Talk:Libertarianism

Template:Wikipedia CD selection Template:V0.5

Right libertarianism

I have to ask the user who reverted my edit to explain him/herself. Defense of laissez faire capitalism is everywhere incluiding the US a part of right wing politics and if there is a section called "left libertarianism" it is obvious to label the pro deregulated capitalism section "right libertarianism". But in fact it seems that we will have to label that section "US right libertarianism" since it only deals with the US and and it has to be that way since in the rest of the world those politics are called "economic liberalism" and "libertarian" tends to be used for anarchists.--Eduen (talk) 01:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalists are also anarchists, and you would define them as right- libertarians since they favor a "deregulated" capitalism (self-regulated actually). Anyway, the term "libertarianism" predates its appropriation by anarchists (left anarchists?) and in any case, nowadays has fallen in desuse (other than for historic references). The only active use in their identification comes from North American market anarchists and minarchists. In other regions other forms of anarchism are simply referred to as anarchism or anarcho-syndicalism. 81.60.184.142 (talk) 12:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Why consider "left libertarianism" a subset of libertarianism at all? Its defining characteristic is, according to this article, specifically its opposition to (economic) libertarianism. It's not like being libertarian on some issues but not others is something new. Why not just say that?

It sounds like an attempt to usurp the term "libertarianism" the same way the term "liberalism" was usurped in the U.S., as mentioned above resulting in "economic liberalism" having completely opposite meanings depending on who is using the term. If this article is to be accepted, the word "libertarian" would suffer the same fate. A word is useless if it could have two mutually exclusive definitions in the same exact context, making it necessary to explicitly define the word with each use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.198.127 (talk) 04:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

And "Right Libertarianism" is usually used as a term by those people who are opposed to social/cultural Libertarianism. Unfortunately, such people rarely qualify their beliefs with "Right", but rather, lead the masses/media to believe that their anti-Libertarian beliefs on social/cultural issues are the Libertarian "norm", leading many to erroneously conclude that US Libertarianism is simply a more Right-Wing form of Conservatism, essentially co-opting the term. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 14:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I haven't heard that one myself, but it would be just as fraudulent as someone calling themselves a "libertarian socialist". Even if someone is libertarian on most issues, they shouldn't use the term libertarian in conjunction with their non-libertarian views. And even if they do, the rest of us shouldn't refer to such beliefs as libertarian. It's just silly to use terms like "libertarian speech banner", "libertarian religion enforcer", "libertarian gun banner" or "libertarian socialist".

Should I start a section in this article about the "branch" of libertarianism that believes in banning speech, guns, short pants, hula hoops, and rock music? We could call it "libertarian fascism". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.215.128.90 (talk) 10:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

And notably, the only reason libertarians in the U.S. call themselves libertarians instead of liberals is because the word liberal was usurped in the U.S. and now is commonly used to refer to (economic) anti-liberals. I wonder what libertarians will call themselves after the word libertarian suffers the same fate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.198.127 (talk) 04:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The structural reality is that "libertarianism/libertarian" covers a very diverse set of ideologies, but they have a few important tenets in common, as well as the name. North8000 (talk) 14:41, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

IP, you have it the wrong way around - Rothbard and Nolan adopted the term "libertarian", which had already been used to describe what this article calls "left libertarianism." Furthermore, they claimed to be in the tradition of libertarianism, although they faulted that tradition for failing to support property rights. See for example Karl Hess's writings on Emma Goldman. TFD (talk) 16:29, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The fact that the word has been used fraudulently by some throughout history doesn't change the fact that it has always meant (in the political sense) "advocate of liberty". There is no legitimate reason to combine the word with another word that specifically refers to a belief in depriving people of their liberty in some way, even if not in other ways. Is someone who believes in banning speech, books, guns, hula hoops, and rock music a "libertarian fascist" just because he's libertarian on other issues? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.215.129.93 (talk) 11:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

You cannot say the term has always meant something when it was coined by what we would call left libertarians. You still need to explain how we are supposed to distinguish between these two groups. Since liberal is a cognate word, similar issues arise. Yet liberalism has both a left and a right, and all have them have taken some rights away from some people. Hence few liberals have argued to abolish prisons. TFD (talk) 17:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

We can't go saying that there is a burden of finding a really great way (great enough to avoid criticism) in order to avoid inserting/ using a really bad, problematic, lacking-any-consistent-definition and (in many places oxymoronic) term ("right libertarian"). And the most common form of libertarianism in the US (e.g. the 40-60 million people one) has a 1 sentence ideology that includes only the common tenets of all libertarianism. Probably the best term (which doesn't meet the "great way" criteria) is "common US type libertarianism. But the other alternative is to not try to give it a name. North8000 (talk) 18:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

When used that way, it is not an ideology, but a view on economic policy and is "neo-classical liberalism." It actually has a much wider following but there is a dispute over how rigidly the doctrine should be applied. While that use of the term should be mentioned, there is also a group in the U.S. that self-identify as libertarians, have established a political party, think tanks and a body of literature, and developed an ideology that embraces social policies as well. Obviously it merits its own article. TFD (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with everything that you just said but I'm not sure what you are getting at. The small fraction of US libertarians that are in the USLP, or in libertarian think tanks generally do have philosophies/ ideologies/platforms/economic policies that weigh in in many more areas, and do not fall under the most prevalent "one sentence" form of libertarianism in the US that I was referring to. North8000 (talk) 18:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

We can easily distinguish between those two groups by saying one is libertarian on both social and economic issues while the other is libertarian on social issues but not on economic issues. Since the word means "advocate of liberty" in each case, it seems as easy as it is obvious. And the word itself meant "advocate of liberty" when coined, now, and at all times in between. It means that even if used fraudulently. Regardless, that's the dictionary definition of the word, so one would think that should settle it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.196.10.142 (talk) 17:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

IP, the etymological approach to defining words doesn't work as well as you seem to think. For example, both liberal and libertarian are derived from the Latin liber, meaning free; however, you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who thinks these terms are synonymous. Reliable sources illustrate that libertarianism has traditionally been a socialist position, and Wikipedia ought to reflect that fact, even if you personally don't like it. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

By "traditionally" do you mean "historically"?North8000 (talk) 18:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Historically and outside of the US. MilesMoney (talk) 19:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, North8000, I meant libertarianism qua political philosophy was socialist in nature up until ~1950, when figures like Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, and Robert Nozick popularized a capitalist interpretation. This is really tangential to my point though, which is that Wikipedia does not allow us to claim that, because libertarianism has the root liber, everything we as individuals associate with liberty is therefore necessarily associated with the philosophy; we have to rely on RSs, not our personal biases. In this specific case, the IP user is stating that libertarianism is a philosophy that upholds liberty, and that capitalism is the only economic system (he feels is) compatible with a free society. Now, some people might argue this (and they do), but it's also quite evident from our sources that people have criticized capitalism for being inherently coercive and uphold socialism as the economic system of a free society. Wikipedia, however, doesn't permit us to inject our own opinion on this matter as fact, regardless of our personal, economic bias; libertarianism has adherents of both capitalist and socialist persuasions, whether we like it or not. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, I see. I haven't done slow reads of it but didn't notice / haven't found the "capitalism is the only economic system (he feels is) compatible with a free society" claim. Eith way I agree with 98% of what you last wrote. The 40,000,000+ person gorilla in the living room that you didn't mention is the renaming of classical liberalism in the US to libertarianism, coinciding with the changing of the meaning of "liberal" in the US to advocating a larger government. Also, the 40,000,000+ one sentence US libertarians probably mostly tacitly accept capitalism and even prefer it, but such does not make such a plank in their libertarian "platform". I think that non-US left-libertarians have a hard time understanding this. North8000 (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

North8000, I'm aware of the common values of US libertarians... what does this have to do with the discussion at hand? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

In looking through the thread, I don't even know what the discussion at hand is. My first of the last two posts was asking for clarification of what you meant, because you were suggesting that the article be guided by it. And my last post was to mostly agree with your post, and to put a 40,000,000 person stake in the ground against mis-naming or constructing an overly long platform for the most common form of US libertarianism. And to say that for the short form libertarians, the one sentence platform is their entire libertarian platform, not just common values. North8000 (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Then, to recapitulate, I'm not arguing any particular interpretation of libertarianism (or any subgroup therein), as you seem to think. I'm merely stating the fact that Wikipedia does not grant a forum for our personal convictions. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't think that you were, I was just conversing and I agree. We're cool. North8000 (talk) 22:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

MisterDub, there seems to be great confusion about what I've said. The fact that a word has a specific definition in the dictionary has nothing to do with whether "I personally like it". The fact that some delusional socialists tried, and continue to try, to fraudulently use the word libertarian to refer to using force to maintain a monopoly over the means of production, use force to prevent competition, deprive people of their liberty to produce, associate, contract, etc as they see fit is just that: fraud. It's by definition anti-libertarian. That's according to the dictionary, not what I personally do or don't like. I'd be perfectly fine with any word having any definition, the problem I have is the perpetuation of fraud. Using the word "libertarian" to refer specifically to depriving individuals of liberty is fraud, and obviously so.

And I notice that I haven't read too much about what is it about socialism that is even regarded as libertarian? What liberties are being advocated? Power over others is being advocated, using the word "libertarian" fraudulently because it's such a nice sounding word and they want to sound nice.

I would note that capitalism being the only system "compatible" with a free society sounds a little odd. Obviously capitalism will exist in any society that permits it. It's not like capitalism is imposed by government, or is a government program, or is a "system" at all in the strict sense of the word (coordinated scheme). Capitalism is just what people do when they are free to do so. They produce goods and services for sale or trade, employ and be employed by others, make agreements with each other, etc. Societies are referred to as "capitalist" because people are free to engage in all the things that define capitalism, not because they are forced to, or because everyone does those things. In other words, capitalism is merely a consequence of liberty. Socialism (in the normal, non-voluntary sense), to the contrary, is achieved by imposing a coordinated scheme and using force to prevent competition. (Obviously that doesn't apply to voluntary communes within a free society, but ironically, that's not what is referred to by "libertarian socialism") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.72.36 (talk) 06:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

You need to read the libertarian writers who inspired Nolan, Rothbard and Hess. Their theory was that individuals should have freedom. They were expelled from the Socialist movement. See for example Statism and Anarchy. They saw the remaining socialists as statist, no different from the elites they planned to replace.

“The theory of statism as well as that of so-called ‘revolutionary dictatorship’ is based on the idea that a ‘privileged elite,’ consisting of those scientists and ‘doctrinaire revolutionists’ who believe that ‘theory is prior to social experience,’ should impose their preconceived scheme of social organization on the people. The dictatorial power of this learned minority is concealed by the fiction of a pseudo-representative government which presumes to express the will of the people.”

While American libertarians may not agree with their views entirely, you can see where they get many of their views.

TFD (talk) 06:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

IP, you have some strong misconceptions about capitalism and socialism that are not supported by reliable sources and therefore do not deserve a voice in Wikipedia. I would suggest learning about libertarian socialism instead of arguing your interpretation here. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Your first couple of paragraphs make my case, ie that libertarianism means advocation of liberty, even if much of it is off point, and tells me what I "need to read" instead of trying to make your case legitimately. Your last paragraph is simply wrong. You have massively underestimated my understanding of this issue, but that's pretty irrelevant except to the extent that you offer advice for me to "learn about" things instead of explaining your case. You didn't, for example, name a single aspect of capitalism or socialism that I have a "strong misconception" about, much less explain how anything I said was incorrect in any way.

But this article is about libertarianism, not capitalism or socialism. The fact remains that using force against others to impose and maintain a monopoly over the means of production is anti-libertarian by definition. That fact won't just go away because nobody wants to address it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.210.12.181 (talk) 11:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Even though I partially agree with you on the principles (I'd don't understand how libertarian & socialism could be successfully combined/reconciled) that is not what is relevant here. This article covers the highly varied (but related by common tenets) significant forms of libertarianism, as identified in sources, and it is our duty here to do that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Depriving people of property is only contrary to liberty if the person has rightful ownership. Courts for example routinely deprive thieves of property, and the U.S. freed slaves owned by planters. The U.S. actually began by depriving the King of his property, the thirteen colonies, yet the colonists claimed to fight for "liberty." TFD (talk) 23:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for discussing the topic rather than the article, but to me it seems that any practical implementation of socialism involves larger amounts of power and control by the government. Sincerely, 03:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Since the government represents monopoly capitalism, it must be smashed, and power returned to the people. In the U.K. for example that means that there will no longer be "Her Majesty's government." The most radical anarchists assassinated state leaders, such as an American president and the Austrian Archduke, and blew up symbols of the state. Their anti-statism was the inspiration for Nolan, Rothbard, Hess and the other American "libertarians."

The big difference is that left libertarians thought the masses would seize the means of production, while Rothbard believed that freed from government they would rally to protect private corporations, which under statism were threatened in the U.S., the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.

TFD (talk) 08:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

TFD, while I agree with your first statement, your last sentence just isn't correct in my view. It's true that recovering stolen property from a thief does not constitute depriving the thief of his property, it constitutes depriving the thief of someone else's property. (Ditto for freeing slaves.) But the same was true of the King. He was not deprived of "his" property, he was deprived of political power over the property of others.

I think it's safe to say that most (real) libertarians determine "rightful ownership" of property in the same way described by John Locke during The Enlightenment, so there is no need to repeat it here, except to point out that it logically precludes socialism. And one can't help but notice the irony in using the term "progressive" to refer to people with a pre-Enlightenment view of property rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.120.33 (talk) 10:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Locke said that England had lawful ownership of the American colonies through settlement and planters had lawful owership of slaves, so your reading of Locke is selective. Left libertarians go farther than you rejected Locke's view that land could be alienated from common ownership.

So really your only dispute with them is whether the means of production are rightly owned by capitalists or stolen from the people.

TFD (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

IP and TFD, could you please take this discussion to an User_Talk page? It may be an interesting conversation, but Wikipedia is not a forum and this talk page should be reserved for discussion of article improvements. Thanks! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

At issue is whether the term "right libertarianism" makes sense, with the claim made that "left libertarianism" is something else entirely. And my point is that "right libertarianism" consciously drew on the (left) libertarianian tradition, adopting their literature, arguments and even their name. TFD (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Then I apologize, TFD. I think the IP user just wants to debate ("Apologies for discussing the topic rather than the article..."), and I assumed you were knowingly participating in this. My bad. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Oops, I apologize for off-topic discussion. Still just want to understand how using force to impose and maintain a monopoly on the means of production isn't directly contradictory to libertarianism. That seemed to lead to unnecessary discussion of the issue. I'll try to stay on-topic in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.120.44 (talk) 11:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Not quite, TFD. My dispute with them is that I disagree that whether property is used for production or not is a legitimate factor at all in determining its rightful ownership, or that the "means of production" should be owned by anyone in particular in the monolithic sense used by socialists, or should be monopolized by anyone or any entity. Anyone should be free to build "means of production" and produce goods and services. That's the dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.120.26 (talk) 10:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for responding off-topic again, but yes, TFD, my agreement with Locke is selective. I agree with much but not everything he wrote, and will leave it at that.

Left, right, retreat.

There was briefly a version which added a "right-libertarian" heading, just before the "left-libertarian", but it was reverted as "synthesis". Actually, as far as I can tell from reading Right-libertarian, it's correct. The first section was concerned solely with right-libertarianism. MilesMoney (talk) 01:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

That has been my complaint since a long time ago. It can only be called that. Hopefully we will have the user who reverted that come and explain his/her reasons. Reverting something and just giving as reason an accusation of "synthesis" clearly is not enough for a complex issue such as this.--Eduen (talk) 06:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the reversion on two levels:

• First, the section is on contemporary libertarianism and I think that such a section should exist. There is no limitation on what type goes in there.
• Right-libertarian basically rightly establishes that term is so vague and with so many different meanings that the term has no meaning. It is also an oxymoron in many places.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

North8000, you've said that many times (regarding the incoherence of the term right-libertarian), but I believe I have shown this to be an inaccurate statement. Right-libertarian means capitalist, be it neoliberal or anarcho-capitalist--"The New Right." -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I reverted the edit because it's pretty much a textbook definition of "Synthesis". You can't just assume that anything that isn't "Left Libertarian" suddenly becomes "Right Libertarian". It's just absurd, particularly when the most common American definition of Libertarianism boils down to being Right on economic issues, but Left on social ones. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 19:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The terms left and right libertarianism are used to distinguish between what the term often means in the U.S. and what it means in the rest of the world. Since Rothbard et al. claimed that they were within the libertarian tradition, it is not a case of one word with different meanings. Compare with liberalism, which broadly speaking includes both laissez-faire and welfare liberalism, but normally denotes the former in Europe and the latter in the U.S. If North8000 can find better words to distinguish left and right libertarianism, then he should provide them. TFD (talk) :38:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Liberalism, in the American sense, is left. Libertarianism, in the American sense, is right. Unless English Wikipedia is intended to be American Wikipedia, we can't just equate libertarianism with right-libertarianism, yet that's what we're doing now. MilesMoney (talk) 17:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Left-Libertarianism is a clear doctrine, and the word has a clear meaning. "Right-Libertarianism" is just when Conservatives claim to be "Libertarian", while ignoring all of the social positions inherent in Libertarianism. Essentially, it's a cop-out for people who refuse to admit they're just a plain old "Conservative". And frankly, if you want to make a silly "Right Libertarian" section, then that's your thing...but don't put that heading over a section denoting modern Libertarianism...and including a discussion of socially Liberal concepts like support for LGBT rights. There's nothing "Right-Wing" about socially Liberal positions. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 19:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

This is the problem with the terms left and right. What is "right" and what is "left"? It has a different meaning to everybody usually based on the area you live in. Using terms such as Market Libertarianism and Libertarian Socialism may be more appropriate but then you run into other problems with some socialists believing in the free market. Libertarian Capitalism may be okay, but not all "right libertarians" believe in capitalism, but the free market. AddsDitchVim (talk) 18:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Note, also, that there is a difference between placing libertarianism upon the left-right spectrum (which usually asks where neoliberalism fits in the US left-right paradigm) and dividing libertarianism into left and right factions. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

AddsDitchVim, it may be that the terminology used is confusing, but a distinction must be made and that is all that is available. If you have suggestions for anything else please provide them. Also, the terminology says nothing about where they lie on the political spectrum, only where they are perceived to lie in relation to each other. Few would question that most people would perceive Chomsky's views to be to the left of the Koch brothers and vice versa. Bryon Morrigan, sometimes the term libertarian is used as you say, but it is also used to refer to a school of thought that emerged in the U.S. in the 50s. The term conservative is problematic too since U.S. conservatism is generally considered to be a form of liberalism. TFD (talk) 21:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The terms mean dramatically different things based on geography. On our largest-english-readership country, "right" as a noun or adjective means/ includes "social conservative" (eg wants to outlaw abortion), the exact opposite of libertarianism. We had immense problems here a few years essentially because people were (mostly accidentally) trying to impose myopic / parochial definitions (which meant exactly opposite elsewhere) on the overall article, and I am adamantly against going back into that abyss. North8000 (talk) 22:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

This appears to be a confusion of the terms left and right with left- and right-libertarianism: the former have different meanings depending upon geography, the latter do not. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 23:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

There's definitely some confusion in what editors are saying, because there are plenty of libertarians who want abortion to be illegal or who favor racial discrimination (so long as it's not by the government). That's pretty much your whole Tea Party right there. American libertarianism is not socially liberal; it's anti-government on social issues, requiring the (federal) government to stay out of the way but not actually supporting minority rights. A good example is Rand Paul, who opposes same-sex marriage and opposes the federal government's role in it, but supports the right of states to be pro or con same-sex marriage.

Anyhow, what Mr. Dub said is correct: left-libertarian and right-libertarian are well-defined, and this article is treating libertarianism as if (as it is in America) it is right-libertarian by default. This is an obvious violation of WP:NPOV. MilesMoney (talk) 23:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree with "well defined" and feel that such is clearly not the case. Aside from sourcing, and a perusal of the RL article, if such were the case we would not be having this discussion. North8000 (talk) 23:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

This argument goes on for several threads about every six months, so people might read the archives. FYI, the lead of Right-libertarianism actually has a bit of WP:OR, which I got tired of debating, since it says more than what is in the article. Sources just don't support the use of term to describe an actual ideology. IMHO, it's most frequent use is by people who don't like free markets or freedom in general and want to tarnish them with the "epithet" right. User:Carolmooredc talk 03:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Plus the most common form of US Libertarianism / common meaning of it (the one with ~50,000,000 people in the US) is just generally prioitizing increase in freedom and reduction of government with NO reading / element based on those thing that some are claiming to be definers. (such as views on property). North8000 (talk) 11:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

North8000, the left/right spectrum in the U.S. is not defined by social conservatism. As with every other country empirical evidence has shown that the more right-wing one is perceived to be, the more likely one is to be socially conservative and vice versa. Your "common meaning" by the way is just a form of liberalism. TFD (talk) 15:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are saying in your first two sentences, as they appear to be conflicting with each other. On the rest, just as with libertarianism, there are two vastly different meanings of liberalism. What you say is true by European standards, and was true in the US back when liberalism meant classical liberalism. But it is clearly false by the current US meaning of liberalism, which advocates the expansion of government. North8000 (talk) 15:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

To say it shorter: The common meaning of "Libertarianism" in the USA = the common meaning of "Liberalism" in Europe. North8000 (talk) 15:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The phrase is "more likely to be socially conservative". Its like saying tall people are more likely to weigh more than short people. That does not mean that height and weight are the same thing or that all tall people weigh more than all short people.

I agree that the term libertarian is often used in the U.S. to mean what Europeans mean by liberal. It should be mentioned in the article. The universal term is "economic liberalism."

TFD (talk) 16:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The commonly-used "short-hand" political spectrum definition of American Libertarianism (as used by the Cato Institute, Boaz, Gary Johnson, etc.) is that it is economically Right-Wing, and socially Left-Wing. Right-Libertarians are generally economically Really Right-Wing, and socially Right to Center-Right. (In other words, they're just plain "Right-Wing" for the most part.) They don't fit the standard definition of just "plain old" Libertarianism, so renaming the section dealing with "plain old" Left/Right Libertarianism as "Right Libertarianism" is completely bonkers....especially when said section explicitly denotes the "fiscally conservative and socially liberal" definition, with citations. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 16:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

In regards to the Right-libertarianism article, again you can see where the confusion lies: situating "libertarianism" (aka neoliberalism) along the US left-right spectrum is not the same thing as dividing libertarianism into left and right factions. The first fifteen sources on that page all provide consistent definitions of right-libertarianism. Anthony Gregory's "Left, Right, Moderate and Radical" first criticizes the term for referring "to any number of varying and at times mutually exclusive political orientations," then successfully identifies left-libertarianism! Samuel Konkin III correctly identifies the difference between the two. Leonard E. Read, our next "critic," speaks of how neoliberalism isn't left or right, not about left- and right-libertarianism. Harry Browne never even mentions the terms left and right! When he says, "[w]e should never define Libertarian positions in terms coined by liberals or conservatives," he's referring to the words liberal and conservative. Then we have a claim that appears to be based solely upon the title of a work by neoliberal Tibor Machan! Walter Block, then, correctly identifies the difference between the two factions as well. So, to make it clear, there is no question about what left- and right-libertarianism are. It's only obscured when neoliberals think they have a monopoly on the term "libertarianism," which I think is the oft-cited problem with this article. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

As a veteran of 3-4 years of history here (including the bloodshed which I think I more than anyone worked to end and find the middle ground (actually more of a rosetta stone than common ground)) MisterDub, with "monopoly" I think that you are reading the wrong things into history of this article. The REAL problem is that there are vastly different meanings of libertarianism, and most people don't realize this and most people sincerely think that their meaning is the correct one, and that other folks doing the same are "up to something" and/or wrong. We need to respect the different definitions, give weigh to self-identification, and find terminology (via names or descriptions) that doesn't offend, conflict or confuse. North8000 (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

And how do you propose we do that? I hope you aren't suggesting that the article as it currently stands accomplishes this well. (The history of this article doesn't mean a thing; accurate content is our primary concern.) -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:32, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The "history" part was more to say I think that I understand where both sides are coming from, and that I've been trying to lobby for the middle ground which is just have the article explain and cover things......it doesn't have to pick sides or pick its leaning between sides, it just has to inform. North8000 (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that the current article takes a reasonably good approach, but it needs a lot of work. If there is one thing I'd like to see more of it is contemporary libertarianism in practice (not just in the minds of philosophers) For example, we have a "contemporary libertarianism section" which is short on contemporary left-libertarianism. But, with some many left-libertarian experts here, instead of putting material in on contemporary left-libertarianism, they want the doubly problematic move of changing the name of the section to "right libertarianism". And BTW, if left-libertarians objected to that term i would not use it, but they seem to agree with the term. North8000 (talk) 17:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

There are some left-libertarians who use that term, but a lot of us identify as either libertarian or anarchist, without adjectives. I'm okay with keeping the section title "Contemporary libertarianism" as long as it doesn't refer only to right-libertarianism; if it's going to be a section on right-libertarianism, however, it needs to be labeled as such. The organization and section titles of the article currently suggest that contemporary libertarianism is the same as right-libertarianism, that left-libertarianism is some minor offshoot. In fact, neoliberalism, anarcho-capitalism, and the traditional libertarian/anarchist position are all described as libertarian ideologies, and the article ought to reflect this without suggesting that one subset has more claim to the term than any other. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree. I think that the obvious (and frustratingly elusive) solution is for you or Euden or other left-libertarian to put more contemporary left-libertian material into the contemporary libertarianism section. Possibly we should also eliminate that subheading / separation. I'll give that a try. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

As far as how politics are viewed in the world and in the US, neoliberalism (meaning contemporary laissez faire capitalism) is right wing politics. As such in this article the distinction between left and right libertarianism is only logical and under way already as "left libertarianism" is used extensively within this article and clearly it will guide readers of this article better. Left and right libertarians never meet in real political practice in the outside world. They collaborate as much as religious fundamentalists and atheists do with each other. They are political enemies. So ¿why keep on confusing readers? The separation must clearly be established and it is very deep way and it is over the issue of capitalism just as fundamentalists and atheists are separated over the issue of religion in a very deep way.--Eduen (talk) 02:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Based on what definition of "Right Wing"? I agree with AddsDitchVim above, the terms "left" and "right" are too vaguely defined to be useful here. Bonewah (talk) 14:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Euden, as a sidebar, I think that you misunderstand the most common form of libertarianism in the US. You are thinking that it's a many-faceted philosophy with views on capitalism, private property. It isn't. The entire philosophy can be covered in one sentence. Prioritizing "More freedom, less government." END OF PHILOSOPHY. Things that they tacitly accept (e.g. capitalism, private ownership of property) are not a part of the philosophy. North8000 (talk) 15:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

As far as how politics are viewed in the world and in the US, neoliberalism (meaning contemporary laissez faire capitalism) is right wing politics. As such in this article the distinction between left and right libertarianism is only logical and under way already as "left libertarianism" is used extensively within this article and clearly it will guide readers of this article better. Left and right libertarians never meet in real political practice in the outside world. They collaborate as much as religious fundamentalists and atheists do with each other. They are political enemies. So ¿why keep on confusing readers? The separation must clearly be established and it is very deep way and it is over the issue of capitalism just as fundamentalists and atheists are separated over the issue of religion in a very deep way.--Eduen (talk) 02:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Based on what definition of "Right Wing"? I agree with AddsDitchVim above, the terms "left" and "right" are too vaguely defined to be useful here. Bonewah (talk) 14:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Euden, as a sidebar, I think that you misunderstand the most common form of libertarianism in the US. You are thinking that it's a many-faceted philosophy with views on capitalism, private property. It isn't. The entire philosophy can be covered in one sentence. Prioritizing "More freedom, less government." END OF PHILOSOPHY. Things that they tacitly accept (e.g. capitalism, private ownership of property) are not a part of the philosophy. North8000 (talk) 15:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

It might be the fact that US politics are the most right wing in the industrialized world. Everywhere else incluiding Canada there is at least a proper social democratic party with parlamentary representation and in countries like France, the Nederlands or Sweden there are parties even to the left of social democracy (mainly old style communist parties, trotskist and green parties) with small parlamentary representation as well. Yet in the US this is not the case and you only have two parties. One is a conservative party with very right wing views and the other is a centrist liberal party which right now is commited to a moderate form of neoliberalism (the Democratic party). As such you might be failing to see that everywhere else economic liberalism is seen as right wing and US neoliberalism at times is even more radical than european neoliberalism in its anti-statism and commitment to a capitalist ideology. It also is the case that the US is more right wing than europe as far as civil libertarianism issues in many cases since whereas in western europe there is a huge tendency towards irreligion in the US there is a strong christian fundamentalist movement with representation in one of the mainstream parties. I see that it might be the fact that you are failing to see this but i am just trying to bring you a more world centered perspective which is the one that wikipedia should strive for. It seems to me your vision keeps staying within a US centered provincialism.

So because of this it is unthinkable that anarchists, which are socialists coming from a position of liberty and anti-statism, are going to want to colaborate with something as opposed to it as a strong supporter of capitalism such as US right libertarianism and so not establishing well the huge diferences between each other in this article is a serious mistake. This is the reason why anarchism and libertarian marxism and the followers of Milton Friedman and Murray Rothbard can only be political enemies and never collaborate even in the US. As a matter of fact this US right libertarianism is closer in ideology to something like the US democratic party than to something like anarchism which has been seen usually as an ultra left position even to the left of marxist Communist parties. This is because as i said before the US democratic party is almost a sort of "libertarian party" already which supports neoliberalism in economics and civil libertarianism in morality and sex issues while anarchists advocate expropriating capitalists and bringing down the state to form a federation of communes, something very close to Karl Marx´s vision of "communism" actually. This is the reason why readers of this article should be made aware that there is an abyss of separation between anarchism and economic liberalism and that the US has a very peculiar form of classifying things which does not go alongside what the rest of the world follows. This is why we should clearly establish here a difference between right wing libertarianism and left wing libertarianism..--Eduen (talk) 05:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Eduen, I disagree with you on some of the details, but agree on the fundamentals. Your view is pretty typical of the non-American understanding of libertarianism, so that's what this article should reflect. It's called "Libertarianism" not "American Libertarianism". MilesMoney (talk) 06:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

MilesMoney. Maybe you should point out to what you disagree with. I can only remind you that we are not writing an article which seeks to be to the liking of US libertarians but one which deals with its subject with a world wide perspective and accuracy as far as the facts. Left and right libertarianism stand very far from each other and readers of this article should be pointed to this fact of real politics.--Eduen (talk) 06:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, it's not that important. The part I agree with is that this article should reflect a more global view, which means not assuming that libertarianism defaults to right-wing, the way it does in America. MilesMoney (talk) 06:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, regarding article organization and content, I 90% agree with both of you, the 10% being that "right libertarian" is a terrible term to use for many reasons. Now, as a sidebar, Eduen, what you wrote indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of the common meanings of libertarianism, liberal and Democratic party in the US. I was trying to give you a rosetta stone on that and you didn't take it.Which means that you really aren't in a position to contrast the two. Here is how what you just described sounds to me. Imagine that my personal libertarian philosophy consists of ONLY three things: prioritizing reduction of government and increase in freedom, and opposition to potatoes. And your brand of libertarianism makes no mention of potatoes. Now imagine that, based on that, I said these things:

1. Euden's is a "pro potato" form of libertarianism, and I'll describe it in the article as such.
2. Euden's pro-potato form of libertarian is in direct opposition to mine

On #1, I am using my "lens" to misstate your tacit acceptance of potatoes as being a plank of your libertarian platform. And then based on that mistaken invention, I'm mistakenly saying that our platforms conflict. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Again, i think the problem stems from the differing, or often non-existent, definition of the terms "right" and "left" in this context. Im all for including non-American understandings of Libertarianism, but we need to be descriptive of what those understandings are and how they differ from the American ones. We cant simply say "right" "Left" because those terms mean vastly different things to different people. Bonewah (talk) 15:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I just realized (or had it hammered in) something that is a cause of complaints. Folks are seeing a discussion of common-US-style Libertarianism under the general banner of "libertarianism" (without an adjective like "right") as a claim by that type to the general term "libertarianism". It is not intended that way. I think it's just that we don't have a good word for it, and "right libertarian" is TERRIBLE for many reasons. Ambiguous, no consistent meaning, attempted meanings (e.g. pro-property, pro-capitalism) which are flat out wrong for the most common type, and an oxymoron for the 60,000,000 practitioners of the most common type. North8000 (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

North8000, thank you for your suggestions and edits; they have been most helpful! I changed your edit from "'US style' libertarianism' to simply "US libertarianism" and hope this wasn't too bold on my part. If it was, feel free to revert. As for the continued claim that left and right are ambiguous and meaningless, I believe I have already shown this to be false. Left- and right-libertarianism are well defined, even if there are known differences between what people in the US and those elsewhere call left and right. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the "U.S." Libertarianism heading is a much better description. I changed "US" to "U.S.", because I'm fairly certain that is the proper protocol. Perhaps a "See Also" link to Libertarianism in the United States would also be a good idea? (Though that page itself needs SERIOUS help!) --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 18:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think that that's good. It's the main place where the meaning of the (single-word) term has been changed. If someone want to swap the sub-sections so that "left" is first, that's fine with me too. I just want an informative article. North8000 (talk) 18:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Libertarian anarchists?

User:JLMadrigal has changed occurrences of the word anarchist with libertarian anarchist. Is there a reason for this? Libertarianism and anarchism are synonyms, so this seems redundant. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I have now reverted these edits, as Libertarian anarchism is a redirect to Anarcho-capitalism! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Modern libertarianism ranges from minarchism to anarcho-capitalism. Left-of-center "anarchism" rejects property and markets (capitalism), and is thus foreign to the modern libertarian movement which embraces both. While historical European egalitarianism should rightly be discussed in this article, it is not the norm. Therefore the appropriate links will be restored. JLMadrigal (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The modern libertarian movement also includes left-libertarianism, which you appear to be redefining out of existence. MilesMoney (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

MilesMoney is correct; libertarianism includes left-libertarianism/left-anarchism/social(ist) anarchism/libertarian socialism and these edits intend to remove this affiliation and present libertarianism as only right-libertarianism. We do not want this bias in Wikipedia's voice. I have reverted again. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I generally agree with MisterDub comments above and their revert, although I don't see how the above conversation relates to the last edit. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the "anarchism" to which the link directs readers precisely excludes anarcho-capitalists who make up the bulk of modern libertarian anarchism. The reader is thus deprived of an accurate description of the movement within libertarianism. Again, while I have no objection to mention of left anarchism in the article, its significance to libertarian anarchism is misrepresented. The combination of articles attempts to redefine anarcho-capitalism out of existence. If this is not corrected, I will need to tag this article. JLMadrigal (talk) 09:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I am confused by this conversation. My main themes here (as having been a powerless pseudo-moderator) are that libertarianism has significantly different meanings and this article is to acknowledge that. The article is to cover them, not exclude them, and not write as if the specialized definition of any one of them is "THE" definition. When I read your edits and post I see "exclusion" in both respects. North8000 (talk) 09:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused, too. I don't see why we should try to limit the meaning of libertarianism to favor one particular type. MilesMoney (talk) 19:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

That's hard to believe, since anarcho-capitalism has been relegated to footnote status in the article - even though it is the most significant anarchist school of thought among libertarians today. JLMadrigal (talk) 21:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism has been relegated to footnote status in articles like the main one on anarchism for a very important reason. It's because it barely deserves a footnote. It is not a historically significant movement and has almost no presence in the material world outside of western internet culture. As far as I can tell, it's a only an internet phenomenon among mostly affluent American young men, who don't appear to be politically engaged in anything. Outside of that very marginal anomaly (and, for different reasons, one or two other pretty nuanced strains trying to distance themselves from traditional leftism), talking about 'left-anarchism' is like talking about 'sour lemons' - it's inane and redundant. It's rather telling that people outside the US generally do a spit-take when you tell them about self-described 'capitalist anarchists'; because, in context, it's like calling yourself an atheist hindu. I think it should be covered, but let's be serious. Finx (talk) 20:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Atheism in Hinduism — goethean 23:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and also Christian atheism. What I'm saying, though, is that it's at the margins. That's not a value judgment. Anarchists don't consider ancaps a part of the movement, which makes sense given the history and the content, not to mention their mostly-online presence. Just like "Christian atheism" might be a footnote in the article on Christianity, ancaps are a footnote in the article on anarchism. And they don't have any more claim to the word "libertarian". Finx (talk) 16:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The you should try adding it (this time without deleting anarchism) North8000 (talk) 21:10, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Done. More to come. JLMadrigal (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

¿Libertarian anarchists? that is as redundant as saying socialist communist and fascist nazi. Who can seriously be using that word? It is obvious that all anarchists are libertarian just as all communists are socialists and all nazies are fascists.

User JLMadrigal says the following amazing sentence:

"Left-of-center "anarchism" rejects property and markets (capitalism), and is thus foreign to the modern libertarian movement which embraces both. While historical European egalitarianism should rightly be discussed in this article, it is not the norm."

I can only remind that user that we are not writing "US right libertarian wikipedia" or "US neoliberal wikipedia" but english language wikipedia. As such we have to write articles here on how the "world" is and not how the opinions of US economic liberals ´s provincialism want to see it.

Another bizarre sentence by that same user:

"That's hard to believe, since anarcho-capitalism has been relegated to footnote status in the article - even though it is the most significant anarchist school of thought among libertarians today"

"anarcho-capitalism" is mostly rejected as something that can be logically considered a part of anarchism. It is something similar as proposing satanic christianity within chritianism. Rothbard clearly has more in common with Milton Fredman and Friedrich Hayek and so it is a part of neoliberalism and right libertarianism.--Eduen (talk) 02:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Euden, as when I reverted/rejected removal of "Anarchism", any significant strand needs to be covered. I don't have expertise on "anarcho-capitalism" to know whether or it it is such. but your argument given here against coverage of it seems to be based on personal analysis/opinion. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed that you deleted anarcho-capitalism material. You need to discus big sure-to-be-controversial changes here first. And the deletion should get reverted. North8000 (talk) 13:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

i am really not arguing againts coverage of it in this article. it certainly belongs here. i am just arguing that it should be placed where it belongs, as a part of right wing libertarianism and maninly as a radical form of economic liberalism.--Eduen (talk) 05:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Ancap section reads like a political pamphlet

"Anarcho-capitalism (also referred to as free-market anarchism",[139] market anarchism,[140]"

Maybe by a few, but the mainstream of anarchism that's historically advocated markets (Proudhon, Yarros, Tucker, Spooner) has been anticapitalist.

"embracing free and competitive markets in all services - including law and civil defense.[142][143]"

Presupposes law and civil defense are services.

"in favor of individual sovereignty in a free market.[144][143]"

Seriously? Individual sovereignty?

I think it's fair to say anti state, even though that's been challenged, but maybe getting a little carried away with rhetoric here?

"In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be operated by privately funded competitors rather than centrally through compulsory taxation. Money, along with all other goods and services, 'would be privately and competitively provided in an open market. Therefore, personal and economic activities under anarcho-capitalism would be regulated by victim-based dispute resolution organizations under tort and contract law"

Actually the proponents say - this would be like that and that would be like this. Those are their arguments and their conclusions, so the phrasing doesn't sound appropriate, since it's not a given. I can say that clapping my hands would make candy fall from the sky, but that doesn't make it an encyclopedic fact.

"rather than by statute through punishment and torture under political monopolies."

More rhetoric.

Could some ancap among us perhaps make this section more encyclopedic please? Finx (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Other than the first sentence, it appears this was copied from the Anarcho-capitalism article. I don't have a problem with that, but think that the references which support the claims ought to be copied over as well. I do agree that this new section needs expansion, and added that template to draw the attention of those who are knowledgeable about anarcho-capitalism. I can get to the sources later if no one beats me to it. Thanks! (By MisterDub)

I haven't checked the main article. I'll give it a look. I think the content is basically fine, so far as I understand the topic anyway, but it could sound a lot more detached -- e.g. "anarcho-capitalists contend that a society based these principles would [such-and-such] and [this-and-that], realizing [individual-sovereignty/free-market-freedoms/happy-fun-times]. Writers like [so-and-so] see the state [yada-yada] and its statutes as [monopoly/torture/tyranny/abomination]. Finx (talk) 19:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I added "as envisioned," and some history and links. JLMadrigal (talk) 14:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Changes in lead regarding US Libertarian Party

Some different stuff & Goethean have been trying to war in a big change in the lead and refusing to take it to talk. Rather than report I'll start the conversation here. (in fairness to Somedifferentstuff, they only did it the first 2, Goethean did #3) The roots of that section are to have some representative/significant sourced statements of what libertarian promotes. And to include a statement by (what few or none would argue isn't) the largest libertarian organization in the world as ONE of those. North8000 (talk) 17:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Rather than report what? What am I refusing to discuss? Please discuss content rather than contributors. And find a secondary source for your preferred content per WP:SECONDARY. — goethean 17:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't really have an objection to this change; the information seems better suited for the "U.S. libertarianism" section than the lead. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

@Goethean, answering your question, it was rather than report you. You just did #3 (within a few hours) of trying to hammer in the same major edit to the lead of a major article, without discussing, despite previous "take it to talk" in edit summaries. And I was commenting on warring behavior not on people. North8000 (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Please go ahead and report me to whatever authority you would like rather than throwing around false threats and accusations. You are the one making personal attacks, so I think that any report is likely to WP:BOOMERANG. — goethean 17:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• agreed the revert was made without discussion, therefore plz re-read wp:BRD and self-revert your revert. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Find a secondary source for your preferred content per WP:SECONDARY. And note MisterDub's comment: I don't really have an objection to this change; the information seems better suited for the "U.S. libertarianism" section than the lead. — goethean 18:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

It's a primary source used within the proper limits for use of primary sources. North8000 (talk) 18:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

As context, Goethean and I have "history"; interactions I have with Goethean never go well. For the others, as always with this article, my "agenda" has always been topped by it being informative, not to tilt it toward one strand or another. I think that the USLP (the "party" part) is a bad idea so my comments don't come from any pro-USLP bias. I think that that paragraph should give representative examples of statements of what libertarian objectives/ideologies/priorities are, and I think that such from the largest libertarian organization is useful. A good substitute would also fulfill this. Further the sentence (I think) limits itself to common tents of libertarianism in general. North8000 (talk) 18:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

If you start following Wikipedia policy, rather than needlessly making deprecating comments about Wikipedia contributors, there will be no problems between you and I. Nobody asked for or cares about your personal commentary on our shared history. Nobody asked for or wants to hear about your agenda or your personal views of the US Libertarian Party.

As MisterDub says above, your preferred content is is a better fit for the article on the US Libertarian Party. This article is on libertarianism as a political philosophy. Adding the content here makes about as much sense as adding the platform of the US Democratic Party to the lead of the article on Democracy. — goethean 19:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll skip responding to the false accusations and insults and just respond to your last item. If the US Democratic party's priority/priority was to promote democracy then their statement of that type would be informative. But such is not the case. North8000 (talk) 20:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is interested in your personal political views. — goethean 20:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why I bother, but what the heck "political views" are you talking about. My statement was just about the self-stated priorities / platform of the organization. North8000 (talk) 23:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Why not just say that there are parties called "Libertarian?" TFD (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe. But my point is not to give the party a place there, it is to have another representative statement of what (one or the other significant strand of) libertarianism is about. That's (expanding here) I said that another substitute that does not use the USLP party would be fine. But what needs to be covered is a statement covering the "short list" of common tents of nearly all libertarianism, which also happens to be the "1 sentence" version of libertarianism which has the largest following (40- 60 million people in the US). North8000 (talk) 20:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Then there is no reason to mention the U.S. Libertarian Party. Just say that in the U.S. the term libertarian is often used as a synonym for economic liberalism. TFD (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree on the "no need (per se) to mention the USLP". But even the shortest lists of common tenets and/or US meaning of the term are broader than just "economic".North8000 (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

If it does, can you provide a source for it. AFAIK, "libertarian" can mean either people in the traditional of Rothbard, Nolan, Hess, Paul, etc. or economic liberalism. What else is there? TFD (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Quick interjection: it might be helpful for people to review what liberalism is, including classical liberalism, social liberalism, economic liberalism and neoliberalism. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 23:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Plus the overwhemingly most common meaning of liberalism in the US which is the opposite of most of those. :-) North8000 (talk) 00:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, liberalism in the USA generally refers to social liberalism, which yes, does value government-provided services like education, health care, etc. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 05:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

@TFD. The source of it is the USLP. That is how they got in the in the first place, not due to wanting to mention them. Answering you later question, they are the other 90% of US Libertarians (~20% of the US population) that you didn't mention as quantified by Boaz, roughly along the Nolan Chart definition. And a 1 sentence ideology definition (prioritizing reduction of government, and increase in freedom) where the complete philosophies / philosophers that you just listed are not even on their radar screen. North8000 (talk) 01:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean people who combine economic and cultural liberalism? We could add that as another definition. TFD (talk) 02:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

In the US that's an unusual way to express it (somewhat of an oxymoron), but yes and of course you are also technically correct. The common way to say it in the US is via the Nolan chart terminology. Don't forget that the common meaning of "liberal" in the US means advocating an expanded government; the opposite of classical liberal on that topic. North8000 (talk) 02:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)