems that the real issue is including more info to (a) just include more needed info to improve the article (because I think it would be better if there was a skew towards non-anarchism than to not include any additional relevant info) and (b) provide needed balance. Instead, multiple users have attacked me personally because I added material to this article without complaining that the info in question shouldn't (in principle) be in the article (because it wasn't relevant), then proceeded to do nothing about fixing the error. That makes me sad. I don't pretend to be omniscient with respect to my editing. Byelf2007 (talk) 19 March 2012.

• One of the several reasons that I didn't revert (and I was thinking more about Ahahaha373's most recent additions than yours) that I think that the new material is a step FORWARD on this article's biggest problem which is (overly roughly speaking) the "missing half" of the article. We have the half regarding what philosophers have said, and (overly roughly speaking) we're missing the "libertarianism in practice" half.
• One of my angles on this is that I've tried to be a steadying force/ mediator here (this article was in open warfare 1 1/2 years ago) and so I try to reflect the sum-total of feedback.
• One common objection (which I don't agree with, but which says we need to explain more) is from the common meaning of anarchism in the US. Ask 100 Americans, and 1 will say it's a political philosophy. 99% will say it's about rioting, throwing firebombs or motorcycle gangs taking over towns.
• Another common objection is sort of "due weight by prevalence". If you asked all self-declared American libertarians (maybe 10,000,000) about 95% would say it's simply about a priority on reduction of government and increasing personal freedom. Nothing about the esoteric stuff that's in this article. So the 9,500,000 come to this article and just read about what a small minority (libertarian philosophers and true anarchists) think it is and little or nothing about what the vast majority think it is.
• My own objection might be that since the relevance is not as direct that possibly anarchy should not be too huge in the article. Many of the recent additions do not seem to be related to non-statists.
• Overall, I think that you are right. The solution is more good material in this article. North8000 (talk) 19:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

A basic survey of the available literature indicates that parliamentary statist movements in the US are not adequately described to the extent they need to be. One problem is the poor quality of the sources in this area, in comparison to the scholarly study of, for example, anti-capitalist anarchism, philosophical anarchist capitalism, etc. The other problem is that non-scholarly sources discussing the predominantly US parliamentary statist movement is that these sources overwhelmingly discuss political parties, instead of the common sentiment held amongst workers in favour of a reduction of total government power. (A similar problem occurs with Labourite Fabianism as a sentiment amongst workers in the UK, or Australia, in terms of libertarianism, but it will need a George Woodcock of Fabianism before we'll be able to cite appropriate literature there). The solution is to find the best sources on the US parliamentary party, and the US parliamentary oriented movements, and write from these. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

No. For some reason, some editors are under the impression that these Anarchist ideologies are versions of the Libertarian ideology. But, those Anarchist ideologies only have the word "Libertarian" in them as a result of historical etymology: the word "Libertarian" (and "Liberty", and many other language variants) was used as a synonym for Anarchism in the 19th century. This is no longer the case, and has not been the case for many years, at least since the Second World War. Anarchism and Libertarianism are distinct ideologies (with their own variants) that happen to share a few ideological commonalities (such as distrust of government) and a mutual embrace of slogans that include the word "liberty". About the only philosophers who continue to use the word "Libertarian" in the Anarchist context are a few hippies (such as Murray Bookchin) in America's academic circles who have staked out their own claims to fame by throwing "libertarian" labels at their commune-based Anarchist ideologies. 122.60.93.162 (talk) 21:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

You may be right. This is a very difficult term to define for various reasons (mainly because there's never been a general consensus about it, which is probably a good indication that there won't be for some time). The article (as it stands) says it's "the group of political philosophies which emphasize freedom, individual liberty, and voluntary association." That would appear to include anarchists. Do you think there is a better way to define "libertarianism"? Byelf2007 (talk) 19 March 2012.

There are many similarities between Libertarianism and Anarchism, but, a few of differences are clear. First and foremost, Libertarianism necessarily includes individualistic private property rights. Anarchism usually (not always) involves communal property and economic collectivism. Second, Libertarianism necessarily includes fundamental inalienable individual rights and freedoms that are enforced by a minimalist government. The various forms of Anarchism include a variety of specific rights and freedoms - no one of them inalienable - that are determined by the collective, and may entail no formal government whatsoever. And thirdly, Libertarianism embraces the "negative liberty" form of freedom, (see "Two Concepts of Liberty" by Isaiah Berlin), whereas Anarchism usually (not always) places heavy emphasis upon "positive liberties" (such as needs-based distributive justice, egalitarianism, etc.) 122.60.93.162 (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not conduct original typological analyses. In contested areas, like the definition or typology of ideologies, we rely on the scholarly literature. As noted repeatedly on this page, scholars analyse anarchism, anarcho-capitalism, libertarian socialisms and small state parliamentary movements and parties in the United States in related manners. Historians in the area point out the genealogical connection to 19th century thinkers. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

You, Fifelfoo, have been informed over and over and over again that Libertarianism is not a form of Anarchism. An endless array of reliable sources have been presented to you (as if they need to be presented to anyone who has any understanding of Libertarianism!) distinguishing Libertarianism from Anarchism. How do you respond? As usual, you grab your favourite Anarchist tomes and start listing every obscure reference in the bibliographies that includes a word (usually in a foreign language) that resembles the word "liberty" and claim this to be reliably sourced justification for all the Anarchist content in the Libertarianism article. Your CONSTANT misuse of the "Libertarian" term out of the archaic context, where "Libertarianism" and "Anarchism" were used as synonyms back in the 19th century, is especially disturbing, as you know perfectly well that the Anarchistic meaning of the term no longer applies. Your dishonorable sabotage of the Libertarianism article with misleading Anarchist content is appalling to those of us who maintain a high standard of academic integrity. 122.60.93.162 (talk) 05:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I refer you yet again to the high quality reliable sources cited in the article. These sources are scholarly reviews of the field. Your opinion is not substantiated by reference to sources. You appear to have an IDHT problem. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

IDHT? Coming from you?! hahahahahahahahahahahahaha 122.60.93.162 (talk) 22:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

122.60, the one thing that I specifically disagree with is your "no" because your points do not refute (or event directly address) what Fifelfoo said. North8000 (talk) 23:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

North8000, that is quite possibly because I wasn't responding to Fifelfoo. I don't even read his posts any more. 122.60.93.162 (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I have a relevant question for the persons more expert on real-world anarchism than I. It seems to me that a lot of anarchism is a sort of "aggressively attack any handy authority when you are against what they are doing" rather than being driven by a stateless philosophy. Am I correct in saying this? If so, it would seem that there is a significant component that is not specifically libertarian. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

You should read the libertarian writers whose views you claim to support - Karl Hess, Murray Rothbard. TFD (talk) 00:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I haven't claimed to support the views of any writers. But my question was about the practice, not the philosophy. More specifically, are the protests against WTO, Group of 8, World economic forum and also of the late 60's (all listed in this article as anarchist efforts) really driven by a philosophy of abolition of the state? North8000 (talk) 01:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Most WTO protestors are not anarchists. Civil disobedience in Seattle was led by the Direct Action Network, which was anarchist, but dispersed after 9/11. Violence at these demonstrations is led by fringe anarchist groups, called "Black bloc". All these groups see government as illegitimate. There are also "National Anarchists", who are actually neo-fascists, and of course some of the violence is caused by police agents provocateur. The article American Left lists the main left-wing anarchist groups and provides links to their articles if you want to find out more about them.[1] TFD (talk) 01:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with TDF. The variety of the political agendas at those protests are as varied as the plant life in the Amazon rain forest - there are representatives of all manner of political movement. Some want to abolish the state and others (most?) merely want to reform the state away from certain power structures. Obviously, many of them will be Anarchist movements. Some of them may even be Libertarian movements, but I am not aware of any. 122.60.93.162 (talk) 05:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

TFD, thanks for that info and that link. I think that it shows that anarchism has different meanings and only one of them is libertarian. So, anarchism as a whole has overlap with libertarianism, but is not a subset of it. So IMHO we should make sure that anarchist additions here relate to folks who advocate a stateless society. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Libertarianism is a political philosophy that advocates a minimalist state, not a stateless society. You're suggesting that the Libertarian content be removed from the Libertarian article and we focus exclusively on Anarchist content, which is absurd. Anarchiskm is not a subset of Libertarianism, and Libertarianism is not a subset of Anarchism. They are two distinct political philosophies that have some over-lap, such as a mutual embrace of liberty. 122.60.93.162 (talk) 21:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

???? I was proposing a limitation on which anarchist material goes into this article. North8000 (talk) 11:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

"Libertarianism is a political philosophy that advocates a minimalist state, not a stateless society." That depends on the definition of libertarianism. We need reliable sources to act as though this were true. Byelf2007 (talk) 21 March 2012.

No, it doesn't. And anyone who thinks this point is debatable needs to do a lot more reading and a lot less typing. 122.60.93.162 (talk) 20:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Can most agree with this: At least some of the meanings of "anarchism", including the philosophy advocating a stateless society fall under libertarianism. Others do not. In consideration of this, and the fact that there IS an Anarchism article, anarchism should be covered in this article, but on a limited basis. (?) North8000 (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I cannot agree. "Stateless society" versus minimalist government is one of the few main differences between Libertarianism and Anarchism. All forms of Anarchism entail the absence of coercive government (usually allowing for a system of political decision making by consensus through discussion), but all forms of Libertarianism advocate a minimalist coercive government (usually limited to the protection of a Capitalist system with private property rights, a coercive judiciary designed to protect individuals from harm, and a military). Few, if any, of these core Libertarian roles for a coercive government would be tolerated by advocates of Anarchism. 122.60.93.162 (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

But some libertarians advocate a stateless society. KLP (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

No, they don't. Anyone who is advocating a stateless society is NOT a Libertarian. Period. 122.60.93.162 (talk) 22:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

"Anyone who is advocating a stateless society is NOT a Libertarian. Period." I'm not convinced by your unsubstantiated assertion. Byelf2007 (talk) 23 March 2012

I don't care. Libertarianism entails minimalist state. It never entails "stateless society". Ever. If we can't even get the most fundamental differences between Anarchism and Libertarianism right, what are we all doing here? 122.60.93.162 (talk) 03:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, just to nail down a few things, I don't think that anybody could establish that any of these far-reaching statements are categorically true:

1. All anarchists are libertarians (i.e. anarchism is a subset of libertarianism)
2. No anarchists are libertarians
3. All Libertarians are anarchists (i.e. libertarianism is a subset of anarchism)
4. No libertarians are anarchists

North8000 (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

What that leads to for the article:

1. To some extent, anarchism should be covered in this article.
2. Just because some material says "anarchism" in it doesn't mean it belongs in or is a good idea to put into this article.

North8000 (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be less confusing if we focus on Libertarianism and Anarchism rather than Libertarians and Anarchists. I'm an Anarchist and a Libertarian, (in the same way that some people are Environmentalists and Socialists; or are Environmentalists and Capitalists), but that does not mean that there is an especially intimate relationship between Libertarianism and Anarchism. Let's all recognise that Libertarianism and Anarchism are two distinct ideologies and stop trying to shove Anarchist content all over the Libertarianism article. There are more than anough Wikipedia articles on Anarchism and the various forms of Anarchism. Aside from a section on the etymology of the word "Libertarianism", because of the archaic use of the word in the Anarchist context in the 19th century, there is NO place for Anarchist content in this article. 122.60.93.162 (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

A lot of the informatin about anarchism is historical and is essential because - whether one is left or right libertarian - it is part of the history and literature. Leaving anarchism out is like leaving Jesus out of an article about Protestantism, because Jesus was not a Protestant. TFD (talk) 04:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually there is an underlying consistency with what just about everybody has been saying, when they are specific. I plan to create and propose a summary relevant to the article. But before that, there is one area that is not covered. My question there is, TODAY (not historically, TODAY) is there some part of anarchism which is truly, inherently a part of libertarianism?

"is there some part of anarchism which is truly, inherently a part of libertarianism?" Yes. The political philosophies of both Anarchism and Libertarianism embrace (negative) liberty in the face of a coercive government. Accordingly, Anarchism rejects coercive government entirely (in favour of collective decision-making through consensus) and Libertarianism minimises coercive government (usually to the roles of law enforcement, a military and a judiciary that protects individual autonomy and private property rights) and binds that minimalist role of the State with inalienable individual rights. Aside from this, the two philosophies have very little in common. Indeed, Anarchism and Libertarianism have many MANY more differences than commonalities, especially when looking at the Socialist and Communist variants of Anarchism. Oh, and some of the variants of Anarchism have the word "Libertarian" in their name, which seems to confuse a hell of a lot of people. 122.60.93.162 (talk) 13:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

OK that basically says that there is is an attribute which they both have. Also points out that I have to more carefully word my question. Which is: " TODAY (not historically, TODAY) is there some part of anarchism which is truly, inherently a part of libertarianism? Not just an aspect in common, but truly a part of? I.E. is there a strand, philosophy or group within anarchism TODAY where belief/membership in that strand, philosophy or group AUTOMATICALLLY/CATEGORICALLY makes them be a part of (ONE WORD) libertarianism? North8000 (talk) 11:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

No. They have a few things in common, but, Anarchism and Libertarianism are two separate and distinct political philosophies, each with its own history and philosophical foundation. Each can exist without the other - you can have a full and complete discussion of Anarchism without any reference to Libertarianism; and you can have a full and complete discussion of Libertarianism without any reference to Anarchism. They are as different as Socialism and Fascism. Actually, Socialism and Fascism are much more intimately related than Anarchism and Libertarianism. To be blunt, I have never encountered the confused merging of the ideologies of Anarchism and Libertarianism - as if they are synonyms or as if one is a sub-set of the other - that appears around Wikipedia's Libertarianism page. 122.60.93.162 (talk) 14:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Before trying to summarize I'm going to let this sit for a few days to see what others say. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

In agreement with Byelf2007, I'd like to comment that 122.60.93.162's assertions lack substantiation. Furthermore, they conflict with some of the sources presented in the article. 122.60.93.162 should submit sources that back his claims such that we might discuss their merit and, assuming we find any, determine a way forward. KLP (talk) 14:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you just tell us your thoughts on the question. It's a talk page.  :-) North8000 (talk) 14:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

This site cares about reliable sources. Even if we all come to agree about what various terms should be defined, that doesn't mean we ought to have this site represent those views. Byelf2007 (talk) 23 March 2012

Well, by that measure, I'll start adding a large section on plutonium enrichment to this article as long as it is sourced. Maybe another on the geology of Mt. Everest.  :-) We're trying to get our thoughts together on article scope, not create content. Why don't you just give your opinion on the question? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Just go with whatever is implied by the sources we have and/or the definition of libertarianism we've so far agreed on (unless we want to change it). These each clearly support having a large scope, because there are so many different definitions of libertarianism and the definition we've agreed to (so far) is pretty vague. There seems to be a push lately for a smaller scope. It strongly oppose this. I believe the solution to this scope issue is to make a "Libertarianism (small government)" article. Byelf2007 (talk) 23 March 2012

Byelf2007, either your claim to be from the Austrian school is a lie or you're one very confused editor. 122.60.93.162 (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what's the question, again? KLP (talk) 05:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Pasting together the important preface with the clarified version of the question, it's:

Actually there is an underlying consistency with what just about everybody has been saying, when they are specific. I plan to create and propose a summary relevant to the article. But before that, there is one area that is not covered. My question there is, TODAY (not historically, TODAY) is there some part of anarchism which is truly, inherently a part of libertarianism? I.E. is there a strand, philosophy or group within anarchism TODAY where belief/membership in that strand, philosophy or group AUTOMATICALLLY/CATEGORICALLY makes them be a part of (ONE WORD) libertarianism? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I already said this, but if we're going by the current definition (which I agree with), then all anarchists are libertarians. Byelf2007 (talk) 24 March 2012

Then you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. God alone knows what you've been reading to come up with that belief. 122.60.93.162 (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)