Talk:Libertarianism

Template:Wikipedia CD selection Template:V0.5

Neutrality

Please remove the neutrality warning. It is misleading. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 15:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree. There is no real neutrality discussion going on. North8000 (talk) 17:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

If not a neutrality warning (I'm assuming it was placed in reference to the confusing mess caused by anarchist/minarchist war), I feel like there should at least be something at the top clarifying that the confusing and redundant nature of the article (especially the intro) is due to it being fought over. You can decide what would be most appropriate, but it's too poor of an article and this fight has gone on too long for there not to be some kind of warning. A sound article should clearly and concisely communicate a concept to any lay-Internet-user that clicks into it. This article does not do that. Instead it's little more than a jumbled-up, gridlocked hodge-podge of vague technicalities trying to appease two internal factions. Also, just as an aside, is it really necessary to link the word 'state' in the lead not even to 'State (polity)' but to the 'Definitional issues' sub-section? That sub-section is right below the intro; there's no need to re-direct it straight there. Let's not confuse people even more by continuing to throw in their faces how devoid of concepts we've become. Minarchist and anarchist alike, we're all anti-statist types -- It's an insult to all of us and degrading of our ideals if we can't even put forth what the state is anymore. Also, I've added a Citation Needed at the end of the last sentence of the intro as it's a disputed statement and, in my view, an overblown exaggeration. I've already made my case for that above. I know he's pretty much a god in certain circles, but regardless of what Noam Chomsky said, the perusal of many libertarian party/organization platforms from around the world will reveal the so-called "American" definition of libertarianism is more widespread than many would like to believe. I'm sorry but you can't just ignore that, and pretending capitalist libertarianism doesn't exist outside the U.S. doesn't magically make it true.

Anyway, to sum up my main point: it doesn't have to be a neutrality warning (thought I don't think it's far off the mark), but there should be something. --Adam9389 (talk) 10:56, 08 February 2013 (UTC)

The reality is is that are very different meanings, but with enough in common (both in concept, in terminology, and in the common meaning of the term) to be a single article. So we need to cover the various meanings, and one meaning should not be covered through the lens of the other. And, (only) one of the meanings has a real cohesive word (anarchism) which covers it to the point where it has it's own, cohesive article, which would tend to make coverage of that here a bit less. I think that this article is somewhere near to striking that balance. Invariably folks from both extreme ends of the spectrum come along who think that "bias" means "not pulled to their end of the POV spectrum" or "not as viewed through the lens of their strand of libertarianism". North8000 (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

i think it is time we reexamine the whole euro vs usa definition of the term. i have lived in the EU for years and recently met an Italian who called himself a libertarian and believes the exact same as the LPUSA. I suggest much of what is submitted as RS supporting the euro def. of the term was written by Americans with little or no experience in the EU. ex: others reject such private ownership and often support common ownership instead (libertarian socialism) written by Peter Vallentyne, born in Connecticut, lives in Missouri. his POV on this topic is in a tiny minority and should not be included here, perhaps the comment would be better placed at the term which it references, libertarian socialism, something quite different than libertarianism the Europeans describe to me. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I feel it's important for the lead to note that right-libertarianism has become popular outside of the USA, which is why the USA-Europe dichotomy isn't so cut-and-dry. In my sandbox version, I've included the following in the lead: "In the 1950s, many with classical liberal beliefs in the United States began to describe themselves as libertarian, and this right-libertarianism has since propagated beyond the US via think tanks and political parties. Libertarianism is increasingly viewed worldwide as a free market position." I think an edit along these lines will more accurately represent how the use of the term libertarian has changed over time.

I would also like to point out that there are multiple sources claiming this connection between libertarianism and anarchism outside the US; it's not just Chomsky. Max Nettlau, Frank Fernandez, and Colin Ward (just from sources in this article) also make this connection. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree, other than we need a better name than "right". North8000 (talk) 21:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know of a better descriptor, but I'm open to suggestions. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Put POV template back on top writing: filled with material about leftist views that barely mention the word libertarianism; crappy and too short section on modern libertarianism Sorry, tenuous connections, or an adjective just thrown in with a bunch of others does not justify overwhelming the article with the activities of those who do not first and foremost call their philosophy libertarian. I don't even see the groups that DO use the phrase represented much at all. Pretty sad. CarolMooreDC 05:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Have a read. In the actual collection, about thirty titular mentions, spanning a century and a half, under the umbrella of (still can't believe this actually has to be qualified, but... anti-capitalist) anarchism. Scan through some of the literature and you'll see hundreds of mentions by prominent authors. I really don't understand why this article has to be mutilated into some neoliberal shrine. Then again, I don't have the spare time on my hands try and prevent it, and I suspect all mentions of what libertarian actually means will be purged eventually. Pretty sad indeed. Finx (talk) 06:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The first sentence of above anarchistlibrary link reads: As is well known, anarchists use the terms “libertarian”, “libertarian socialist” and “libertarian communist” as equivalent to “anarchist” and, similarly, “libertarian socialism” or “libertarian communism” as an alternative for “anarchism.” This is perfectly understandable, as the anarchist goal is freedom, liberty, and the ending of all hierarchical and authoritarian institutions and social relations.

The only problems are a) it is not well known and b) it is mostly left anarchists who know all this. Most people think it means some sort of free living/free loving/pot smoking/free marketeering/gun toting hippy reality.

I feel like I'm fighting with Zionists who insist God gave them Israel 4000 years ago and everybody knows it so they can kick all the Arabs off, kill them if they resist and use the Samson Option and nuke the world if it dares to stop them from fulfilling God's will. Geezz.. CarolMooreDC 06:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your opinion, but I don't understand why it's more valid that 150 years worth of libertarian history. You can denounce it as a religious position, that encyclopedic articles maybe should fairly reflect the simple truth about recorded history -- but you've decided for everyone that it isn't well known. Here is another possibility: it is not well known by you. It's certainly well documented. Finx (talk) 06:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with documentation presented as refs in article. I'm just tired of hearing "We have lots of refs to prove that there have been (and still are?) libertarian leftists and since we filled the article up with a few such refs, and a lot of other stuff relevant to them even if the sources don't mention it (and removed a lot of that "capitalist crap"?), the whole article should emphasize this view." So the counter balance to this POV has to be a) remove all material that does not directly mention/ref "libertarianism" per policy and b) add more info the the more commonly know type of libertarianism, include the fact that sources say it is the more commonly known. Which I'll put back soon. But I have another major libertarianish-related article working on where DO mention lefties but having these stupid arguments is slowing me down. CarolMooreDC 16:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way about these "stupid arguments" slowing you down from writing a libertarian article about "lefties" -- (that's how I use quotes, by the way -- if I'm quoting someone; IIRC, I never used the words "capitalist crap" -- so no point in putting that in quotations). I feel the same way about your "stupid arguments" by the way. The more "commonly known" type of libertarianism is plainly anarchism -- which is to say the anti-capitalist, anti-state group of ideologies. The US is 5% of the world's population, the positions of CATO and USLP notwithstanding. Finx (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

You'll have to pardon my frustration with going over this whole topic yet again for the umpteenth time - (though mostly in the past its been defending the right to put properly ref'd left libertarian material in here). So what's your version of International Society for Individual Liberty (formerly Libertarian International and wish they hadn't merged with a less impressive group and changed the name). It has a "network" of over 3000 groups in 80 countries here. At the very least groups that would not scream "remove me" from you list; at best a few hundred that are highly in sync with them. And why aren't they listed under Libertarian organizations section?? CarolMooreDC 21:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

You can easily claim 300,000 organizations if they're 99.9% PR shell companies and don't do anything. But okay, a few: libcom (stands for libertarian communism), FNB (identified as libertarian, can cite), ALL (L stands for libertarian, multiple cities), ALF (L stands for libertarian), CLM (L stands for libertarian), AL (L stands for libertarian), LWG (L stands for libertarian), CLJP... I can go on. Are we done yet? I would indeed love to wrap up this stupid, stupid argument, as you yourself put it and move on to something more dignified. Finx (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

So what's the problem with listing them if they describe themselves as libertarian in some major way. (I certainly wouldn't list any groups that didn't and have removed some that others have listed in past from this article and other lists/categories over the years.) (Oh, and stupid arguments are ones that are not policy based but personal view point based; more from another person who has refused to provide much in the way of support for their arguments.) CarolMooreDC 02:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

ISIL? I don't see any problem with listing them, so long as it's clear what their purpose is. Do you see a problem with listing various socialist/communist organizations? Where are they, by the way? They seem to be conspicuously missing from that section. Finx (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Lead

I am trying to structure the lead to provide a more accurate analysis which is not shaped by the US definition of libertarianism (many of the sources in the lead, such as stanford encyclopedia, are US based). Therefore it is not written in proper context and violats NPOV. North800, I see from your talk page that you identify as a propertarian libertarian, which could affect judgement. The intro is all over the place. Please let me continue and voice in any concerns, thanks.--JTBX (talk) 12:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The lead is a careful balance worked out by many people over many years. I'm not amenable to your approach of a massive unilateral re-write. Please propose individual changes here. Or else small BRD edits spread over time. North8000 (talk) 13:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

PS your assuming bad faith imagination about my my efforts here is totally wrong. If you will look at the history here you will see that in my 2 1/2 active years here I have been the middle of the road stabilizer here. And that has included resisting efforts to pull the article to either extreme. North8000 (talk) 13:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Please don't assume bad faith, just because someone has propertarian leanings. What problems do you have with the lead more specifically? Finx (talk) 21:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

BTW, adding "proprietarian" to US libertarianism, indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of the bulk of US libertarianism which can be FULLY described by four words: "less government, more freedom" END OF DEFINITION. Most of them tacitly accept the existence of automobiles, rights to own property, the existence of some amount of government under any scenario, and cute puppies, but those four things are not a part of their libertarian definition and agenda. North8000 (talk)

I don't really feel like repeating the last discussion we had on the malapropism of 'less government,' how those two words don't make any sense together, how privatizing power systems and transferring state authority to unaccountable private bureaucracies was rarely considered reducing them by anybody, or how the history doesn't really stand up to that assertion. I didn't mean to offend with the term. I was agreeing with your previous post. Finx (talk) 07:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Just as clarification, North8000, left-libertarians view right-libertarianism as propertarian; it's not a misunderstanding, but an important distinction between the two, whether or not it's explicitly included in the right-libertarian's platform.

JTBX, I agree that this article needs work, but since anarchism/non-US libertarianism already has an article, most of the information herein should pertain to the US definition (although I think we could do better distinguishing the two in the lead). Do you have any particular changes in mind? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

IMHO "right libertarian" has so many and so ad hoc meanings that it is a useless term so I can't make much out of that first sentence. Other than saying that a strand is not defined by the view/lens of another strand. North8000 (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Folks have said that there's much that doesn't fall under either of those (US style and anarchism) and that is hopefully covered and to-be-covered here. North8000 (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree: there are plenty of accounts distinguishing between right- and left-libertarianism that clearly agree on the differences, as I've illustrated previously. The point I was trying to make, however, is that calling US libertarianism propertarian isn't a misunderstanding; it's an assessment made by many and doesn't need to be chastised on a Talk page. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if anything I said sounded like chastising. I intended it for two purposes (to try to provide useful info, and with respect to article content) and neither of them was intended to be within even 100 miles of being chastising. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but some of the language you use (e.g. "fundamental misunderstanding," "corrupted the term 'liberal'") does come across in that regard. Not a big deal; probably just a personal peeve. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Just reiterating, I said that we Americans have corrupted the word "liberal". I don't think I ever said or hinted that any editors have done so. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that Americans have also corrupted libertarianism, as it is appears in these article disputes. But again, the fact is that libertarian, even here in the UK as I took my politics classes and in the rest of Europe and much of the world, refers to anarcho-socialist currents. The clarification should be made in the lead, especially as the word itself was coined by an anarcho-communist and that this definition preceeds concoctions of wealthy US elites in the 1950s-1970s.--JTBX (talk) 12:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

This is the lead I put forward (work in progress, has a couple of repetitions:

Libertarianism is the group of political philosophies which advocate minimizing authority and coercion and emphasize freedom, liberty, and voluntary association. Libertarians generally advocate a society with a greatly reduced state or no state at all.

Libertarianism can be traced to the the 18th century where it was used by Enlightenment thinkers to assert their ideas of free will from theological determinism. In 1857, French anarchist Joseph Déjacque coined the term from the cognate libertaire to distinguish his libertarian communist approach from mutualism. It then began to be used in the 19th century by socialists who advocated a non-state and self-managed, democratic socialism. Libertarian socialists used the term to differentiate their views, which emphasized the importance of individual liberty, advocated the elimination of unjustified hierarchy, including capitalism and the state, from statist socialist currents. As such, "libertarian" and "libertarianism" has historically been associated and synonymous with left anarchism or anti-statist currents of socialism.

In the United States libertarianism was adopted as a term to identify right-wing populist and free market currents with anti-goverment stances, a phenomenon originating and popularised from the 1970s when the US Libertarian Party was formed. While anti-statist, American libertarianism argues in favour of capitalist relations and of private property as one of its founding doctrines. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy for example, defines libertarianism as the moral view that agents initially fully own themselves and have certain moral powers to acquire property rights in external things. Scholars have tried to provide an overall definition, for example George Woodcock, author of a history of libertarianism, defines it as the philosophy that fundamentally doubts authority and advocates transforming society by reform or revolution. Libertarian philosopher Roderick Long defines libertarianism as "any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals", whether "voluntary association" takes the form of the free market or of communal co-operatives. According to the U.S. Libertarian Party, libertarianism is the advocacy of a government that is funded voluntarily and limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence.

Some scholars express disapproval of free-market capitalists calling themselves libertarians, particularly from the historical context, as it deliberately confuses to try and appeal to popular concerns. Left libertarians argue that private property and business rule is the ultimate tyranny, as goverment has atleast some limited democratic function. Likewise, many libertarian capitalists disapprove of socialists calling themselves "libertarian." In the United States, where the meaning of liberalism has parted significantly from classical liberalism, classical liberalism has largely been renamed to libertarianism and is associated with "economically conservative" and "socially liberal" political views (going by the common meanings of "conservative" and "liberal" in the United States).

Libertarian schools of thought differ over the degree to which the state should be reduced. Anarchistic schools advocate complete elimination of the state. Minarchists advocate a state which is limited to protecting its citizens from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud. Some schools accept public assistance for the poor. Additionally, some schools are supportive of private property rights in the ownership of unappropriated land and natural resources while others reject such private ownership and often support common ownership instead (libertarian socialism). This has not occurred in other parts of the world, and so the common meaning outside the USA has continued to lean more toward anarchism or anti-statist strands of the socialist movement.

Guess you haven't read much of the arguments below. Also see what your teachers missed: Libertarianism in the United Kingdom. These quotes from Journalist Jason Walsh at the Guardian, 2005 of relevance, where he admits that the form of libertarianism he disapproves of is the rapidly growing form in UK:

... One of the fastest growing political currents in Britain and America today is libertarianism. Its growth can be seen most clearly on the internet, but demands for "freedom" are being made in the real world also.

For those of you reading this who think "libertarian" politics are solely concerned with civil liberties or remember that libertarianism was once a synonym for anarchism - a form of communist politics, incidentally - do try and keep up.

Libertarianism is the ideology of free-market capitalism and individual rights, the dogma of minimal state and maximum profits.

And, of course, the right to bear arms...

...However, in 2006, after a decade of New Labour's increasingly authoritarian policies, from pointless bans on smoking and hunting with hounds, to the biometric identity cards soon to be demanded by a police officer near you, the message of the libertarian thinktanks, such as the Cato Institute and the Adam Smith Institute, is beginning to command attention in the UK....

Mr. Walsh also claims there is "no substantial libertarian critique of corporations". He hasn't notice a great deal of libertarian work on rights of groups of individuals (including corporations) as here. Now, corps do receive some special govt legal protections, as does government and many classes of groups of people, and libertarians think those should be abolished, as discussed with this Rodrick Long article at Cato.org. (OF course it is another those "left libertarian" more pro-property than not essays.) Note that other libertarians have written that "corporations" of all types can exist without govt protection merely by having a contract limiting liability of specified office holders/employees of the corporation that all buyers from and sellers to the corporation must sign. All stuff that needs to be worked into the article. FYI CarolMooreDC 13:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

A small step forward....what NOT to cover

Without tackling the bigger question, I think that one thing that we should put to bed is that we don't need to cover misconceptions from places that aren't familiar with it. This includes:

• The common meaning of anarchist in the US is someone who riots, throws firebombs and motorcycle gangs who take over towns. It is not "Eurocentric bias" to leave this definition out of our anarchism description.
• Persons who don't understand the common meaning of "libertarian" in the US (which is basically just two items: prioritizing less government and more freedom) and who keep trying to describe it in irrelevant terms (proprietarian, minarchist, "right" etc) It is not US-centric bias to leave these errors out of the description of common US libertarianism.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The first point isn't exactly correct: we anarchists have earned our association with terrorism because of incidents of propaganda of the deed, and this is not unique to the USA. There is no Eurocentric bias here because there's no Eurocentricity. This association is explained in the anarchism article, as it should be. I'm fairly certain the second point is directed at me, but I want to make clear that I refer to US libertarianism in these ways only on this Talk page. I have proposed using the terms left- and right-libertarianism to better organize this article because they are supported by sources (and yes, with congruent definitions), but consensus is against this. I have requested better terminology, but received no response; therefore, I will continue to refer to it as I have until a suitable replacement is found. The association of libertarianism with property rights, too, is relevant and worth inclusion, though not as a definitional statement. This information would work well in a "Criticism" section, as most of these are attributed to left-libertarians (i.e. anarchists).

In short, I disagree with omitting relevant information in both cases. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you find a scholarly source discussing how this "common sense" definition differs from say, Robert Long's scholarly and clear indication that the US movement centred around the USLP has very clear views on bourgeois property? Compare as a distinction the scholarly study of Labourism as opposed to Socialism in the labour movement context, even though Labourism isn't a clearly evoked singular ideology, it was a populist conception of the world, it has been subject to appropriate scholarly study (Browns' From Labourism to Socialism for example). Fifelfoo (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't argue that because I don't disagree with that regarding the portion of US libertarians (maybe 2%) centered around the USLP The USLP has a full platform, and so ascribing things (beyond my short list of two items) to that philosophy (e.g. views on property) is not in error. There IS sourcing that says that about 10% of the US self-identifies as libertarian, and about 20% votes libertarian (selected Democrat and Republican candidates) which means that USLP folks are about 1/2% - 2% of US libertarians. North8000 (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Slightly smaller because of evaluations of the IWW, NEFAC, etc. But the core of the point is that if you want to talk about a broad social ideology, you need scholarly sources. And in relation to an article where scholars don't even speak on the same page, we ought to deal with the highest order scholarly works: scholarly surveys of scholars themselves. I know we've mentioned this to each other before, but with the discourse on this page attempting to reason from unique personal readings of Greek, it bares saying again: field reviews, multiple field reviews. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Keeping in mind that I am conversing with the person with the highest sourcing standards of anyone I've ever met on Wikipedia. :-) I think that there is sourcing in the article on this. And there is some overlap between the normal degree of summarization that is the backbone of Wikipedia articles and what is precluded by a fully rigorous interpretation of wp:nor/wp:synth. BTW what I'm talking about it's not really a broad ideology.....it's just 2 item component of political beliefs that prioritizes reduction of government and increasing personal freedom. And in a narrower sense, a widespread common meaning for the word which is only that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

(I seriously relax my sourcing standards on uncontentious pop-culture). While I think you're right, I think we're still waiting on a major contribution to the social and political history of the United States that does focus on this. It certainly has been a streak inside populist self-conceptions, but it still needs to be written up and comprehended. Particularly if the claim is that some organisations (USLP / USLP registered preselecting voters) conflate the general "vibe" with their own party, and that the vibe itself needs significant discussion. The more contentious the article, the more vigorous the discussion of appropriate sourcing. (And this article isn't one of the most contentious). Fifelfoo (talk) 04:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

If you are writing an article mostly about 19th century events/movements/individuals, sure you need mostly scholarly refs. When you are talking about phenomena of the last 20 to 25 years particularly, news sources are perfectly WP:RS - and often are what scholars rely on, including on papers/books yet unpublished. Libertarianism is an evolving philosophy, not something stuck in 1899... CarolMooreDC 18:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Should Libertarianism be a cross-reference page?

A Cross-reference page is a relatively new concept described in the WP:Cross-reference essay. While it is currently just an essay, there is a proposal to promote it to policy, here. There is a category listing all current cross-reference pages, here.

Though all the various forms of "libertarianism" are somewhat related, I've always thought the concept of a single umbrella topic covering all forms was somewhat artificial, and generally such usage is not supported by reliable sources (most references to "libertarianism" in reliable sources refer to some specific meaning of libertarianism, not to the umbrella meaning that this article tries to cover). Perhaps the solution here is to make Libertarianism be a cross-reference page, with links to all the specific uses of libertarianism covered in reliable sources? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Just like the good old days. It's like meeting somebody who shares your common last name and assuming that you're related. That's why the DAB page is far more appropriate..."A disambiguation page links to various articles about possibly unrelated topics known by the same name" The only thing that these ideologies have in common is that they are all political ideologies. That being said, a cross reference page would certainly be an improvement. It would give us the opportunity to see if any of the topics received enough views to be considered the primary topic. --Xerographica (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that the key point is that it is about a group of meanings for the same word that, while they are different, are related enough to where non-expert people think that they are the same meaning. Words in a similar situation are Global warming, Folk music, Assault weapon, World music. Also where the word itself (not just what it represents) needs coverage. North8000 (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I think non-experts can differentiate between limiting or abolishing the government. They can also probably differentiate between private and collective property. These aren't "minor" details. These are fundamental differences. These ideologies are not tangentially opposed to each other...they are diametrically opposed. For example, Ayn Rand hated anarchists. Mises thought that they suffered from "absurd illusions" and Buchanan said that "little more than casual reflection is required, however, to suggest that the whole idea is a conceptual mirage." There's a strong consensus regarding the necessity of government and the importance of strong property rights. Anything that is more than a couple standard deviations away from this consensus is not the same ideology. Bundling all these diametrically opposed ideologies together and saying that they are "libertarianism" is a violation of WP:NAD and WP:ALSO and a huge disservice to readers. --Xerographica (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I meant that non-experts would answer that libertarian is A political ideology/philosophy, not a bunch of different ideologies/philosophies. And that, in order for this to happen, those philosophies/meanings must have some similarities And that that (combined with the common name being the same for all of them) means that it's common and accepted to cover them in one article. So it's not like "orange" the color and "orange" the fruit. North8000 (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I think if this was put before the Wikipedian community they would agree with the following proposal:

Since the left/socialist/communist libertarians are so upset about having anything to do with people who have a different view of private property than they do, even though various WP:RS do discuss the relationship of the different types of libertarianism, their views can be a hat note in the Libertarianism article to the new Libertarian socialism (disambiguation). The Libertarianism article henceforth only will discuss the more commonly known version [REFS PROVIDED] which is more pro-property and only differences over definitions of private property among those libertarians will be discussed in the article.'

I think that neatly solves the "yuk factor" problem that so obviously has oppressed various "left" editors of this article for years. CarolMooreDC 20:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

My main 2 agendas are to make sure that common US libertarianism gets suitably covered in the libertarian article and to avoid descending into painful warfare. So on the latter, I've been the one sort of arguing for the "middle" and at for least briefly covering all significant strands. But I'm not married to that idea. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

As an "in the middle" person whose taken grief from both sides, I'm pretty fed up, especially now that I realize I have to go back and clean out all that WP:OR and add back perfectly good material that was deleted. (And update too since a lot of that material is 4 years old, before I became an expert with books.google, etc.) But mostly because I have to waste so much time discussing it here. Plus I just want to give them a heads up on what I will do if they continue with the disambig/cross reference propsals. (The latter I'll have to study tonight and opine on the RfC since this article probably will be a prime example relevant to something or other there.) CarolMooreDC 21:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Still waiting on something convincing to back up that bombastic and completely unhistorical "more commonly known version" claim. Finx (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

[Insert]:Hint: search this page for phrase "Right libertarianism" has been described as better-known. For three four-year-old refs. I haven't even tried to look for other ones, using slightly different terms.CarolMooreDC 02:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that it hasn't been described that way (though the context is muddy). I'm pointing out that it's also been described as the opposite: the most recent, aberrant and least significant strain localized in the US. You seem to want to promote the right-wing claims to uncontested truth, and I'm only telling you it's not uncontested. Finx (talk) 08:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

[Insert]: First, I'm one of those who object to any inference of right-wing-ism and see it as a personal attack. Find me any libertarians in WP:RS who call themselves "right wing." (A couple confused nobody bloggers who really are conservatives don't count.) CarolMooreDC 18:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I completely agree with North8000 on this one. In order to be useful, a disambig page would have to be an article in itself. I think this is a very bad idea. If anything, maybe a blurb at the top to say "For the political party, see <link to LPUSA> Finx (talk) 00:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

What more would need to be said than this...?

• Libertarianism (limited government), narrow scope of government and strong property rights
• Anarcho-capitalism, no scope of government and strong property rights
• Anarcho-socialism, no scope of government and collective ownership

Would you want to put anarcho-socialism first?

• Anarcho-socialism, no scope of government and collective ownership
• Libertarianism (limited government), narrow scope of government and strong property rights
• Anarcho-capitalism, no scope of government and strong property rights

No problem! Do you want to put LGL last?

• Anarcho-socialism, no scope of government and collective ownership
• Anarcho-capitalism, no scope of government and strong property rights
• Libertarianism (limited government), narrow scope of government and strong property rights

Again, no problem! It would be just like Goldilocks and the Three Bears. So where's the difficulty? Why not allow the reader to choose which bed they want to sleep in? Why not allow them to choose what they put on their plate? Why not give them the freedom to choose the ideology that most closely matches their preferences? --Xerographica (talk) 00:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

For one thing, there's no such thing as "anrcho-socialism" -- it's redundant. For another, like others have pointed out, they're not concepts totally alien to one another. The propertarian strains are related to other forms of libertarianism, even if they disagree on central tenets. Finx (talk) 00:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Is there such a thing as "libertarian socialism"? If so, is it also redundant? Regarding aliens...the above tenets very clearly delineate the proper scope of each article. Obviously that's what's needed to prevent the vast majority of one article from being dedicated to the topic of another article. --Xerographica (talk) 01:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The 'libertarian' in lib-soc qualifies the type of socialism, distinguishing it from 'vanguardist' or 'state-socialism.' The word after the prefix 'anarcho-' qualifies the type of anarchism (eg: feminism, syndicalism, primitivism). Since the only exception to anti-capitalist anarchism is Rothbard, and most anarchists (including Rothbard, oddly enough) don't consider ancap a form of anarchism... Finx (talk) 02:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

So are you guys going to try disambig without consensus? If so please say so loud and clear here. Otherwise, we can discuss my next set of clean ups, which probably won't be earlier than this weekend.

By the way left a funny note on Cross reference discussion. I can see that proposal is going no where, thank heavens!!! CarolMooreDC 02:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Just to repeat, I'm not in favor of disambig or cr, so I hope 'you guys' wasn't meant to include me. Also, apologies, but I'm still not entirely clear on what you're planning on changing, after reading over your posts again. And if the intention is to de-emphasize the capitalist/anti-capitalist distinction (by either whittling down the anti-cap sections or purging explanations of differences), I still don't understand why or see how it's "sick patriarchal" not to do so. Finx (talk) 02:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not in favor of converting it to a disambig at this time, and do not see anywhere even near enough support to do that. North8000 (talk) 02:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I definitely see there is not a consensus to create disambig. All I'm going to do soon is"

• go through references and take out material that is not clearly referring to libertarianism the philosophy per you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. and obviously is POV/WP:Undue. I'll do a bit at a time so people have time to re-check and see if I erred.
• But if I think a point is important and should be sourceable I'll either put proper source on it or put citation needed on it. I could see the section I totally removed obviously was most problematic. Others probably aren't quite as bad and just need some removal here and there and perhaps merging with other sections once they are cut down to a WP:DUE/NPOV size.
• I'm also going to go through the most recent version before article got totally changed during the first two weeks of February 2012 (plus take a look at last version before I stopped watching page) and add back important material that was removed, starting with "the most common version of libertarian refs - and find some more as well. CarolMooreDC

And just to reiterate one more time, your "most common version of libertarianism" claim is highly dubious at best, and contradicted by dozens of other sources, not to mention well over a century worth of history. Finx (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

[Insert]:Hint: search this page for phrase "Right libertarianism" has been described as better-known. For three four-year-old refs. I haven't even tried to look for other ones, using slightly different terms.CarolMooreDC 02:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

There is sourcing for the size of that form. BTW, it simply due to the fact that renaming "classical liberalism" to "libertarianism" (as has somewhat uniquely happened in the US) creates gajillions of people called "libertarians". North8000 (talk) 21:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

There are vague public opinion polls showing, mostly, that a significant chunk of the US population identifies more with 'libertarian' views than those of the two mainstream political parties. There's also tons of polls showing that the majority of the population leans social-democratic, again, in opposition to both parties. I don't think that's at all surprising, but it still leaves us with two problems. First, again, the US is not the world and only represents 1/20th of the world's population. Second, there's the question of what those people consider libertarian (non-interventionism? more social liberties? less corporate accountability and regulation? abolition of limited liability? who knows! they don't ask that). As far as the renaming of classical liberalism, with neoliberalism (or rather neoliberal-themed libertarianism) reclaiming the values, here's a number of scholars refuting that claim (video). I think if classical liberalism is dragged into this issue, this perspective should be included. Finx (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Please tell me we're not going to have this battle again. Both I and Darkstar1st already mentioned above how capitalist libertarianism is by no means limited to the United States (or even to North America). So this "American definition" or "unique to the U.S." nonsense is just that. In fact, at this point, there are probably just as many libertarian organizations worldwide that identify with capitalism as there are that identify with socialism. No, we cannot ignore socialist variants nor the certain anarchist roots of libertarianism, but by the same token, you cannot ignore the fact that, as English is a living language, definitions can change over the course of time. Yes, things were different once upon a time, but it's 2013, not 1900. The minarchist/capitalist strain of libertarianism is indeed a thing, it is not limited to the United States, and as much as you might want to pretend otherwise, you can't. I do not want this article to ignore the anarchist or socialist strains of libertarianism, but it seems you want to do exactly that to us. You can't just use it as a vehicle to marginalize the free market, individualist wing just because you don't like it. Anarchism and socialism already have countless articles devoted to each and every one of their little variants (again, as I've already mentioned). You've got Left-libertarianism, Left-anarchism, Social anarchism, Libertarian socialism, Collectivist anarchism, etc. But this is just...not enough for you, Finx? --Adam9389 (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2013

I've provided scholarly sources for what I said (they're on this page, do a ctrl+f for "Conversations with History") and I can provide more. What are your sources? Personal anecdotes? That's all I've heard so far. Someone knows a guy in London who says he's a libertarian and reads lots of articles on mises.org. I don't want to exclude neoliberalism. I want you to stop making baseless, unsubstantiated and bombastic claims. If you want total global appropriation of the term's modern usage, back it up. No amount of thumping and screaming "I'm right" is going to change this matter. Finx (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Who says that views on proprietarain vs. non-proprietarian, capitalism vs. anti-capitalism, or how far to take reduction of government must be defining components of every strand of libertarianism? Are we to say that a strand of libertarianism that has no single stance on any or all of these three questions can't / doesn't exist? North8000 (talk) 01:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

There's another "Distinction" missing that applies to all forms of libertarianism: gradualist vs. radical strategy. I mean sounds like Chomsky wants to keep social welfare programs til everything else has been abolished (Including the police forces necessary to collect taxes to pay for them?). I'm sure there are lefty libs who would disagree. But have not researched the point with refs, so shall not opine further at the moment. CarolMooreDC 02:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

My post / challenging question was an attempt to avoid some of the naming confusion. And the incorrect & unsourced practice of assigning adjectives based on things that are not even dealt with in their tenets or "platform". North8000 (talk) 12:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Dang, he wants to stay on topic :-) I won't say what the alternative is (again) til I've proved it. :-) CarolMooreDC 18:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Can we at least agree... ?

We have multiple sections with overlapping conversations, and I'd like to consolidate this and see if everyone is at least on the same page on one thing: can we at least agree that there is too much information about anarchism and a dearth of information about right-libertarianism/LGL (limited government libertarianism) in this article? I see this issue as divided by whether there are multiple meanings of libertarianism or there are multiple ideologies that fall under the category of libertarianism. Either way, though, it seems like nearly the same approach should be used:

• If there are multiple meanings, anarchism already has its commonly named article and this one ought to cover right-libertarianism/LGL primarily. The term's history will explain its connection with anarchism and a SeeAlso link will permit readers to easily find additional information thereof.
• If there are multiple ideologies under the name libertarianism, much of the history of anarchism needs to be in this article, but it ought to be summarized as a content fork and, hence, greatly reduced. This trimming will leave more room for information on right-libertarianism/LGL.

Does this seem an accurate assessment of the situation? And if so, aren't we all in agreement that the coverage of anarchism needs to be reduced and that of right-libertarianism/LGL expanded? I'm hoping we can stop talking past each other and work together to improve this article. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Considering the best known, most popular version of libertarianism is pro-property, but that there is little evidence anyone describes themselves as a "[right-libertarina]], I'd say a majority of libertarians also agree with this statement that was removed. I'm sure I can find more updated statements on this idea (from early Feb 2012 version). Maybe someday we'll find a good ref that says "the majority":

However, many libertarians reject being described as either "left" or "right." (refs made visible)

• Duncan Watts, Understanding American government and politics: a guide for A2 politics students, 2nd Revised edition, Manchester University Press, 16 March 2006, p 246 IBN 978-0719073274: "Libertarians feel that neither left nor right can be trusted to defend the rights of individuals."
• Leonard Read rejected these terms as "authoritarian". Neither Left Nor Right, The Freeman, February 1998, Vol. 48 No. 2.
• Walter Block rejected the labels being even in making differentiations between libertarians who were largely pro-property. Author "Libertarianism is unique; it belongs neither to the right nor the left," Journal of Libertarian Studies, Volume 22 (2010): 127–70.
• Sheldon Richman writes about this in Libertarianism: Left or Right?, Future of Freedom Foundation's "Freedom Daily," June 2007. "Is libertarianism of the Left or of the Right? We often avoid this question with a resounding 'Neither!'" He also points out that left and right were "first used in the French Legislative Assembly after the revolution of 1789. In that context those who sat on the right side of the assembly were steadfast supporters of the dethroned monarchy and aristocracy — the ancien régime — (and hence were conservatives) while those who sat on the left opposed its reinstatement (and hence were radicals). It should follow from this that libertarians, or classical liberals, would sit on the left."

So I think stripping much of the article of excessive sectarianism is important; but removing poorly sourced material will probably take care of most of that. CarolMooreDC 20:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Dear Carol, Watts is a high school textbook and not an appropriate source for any kind of claim (see who Watts cites, perhaps?). With the other sources, some are problematic in a WEIGHT debate, as they're advocacy not field reviews, but some of them could certainly elucidate points on the topic (which is weighty from Woodcock and Long). We really shouldn't be using British high school textbooks. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

So you are saying Manchester University Press publications are not WP:RS?? Please take it to WP:RSN. CarolMooreDC 18:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that giving less space to anarchism in this article is appropriate. We actually decided that but forgot. I think that the main reason for this is that anarchism has an article. Also, "anarchism" not "libertarianism" is the most common name for anarchism. But we should still cover (here) that anarchism is historically and taxonomically libertarianism, we just don't need to cover the details here. North8000 (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Is it really a radical position that the article should just proportionally cover the history of the term and its usage? Yes, the propertarian/whatever-you-want-to-call-it strain needs to be described more thoroughly. Yes, it has its own (much narrower) history. For that matter, it also needs much more of a labor focus, but for some reason nobody's pushing for that. Yes, I think duplicate information that can be found in the anarchism article should be kept to a minimum of blurbs and quick summaries with internal links to where one can read more about it. No, I do not think this is weight issue. At all. Nor do I agree with the ridiculous, unsubstantiated claim that the "best known, most popular version of libertarianism is pro-property." The rebranding of libertarianism along neoliberal/pro-business lines is localized in the US, and mostly trails from the 70s on. There is no sensible reason why the mainstream meaning for 5% of the world population should dictate the meaning for the other 95%, sweeping away over a century of history. Finx (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

On your first sentence, not only is it not radical, it is a good idea. I did not mean to imply otherwise. I agree that we should cover the history because, over the long term, anarchism IS in the the history of libertarianism. But, the meaning for those practicing it should be the meaning of those practicing it, for US strands and others. North8000 (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

North8000 and Finx, I think we are in agreement. CarolMooreDC, I'm not wedded to that terminology; I merely use it in the Talk pages so everyone understands what I'm saying. It appears that we agree, but I want to make sure... do you think this article needs less anarchism and more pro-property libertarianism? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, except that IMHO "pro-property" is not a useful/valid name for the strand that you are referring to. North8000 (talk) 21:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

May I take a guess at / ask why your are using "pro-property" as an identifier for a strand that doesn't even have pro/anti-property on its radar screen? That is that some strands are anti-property and they view any strand that is not anti-property as being "pro-property". Probably a more logically precise term would be "not anti-property" North8000 (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Being one of those, you calling me a "pro-property" libertarian to me sounds like calling me a "pro-dog" libertarian. I'd say.....well yeah, I like dogs, but it has nothing to do with what I would consider to be my libertarian beliefs. North8000 (talk) 21:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Again, I'm merely trying to relate to people on this Talk page. In this case, CarolMooreDC stated that "the best known, most popular version of libertarianism is pro-property." -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Cool! North8000 (talk) 21:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Would pro/anti-capitalist be better? I too refer to it on talk pages as right/propertarian/neoliberal, but I don't mean it to be pejorative. I really personally don't care what it's called so long as the difference is clear. It is almost 180-turnaround concerning labor relations and capitalism though, so it isn't a minor point. If the 'propertarian/non-propertarian' section is removed, for example, what should it be replaced with? Finx (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, that was just my two cents on the topic, not directed at your post specifically. Finx (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

"Pro-property" is definitely not pejorative, but I think misleads the readers instead of informing them. "Right" would be disputed at best, because libertarians are in direct opposition to the right on many matters North8000 (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Some people are absurdly obsessed with the distant past and who said what during the first international, or whatever. What we have to provide more info on is what is happening today both in the article and in related articles that detail various movements. CarolMooreDC 02:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

No, MisterDub, in relation to your suggestion of the 14th, we can't agree this, as it fails to reflect the weight suggested by a number of the most significant field reviews. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Your input is much appreciated, but it appears consensus supports the reduction of anarchism in this article per WP:UCN. I think now we ought to nail down how we're going to accomplish this. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I think we're talking about about acknowledging anarchism's rightful place and rightful importance here but leaving the bulk details to coverage in the anarchism article. North8000 (talk) 19:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Show me your sources. WP:UCN doesn't over ride the fact that this is a topic covered by scholarly research and the appropriate sources for the common name are the scholarly works. Please do show me your sources, because you're playing games to avoid WEIGHT and WP:V. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

To clarify my opinion -- I'm in favor of reduction for length and wordiness -- not for weight. All the pertinent topics, but less detail. --Finx (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

On matters of due weight, property and appropriation

I keep harping on this, because I think it matters for future rewrites and revisions. We keep coming back to the same few claims --

Claim: Maybe libertarianism was once anti-capitalist but that's ancient history, because it's been pro-capitalist for a long time

Therefore, this should be the central focus of the article, with a modest tip of the hat its humble and now anachronistic origins

Take a look at Woodcock's account of libertarian movements (Woodcock, George (2004). Anarchism: a history of libertarian ideas and movements. Peterborough, Ont.: Broadview Press. ISBN 1551116294.) -- it's written in 1962. Why does he not mention this apparently prominent new strain of neoliberal-themed libertarianism? Where are the references to H.L. Mencken self-identifying as a libertarian? How about Albert Jay Nock? Searching through their works, the few mentions I've come across all come from the Mises Institute or similar posthumously tacking on the label.

Claim: Contemporary libertarianism in its best-known/most-popular/most-relevant/most-active version champions private-property and/or neoliberal/propertarian libertarianism has been embraced by the whole world and is no longer a mainly American phenomenon

Therefore, this should be the central focus of the article, with a modest tip of the hat its humble and now anachronistic origins

Okay, so let's go over the 'evidence' --

• "Conversations with History; Institute of International Studies, UC Berkeley".

The United States is sort of out of the world on this topic. Britain is to a limited extent, but the United States is like on Mars. So here, the term "libertarian" means the opposite of what it always meant in history. Libertarian throughout modern European history meant socialist anarchist. It meant the anti-state element of the Workers Movement and the Socialist Movement.

• Mitchell, edited by Peter R. (2003). Understanding power : the indispensable Chomsky. New Delhi, India: Penguin Books. p. 200. ISBN 0143029916. {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Man: What's the difference between "libertarian" and "anarchist," exactly?

Chomsky: There's no difference, really. I think they're the same thing. But you see, "libertarian" has a special meaning in the United States. The United States is off the spectrum of the main tradition in this respect: what's called "libertarianism" here is unbridled capitalism. Now, that's always been opposed in the European libertarian tradition, where every anarchist has been a socialist—because the point is, if you have unbridled capitalism, you have all kinds of authority: you have extreme authority

• Fernández, Frank (2001). Cuban anarchism : the history of a movement (1. ed. ed.). Tucson, Ariz.: See Sharp Press. p. 9. ISBN 1884365191. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)

Thus, in the United States, the once exceedingly useful term "libertarian" has been hijacked by egotists who are in fact enemies of liberty in the full sense of the word.

• Lilley, Sasha (2010). Capital and its discontents conversations with radical thinkers in a time of tumult. Oakland, CA: PM Press. p. 251. ISBN 1604865326.

When I say libertarian, I mean it in the European sense -- left libertarian, meaning libertarian socialist, meaning emancipatory. - Andrej Grubačić

• Rhonheimer, Martin. The Common Good of Constitutional Democracy Essays in Political Philosophy and on Catholic Social Teaching. Catholic Univ of Amer Pr. pp. xii. ISBN 0813220092.

Therefore, in some aspects they are closer to what in America is called a libertarian, without, however, sharing the anarchical traits of many libertarians

• Castells, Manuel (2003). The Internet galaxy : reflections on the Internet, business, and society (Repr. ed.). Oxford [u.a.]: Oxford Univ. Pr. p. 33. ISBN 0199241538.

"Libertarian" has a different meaning in the European and in the American context.

• Mayer, Margit (1997). The German Greens : paradox between movement and party. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. p. 241. ISBN 156639516X. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

In this sense, while their language is that of "civic republicanism" and radical ecology, their ultimate politics are those of "libertarians" in the North American, not European, sense of this word -- support for free markets and opposition to state interference

• Pleyers, Geoffrey (2010). Alter-globalization : becoming actors in a global age (1. publ. ed.). Cambridge: Polity Press. p. 75. ISBN 0745646751.

Libertarian youth Groups of libertarian youth are organized around small, anti-capitalist collectives and include squatters, anti-militarists, alternative media practitioners, and others who stress local struggles and collective self-management.

Seems an awful lot of writers categorically disagree in one way or another. Also, there's no shortage of contemporary anti-capitalist groups self-identifying as libertarian (libcom, ALF, CLM, AL, LWG, CLJP).

So, it seems the left has not abandoned libertarianism, in spite of Rothbard's claims that "[his] side had captured a crucial word from the enemy" (Rothbard, Murray. Betrayal of the American Right. p. 83. ISBN 1610165012.). And yet this "words change, get over it" argument keeps popping up constantly.

Claim: There's too much emphasis on capitalism and property and it really doesn't matter much/at-all; it's not a central tenet

Therefore, property/labor-relations distinctions should be de-emphasized

It's kind of a pivotal point. If the word was synonymous with anarchism, then it seems odd to trivialize it when a movement centrally focused on dismantling the capitalist system becomes the proudest champion of unbridled capitalism. If there are, for lack of a better word, 'property-agnostic' strains -- great, let's document that. But I struggle to think of any libertarian figure who didn't have explicit views on private property or labor relations, even if she/he didn't fixate on them above all else.

In summary, it's not an archaic use of the word, it's not ancient history and it does matter. Can we quit trying to standardize libertarianism along the lines of what it means to Ron Paul? Obviously, this isn't just a homonym that can be cleared up with a disambiguation page, along the lines of "did you mean orange-the-fruit or orange-the-color." Still, the world does not revolve around US electoral politics or think tanks, and there are present, paramount divisions between neoliberal and traditional libertarianism. They matter, haven't gone away and the word doesn not belong (historically or presently) to the neoliberal camp or its more radical ultra-capitalist counterparts. --Finx (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd quibble on a few small items but overall agree. And, for discussion here, I find your "property-agnostic" term to be very useful.

I espouse what might be considered the "middle-of'the-road view regarding the article which is:

• Cover all currently or historically significant strands. And not as through the "lens" of another strand
• Less depth on Anarchism ONLY because 1. it has its own article 2. "Anarchism" (not libertarianism) is the common name for it.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and to be clear I think Rothbard, for example, should be presented according to Rothbard, and not according to libertarian socialists, outside of any criticism section, should it be deemed necessary. Finx (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I still disagree with the notion that capitalist libertarianism is a phenomenon confined to America (when the platforms of numerous self-identified libertarian parties and groups outside North America clearly reflect the classical-liberal strand), but I too agree with North8000: coverage of all variants through their own lens. Also, we should do our best to equalize said coverage as well, or else we're going to have the same fight all over again. Furthermore, I do think that we need to do a better, more articulate job of emphasizing our commonalities in the intro and/or lead (such as maximized liberty in all sectors of life, however each of us may define that, along with minimal or no government). --Adam9389 (talk) 11:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not totally confined, but extremely marginal -- in that sense -- most places except NA and, like mentioned above, to a lesser extent the UK -- rather than the default definition. Notice, for example, how Argentina's PL (presently struggling to meet their 4000-member quota for 2013) has to qualify "liberal libertarian party." That's mainly so people don't go -- "what are you smoking?" To be perfectly fair to the anarchists, it's a tall order for any anti-political-party ideology to form political parties. It's like having a "people who hate people club." :) --Finx (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Other than a term (common US libertarianism is best described as capitalism-agnostic = capitalism-accepting, but not "capitalist") I agree with both of you. North8000 (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like we're making good progress here (thanks, everyone!). Now maybe we can discuss exactly how we're going to reduce the coverage of anarchism and increase that of capitalism-agnostic libertarianism. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

If there's solid reference(s), probably warrants a mention in the lead -- something like "some libertarians neither explicitly oppose nor support private property rights." I'm still not entirely clear on what that would mean, though... --Finx (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

FWIW I wasn't pushing for an explicit mention of capitalism-agnostic strands, just that we "do no harm" ....i.e. don't assign unwarranted terms. North8000 (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

While I think you are over-dramatizing anyone's intentions in trying to balance the article, let me say this re: Listing of refs, comments that don't really clarify what is or is not best known:

• Chomsky (2 refs) already mentioned* e Chomsky. New Delhi, India: Penguin Books. pp. 200. ISBN 0143029916.
• Fernández, Frank (2001). Already mentioned
• Lilley, Sasha (2010). Mentions Europe only
• Rhonheimer, Martin. “Therefore, in some aspects they are closer to what in America is called a libertarian, without, however, sharing the anarchical traits of many libertarians..”: Ambiuguous meaning
• Castells, Manuel : "Libertarian" has a different meaning in the European and in the American context.” Not defined what; Europe only
• Mayer, Margit; Schatzschneider, John Ely only contrasts with Europe
• Pleyers, Geoffrey (2010). Libertarian youth doesn’t say where or how many.

Shall report my own at some point. CarolMooreDC 22:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: Now maybe we can discuss exactly how we're going to reduce the coverage of anarchism and increase that of capitalism-agnostic libertarianism. OK, I'm going to have to BOLD this since people aren't paying attention: Remove the worst WP:OR material and then see if there's WP:UNDUE or not. I know it takes work of following links (or finding them on Books google - or finding out if they are findable at all) and reading material... well, enough withering female commentary :-) CarolMooreDC 18:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Here's my personal opinion, so far as the 'capitalism-agnostic' thing, because I don't think it takes a great leap of imagination and it's been said by many people, which I can cite if necessary. Being 'capitalism-agnostic' is kind of like being 'somewhat-pregnant' -- either you're okay with existing property rights and the power systems that emerge from them or you aren't. If you're okay with them, that means any dissolution or devolution of state power is a transfer of power to the corporate systems, which are essentially totalitarian in nature. In the case of most of the individualists the modern US libertarians want to grab as their ideological ancestors, an abolition of limited liability was advocated -- which had been conveniently forgotten. In other words, they wanted to abolish the corporation -- what today we call a business. That's from the right. If a 'libertarian' ideology wants to keep limited liability, it's just a blatant transfer of power away from individuals and over to a neo-feudalist plutocratic elite. That's why there's friction here, if you're wondering.

And as far as the bolded part -- I'm paying attention -- forgive me if I have the wrong idea, but it seems disingenuous. If your edit summaries and comments are any indication you seem to think anything left of Nock, with the exception of Déjacque, which doesn't explicitly repeat "libertarian" a million times should be removed as original research. This is simply not the case. We've established that libertarian socialism and communism are libertarian. By all means, remove the bad references (there's plenty of them), but a reference does not need to repeat "libertarian" constantly to be about the libertarian movement. Finx (talk) 00:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Population of Europe: 740,000,000; population of South America: 378,000,000; population of US 314,000,000; you tell me what should be considered "better known" Finx (talk) 00:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you haven't heard, but we aren't supposed to spend a lot of time theorizing about - or misrepresenting - what others views are in light of one's own political positions. Since I naively used my Real Name when I set up an account you can google me and see if you can figure out what I think about anything. (Hint, I'm an independent female and do not follow any males' leads, though I do have my favorites. But I don't think we're supposed to discuss that here. For all I know some people here actually may be National anarchists (Yuk) good at hiding their agendas. But I'm not going to spend a lot of time trying to prove it one way or the other. :-) CarolMooreDC 00:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not trying to personalize this, question your values or your integrity. It's beside the point, but I think we're both committed feminists. What I'm saying is that if we can't conclusively state one way or another what's 'most-popular/well-known' (though I think there's much more evidence on one side), let's not say anything at all -- except for maybe pointing out the that different scholars and sources offer different views. Finx (talk) 00:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I have a problem with the either-or attitude, either the "right" or somewhat more the "left" must dominate the article. But if one is doing so, I will usually argue for the opposite view to bring balance. Having researched the topic more, I think one can say that there is more of a trend to one perspective in the US and more towards the other in Europe. I'll worry about the rest of the world another time. And one can certainly do better than the muddle of the fourth paragraph; and of course the sentence Some political scholars assert that in most countries the terms "libertarian" and "libertarianism" are synonymous with left anarchism with four refs when a similar sentence on "libertarianism without an adjective" has had its supporting material removed.

Something else with quasi-reliable sources even way back then that got removed from the older version. That is that there are a lot of "left libertarians" who actually are mostly pro-property but are more open to communalism and/or don't like copyright laws and/or have some nits about who should gain ownership of virgin and/or unused land and/or like the left side of the French Assembly, or are Sam Konkin or Roderick Long or are just feminists or libertines. They have a Alliance of the Libertarian Left whose website lists a lot of non-rightie people/sites. In short, yes, that fact does help muddy the waters on what a "left libertariani" is. (And is a good reason to use "libertarian socialism" more often.) Needs to be made clear somewhere eventually...(No proposal at the moment.) [Added later: Libertarian Left by Sheldon Richman • February 3, 2011 is a really good example.]

But after a couple of hours of research I get pretty disgusted with all these male authors analyzing ad finitum economic differences in divisive terms like left or right while the apparatchik statists consolidate their perks and privileges.

And I have a big problem with WP:OR, especially if it is overly POV. I really don't want to do much more than summarize a few interesting things I found in next section and then try to finish off the other article I'm in middle of. And as I've said before, maybe while taking a break, come here and slash some wp:or for fun :-0 CarolMooreDC 04:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Mutualism mischaracterized

From "Propertarian / non-propertarian distinction" section:

"Some libertarians, such as mutualists, argue that while property rights are currently valid and defined"

Uh, no. Mutualists simply oppose private property. It's plain-as-day and well-referenced in the main article. They're okay with markets -- not private ownership of the means of production. Also, links to "Mutualism (biology)" -- not going to bother fixing it, because that whole paragraph needs to be rewritten.

Also, the lib-soc side generally doesn't argue "liberty is the absence of any form of authority" -- they believe authority should be dismantled if it can't be justified. I don't think many would oppose a parent's authority over a toddler who refuses to take her medication, for example. Reference doesn't support the claim.

If there's no objections, I'll just rewrite the passage. How does this fit into the other changes planned? --Finx (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding this specific paragraph, I don't even see any reference to mutualism in the ref'd article so I think it can be cut out now. Did I miss something? There may be a couple other useable points of interest. I assume WP:RS is not an issue. A lot of other equally questionable sources used in the article; and there usually is a bit more leeway in articles about "fringie" topics. CarolMooreDC 17:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Some refs of interest

People might check out; you can tell what I was searching by reading google links. Obviously there are a trillion search combinations that could be searched. Anyway, they are organized roughly by topic but not sectioned off, except last three that I must admit had me laughing.

• Glimpses of Europe - (Classical lib) "Libertarianism is the foundation of European democracy" ...From page 146
• Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich von Hayek were major European "libertarians" (according to authors more than selves) philsophers. See their articles and Karl Popper - The Formative Years, 1902-1945
• The Executive's Compass:Business and the Good Society, talks generally about Charles Sumner, 19th century Europeans as non-adjectived "libertarians"
• From Bakunin to Lacan: Anti-Authoritarianism and the Dislocation of Power, Saul Newman, 2001, yaps a lot about post-structuralism and anarchism. Of particular interest: p 11: “Libertarianism is a philosophy “which cuts across both the left and right, and which informs the radical, anti-authoritarian elements of both...although certain aspects of the libertarian tradition appeal to those of the left - if “left” or “right” still means anything today - libertarianism is, more often than not, considerd a right wing philosophy in the sense that it idealizes free market individualism and wants to liberate society from the oppressive burden of the welfare state and its taxes. This cannot easily be dismissed. It must be remembered that anarchists also saw the states as a burden on the natural functioning of society, and they would be equally suspicious of welfare...” Plus p:44-45 long section on non-adjectived libertarianism that runs into anarchism; a lot on post-structuralism
• Redemption and Utopia: Jewish Libertarian Thought in Central Europe : a Study in Elective Affinity about unusual combination of religious and non-religious thought and illuminates the common assumptions that united such seemingly disparate figures as Martin Buber, Kafka, Walter Benjamin and Georg Lukacs. New to me.
• Couple of books described FREEDOM OF PRESS as non-adjectived libertarianism in both Europe and US
• Wolff definition in 2000 version of Concise Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy; didn't study if text has changed.
• Wilburn R. Miller, editor, The Social History of Crime and Punishment in America: An Encyclopedia, Sage Publications, 2012, p. 1006-1008, Quite a bit to say about "left" and "Right" libertarianism. Check it out
• Libertarianism: What Everyone Needs to Know, Jason Brennan, Oxford University Press, 2013. Written in (too?) simple english. He describes 3 different kinds of libertarianism: classical liberal, hard libertarian (rothbard et al) and "Neoclassical liberal" - i.e., himself and his don't smash the welfare state too fast buddies?? "Jason Brennan is Assistant Professor of Ethics, Economics, and Public Policy at Georgetown University. He is the author of The Ethics of Voting and co-author of A Brief History of Liberty. He also writes for the popular blog Bleeding Heart Libertarians."
• Three books whose authors are Terrified That “Right” Libertarians Could Become More Popular in Europe. (It's bad enough their welfare states are totally collapsing as righties predicted.):
  • Radical Right in Western Europe: p 26-27
  • Selling the Free Market: The Rhetoric of Economic Correctness: oh my god, it's Dangerous “unreconstructed” libertarianism, off beat social and economic views that are popular among young people
  • Mobilizing Resentment: Conservative Resurgence From The John Birch Society To The Promise Keepers. How those darned libertarians who aren't either left or right and support materialism and self-indulgence could become popular while opposing taxes!! (What will happen to the corporate state??) Enough fun... pleasant dreams! CarolMooreDC 07:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

General thoughts on more coherent article

• Reading Roderick Long's paper (top page 2 of PDF) I see that after his definition he says: "This definition draws the boundaries of libertarians rather more expansively than is customary, and includes under the libertarian aegis a number of conflicting positions." It's a good spirit to maintain throughout the article and perhaps should be the main definition and then have a spectrum of definitions after it.
• Spectrums (or similar words) rather dichotomies (as in Philosophy section) should be encouraged, assuming we can find refs describing differences as them. In most cases they do in fact exist. (Lefties have far greater spectrum of definitions of private property than non-adjectived libertarians, per my hopefully memorable underpants example.)
• Philosophy section does need further expansion on what are the similar philosophical and/or practical positions of all libertarians, per earlier draft, though not necessarily most of that content.
• And I'm all for somehow saying that those self-styled "libertarians" who call for foreign wars; laws restricting or federal control of too much of this, that and the other; using police/military force vs secessionists; legalizing only marijuana; and whatever else that involves state action and are particularly offensive are NOT libertarians. (My major engagement with Libertarian Party last 15 years seems to be driving those types out; think Irv Rubin and Wayne Allyn Root.)
• I'm sure there's other stuff, but wanted to end on a positive note. CarolMooreDC 19:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Analysis of WP:OR in First International section

Below I outline WP:OR problems with exposition in general and refs in particular. Overall the average reader will have NO IDEA what this section has to do with libertarianism, even if they look at the refs. (And having looked at them I only have a faint idea: mutualists/anarchists, some of whom called selves libertarians, or someone called libertarians, split with Marx et al after it?)

What is needed is a paragraph briefly summarizing what happened and why this matters to libertarianism, assuming it really does. If it did, wouldn't two or three refs be all that's needed to tell the story, as opposed to what looks like a WP:Synth of various sources? What relation should that NEW paragraph (or maybe two) have to next two sections - which also look to me like they are chock full of easily removed WP:OR and WP:Undue? If people don’t want to cut their own work, others will.

Note that I google searched all these refs and put in links where found them, which we always should do. Where there is no link, perhaps because page missing from preview, please quote relevant passages.

• “Main article: International Workingmen's Association”:one external link to a communist libertarian library does not make this a “main article”. Oh, and turns out that’s the actual name of First International?? Let's really confuse the readers.
• Paragraph 1:
  • Breunig, Charles (1977). The Age of Revolution and Reaction, 1789–1850: Context from book that doesnt seem to mention libertarianism.
  • Blin, Arnaud (2007). The History of Terrorism: Could not find book. Need quote showing libertarianism mentioned at all or just “Proudhon was there”

• Paragraph 2: Finally getting to point on Mutualists vs. Marxists
  • Dodson, Edward (2002). The Discovery of First Principles: Volume 2. Here Just says Thomas Paine was what we today would call a libertarian; nothing on Marx as libertarian
  • Thomas, Paul (1985). (Two separate page refs.) Karl Marx and the Anarchists. “Libertarian” is mentioned a few times in book and here first international and libertarian on same page, but let’s see quotation in the ref that makes clear that it supports points made.

• Paragraph 3: Bakunin’s a libertarian too? And were these federalist socialists libertarians? Or is that Proudhon again?
  • Bak, Jn`os (1991). Liberty and Socialism. Mentions First International couple times here here. Enough to support a section as opposed to a paragraph?

Paragraph 4:

• • Mothers and Daughters p. 140 not in preview; otherwise search mentions a woman read Prodhoun, nothing on libertarianism.here
  • Graham, Robert Anarchism Need to verify with quotes it’s got something about libertarians and the first international

We can do better, folks. CarolMooreDC 18:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Carol, I think that you are operating several levels above me regarding the depth of research and analysis that you are laying out, to the point where the main points of what you are advocating ares not as clear to some of us as they are to you. Could you clarify? North8000 (talk) 12:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:V#cite_note-Courtesy-9 If someone asks for verification of what source says, especially when there is no link,reads:

When there is dispute about whether a piece of text is fully supported by a given source, direct quotes and other relevant details from the source should be provided to other editors as a courtesy. Do not violate the source's copyright when doing so.

WP:No_original_research lead reads:

To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.

Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position reads in part, please read whole thing:

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article.

And of course there's Wikipedia:V#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion because of WP:Undue or WP:PAGEDECIDE. CarolMooreDC 13:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Controlling self and not tagging this section for the moment, but obviously it is the second example of why I tagged whole article per below (the first being the removed Propaganda deed section). CarolMooreDC 19:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Framework to move forward

In order to distill some things out of this dialog without getting too mired down (trying to write the whole article on the talk page) & before we run out of gas, may I suggest that we just decide on the debated points, document and use those decisions as a guide, and then handle the specifics via gradual article editing?

One observation is that I don't think that we have the typical situation here of folks wanting to POV the article one way or the other. Instead, I think that most folks want to have an accurate, informative, balanced article. But the tough part is that "libertarianism" means different things in different places and at different times. Even some other closely related words (e.g. liberalism, anarchism) have dramatically different meanings in different places. And so what many folks sincerely think to be the "accurate" view is in fact a parochial view in ways that (here, far more than on a typical topic) vary far more than objectives views vary on a typical article. And this isn't just geographic. I would argue that even confining ourselves to scholarly works (which focus on the various strands, philosophical and meanings over time) can be very parochial, missing a basic look at what the definition of 30,000,000 people in the US who call themselves libertarians is.

Is this a pretty good list of the contended points? And is this a pretty good summary of what we came up with on them?

• Degree of coverage of anarchism Anarchism is significant in the history of libertarianism. Also, although proponents might be smaller in number, (roughly speaking) for folks outside of the US it is associated with and a part of the definition of the term "libertarianism". Finally, anarchism is taxonomically falls within libertarianism. On the flip side, "anarchism", not "libertarianism" is the common name for anarchism. Also anarchism has its own name and its own article. So, in this article anarchism in relation to libertarianism is to be covered, but substantial coverage of anarchism is to be left to the anarchism article. And so the amount of anarchism coverage in this article is to be slightly reduced from it's current amount as of Feb 18th 2013, and certainly not increased.

• Coverage of "Short form" libertarianism Regarding numbers of libertarians the "gorilla in the living room" is the "short form" of libertarianism, which is prioritizing reduction of government and increase of freedom, with the common tenets of it limited to those two things. Perhaps 30,000,000 people in the USA self-identify as libertarians this way and even more than that in the USA vote this way. For a variety for factors (lack of a name, relative newness of it/less coverage in the history , mistake of trying to fit its round peg into the square holes of complete philosophies......i.e. the mistake of saying that "libertarian" includes only complete philosophies) this has seemed to "get lost" in the libertarian article. I think that concern over this has been the biggest cause of concern here over the years. This needs to get fully covered.

• Lens of coverage of strands Care should be take that a strand is not covered (in the voice of Wikipedia) through the lens of a different strand or viewpoint. This does not intend to exclude viewpoints attributed for context.

• Quality of sources WP:rs credentials, and expertise and objectivity with respect to the topic at hand all matter. This can be a scholar or a simply a good observer.

• Summarization vs. OR Accepted summarizaiton can overlap with an unusually rigorous & literal interpretation of wp:nor. This article needs some summarization to be informative. Apply a stricter standard when the summarization itself is challenged.

• We want an informative article We want to cover the various meanings, not have a tussle between them.

North8000 (talk) 13:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The list and the summaries are pretty good. I still want to point out the fact that numerous capitalist libertarian groups exist not just in North America (including Canada which is not the U.S.), but also in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and I think there was even Costa Rica and Russia. I mean, it's not like these parties were founded by American infiltrators or something, and I highly doubt these people would have used the word "libertarian" for their classical liberal platforms if no one around them knew what the hell they were talking about. There's also International Society for Individual Liberty and Interlibertarians. Therefore, again, let's be careful about how we use the whole "this brand of libertarianism only in the USA" bit in the article. I'll start hunting for sources if you want, but one might as well just rip them off of those pages. However, we are making progress and at this point, my biggest problem would have to be the lead. It's still too abstract and, considering how high-traffic this article is, I really want to better articulate the concept to lay-people who briefly stop by but have no real intention of reading through the whole article. The lead doesn't give anyone any solid clue as to what libertarianism is; it just sort of disjointedly lists a few vague concepts (that damn near everyone would claim to support), attempting to point people to other articles that they would have to read through in order to get any idea whatsoever. Look, I know that the different libertarian factions are not so different to where we cannot come to an agreement on what a better lead should look like. So, for example, though we may define liberty-versus-authority differently (i.e., freedom from government, freedom from corporations, etc.), would anyone disagree that libertarianism entails the maximization of liberty (and free choice, we could add that) in all sectors of life coupled with minimal government or a stateless society entirely ? Yes, we disagree on the details of what that statement means exactly, but would any libertarian faction challenge that statement in and of itself? We could also emphasize that libertarianism places liberty as its highest political value/priority, as opposed to, say, conservatism which emphasizes tradition or stability, or egalitarianism, which upholds the enforcement of equality as its highest priority. --Adam9389 (talk), 11:32, 18 February 2013

Agree 100%. BTW, when I keep talking about it in the US, I only do that because that's the only one I am confident in my knowledge about, and it's my attempt to assign a noun "US style" to "2 item" or "short form" libertarianism. (Prioritizing reducing government, increasing freedom, end of list) (BTW, most of those holding these tenets in the US are accepting of motherhood, capitalism, apple pie, private ownership of property, food, retaining some limited amount of government, and cute puppies, but do not define the strand by any of those 7 things.) So, despite how I sound, I did not mean to imply that the USA has a monopoly on such. North8000 (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

My list is of sort of "disputed" items. Is there anything from your post that should be incorporated into it? North8000 (talk) 18:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so, unless anybody does in fact dispute it. I think the whole "libertarianism in the USA" squabble is more or less over. My concern was simply that I didn't want to see something in the article (i.e., capitalist libertarians are only in the U.S.) that clearly is not true. And there's really nothing more I can say about it beyond the sum of all the points I've already made on this talk page. Like I said, the lead is what I feel stronger about, but I'm not sure anyone is going to have a problem with those characterizations of libertarianism (which I have retroactively italicized above), so I wouldn't count it as disputed until/unless it actually gets disputed. --Adam9389 (talk), 18:58, 18 February 2013

Ok, I'll bite:
North8000: may I suggest that we just decide on the debated points, document and use those decisions as a guide, and then handle the specifics via gradual article editing?

CM: Can't hurt.

North8000: Is this a pretty good list of the contended points? And is this a pretty good summary of what we came up with on them?

CM: will add any that later occur to me.

• North8000: Degree of coverage of anarchism Anarchism is significant in the history of libertarianism. ... On the flip side, "anarchism", not "libertarianism" is the common name for anarchism. ... And so the amount of anarchism coverage in this article is to be slightly reduced from it's current amount as of Feb 18th 2013, and certainly not increased.

CM: I'd say majorly reduced. When sources clearly relating anarchism/anarcho-capitalism to libertarianism are used without WP:Synth or WP:Undue, go for it. But sources just throwing in the word "libertarian" as an adjective to do not add up to libertarianism, be it Wayne Allyn Root or some left anarchist or other.

• North8000: Coverage of "Short form" libertarianism Regarding numbers of libertarians... Perhaps 30,000,000 people in the USA self-identify as libertarians... This needs to get fully covered.

CM: Check! plus a lot of people all over the world which I think proper sourcing can show.

• North8000Lens of coverage of strands

CM: check

• North8000Quality of sources

CM: check including contemporary journalists and high quality opinionators.

• North8000Summarization vs. OR ... Apply a stricter standard when the summarization itself is challenged.

CM: check, per policy. Please read and comment on Analysis of WP:OR in First International section above.

• North8000We want an informative article We want to cover the various meanings, not have a tussle between them.

CM: Hallelujah! CarolMooreDC 13:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

RE::*North8000Summarization vs. OR ... Apply a stricter standard when the summarization itself is challenged.

CM: check, per policy. Please read and comment on Analysis of WP:OR in First International section above.

Agree with you 100% there, but IMHO it's not very clear what changes you are saying should be made.North8000 (talk) 15:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Moved your entry down since I hate being interrupted :-) Anyway, as I said in first sentence of second paragraph of Analysis of WP:OR in First International section: "What is needed is a paragraph briefly summarizing what happened and why this matters to libertarianism, assuming it really does." Ie one without all the WP:Undue, tenuous referencing or straight out WP:OR and WP:Undue. Even if everyone of my questions was answered, it's doubtful that the First International/AKA International Workingmen's Association event deserves more than a short paragraph. Don't worry, I'll be happy to cut it, and most of the same section on the same grounds, when I get a chance. And hopefully find a reference or two that just tells what happens as opposed to stringing a bunch together. CarolMooreDC 18:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Cool. North8000 (talk) 19:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

"Anarchism is significant in the history of libertarianism." Really weak. I don't know why it's so hard for people to focus on tenets rather than words. Classical liberalism is the history of limited government libertarianism (LGL). When it comes to weight based on significance and influence...Adam Smith, J.S. Mill, Herbert Spencer et al. should be given 10 paragraphs for every one word given to anarchists. All the Nobel Prize winning libertarians (Hayek, Friedman, Buchanan, Smith, Ostrom) have far more in common with classical liberals than they do with some footnote anarchists. But in case you missed it, anarchism in this article does not stay in the footnotes. As soon as Carolmooredc gets distracted (again) by some shiny new article the anarchists will run roughshod over this article while North somehow continues to believe that he's maintaining a good and a fair balance. Yeah, pointless rant. Never mind. --Xerographica (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC) Never mind my never mind. I do have a point, and it's a good one, but I'm sure it will be ignored as usual. --Xerographica (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Sarcasm doesn't help clarify matters. I don't even get it and I'm mentioned. This article (and other maintenance onces) has been distracting me from another project that's still totally in draft form off wiki, but I am getting there with it... Then I'll take a fun break and clean this one up ;-) CarolMooreDC 22:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:STRIKE, it is proper to make comments without markup. Guidance says:

• "When editing regular Wikipedia articles, just make your changes and do not mark them up in any special way.
• When editing your own previous remarks in talk pages, it is sometimes appropriate to mark up deleted or inserted material."

Strikeout is used to retract or correct previous statements. It can be seen as disingenuous to post original material as stricken. – S. Rich (talk) 00:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Moreover, per WP:TPO, "It is still common to simply delete...rants about the article subject (as opposed to its treatment in the article)...." As the admittedly "pointless rant" above closes with PA as to North & Carolmooredc, it should be deleted outright. – S. Rich (talk) 01:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• Please note, my comments (above) were made by me because the original posting [1] was done in strikeout typeface. The strikeout was removed here: [2] after my comments were made. – S. Rich (talk) 02:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Xerographica, I suspect that you are are kindred spirit with most of the folks here, but your wild approach sure makes a mess out of things. The best to you either way. :-) North8000 (talk) 01:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

As I understand it, nobody has taken issue with the above framework, except that Carolmooredc has advocated a large reduction in the amount of anarchist material (vs. small) compared to the present state. I seem to remember that Carol is or was an anarchist, which would make this statement a sign of her being an ultimate Wikipedian. Nevertheless, I would observe that "slight reduction compared to the present" might be the "middle of the road" for participants here, especially taking a multi-month view.

If there is a sort of consensus for this, I would like to say that the above summary is a pseudo-consensused guide for the forward direction of this article. Not something that can be quoted as a categorical binding decision, but something that we have decided should have strong influence on the direction of the article. Any objections? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

CarolMooreDC's "balance" is the reason I joined Wikipedia in the first place... Talk:Libertarianism/Archive_16#The_Obvious_.2F_The_Issue_At_Hand

LOL...consensus! Sheesh...if we were any good at collective action the anarchists wouldn't be peeing all over our page. Uh, are Torch and Carol anarchists trying to promote their favorite authors? Or closet anarchists? Or just really really stubborn editors, who, despite your completely logical explanations...fail to acknowledge the simple distinction between anarchism and libertarianism? --97.93.109.174 (talk) 15:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

History will keep repeating itself until there's a consensus to turn this into a DAB page. --Xerographica (talk) 02:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Xerographica, even though I would guess that you are a kindred spirit with most of the folks here, you are so erratic and rude that you are self-defeating. You remind me of the Monty Python suicide squad. They shoot themselves while pursuing their quest.  :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I was certainly rude then, how am I being rude now? If you guys are not going to do anything significantly different, then why would you expect the weight problems with this article to be resolved? --Xerographica (talk) 02:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what User:X means by "significantly different." I.e., like get around to taking out all the poorly sourced and/or WP:OR which itself will bring article into balance; plus re-add some of the material removed for POV reasons and add more refs where there may be any debate? Others can feel free to start. I'm just trying to finish off this one dang article cause I have about 6 now that are 80% new (or totally re-written) and must start finishing them off before start something new, even when a whole philosophy is being seriously distorted.

What I wrote at that old posting linked above by Anon IP is what I've tried to say here a few times: Ddd1600 wrote: We want to look good. We want to come as as not "extreme". We want Ron Paul to sound more credible, Sorry, the purpose of Wikipedia is NOT to make some political faction look good. Your POV and your personal attacks really make it questionable whether you should be editing this article at all and I will mull that over in next few days. Libertarianism means many things to many people and any one faction trying to enforce their view, especially with little discussion of WP:RS, really is working against wikipedia policies.

Also, technically I am a libertarian decentralist (have bunch of good refs on that an that's the 3rd in line almost finished article putting up). So I don't care if people are anarchists or minarchists in their communities/cities/counties or belong to one or more networks or confederations (replacing most centralized nation states which were brought together by force), as long as they don't force it on any one else. (With various qualifications regarding individual rights I won't go into here). CarolMooreDC 15:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

North8000 and CarolMooreDC: the rantings and sarcasm aside, Xerographica does make an excellent point regarding libertarianism's ideological history and origins along with the tenets of famous libertarians. Minarchist libertarianism is classical liberalism and the history of those ideas are one and the same. Even the Libertarianism sidebar clearly and correctly points out the Age of Enlightenment as a source of these ideas. And yet, reading through this article, it's as if the Enlightenment ideas and classical liberalism itself was lucky to get even a tiny paragraph's mention. The complete absence of the ideas of Adam Smith, Frederic Bastiat, John Stuart Mill, and Herbert Spencer, of all people, is particularly egregious. Perhaps it's difficult because these people predated the word "libertarian," but the ideas are the same even if the wording has changed (which is an inevitable phenomenon of history). Ayn Rand, for instance, explicitly denied the characterization "libertarian," yet she is properly mentioned because of the indisputable influence her ideas have had on the philosophic development of libertarianism. --Adam9389 (talk), 10:11, 24 February 2013

If you look you'll see at the top of the history I put an expansion box reading This section requires expansion with: information on who describes these ideas or individuals as "libertaran". All that is needed is to use sources that identify all these people's ideas as forerunners of libertarianism or as libertarianism. Right now there is a lot of WP:OR of the editor picking a source that describes their ideas without that source saying they were libertarian. Someone has to do the work or else we are left with all the work done by previous editors and crabbing about it is not enough. I have done some work and intend to do more, but I have to try to keep to my schedule as well (while putting out fires on other long-term articles (not to mention dealing with deranged troll vandals). So feel free to do find sources regarding Adam Smith, Frederic Bastiat, John Stuart Mill, and Herbert Spencer. CarolMooreDC 17:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Wrap up on framework at the beginning of this thread

The items at the top have been open for 10 days. There have subsequent discussions on more specific topics. I think that there have been no objections or even suggested changes to the points on the top. (Except Carol in a sidebar advocated a larger reduction in anarchism material). Are there any objections to considering that we have decided that the article should be be guided or influenced by those? (Or some firmer statement)? North8000 (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

support, including Carol's sidebar. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Just remember, I'm looking for appropriate balance via refs, not eliminating material just for ideological reasons. Also, I was chomping at bit to get going by Verizon is screwed up in my neighborhood and internet connection may keep going down til Monday (grrrr) so held up a bit longer... CarolMooreDC 17:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Carol, i didnt read your sidebar to mean remove for ideological reasons, did i miss something? Darkstar1st (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I personally support and prefer Carol's "larger reduction in anarchism material" sidebar, but am not considering to be in the "list" at the moment. North8000 (talk) 17:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Libertarian / anarcho-socialist / syndicalist

Contrary to the claim of some Usonians (the proper English word for people of the United States), so-called "right libertarianism" is a complete evasion of the etymology and history of the word libertarian.

Libertarian is the anglicization of the French word libertaire, created in 1857 by Joseph Déjacque, the French anarchist and socialist activist and writer, in opposition to liberal. The word could have been imported unchanged ― as doctrinaire was ― but it was not: the word libertaire does not exist in English, and the Oxford English Dictionary gives libertarian as its' only English counterpart. Online translation engines also translate libertaire into English as libertarian. Larousse defines libertaire as "Partisan de la liberté absolue, anarchiste", or in English "Proponent of absolute freedom, anarchist".

Therefore the real originator of libertarianism was Déjacque, not Dean Russell or Murray Rothbard. Déjacque was a genuine anarchist, i.e. a socialist, and therefore libertarianism is an inherently anarchist ideology that belongs (just like fascism) on the left. This appears to be clearly understood outside the US and Canada, so if not for the Usonians' well-renowned self-centred ignorance about the world outside their borders people everywhere in the Anglosphere would understand the word properly; and no one would have even the slightest reason to be confused about what libertarian means.

Real libertarians are socialists who follow Déjacque, people like Lysander Spooner, Benjamin Tucker, Ferdinando Sacco, Bartolomeo Vanzetti ― yes, that Sacco and Vanzetti ― and Noam Chomsky. Suprised to see Spooner and Tucker in the same list as the Sacco, Vanzetti and Chomsky? Spooner advocated anarchist socialism and Tucker was a member of the socialist First International. "We are libertarian", Vanzetti wrote in 1927, distinguishing his and Sacco's brand of socialism from that of the social democrats, socialists, communists, etc. Those people had the identity libertarian long before Russell and Rothbard's attempt to steal their identity.

To be crystal clear: If one accepts that there is such a thing as libertarianism that is not socialist, one endorses the identity theft attempted by Russell and Rothbard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epikuro57 (talk • contribs) 13:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to take you seriously, but the "Usonians" thing makes it difficult. Thanks for making my day though with that. Really. --Adam9389 (talk) 10:17, 24 February 2013

Really. Epikuro, just quit with the euphemisms and say "Them freakos stole our private property - the word libertarianism." ho ho ho CarolMooreDC 17:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Stop trying to steal Usonian from Frank Lloyd Wright. Words should only be used to mean what they meant originally and should never be adapted or allowed to morph! Ehusman (talk) 19:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, words do get adapted and morphed - that's why we have disambiguation with the best known use being the main article. Unless of course one wants to be encyclopedic and detail similar uses that may have some minor variations, as in this article. (Although I guess objectivist materialist determinists might think that economics determines everything; but isn't determinism the opposite of free will?) However, Wikieditors should not be doing it without WP:RS on wikipedia. CarolMooreDC 19:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Rothbard never claimed to have invented libertarianism, but claimed to be in the tradition of libertarianism, i.e., the people identified by Epikuro57. It could be that Rothbard was closer to them than Chomsky is. But clearly Chomsky and Rothbard had significant differences which for want of better description could be called left and right libertarianism. TFD (talk) 03:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a side issue. Sections above (and in the archives) are better focused on article improvement. I recommend that interested editors not be diverted by this topic. – S. Rich (talk) 04:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Forced/Free rider problem

Rich, Rubin and SPECIFICO are making and/or supporting edits on the free rider problem and the forced rider problem which do not reflect what the reliable sources have to say about the topics... Talk:Forced_rider_problem#See_also_items_removed. But I might be wrong. It would be great if any outside editors could evaluate how well their edits match the reliable sources. Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 16:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

See WP:CANVASS. You're overdoing the "relevant" project, but an article talk page is inappropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

From the policy...

However, canvassing — which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion towards one side of a debate — is considered inappropriate.

Please explain how posting this section on the libertarianism talk page is going to influence the outcome towards my side of the debate. --Xerographica (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)