Talk:Right-libertarianism

Libertarians and Gay Marriage vs Gay Rights

I changed the assertion that libertarians support gay marriage to an assertion that they support gay rights. While most libertarians probably support the concept of the right to gay marriage, not all do. This is important because a more recent principled libertarian position is to remove marriage from the domain of the state, rather than to redefine marriage, as redefining it would not solve the problem society has dealing with the issue (because of the involvement of the state, most libertarians would eventually agree.) To some, this may resemble the school choice issue or the church and state issue. While most non-libertarians would argue their positions on school choice and church vs state within an assumed context of a large and controlling government, libertarians would typically say the problem is the expanding domain of government, and that a free market would correct the problem by allowing unconstrained choice. In the same way, a "free market" in marriage would correct the gay rights issue to marriage. Leaving the state out of it allows all individuals to contract marriage on their own, or with organizations, to define what it is, and avoids a societal "rubber stamp."

Thus, the idea that libertarians support gay marriage can be more generally and correctly stated, that libertarians support gay rights. Put bluntly, if gay people want to marry, that's fine--as with any kind of people. It's not the government's business to stop it or to sanction it. This is markedly different from saying that we (all) support gay marriage, as marriage is currently inextricable from the state, because of licensing (which was introduced to keep people of certain races from marrying people of certain other races.) Individual libertarians may or may not support gay marriage, but most probably believe that government should not be used to interfere with it or to sanction it.

I've tried to be objectively clear and impersonal, though my individual view may show through. I hope I've been respectful in that endeavor, and in turn, can be respected for it. 206.124.31.24 06:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Opposition to the Iraq War

I don't know if the statement that Conservative Libertarians are "overwhelmingly" opposed to Operation Iraqi Freedom is a valid or true statement. Many Right-Wing Libertarians that I have read about or heard on the radio are actually very supportive of the war effort itself.

I'd like something to factually validate that statement before I go and change it. If nobody can prove that statement to be true, then it will be changed to something more factual in context. 205.240.78.20 15:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The Merger

I don't approve of this page becoming Libertarian Republican. There are right-wing Libertarians who don't vote GOP, either because they vote for a different right-wing party, or because they're OUTSIDE the USA. It would be mere myopic US-centricism to turn this article about a world-wide political alignment into a US-only thing. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 20:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Completely agree. Can the tag be removed, as it's been there a month? BobFromBrockley 12:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Article title

If it's "more commonly called Libertarian conservatism" shouldn't that be what the article is called? --D. Monack | talk 18:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I created a redirect of that name to the article. I was surprised to find it wasn't a link already, if that truly is the main name. Eliz81^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

merging

I added the non-duplicate information from Libertarian Conservative and created a redirect here. Eliz81^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Unsupported claim?

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

"They may also support the arrests of antiwar activists"

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

Terrible Article

This whole article seems terrible. It provides absolutely no definition of its own subject. It just provides vague associations with other ideas and just gives links to a bunch of other stuff. I'm going to nominate this for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seth Goldin (talk • contribs) 02:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The article is pretty much stub-class IMO at the moment but that's hardly justification for deleting it. Someone with more of a background in political philosophy needs to start expanding it a bit. Wellspring (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

its just a piece of propaganda, with claims that libertarianism is "left wing".

Merge proposal

In October, an editor placed a tag on 'And' theory of conservatism suggesting a merger with this article, but did not tag this article at that time. That article was eventually nominated for deletion and survived, but several contributors to the AfD suggested that it might be more appropriately merged elsewhere or retitled. Since this merger was already proposed, I have completed it by adding the matching tag. I do not have an opinion on whether or not this is the appropriate destination, as I am unfamiliar with right-libertarianism. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Bias

I dont understand why someone would tag ONLY the "Classic Libertarianism" with all of those "citation needed" tags when all the other classifications define themselves in the EXACT same format. This is an obviously biased move to try to discredit that section, I suggest removing the specific citation needed tags and tagging the entire article for citations needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.28.228.112 (talk) 03:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's actually appropriate, IMO. I don't think that "regular" (for lack of a better term) libertarianism in the sense of the LP platform can be classified as right-wing any more than left-wing. Right-wing means conservatism, which is defense of traditional institutions. 68.155.193.42 (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge this Poorly Sourced Neologism to Libertarian conservatism

• First, it is unlikely this article would survive the neologism test, despite unref'd coining of term by one Sam Konkin. See WP:NEO.
• Second, most of the content that actually can be reliably sourced can be merged into Libertarian conservatism which is slightly less of a neologism. Carol Moore 18:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

This is not a neologicism. It was a common term coined by Samuel Edward Konkin III which defined it a conservative type of minarchism based on gradualism and tradition.[1] It is also called libertarian right.

:::The "Right" of current libertarianism is fairly principled but many of the principles hewed to are anti-principles: gradualism, conservatism, reformism and minarchy. Reason magazine and its Frontlines newsletter are its main organs. The "Center" includes Murray Rothbard and his following, now organized in the LP "Radical" Caucus, which supports Clark "critically," i.e., externally, but not internally. The Rothbard Centrists have moved Left by abandoning monocentrism." [2]

In Konkin's interview, he also characterized the Old Right as paleolibertarians who are influrnced by rothbard. 71.185.237.45 (talk) 20:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

We join wikipedia under agreement to follow wikipedia's rules (even if we don't officially register), which include WP:RS and WP:NOR (reliable sources and no original research), policies which this article doesn't follow. Anyone can coin any word and philosophy and have their small number or adherents put it up as a wikipedia article. But that doesn't mean it meets wikipedia standards. Why not just put the info in the Konkin article where it belongs. Carol Moore 23:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Please read WP:RS and WP:NEO - Konkin rarely a reliable source except in own article

Sam Konkin is a reliable source about himself and which ever group currently reflects (or think it reflects) his views. He's occasionally a borderline WP:RS on specific issues of fact. But not on his own philosophy, be it here or at Libertarianism. That's why I think this article needs to be eliminated. But it's one of several small sectarian poorly sourced ones on libertarianism that has to go (like neo-libertarian) so I'm working on a strategy to get rid of them. Carol Moore 16:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Rewrote article rather than crabbing about it

Per the edit summary I made the article more accurate about use of word using WP:RS. I removed WP:UNDUE and WP:OR info in those long listings of types as well as possible WP:BLP labeling of people without references. Some people get made if you call them some brand of libertarian they don't consider themselves. I made konkin shorter and more comprehensible - it was not clear what was and was not his quotes and those weren't the greatest sources, less info with more sources best way to go. As I find other WP:RS use of the phrase, and I know I've seen lots, will add them. Carol Moore 19:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

What Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says

When Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states: "Libertarianism is often thought of as 'right-wing' doctrine. This, however, is mistaken for at least two reasons. First, on social—rather than economic—issues, libertarianism tends to be 'left-wing'. It opposes laws that restrict consensual and private sexual relationships between adults (e.g., gay sex, non-marital sex, and deviant sex), laws that restrict drug use, laws that impose religious views or practices on individuals, and compulsory military service. Second, in addition to the better-known version of libertarianism—right-libertarianism—there is also a version known as 'left-libertarianism'. Both endorse full self-ownership, but they differ with respect to the powers agents have to appropriate unappropriated natural resources (land, air, water, etc.)."[2]

They mean: Libertarianism of all kinds are anti-state on social issues which is what is considered traditionally to be "left wing."(And it doesn't even mention civil liberties and noninterventionism which all forms of libertarianism support.) Nevertheless, they declare that the libertarianism that supports all that is "right wing" because it happens to not support jack booted thugs expropriating private property. Or whatever it is they say there.

Now, maybe that is not what they mean, but obviously we have different interpretations of a less than clear text, in which case we leave the text and agree to disagree on what they heck they are saying. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It's too long of a quote. I don't think it's proper to have such a long quote from another encyclopedia, giving it so much important. It's also an ARGUMENT. There are those that do consider right libertarianism to be right wing. So in that way it's POV to give so much weight to that. Introman (talk) 19:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Your second try was better since it did not have a lot of interpretation. Until you changed it to "Some believe" you have to quote at least two sources or you are misrepresenting your source. So I reverted back to one before that which was acceptable. I think. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The statements: Libertarianism of all kinds are anti-state on social issues which is what is considered traditionally to be "left wing." or on the flip Libertarianism of all kinds are anti-state on economic issues which is considered traditionally to be "right wing." ARE BOTH FALLACIES — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.240.228 (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Confusing

As the use of "right," "center," "left," to reflect the spectrum within primary branches is understood, the same cannot be said of a subcategory such as Libertarianism. The use of spectrum is both confusing and makes little sense since this terminology is not used in public media or discourse. People will say, "I am a libertarian conservative," but will not say, "I am a right-libertarian" since it just has no applied meaning. The proper article is already entered describing the converged political philosophy of individual sovereignty as a secondary principle to the conservative ideology of limited government. This article should be deleted or merged into the more correct article Libertarian conservatism.

Right libertarianism sounds like a great idea, but I have no clue what the article is trying to say. It really is a terrible article. I think a lot of it should rather be put into terms most of us can understand. I am pro-choice, anti-government, anti-economy, anti-religion, and pro-sex. Am I a right libertarian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.42.84 (talk) 07:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

clarified lead. Does this help? CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm still trying to work out what "anti-economy" and "pro-sex" mean ;-) BlueRobe (talk) 09:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes this article isnt very clear but what it comes down to is that libertarian-right is where the "individual" is king of their own self rather economically or socially. Libertarian left differents from the individual being socially free but under economic socialism, which is usually seen as an impossibilty by many. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.240.228 (talk) 22:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

IMHO "right" libertarian is just a term used by varying authors in varying ways just to organize their books. Nobody self-identifies by that term, and the meaning changes with the topic at hand. Trying to write an article under the above conditions is like trying to herd cats; it will inevitably be a mess. North8000 (talk) 22:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Restoring edits

Just restored them since rationales not convincing. Plus removed WP:undue by nonnotable Konkin. CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Please explain new edits

Because of all the problems with AnonIps pulling numbers over at Libertarianism, a lot of edits on this article by one are bound to raise questions. The lead looks like synthesis, as does some info throughout, and when I get time I'll check the refs more carefully. In the meantime if you want to convince us you aren't a sockpuppet (another problem above) or on some other weird POV trip, feel free! :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Wait wait wait...you are complaining that someone is sabotaging a political article? That's ironic, given the behaviour of BigK HeX, TFD and yourself on the Libertarianism page.

Btw, it's not me. I didn't even know this page existed until 10 minutes ago. BlueRobe (talk) 06:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

First, putting words in people's mouths and then accusing them of sabotage is doubly WP:Uncivil. I didn't say all the edits are bad. Just want to see if there's a real person there who can explain anything I may question, since one always wonders with Anon IPs. Of course, since they don't have watch lists, who knows if they'll ever show again. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I apologise if I overstated your concerns about the edits.

I share your frustration with Anon IPs. I happened to find some very useful and complete answers to a tricky question posed by an Anon IP a few weeks back, and I have no idea if he ever saw by response. BlueRobe (talk) 02:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I can see the person has been editing away while ignoring talk. Well, will just see what happens if and when I find any problems. Or at least can more clearly articulate why I have discomfort with some edits - which again will be when check out sources. Busy. busy. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Turning a phrase into a philosophy

I think I identified what this person did that is questionable, trying to turn a phrase used by all sorts of people for all sorts of views into a more coherent philosophy, by ignoring counter-vailing evidence(which I've fixed in the lead) or WP:Original research. (Like deciding for himself who is old right as opposed to using sources that describe them thusly, and there are such sources.) Plus the sourcing is not always very good, like referencing a whole book with no page numbers here and there, or giving page numbers but no quotes from what is allegedly on them (See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence and Wikipedia:PROVEIT#cite_note-1.) I'll think about what tag needs to be on the whole article and how much work I want to put into checking sources and deleting WP:OR. Not to mention less dramatic sectioning, which is now WP:UNDUE. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to make myself clear, if neither a source nor the person themselves labels someone "right libertarian" you can't go sticking it in this article. Please see WP:Verifiability. If YOU think they are "right wing" because of their view points, you are merely engaging in WP:Original research. So hurry up and verify it, including in the text, or see it deleted sooner, rather than later. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

CiteCheck tag: verification to get rid of WP:OR

I started checking sources and it is clear that too many sources have neither a link nor a page number nor a quote verifying that anyone has called a person's view "right libertarian" or "right libertarianism." Probably much of it is WP:OR to support use of a phrase which is not in fact used that often, and usually in most general sense not about certain people or views. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the most obviously WP:OR material not verified by either sources or by a search of the term and the person's name and restructured article more appropriately. Still need to check some sources, but Raimondo doesn't even use phrase "right libertarian" in his book about Rothbard. Also a books google search of the term shows some of the ways it is more commonly used, info which can be included in the article. Here's the one place I find the term used in Lewrockwell.com. FYI. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Ayn Rand

Not a single mention of Rand? I trust that her socioeconomic philosophy is prominent enough to earn a spot in this article. 213.109.230.96 (talk) 07:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Few folks are treating this as a real article. See next section.

This article should get deleted/merged

This article is one that really shouldn't exist and I think most folks have been treating it as such rather than working on it. In literature the term "right-libertarianism" is basically a bunch of separate neologisms, each more of an impromptu book-organizing term rather than purporting that it is actually used. In real life the term is so vague with such inconsistent meanings that it is meaningless. Further, no group or philosophy self-identifies as such. And even further, the term is universally an oxymoron North8000 (talk) 11:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• Merge There is no generally accepted in concept called "libertarian conservatism". TFD (talk) 03:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
• Merge to Libertarianism. There is no topic specific to right-skewed libertarianism. Binksternet (talk) 04:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
• Merge to Libertarianism. For reasons described when I started this section. North8000 (talk) 18:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
• Keep The libertarianism article is a big incoherent mess. Right libertarianism definitely needs its own article so it can be cleanly discussed. There's a lot more information on right libertarianism than can fit in the general libertarianism article. Big Large Monster (talk) 20:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks for the post. My assertion is the "it" does not exist. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

NP. Sources say it does. Big Large Monster (talk) 23:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that they do. I think that it is just a two word combination that has been used many times with different / ad-hoc meanings. Sort of like the term "larger animals". Writers may use that two word sequence (in many different ways) to organize their presentations discussion on animals, but it does not cover any specific topic. And, from what I have seen, the "sources" are participants regarding this term, they are not covering the term. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• Merge. The two-word combination is just like "tall buildings" or "fine restaurants"; it is only used to describe a general assessment of a minor skewing of the main topic "libertarianism". It is not a separate topic. Binksternet (talk) 05:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep The term is used to distinguish pro-capitalist libertarianism, e.g., of Murray, from anti-capitalist libertarianism. TFD (talk) 05:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• Should we possibly cover it only as a term? E.G. the history of the term, and who uses it with what meanings? North8000 (talk) 11:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep unless both the Right- and Left- articles are merged to Libertarianism. I second TFD's position, plus I simply don't see why Left-libertarianism would still deserve its own article if Right-libertarianism is deleted or merged. You say no one identifies themselves as a "right-libertarian". Yes, that's probably true, but then again how many individuals out there actually call themselves as "left-libertarian"? ("Libertarian socialist" and similar terms perhaps, but not "left-libertarian"). To my knowledge, libertarians tend to mostly identify themselves as "libertarian", regardless of whether they're of the common ownership, collectivist, socialist wing or the propertarian, individualist, capitalist wing. --Adam9389 (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Your whole argument sees to related to giving equal treatment to the right and left libertarianism articles rather than on the issues at this article. You could be right that both should be deleted. I brought it up only on this one because I know more about what's here than what's in the left-libertarian article. And, if there is any concern of bias, under all of those fragmented inconsistent definitions of "right libertarianism", that's what I am. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. Right-libertarianism is very much a thing (as is left-libertarianism). Byelf2007 (talk) 23 October 2012

First, if there is any question of bias, I think that under any of the widely varying definitions used, I'm a "right libertarian". And my opinion is that the right libertarian article should get deleted (or renamed/divided/restructured) and the left libertarian one should probably be kept. I see it that the term "right libertarianism" is not really in use except on and ad hoc basis is, with varying ad hoc meanings by authors to organize their books. Sort of like one author dividing their dog book into small, medium and big dogs, and another author dividing their dog book into small, big and really big dogs. IMO that should not be a basis for creating a Wikipedia dog article titled "Big dogs". Byelf2007, I have seen you to be a brilliant editor on libertarian articles and we see oppositely on this topic. Perhaps we can have a more thorough conversation here to really sort this out? North8000 (talk) 12:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

What would you re-name it as? TFD (talk) 19:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a good idea because I believe that this article is about some very different things. North8000 (talk) 01:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

If there is any question of bias, I am also probably a "right libertarian", although I don't care for the name.

North8000, I think I get what you're saying. Like: "There's a clear group of philosophies that have been called 'left-libertarian' by its proponents, and then people said 'oh, so I guess there's a right-libertarianism also, because there has to be if there's a 'left libertarianism', so I guess the 'right-libertarians' will be the non-left-libertarians', but that's not a legitimate reason to have a 'right-libertarianism' article when there hasn't been this clearly defined group of philosophies with its proponents calling themselves 'right-libertarian'.

Do I have that about right?

It's a good point, and something I've thought about it the past.

I have a couple ideas. One, we have "libertarian conservatism" stay the same (and it becomes the de facto 'right-libertarianism' ; 'right-libertarianism' redirects there). Two, we re-name "right-libertarianism" to "capitalist libertarianism" or "free market libertarianism" or "laissez-faire libertarianism". I think this will distinguish the current 'right-libertarianism' (whatever we call it) from 'libertarian conservatism' better.

Whaddaya think? I'm interested in other proposals, but I'm definitely opposed to a merger. Rand Paul style watered-down-libertarian-ish conservatism is very different from Randian/Rothbardian pure uncut libertarianism. Byelf2007 (talk) 20 November 2012

All of those sound like good ideas; they are all terms that have specific meanings, unlike "right libertarianism" Possible the article should be split into two or three of those strands that you suggested. North8000 (talk) 02:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

It is clearly defined in "Libertarianism",[3] "There exist three major camps in libertarian thought: right-libertarianism, socialist libertarianism, and left-libertarianism.... Since the 1950s, libertarianism in the United States has been associated almost exclusively with right libertarianism...."[4] I think the problem is that in the US libertarianism means right-libertarianism, and the term right-libertarianism is not used. I imagine that you consider yourself a libertarian, not a right libertarian and also that you see it as a coherent belief system that merits its own article. Notice that in the US liberalism and conservatism, left and right, also have different meanings from those used in the rest of the world. Rather than argue over whose definition is right, we resolve the issue through disambiguation. TFD (talk) 18:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

If it was/is a "coherent belief system" then I would certainly want it to be an article. But I see nothing even remotely resembling that in the article. Even a lower bar than that would be fine. (e.g. common tenets of multiple belief systems, but which distinguish right libertarianism. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Process notes

Rather than doing an AFD process, I submit that we advertise the question a bit and then give it a few months to gather input (like until December 1 or January 1) and then go from there. North8000 (talk) 10:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that Right-libertarianism and Left-libertarianism should be considered at the same time. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Could be. But this one I felt sure on, and the "left" one appeared to be more of a question. North8000 (talk) 13:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

This article needs to be re-done.

The first section gives a definition of left libertarianism for contrast but doesn't give a definition of right libertarianism which is frankly, odd. All it says is that it favors capitalism which a numerous political thoughts also subscribe to including certain forms of left libertarian so, that is very weak and needs to be changed. Secondly, there is a vast amount of important information left out of this article such as other contributors have mentioned. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.95.129.245 (talk) 07:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

See above. I think that most editors consider this to be so fundamentally flawed that they don't waste time editing it. North8000 (talk) 11:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this article lately and didn't know how badly it had drifted. It was in MUCH better shape in mid 2011 - as in this version, accurately saying it is a phrased used to describe some forms of libertarianism, but not an actual ideology proposed by, or descriptor used by, most people. As opposed to "Old Right" which is.) If anyone can be found who calls themself one, add it; I only see one non-old right person thus described. Anyway - After that a lot of WP:OR was added. And the first sentence totally misused Vallentyne, and I don't know other references have been abused since then. I propose we just go back to that version, adding or correcting anything obviously in error or helpful to the article. CarolMooreDC 21:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree, I think that it was better then. It was more realistic, basically describing the uses of the term rather than implying an underlying meaning. North8000 (talk) 21:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Hearing no objections, I'll do it in a few days. CarolMooreDC 22:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree. If somebody feels that some subsequent item was good they could put it in, IMO using the older better version as a starting point. And, IMHO an article which covers it more as a term (e.g. including the various meanings ascribed to it) (and yes, contrary to common mis-quotes of policy, that is both common and allowed in Wikipedia) would solve the problems driving the merge/delete discussion. North8000 (talk) 11:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I took some time, and as I write in edit summary revert to earlier version without all the WP:Original research and barely relevant material and clean that up. I removed sections for now because doesn't seem to warrant it. I DO think there needs to be more research into other uses of the term by non-libertarians just to show that it is used a lot in the general sense and maybe more research will make sectioning clearer. Here's the link to search in books google for "right-libertarian." CarolMooreDC 07:19, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Nice work. I think that you took the article from "fundamentally flawed " to "fundamentally informative". North8000 (talk)

Thanks. Anyone who disagrees should discuss it here ala WP:BRD CarolMooreDC 15:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The article still has a ways to go, but this is definitely a start and I applaud your work, Carol. The various strains of free-market libertarianism has as rich an intellectual tradition as the left-libertarian forms and I hope we can one day convey that through this article. I'll do some editing myself here and there -- small polishes at first, just to make it that much more informative. Of course, we can discuss on here the merits of any changes I make. Then eventually I'll dig up some solid sources and see what larger improvements I can make, though I don't know how soon I'll be able to get to that. I think the most glaring problem right now with the information we do have in the article is the fact that it's still largely defined by the left-libertarians. There's a fundamental problem with an article when the ideology it's trying to articulate is defined almost exclusively by outspoken opponents of it. Of course, I know the difficult part of that is the fact that almost all "right-libertarian" theorists and organizations identify as libertarian or classical liberal rather than as "right-libertarian," so that's going to make sourcing definitions difficult. For example, many would classify the U.S. Libertarian Party (and many others, in fact) as "right-libertarian" because of their laissez-faire views, but would it be proper to use their definitions of the concept here? (the question is partly rhetorical) --Adam9389 (talk), 18:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The thing is it really is a term which pro-property libertarians apply here and there over time in a very unsystematic way, because they mostly think of themselves as "libertarians," even as "left-libertarians" enjoy using the term to make pro-property libertarians look bad. I realized that Vallyntne is in effect doing just that, as are all the lefties who have just one sentence in current article, and some of other sources below. We should keep our eyes open for a WP:RS that explains the actual phenomena and somehow section off pro-property uses of the term from left-libertarian uses. This might at least keep it less confusing for people. Check out sources below for more ideas. CarolMooreDC 03:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I'll take some time to do this today. I don't know if it will discourge User:T___ from reverting back to his rejected version. Sigh. CarolMooreDC 19:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Finding better sources

After moving Vallentyne up as "more academic" I thought I'd see if there were more details worth adding. I guess I haven't looked at Vallentyne article since he changed it in 2010, and was reminded about how abstruse, to the point of sometimes being misleading, the rest of the article is. Some things just found:

• long interesting article by Rothbard from 1971 using and describing the term way back in 1971 - and published by a peacenik publication.
• The Radical Right in Western Europe: A Comparative Analysis - Page 27 - also rather abstruse
• The Social History of Crime and Punishment in America: An Encyclopedia, whole lib movement as "right-libertarian"
• Encyclopedia of Political Theory contrasts 3 types of libertarianism, right, left and consequentialist; interesting

Well, that's enough fun for the last hour and for now - will add more later. CarolMooreDC 21:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Actual philosophy or just a term

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

• ... in addition to the better-known version of libertarianism—right-libertarianism—there is also a version known as “left-libertarianism”. Both endorse full self-ownership, but they differ with respect to the powers agents have to appropriate unowned natural resources (land, air, water, minerals, etc.). Right-libertarianism holds that typically such resources may be appropriated by the first person who discovers them, mixes her labor with them, or merely claims them—without the consent of others, and with little or no payment to them. (bold mark-up added for Wikipedia discussion) [5]

Not only is it actually a philosophy (or current of thought within a philosophy), it seems to be the better known variant. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

What has been seen in the years here on the topic is that "right libertarian" has so many different meanings in uses, most of them ad hoc, that it has no real meaning. The fact that you yourself have just given two conflicting meanings (above, and as a synonym for "libertarian conservatism" at that article) is close-to-home evidence of that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Right libertarianism is basically what you mean when you say libertarianism. Left and right libertarianism are branches of the same ideology. TFD (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I think I agree with you 95%. The 5% is what can be taken to imply that there is a single meaning for "right libertarianism". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

We follow WP:DISAMBIG. While terms can have different meanings, articles can only be about one topic, in this case using only one general defintion, although we can mention other definitions. Based on previous discussions, your concern is that this article should be the main libertarian article. However, modern right and left libertarianism share a number of sources and writers and therefore are versions of the same ideology. That may seem odd - but then the left and right wing versions of conservatism, liberalism, socialism and christian democracy are often far apart as well. TFD (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. The problem was people were trying to say that "right libertarianism" is itself a philosophy which large numbers of notable people self-identify with. That is what some people were trying to write it as without a large body of high quality WP:RS saying so. I put in the best I could find and it wasn't much. CarolMooreDC🗽 19:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

@TFD I'm not following what you are getting at. But an article can sometimes be about a word, and be about a word with multiple closely related meanings, and I think that that is the most applicable way to see this article. North8000 (talk) 19:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Lead and other sources must use "right libertarian"

It is correct we need a source for each word - even if it's just one of the sources in each paragraph of like info. The truth is it is used rarely by libertarians themselves, but frequently by both leftists and liberals to knock pro-property libertarians, if for somewhat different reasons. Therefore actually it may be hard to find sources that say "right libertarians" are for individual liberty or individual rights! CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 20:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, I just took out a lot of sources that did not mention "right libertarianism", most of which were not WP:RS anyway, being somebody's self-published essay or some minor group's writings. We can't try to impose "libertarianism" on the mere term "right-libertarianism." We can't try to create an ideology where one doesn't exist. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 03:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

[6], Common! :) Carol, At least they are sources which talk about Libertarianism, They are so much better than anyone coming here put his own Idea into article(Mostly negative ones), Its a choose between text without any source and text which at least have some place for further reading. You may add "Citation needed" to them but why remove them and put back what user themselves have written... I think when there is no source and there is a text, so a source even which is not that much WP:RS is better that no source at all... I don't know may be I'm wrong. but I don't like anyone which is in bad mood & have the feeling comes here give this article some words as he/she likes and feel satisfied and go. also please tell me which source you think is that bad which is better not to be, and no source is better than that. I added the "Citation needed" so till someone find better sources and replace them. Anything without source should be removed, right now the lead paragraph of this article is just about some selected parts of the economic views, not acceptable. Why these sources are worse than no source? Written by: Murray N. Rothbard or Written by: Roderick T. Long or Written by: Roderick Long or From: The Libertarian or From: Libertarians for Life or From: The San Diego Libertarian Party or From: Libertarian Party of Canada or From: The Libertarian BUT exactly in next paragraph a claim in a book(offline one) by Unknown author which the claim is actually is obviously against Right Libertarians can remain without any question? KhabarNegar (talk) 08:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)