Talk:Libertarianism

Template:Wikipedia CD selection Template:V0.5

Again US right liberal bias on this article

For recent editors of this article who have reinstated a US bias on this subject let me tell you that I was neither born in the United States, nor do I live there and so the people from the United Kingdom, Australia and even Canada are familiar with a more complex and less US centric situation than the one that this article presents in the section entitled "Twentieth century" and of course those of non-english speaking countries also. In most of the world those who hear the word libertarian tend to associate that word with anarchist and libertarian socialist movements. Since this bias has returned I have to bring back my old arguments for recent editors uninformed on the use of the word "libertarian" outside the United States since the 19th century until today.

On the use of "libertarian" in the english speaking world in the sense of anti-state socialism I want you to consider for example an important overview on the history of anarchism written by the canadian George Woodcock called Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements (1962) in which no pro-capitalist ideology is treated and not even within the context of criticism, but actually radical anti-capitalists like Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, the First International, etc are dealt with. It was re edited on the 1970s. The wikipedia article Libertarian League reports the use of the word libertarian within a US context in the period treated on this section. I says that it was "The first Libertarian League was founded in Los Angeles in 1920. Although mainly anarchist its membership included people from many different political perspectives with the over-riding principle of "equal freedom" and liberty in all aspects of life. It mainly supported co-operative forms of socialism but small businesses. Reflecting the times it was particularly concerned with opposing prohibition and militarism. From 1922 to 1924 it published a journal called The Libertarian. The organisation was unable to maintain its broad coalition of different views and it broke up in the 1930s. REcently the US organization which called itself NEFAC has changed its name to and so this contemporary use of the word "libertarian" in the US also has to be considered.

The second Libertarian League was founded in New York City in 1954 as a political organisation building on the Libertarian Book Club. Members included Sam Dolgoff, Russell Blackwell, Dave Van Ronk, Enrico Arrigoni, and Murray Bookchin. This league had a narrower political focus than the first, promoting anarchism and syndicalism. Its central principle, stated in its journal Views and Comments, was "equal freedom for all in a free socialist society". Branches of the League opened in a number of other American cities, including Detroit and San Francisco, but it lacked an organisational focus and never managed to establish a presence amongst other anarchist and syndicalist organisations. It was dissolved at the end of the 1960s.". It might be argued that the NYC Libertarian League article is not well sourced but it will be easy for me to bring realiable mentions of that organization since I have seen them, for example one mentioned in information I researched one of the members of that organization, the italian american stirnerist Enrico Arrigoni.

Now it might be true that in google if you write the word "libertarian" you get the USA Libertarian Party first and then you get neoliberal websites. But now if anyone writes on google the word "libertario" on the first page you get the links for the venezuelan anarchist newspaper "El Libertario" which is strongly anti-capitalist even going as far as accusing Hugo Chavez of helping capitalist penetration inside Venezuela and denouncing multinational corporations. You also get a link to a spanish publication called "Socialismo Libertario", a website called "Portal Libertario OACA" which is also strongly anticapitalist and advocating workers rights and class war. If one writes "el libertario" one gets the previously mentioned venezuelan anarchist newspaper, a link to the Argentine Libertarian Federation which was founded in October 1935 with the name of the Anarcho-Communist Federation of Argentina and that since 1985 it has been publishing the political journal El Libertario. If anyone wants to find anything pro-capitalism in the FLA one can very well go to their website. El Libertario from Argentina was first published in 1933 and before it was called "Accion Libertaria" ("libertarian action"). In the seventies there was an argentinian anarchist organization called Resistencia Libertaria and if anyone wants to doubt it was a socialist organization can very well go to this english language article about it called "Resistencia Libertaria: Anarchist Opposition to the Last Argentine Dictatorship" written by Chuck W. Morse.

In the french language the situation is similar if one consideres that the Anarchist Federation (France) which is also strongly anticapitalist and for class war has a radio station called Radio Libertaire in which all kinds of capitalist abuses are denounced. That organization with about 60 groups nationwide also publishes Le Monde Libertaire. Another french organization called Alternative libertaire is explicit about being for anarcho-communism.

But it happens that Alternative Libertarie is a member of an international federation of similar organizations called International Libertarian Solidarity in which anything pro-capitalist is considered an enemy. International Libertarian Solidarity has as members organizations from Argentina, Brazil, Czech Republic, France, Ireland, Italy, Italy, Lebanon, Mexico, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, South Africa, Uruguay and from the United States and Canada the North Eastern Federation of Anarchist Communists.

It is possible that all this might surprise one or more USA citizens or residents present here but in the rest of the world this is something rather trivial actually and the International Libertarian Solidarity organizations all are active and propagandizing in those countries today about class war and anticapitalism. Also let´s remember the widespread word libertarian communism and the british website http://libcom.org/ which dedicates itself on that.--Eduen (talk) 08:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Quick aside on the section title. In the US, "right liberal" is a conflict of terms. North8000 (talk) 22:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Eduen, I partially disagree with your overall assertion of undue bias, but that is secondary. What is more important is somebody as intelligent-on-the-topic as you ready to really discuss this here and sort this out, which is what this article has sorely needed for eons. So, thank you! If you would indulge me, what would you say to the following argument. (It's "sourcing" is an attempted integration from 100's of sources, much of it through what what brilliant people have said here, so I guess one could call it "unsourced", but this is just a discussion on a talk page.) In the US, about 5%-15% of the population would describe their political philosophy as being somewhat Libertarian. That's 15-45 million people. They're not in the USLP, and seldom or never vote Libertarian. (BTW, that describes me). And in the US, "libertarian" means "Less government, greater personal freedom, and place a high priority on achieving those things". All of the esoteric libertarian philosophical stuff is irrelevant to them; the one sentence pretty much describes what libertarianism is to them. In the US, "liberal" means advocating bigger government, especially on taxing & non-military spending and social legislation to effect US-liberal-type objectives. Outside of the US, liberalism means something totally different, including an emphasis on personal freedom, including from government. So, speaking for the bigger numbers, the bulk of the folks with that philosophy in the US call themselves libertarians, and the bulk of the people outside of the US with that philosophy call themselves liberals. And so, for the rest of the world, the meaning of libertarian is exactly as you describe it. But, the bulk of the people in the world who call themselves libertarians are the described 15-45 million Americans who's ideology is fully described by one sentence: "Less government, greater personal freedom, and place a high priority on achieving those things". Both wp:due/undue and the concept of writing a useful article says that we must cover that. So, both in the past and now, those folks have come to this article and say "there's nothing in the article really covering mainstream libertarianism. Even the US stuff seems to be just about esoteric/unusual philosophies." So, even now, the article fails to cover mainstream US libertarianism ! ! Conversely, what you just wrote is absolutely true, and definition of the main meanings of libertarianism that is right for the US is going to be wrong for the rest of the world. The other big dichotomy, is that in the US, libertarianism is mostly usefully described as a general ideology ("less government, more freedom, and a high priority on achieving that") whereas in the rest of the world libertarianism is best described via more detailed philosophies and more specialized movements as you describe. SO, this isn't just a situation of which country gets more air time, it's a situation where the terms has fundamentally different mainstream meanings inside and outside of the US, and so what is correct for one is in ERROR for the other.

I think that this article needs to do both. And to do so, it will probably need to cover all of the above, with context provided when the situation is different in the US vs elsewhere. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

this is tyhe english version of wikipedia, most english wp searches originate in the usa, most in the usa click on lpusa.org when searched in google. wp suggest we use the most commonly understood version for our langauge. the article is actually biased in the other direction to cover topics like libertarian socialism the polar opposite of lpusa. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Eduen. North8000 says that libertarianism means, ""Less government, greater personal freedom, and place a high priority on achieving those things". That of course is exactly what the libertarians described by Woodcock advocated. Murray Rothbard promoted that view by calling himself an anarcho-capitalist, using anarchist symbolism and referring to anarchist/libertarian writers. WP:DISAMBIG#Broad-concept articles says, "Where the primary topic of a term is a general topic that can be divided into subtopics... the unqualified title should contain an article about the general topic rather than a disambiguation page". Compare with liberalism, which as NorthstarNorth8000 points out is used to refer to different forms of liberalism in different countries. The main article is about the broad concept. TFD (talk) 15:49, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what we should do with that. The first decision/question: is the scope of the "broad concept" prioritization of greater personal person freedom (and thus less government) or is it everything that is (primarily) called libertarianism? (the former would, I think, include non-US liberalism.) Second, either way I don't see how we would have an article unless we get into the particulars and variations. North8000 (talk) 17:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

North8000, the error of your argument is that you think libertarianism is two different concepts rather than a single concept with different varieties. Rothbard chose the word "libertarian" because he accepted the values of libertarianism, even if it lead him to different conclusions. Similarly, New Dealers chose the name "liberal" because that was the tradition to which they belonged, even if it lead them to different conclusions from 19th century liberals. TFD (talk) 23:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I was asking your opinion on those questions rather than expressing an opinion. Unless you think that my questions themselves are faulty (e.g. with false premises) I'd be interesed in your thoughts on that. North8000 (talk) 01:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

To this particular argument "this is tyhe english version of wikipedia, most english wp searches originate in the usa, most in the usa click on lpusa.org when searched in google. wp suggest we use the most commonly understood version for our langauge. the article is actually biased in the other direction to cover topics like libertarian socialism the polar opposite of lpusa."

This is the version of wikipedia in the english language. Yet this doesn´t mean it has to adjust to the particular views of the country with the biggest english speaking population or a census type argument on the majority of wikipedia users which is higly problematic on its reliability, but with the meaning and use of the concept in general. And as I tried to show, there has been and there is also people in the United States who call themselves libertarians and who are anti-capitalists.

There is also a problem with this argument: "In the US, "liberal" means advocating bigger government, especially on taxing & non-military spending and social legislation to effect US-liberal-type objectives. Outside of the US, liberalism means something totally different, including an emphasis on personal freedom, including from government. So, speaking for the bigger numbers, the bulk of the folks with that philosophy in the US call themselves libertarians, and the bulk of the people outside of the US with that philosophy call themselves liberals."

An emphasis on personal freedom is mostly associated with two political philosophies. Liberalism and anarchism. Yes, yet there is a strong tendency in the parlamentary left to advocate and defend civil liberties and for example in Italy the right to divorce was actually supported strongly by the Italian Communist Party. Also social democracy in places like latin america and europe tends to support abortion rights and LGBT rights more so than the right wing parties. The right to have access to abortion in Mexico City was introduced by the centre left party which calls itself Party of the Democratic Revolution and was opposed by the pro-free market party PAN. So what seems to me is that some people in the liberal right wing do put an emphasis on economics and so can stand being in a right wing party influenced by the religious right in order to advance their particular economic views in support of deregulated capitalism. This also happens in the US Republican Party.

That is the reason I find problematic the argument that outside the US most people who support personal freedom call themselves "liberals". But also in the USA most people who are activists in pro abortion rights, LGBT rights and secularism tend to vote for the centre-left Democratic party and not for the more pro deregulated capitalism party called "Republican Party" since this party is highly associated with the religious conservative right.

Libertarianism is well defined bradly in the introduction of this article as having mainly to do with personal liberty and freedom of association but this article has to show that there is both a "left wing" and a "right wing" interpretation of libertarianism and a pro-capitalist libertarianism and a anti-capitalist libertarianism. This is also visible in the question of individualism where there is pro-capitalist and anti-capitalist views. Of course this is a difference of definitions on concepts like freedom, individual, and liberty and so you cannot expect every person who is for individual freedom to agree with the particular views of John Locke and his economic emphasis on private property which are most popular in the anglo atlantic world. In places like Italy and France individualism also comes from strong local humanistic, libertine and semi-aristocratic traditions that often come in contradiction with anglo liberal views and these also happen to be influential in places like latin america and which have also been influential in the United States in humanistic oriented libertarians and individualists such as Ralph Waldo Emerson. This also explains the long and big line of thought associated with libertarian socialism.

So hopefully we can come to a good consensus which is in agreement with actual historical and contemporary use of the words libertarian and libertarianism and not in agreement with the specific liking of any side of the users of the words.--Eduen (talk) 03:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Eduen, thank you so much for that. Continuing the history of the article, the talk page is the place to go if you really want to learn about libertarianism.

I think that the picture is becoming clearer and clearer. The prevalent meaning of "libertarianism" is different in the US vs. the rest of the English-speaking world. (and, as a sidebar, two terms that may or may not have an actual meaning somewhere (vs. 20 meanings which = meaningless) ("right liberarian" and "left libertarian") are oxymorons in the US. And another related term "liberal" has, in some respects, a very different (and sometimes directly opposite) meaning in the US than in the rest of the English-speaking world. I have no argument with 95% of what Eduen wrote. My response on the other "5%" follows. I think that the answer is simple. We can't have one meaning "prevail" over the other; we need to cover them both and explain where they apply. North8000 (talk) 14:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

There are not two different meanings, merely that libertarians disagree over how to achieve objectives. TFD (talk) 19:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• This article used to be well balanced in my opinion not too long ago but the section "Twentieth century" mainly only presents a US neoliberal view of things.

• The consequential vs. deontological distinction is not a feature at all of anarchist thought and so I suggest this should be linked only to liberal and neoliberal philosophies and not to "libertarianism" in general.

• Naming the US Libertarian Party and the US liberal thinker Roderick Long in the Introduction to this article gives undue balance to those particular views which I tried to show are not a feature of what is mostly called libertarianism outside the US. Those having the pro-capitalist positions like those of the US Libertarian Party, outside the US are mostly considered political enemies by anarchists and libertarian socialists and there is rarely any space of encounter and convergence between them. It seems that neoliberals inside and outside the US mostly collaborate with conservatives while libertarian socialists do meet more often with non-stalinist marxists and sometimes with left wing social democrats. This important distinction has to be shown to the uninforemd reader so as to not present an exagerated unified "libertarianism" and so it is more honest to prepare the uninformed reader from the introduction onwards that this is a subject with a huge conflict and so that he shouldn´t expect an easy quick definition of everything around the issue of libertarianism.--Eduen (talk) 05:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Responding to TFD, I didn't mean to imply conflicting views, I just meant the range of people who name their philosophy "libertarian". In the US, "libertarian" includes the large group of people who has no specialized libertarian philosophy other than simply simply wanting to place a high priority on maximizing freedom and reducing government. They are typically not in the USLP, and may never vote for USLP candidates. It appears that they are the largest group in the world that self-identifies as "libertarian". It sounds like that most of their counterparts outside of the US call themselves "liberals" rather than "libertarians". So, by the people numbers, outside of the US, "libertarian" generally means what Eduen says. North8000 (talk) 15:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Euden, briefly, what I am proposing is covering all of the above, identified as such. When one gets to the more detailed philosophies, the US situation is less the gorilla in the living room, and wp:due/undue could point more towards what you are saying. But when it comes to movements/people who identify "libertarian" aslo an important part of their philosophy, the 10's of millions of folks that I describe in the US are the gorilla in the living room and that topic needs to be covered. This is missing from the article and I believe sour cable. North8000 (talk) 15:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you referring to people who vaguely accept the views of Rothbard, Nolan and the Libertarian Party? See David Nolan#Early political activism. They consciously identified with the same political tradition of left-libertarianism. Or are you referring to neoliberalism, a theory of lower taxes and government services and deregulation, but supports "free trade" agreements, corporate subsidies, bank bailouts, stimulus packages and a minimal welfare state? TFD (talk) 15:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm referring to people who place a priority on greater personal freedom and less government, and consider those to be the important and defining tenets of libertarianism, end-of-story. The don't know who Rothbard, Nolan or any other libertarian philosopher is, and a majority of them don't know what the platform of the USLP is. And they would tend to be divided on some of those other topics/questions that you pose. Since in the US "liberal" means "bigger government", they would oppose being called anything with the word "liberal" in it. They would consider themselves to be half at conflict with the US "right" and half at conflict with the US "left" and so would say that "right-libertarian" and "left-libertarian" are oxymorons. North8000 (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The terms "left" and "right" do not refer to where they fall in the political spectrum but their position within libertarian ideology. You should know who Murray Rothbard and David Nolan were if you want to talk about modern libertarianism in the United States - they are the main founders and theorists. TFD (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

If you say that I should be familiar with them I would agree with you. But the idea that 20% of Americans have a philosophy that is (in US terminology) socially liberal and fiscally conservative, in other words significantly in conflict with both (by US meanings) the conservative and liberal viewpoints, but well aligned with libertarian tenets, and that 2/3 of them call that philosophy "libertarian" is a significant state of affairs and meaning of the term in its own right. North8000 (talk) 17:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

"Since in the US "liberal" means "bigger government", they would oppose being called anything with the word "liberal" in it. They would consider themselves to be half at conflict with the US "right" and half at conflict with the US "left" and so would say that "right-libertarian" and "left-libertarian" are oxymorons."

• I guess I will have to trust you on that. As far as other parts of the world there is people who are for depenalization of all types of sex relationships between adults be them BDSM or homosexual and legalization of drugs and who tend to cosmopolitanism but who nevertheless reject the label liberal since there is a strong association everywhere of that word with neoliberalism and deregulated capitalism. And so in countries like the Netherlands and Scandinavia there is both strong welfare states and redistribution of wealth but as we known in the Netherlands marihuana can be purchased in coffee shops and most people tend to be in these countries irreligious. So libertarian socialists can be sexual libertines and be for legalization of drugs but tend to have anti-authoritarian criticisms of capitalism mainly because they see capitalism means hierarchy in the form of boss/employee relationships, excessive working hours, the creation of an economic oligarchy and the domination of commercialism in most spaces of social life. And so for example the word libertarian communism is something that has existed at least since the late 19th century.

• As I read about Murray Rothbard he appears to be a radical neoliberal economist (more radical for example than Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek) and David Nolan is a militant of a liberal party which I guess only in the USA it can call itself "libertarian" but in places outside the US it tends to be called "liberal". There is even a world association of such parties called the Liberal International and as one can see there many of those parties call themselves "liberal". So it seems that many people outside the US can say they are libertarians and libertines and also anti-liberal or non-liberal since liberalism has gained an association with neoliberal economics.

• I propose informing readers of this article about this situation. And as far as english speaking users of wikipedia in the United Kingdom there is the Liberal Democrats who actually have good representation in parliament, in Canada there is a Liberal Party (which is the governing party I think) and in Australia there is a Liberal Party of Australia.--Eduen (talk) 04:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

American libertarians claim to be part of libertarianism. See for example Roderick T. Long's talk to the Mises Institute (which backs Ron Paul). "A new political spectrum... was beginning to form: one with state-socialism on the left and conservatism on the right, with former libertarians gravitating toward one side or the other according to temperament."[1] TFD (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that the tens of millions of US "vague libertarians" that I describe make any such claim. North8000 (talk) 13:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that underneath all of this we are having a "what do we do?" discussion. Possible a real rosetta stone that is resolution to the issues and (previously) strife that this article has had for years. I'm going to throw out an idea that is really only 30.000' view vague at this point. The stuff that I've been talking about is not heavily related to the detailed philosphies, philosophers, academics etc, and does not need to influence those areas. (As a sidebar, the article has gotten really short for such a big topic). So, get the philosphies section expanded with the balance that Eduen and others are seeking. I'll build a small section on the "US vague libertarians" that I am describing. I know that that is sourceable. And possibly (if we agree and its sourcable) a mention explaining that "liberal" has a different meaning in US vs. everywhere else, and many core tenets of non-US liberalism are sometimes to considered to be somewhat libertarian? North8000 (talk) 13:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Another way of thinking about the problem is in terms of criticisms. At the top of the article it says..."This article is about the political philosophy". Yet...look at how sparse the section on the criticism of libertarianism is. It's so sparse because this entire article on libertarianism is a criticism of libertarianism. In order to fix this article on libertarianism you first need to fix the article on the criticism of libertarianism. The bottom line is that if there are no criticisms of libertarianism (in the "broad" sense) then it's not noteworthy enough a philosophy to warrant its own article.

For example, my own personal political philosophy, pragmatarianism, is not noteworthy enough to warrant its own wikipedia article...yet it has more critiques than libertarianism (in the "broad" sense) does...libertarian critique of pragmatarianism...anarcho-capitalist critique of pragmatarianism. Xerographica (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand your overall point. But as a side note, I raised the question about taking out or fixing the the header "This article is about the political philosophy" because it which is narrower than than the scope of the article and topic, but folks said that such is just disambiguation, not a statement of scope of the article so I dropped the conversation. North8000 (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm...perhaps if you tried to work on the criticism of libertarianism article then you might understand my overall point. Maybe my point is not valid...but at worst you would have improved a page that could use quite a bit of attention. Xerographica (talk) 00:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Well I agree with the criticisms which why I'm a "reduce but don't eliminate government" libertarian. But I don' know if I'd be the best person to try to build the "criticisms" article. Also, doesn't the title sort of make it inherently POV / one sided? ?

I agree with the clarification of the particular meaning that the word liberal has in the US vs. the rest of the world.--Eduen (talk) 08:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to try to build the sections I described about 6 posts back. I think that this fills a lone-time hole in the article and may also defuse some of the big topics of debate of the rest of the article. I'll eventually also try to remove or modify the "about the .....philosophy" header which I now see is not as benign as I was told it was. I urge folks who see issues with the philosophies sections to start (carefully) editing, mostly by adding material. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Property rights again

Anyone care to voice an opinion on whether this opening statement:

"Libertarianism is a term describing philosophies which emphasize [a] respect of property rights."

adequately conveys the idea that

"some schools are supportive of private property rights in the ownership of unappropriated land and natural resources while others reject such private ownership..."

The lede as written would not give the impression that certain property ownership ideas are rejected, IMO. BigK HeX(talk) 23:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Editors should not distort sources and push ideosyncratic viewpoints. Other ideologies also support property rights, note that most countries have established civil courts in order to support property rights, international treaties on copyright laws, etc. Also, property rights are secondary in libertarian ideology - those who support property rights do so because it is in their view the only effective way of protecting individual rights. TFD (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree with BigK and TFD. Maybe we should just remove "property rights" from the lead because, as TFD said, "property rights are secondary in libertarian ideology". North8000 (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

True. But that's the problem, we should either distinguish clearly that there is a part of the libertarian current that does not regard property rights as being their main focus. But there is a large one that defines libertarianism as being the respect of property rights. So we either make the distinction in the lead and we explain in a few words what the difference is, or we just say libertarianism supports both liberty and property rights as it does now and let the reader see the distinction later during the article. Fsol (talk) 05:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I could be wrong with what I'm about to say, if so , please correct me. But in an attempt to sort this out let me throw out the following statement for your comments. The main article-worthy information with respect to property rights is that that strains of libertarians differ on the subject of property rights for ownership of unappropriated land and natural resources. Other than that, property right for other items are just assumed by most or all strands of libertarianism. (I.E. if you build or buy a car, by some mechanism you "own" it.) But such is assumed by libertarians, (in a whimsical but useful analogy, just like the right to breathe air) but it is not on the list of what they are pushing, and thus is not a defining element of libertarianism. North8000 (talk) 09:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind that some libertarians limit property rights to possession, use, and occupation. For example, such libertarians hold that one does not have the freedom to rent his property to others because doing so qualifies as exploitation and therefore does not qualify as an actual freedom. KLP (talk) 17:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, better to keep it simple in the lead. It suffices to say that across the spectrum of libertarianism, there are different interpretations of property rights. aprock (talk) 17:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Fsol, I think that there is a consensus to leave it out of the lead; I noticed that you just put it back in. North8000 (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Fsol, the concensus is to leave "property rights" out of the lead. KLP (talk) 12:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I didn't even have a strong opinion on it, but we'll never get even a slightly stable article if we have individuals acting directly against even clear consensus on the talk page. North8000 (talk) 13:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

1) The consensus was to mention them.

2) The referenced source says, I quote: "Libertarianism, in the strict sense, is the moral view that agents initially fully own themselves and have certain moral powers to acquire property rights in external things. In a looser sense, libertarianism is any view that approximates the strict view. This entry will focus on libertarianism in the strict sense."

3) If you want to represent another view, it's all right as long as you add it with a proper reference and source. We can't use a source that blatently says something different. Fsol (talk) 14:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Those sound like legit arguments for putting that material somewhere in the article, not for imposing your preferred version of the lead contrary to consensus. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

North8000, I am not the one who put that reference there. However it is a peer-reviewed unbiased source, so I deem as being of good quality. If anybody wants to add other aspects to the lead, they should do so as long as the info is sourced properly. But adding does not entail deleting previously sourced information.Fsol (talk) 17:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to be a summary of the important stuff in the article. And one person's somewhat unique definition of libertarianism certainly doesn't qualify as that. And again, again the arguments you are making are more relevant for inclusion into the article than inclusion into the lead. North8000 (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Do we even need a reference in the lead if the lead adequately represents the properly sourced content of the article? KLP (talk) 19:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The common practice is to leave them out of the lead for just that reason, but that someone could still ask for them to be in the lead. North8000 (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Any information is expected to be backed up by reliable sources, even more so for Lead information. It's not one person's definition it's a peer-reviewed encyclopaedic definition (quite high on the reliability scale). The vast majority of wiki articles have properly referenced leads.Fsol (talk) 06:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it's time to buck that trend. If the facts are properly sourced in the body of the article, reapplying those sources to the lead seems like a wasted effort. I mean, if the article's body doesn't uphold a statement in the lead, remove or adjust that statement accordingly. If the body contains one or more substantial explanations that receive no mention in the lead, the lead is running a little lean. Furthermore, opening up an article with all those blue, super-scripted numbers looks ugly. KLP (talk) 05:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, here we are opening up an encyclopedia article by citing another encyclopedia article. Seems very unencyclopedic. KLP (talk) 05:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Fsol, we're talking about three different things at once here. Since the lead is to be a summary of what's in the article, the main and normal place for the material to be sourced (or challenged for sourcing) is in the body of the article. Someone can also source it in the lead, or challenge it for sourcing in the lead, but such would typically be a duplication of the sourcing which is in the article and is not the normal practice. But that's not what we're really talking about here. Second, guidelines do back up what KLP says; an encyclopedia is a tertiary source, and such are generally not used for Wikipedia. But what we're really talking about here is that you are in essence saying that that fact that it is sourced is a force for inclusion in the lead. This is triply without basis. First, it is sourcability, not sourcing that is required. Sourcing (vs. sourcabiity) is required once it is challenged. Second, sourcability is a requirement for inclusion of material, not a force for inclusion of material. Finally, none of that relates to being a force for inclusion in the lead, which I believe is what you are asserting. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

Copyright violations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lead war

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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