Talk:Libertarianism

Archives
Archive 1	Archive 2
Archive 3	Archive 4
Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8
Archive 9	Archive 10
Archive 11
Talk:Libertarian, discussion for a page which has been merged with this article.
Talk:Libertarianism/Alfrem, discussion prior to the ArbCom decision banning User:Alfrem from this article.
Talk:Libertarianism/Page move, a July 2005 vote on a proposal to make libertarianism a disambiguation page and move this to Libertarianism (capitalist).

Libertarian is anarchism throughout the world except in US

Whole section moved to Talk Archive 11, however, list of references in that section duplicated here

It is not a myth that "Libertarian" has its origins in European anarcho-communism over a century ago;
It is not a myth that anarchists generally don't form political parties, which would tend to bias current naming-results in favour of minarchist capitalists who have relatively recently adopted the term for themselves;
It is not a myth that a significant section of relatively recent American individualist libertarians - including those associated with minarchist or anarchist capitalism, such as Wendy MacElroy, Murray Rothbard and various writers for "Liberty" Magazine - draw upon the works of libertarian socialists such as Benjamin Tucker, Emma Goldman, and others;
It is not a myth that left-wing organisations and personalities have used the term in reference to their ideas throughout the years:
Current -
- International of Anarchist Federations;
- International Workers Association;
- Freien Arbeiterinnen und Arbeiterunion;
- Confederacion Nacional del Trabajo;
- Unione Sindacale Italiana;
- International Libertarian Solidarity;
- Workers Solidarity Movement;
- "The Pierre J. Proudhon Memorial Computer";
- various International Workers of the World;
- Noam Chomsky;
- 1980's: Sam Dolgoff, "Libertarian Labor Review";
- France (Paris, Nanterre, and Bretagne), Italy, Lebanon & Belgium: "Libertarian Alternative";
- England: "Soliderity: A Journal of Libertarian Socialism";
- George Woodcock, 1962: "Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements" (9 years before formation of US Libertarian Party);
- Cuba, 1959: an anti-capitalist, anti-state organisation - "Libertarian Association of Cuba";
- 1950's: George Fontenis - "The Manifesto of Libertarian Communism";
- New York City, July 1954: Russell Blackwell, Esther and Sam Dolgoff formed "the Libertarian League", (for a short time Murray Bookchin was member);
- 1949, Gregory P. Maximoff: the Libertarian Book Club;
- Spanish Civil War (1936-1939): coalition group - the United Libertarian Organisations (ULO), spread information about revolutionary anarchist activities in Spain;
- Spain, 1932 Issac Puente: pamphlet "Libertarian Communism";
- 1936 Saragossa conference on the eve of the Spanish Revolution: CNT adopted libertarian communism as its goal;
- France, 1926: Dielo Trouda group of anarchists who had fled Russia - "Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists";
- "Libertarian League" in the 1920's: mutualist libertarian organisation;
- 1895: Sebastien Faure, founded "Le Libertaire";
- 1858: Joseph Dejacque, anarcho-communist;
- Webster's New International Dictionary, 'Libertarian' is: "One who holds to the principle of free will; also, one who upholds the principles of liberty, esp. individual liberty of thought and action."
- Dean Russell, Foundation for Economic Education - "Ideas on Liberty" May, 1955: "Who is a Libertarian?" advocated that the right should "trademark and reserve for our own use the good and honorable word 'libertarian.'"
Whether it is intended or not, the article as it stands is effectively special pleading, does not have a neutral point-of-view, and is a political airbrushing of history. Clearly, "libertarian" has a much broader usage and context than is suggested - Wikipedia is not the Global Patent - or official Trademarking - office; even if it were, it would be questionable whether it could assign "libertarian" as apparently desired by the current article's viewpoint. Oisinoc (talk) 00:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually hardcore Libertarianism is anarchy in the US as well and the ideas easily date back to leaders like Patrick Henry at the time of the US Revolutionary war of 1776. (citation are easily searched; take your pick) The weakness of the original Articles of Confederation and federal government owe much to the early "Libertarians", though they did not carry that name. Note there were unsuccessful efforts at weakening state governments and the small New England state governments started out weak. However the current US political party is actually a coalition of a number of very small political groups including Socialists and some Communists which share some partial overlap of ideals and embarassingly small membership numbers. Thus the "moderate" Libertarian party leaders and public platform reflects an adulterated political platform similar to what happens in most European coalitions. Modern Libertarians basically gamble on the idea of gaining critical high offices via voter disgust with the big parties and then dismantling government from within... as opposed to the ridiculous idea of successful violent overthrow. The coalition partners then gambling on being a possible replacement system of government.

Properly speaking European anarchy is usually paired with socialism rather than Communism, despite the popular slang. Socialism being ideal for rich societies which can easily support community and charitable funds without dramatically cutting into personal income or otherwise interfering with the individual. It should be noted that even idealistic Communism is radically different than anarchy since although the choice to submit the rule of the cooperative is voluntary, deviation from that total economic rule is normally automatic expulsion. On the other hand the Western Communist parties often have little to say organized political thought outside of pressing for aggregate economic rule and community services.69.23.124.142 (talk) 07:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Libertarianism in the United States - and the World!

Whole section moved to Talk Archive 11, however, list of references in that section duplicated here

First, common sense suggests that if an organisation says it's "libertarian", then we don't need a quote from an academic journal to prove it, moreover, if organisations are cross-referencing one another in such a manner, such common use within a milieu is also important, even if all organisations do not have the term in their title or manifestos; second, it simply isn't tenable in this day and age to suggest that only organisations or persons speaking english count! This would exclude whole continents of knowledge from Wikipedia (did Jesus speak English?); this might be a factor where there were very different meanings attached to a similar sounding word or phrase (e.g. "Notary Public"/"Notario Publico" in US/Mexico), or if similar meanings attached to different words; but "libertario" e.g. is used in the same context and manner in Spanish as it's etymological counterpart "libertarian" is in English; thirdly, it is not actually up to the rest of the world, or to critics of the current bias, that they should have to seek permission to use "libertarianism" - the burden of proof actually lies on the excluders to justify their effective trademarking of this term; it is a dictionary term, not a trademark, not a patented idea. Neither the descendants of Karl Marx, nor the current Communist Party of Great Britain presume to have the final - or first - veto on what goes into the "Communism" entry, for example.

OK, references of current international organisations and people using "libertarian" vocab in a manner that conflicts with the aggressively unilateral and chauvinistic definition championed by the current article: (I'm just putting this here so we can all view it with our own eyes, and without messing around with the article - text is from the websites themselves, with exception of that in square brackets. I promise I will clean this up too.)

http://www.afed.org.uk/aims.html "The Anarchist Federation is an organisation of class struggle anarchists (based in Britain and Ireland, but with many contacts overseas) which aims to abolish Capitalism and all oppression to create a free and equal society. This is Anarchist Communism." "The Anarchist Federation is an organisation of revolutionary class struggle anarchists. We aim for the abolition of all hierarchy, and work for the creation of a world-wide classless society: anarchist communism... We seek to build an anarchist international to work with other libertarian revolutionaries throughout the world. " "http://www.afed.org.uk/links.html#UKIreland Aufheben - lots of in-depth articles in this libertarian communist journal. "The journal Aufheben was first produced in the UK in Autumn 1992. " Class against Class - libertarian, autonomist and council communist texts. Colchester Solidarity Group - network of Colchester-based Libertarian Socialists.

http://eventsandissues.bravehost.com/LAF.html "The LAF is an informal non-sectarian left libertarian discussion group which meets usually once a month "

WOMBLES - White Overalls Movement Building Libertarian Effective Struggles. UK based activists. http://www.wombles.org.uk/ "This site - www.wombles.org.uk - collects news and information about anti-capitalist / anarchist direct action, protests and events. The areas we try to focus on include articles on solidarity campaigns for radical prisoners, border / migration struggles, autonomous work place organising, social centres, squatted or free spaces."

http://www.wsm.ie/about_us Workers Soldarity Movement "As anarchists we see ourselves as part of a long tradition that has fought against all forms of authoritarianism and exploitation, a tradition that strongly influenced one of the most successful and far reaching revolutions in this century - in Spain in 1936 - 37. The value of this tradition cannot be underestimated today. With the fall of the Soviet Union there is renewed interest in our ideas and in the tradition of libertarian socialism generally. We hope to encourage this interest with Red & Black Revolution. We believe that anarchists and libertarian socialists should debate and discuss their ideas, that they should popularise their history and struggle, and help point to a new way forward." "In terms of helping to build a broad libertarian movement in Ireland we have continued to work in the Grassroots Gathering. We also initiated campaigns against both Nice referenda, in the second over 50,000 libertarian leaflets were distributed." "Freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice. Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality" [James Connolly - executed leader and socialist patriot of 1916 Easter Rising; also a US member of International Workers of the World]

http://www.wsm.ie/public_newswire_1?topic=anarchistmovement "International Anarchist statement for International Workers Day 2008 Towards a new international movement of the exploited, Against neo-liberalism, against war, against hunger and poverty, For peace, food and housing for all, for safe and secure jobs, Towards the libertarian alternative!" http://www.wsm.ie/rbr Issues of irish anarchist magazine Red and Black Revolution

http://www.libcom.org/notes/about "The libcom group is a small collective of libertarian communists based in and around London, we maintain libcom.org, and as individuals are involved with a number of other groups and activity. Our name, libcom, is an abbreviation of "libertarian communism" - and its goals of liberty and community - the political current we identify with. However our primary focus is always on how best to act in the here and now to better our circumstances and protect the planet.

Libertarian communism is the political expression of the ever-present strands of co-operation and solidarity in human societies. These currents of mutual aid can be found throughout society." "Both through human co-operation in everyday life and in the large scale directly democratic ways of organising society developed by working people we see the seeds of a new kind of society. A society based not on exploitation, domination and drudgery but on free, voluntary co-operation, freedom and creativity – a libertarian communist society.

Libertarian communism is a social system where production is based on the concept "from each according to ability, to each according to need" and humanity is emancipated from all systems of economic and political authority. Where humans organise themselves from the bottom-up through the principles of face-to-face direct democracy, mandated delegation and federalism. To this end, where all society's decisions are made at the base, we focus on grassroots working class organisation and self-education today.

We identify primarily with the trends of workers' solidarity, co-operation and struggle throughout history, such as those mentioned above, whether they were self-consciously Bold textlibertarian communist (such as in Spain) or not. We are also influenced by certain specific theoretical and practical traditions, such as anarchist-communism, social ecology, anarcho-syndicalism, the Situationists, libertarian Marxism, council communism, as well as writers including Karl Marx, Peter Kropotkin, Harry Cleaver, Murray Bookchin and Anton Pannekoek."

RED LIBERTARIA. Grupo Libertario de Buenos Aires http://www.inventati.org/rlba/ "What is Red Libertaria (Libertarian Network)?"

"...we, comrades that shared their libertarian ideas, started to find each other in the struggles, all of us looking for the way to overcome the lack of libertarian spaces. And so, the last days of December 2002, the first formal meetings of Red Libertaria took place. " "Red Libertaria´s goal is anarchism´s resurgence; in the streets, in the factories and workshops, in the schools and universities, in the neighbourhoods and shambles; so that anarchism can be a revolutionary force again, a force that combats and destroys capitalism everywhere, wielding the weapons of direct action, horizontality, federalism, solidarity, self-management, freedom and equality. " "We militate in different spaces (cooperatives, unions and syndic groups, students centres and students groups, neighbourhood work groups, social and cultural centres, etc.) to strengthen popular organizations and struggles, propelling libertarian ideas and trying to make people assimilate them and, over all, practice them as their own. "

"Anarchism as a philosophic and political practice has developed a multitude of variants or tendencies throughout its century and a half of history. All of them criticize the present state of things, share rejection to the authority and have a common goal: a society of free and equal human beings. Several anarchist tendencies coexist nowadays and come together in the libertarian movement. Mainly, their differences rest up on the methods that they propose. "

"...we think that libertarians must be organized in order to be able to influence society. Isolated we would be unable to carry out any truly great action. The organization that we propose differences itself from the traditional political institutions inasmuch as hierarchies do not exist inwards: there is not a person or group who decides and another that executes. "

"Anarchists' organization must be a truly democratic organization, in which the decisions are made through assemblies. Since there's a physical limit of persons that can conform an assembly, libertarians' organization would be a federation: the unit of the multiple and relatively small nuclei, each one carrying on a particular activity, but related to the whole through periodic general meetings. Each group would relative autonomy within the framework of these basic agreements. "

"...anarchists, Red Libertaria, and the libertarian movement in general are places where we come together and discuss, plan and organize propaganda and participation in the struggles. Parallel to the libertarian movement, the popular movement develops, sometimes spontaneously, but almost always through union organizations, student groups or neighbourhood work groups in which we must participate."

"...we think that the regrouping of the libertarians is urgent; in the libertarian movement, and according to the tendency of each one, taking ahead an energetic and coordinated militant action towards the social change."

"Federación Libertaria Argentina (FLA)", Argentina Miembro de la Internacional de Federaciónes Anarquistas (Member of International of Anarchist Federations) http://www.libertario.org.ar/

Brasil 1551, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina (1154) Publications: "Acción Libertaria" 1933-1971; "El Libertario" since 1985 - http://www.libertario.org.ar/libertario.html Biblioteca Archivo de Estudios Libertarios http://www.libertario.org.ar/bael.html

La Hidra de mil cabezas. Grupo de Menoza (Argentina), con importante material y trabajo de reflexión sobre las ideas libertarias http://www.lahidrademilcabezas.com.ar/Nombre.htm

" los principios sobre los cuales se asienta nuestra organización: libertad, horizontalidad y autogestión" http://www.lahidrademilcabezas.com.ar/menu.htm "...una federación de comunas agrarias basadas en un régimen comunista libertario." ""Todos los hombres están a favor de la libertad..." "La libertad es el hombre que trastornará al mundo..." "La verdadera libertad se funda en la comunidad de espíritu y en la comunidad de bienes terrenales". "...una confraternidad universal de mujeres y hombres en libertad e igualdad..." "...el clamor de quienes se rebelan contra él es uno solo: "¡Libertad!" "

Anarres Libros / Colección Utopía Libertaria http://www.quijotelibros.com.ar/anarres.htm

Av. Corrientes 4790, Ciudad de Buenos Aires Utopía Libertaria es el nombre de una colección de libros que tanto rescata a las obras fundantes del pensamiento anarquista como actualiza esas ideas para los tiempos que nos han tocado en suerte. La colección es compartida transversalmente por varios grupos que se reclaman libertarios, y cada uno de ellos posee su propio sello editorial.

Ateneo Libertario Virtual

"...Acceso a una gran cantidad de material que servirá para profundizar en nuestros conocimientos de historia, economía y teoría del anarquismo así como nuestros conocimientos de las grandes figuras del movimiento a través de algunas de sus obras y otros escritos". Puesto que el anarquismo no es una escuela ni un cuerpo doctrinal cerrado, no cabe esperar que los textos que señalamos defiendan las mismas ideas o expongan enfoques similares. Tienen en común nada más -y nada menos- que su orientación libertaria http://www.alasbarricadas.org/ateneovirtual/index.php/Portada

FAL Fundación de Estudios Libertarios Anselmo Lorenzo (CNT) "...el comunismo libertario..." http://www.cnt.es/fal/home.php

Talleres de Educación Libertaria en Mendoza http://hernun.com.ar/blogs/enta/2007/09/talleres_de_educacion_libertar.html

Insumiseria (San Juan) "Espacio insumiso de difusión y comunicación de ideas libertarias". http://www.insumiseria.blogspot.com/

RLAM Red Libertaria Apoyo Mutuo http://www.red-libertaria.net

"Crítica Libertaria de la Actual Coyuntura" El Grupo de Trabajo Solidaridad Libertaria de la CGT de Burgos, en su actividad solidaria y de trabajo en común con las organizaciones del anarquismo organizado e insertado socialmente de América Latina, FAU Uruguay, FAG Porto Alegre, FAO Brasil, los compañeros argentinos, etc. http://debatelibertario.blogspot.com/

Colectiva Libertaria D- Género Proyectil Fetal. Grupo Anarcofeminista Queer de Buenos Aires con varias actividades y reflexiones sobre el tema. http://www.proyectilfetal.blogspot.com/

Comisión de Relaciones Anarquistas de Venezuela. Edita el periódico El Libertario y realiza múltiples actividades que irradia a toda latinoamérica. http://www.nodo50.org/ellibertario/

El Libertario es realizado desde 1995 por un colectivo editorial libertario, difundiendo las actividades ácratas y sociales autónomas del continente Libertario- Periodico de los movimientos sociales atonomos http://www.nodo50.org/ellibertario/english.htmlds

LIBERTAD. Grupo anarquista de Buenos Aires "Pagina electronica del grupo anarquista libertad" Por la revolucion social y el comunismo anarquico http://www.geocities.com/grupo_libertad/

KOLECTIVO UTOPIA ACRATA LIBERTARIO (Jujuy) http://kual.com.ar/ PROYECCION DE PELICULAS : “ LIBERTARIAS“ “VIVIR LA UTOPIA“ VENTA DE MATERIAL LIBERTARIO

OSL. Organización Socialista Libertaria (Buenos Aires, Argentina): http://www.osl.org.ar 15 de Noviembre 1164, Buenos Aires, Ar.

FICEDL. FEDERACION INTERNACIONAL DE ARCHIVOS Y BIBLIOTECAS LIBERTARIAS http://ficedl.info/

International Libertarian Solidarity - ILS-SIL - federation of mainly platformist groups of which WSM is the Irish section. [1] Solidarietà Internazionale Libertaria

The ILS/SIL Network The International Libertarian Solidarity network was founded in April 2001 on the initiative of the CGT. Its main purpose is international solidarity and the provision of concrete assistance. The network has over twenty members - libertarian organizations, unions and self-managed communities - who are spread throughout Europe (Spain, France, Greece, Italy, Ireland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Sweden, Switzerland), North America (Canada, USA, Mexico), South America (Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay), Asia (Lebanon) and Africa (South Africa).

It is linked to an even greater number of libertarian organizations who cooperate regularly, for example during international summits against capitalist globalization. The first series of SIL projects concern South America." http://www.fdca.it/fdcaen/ILS/ils_members.htm

ILS/SIL Member Organizations

ALTERNATIVA LIBERTARIA (AL - SPAIN)

AL was founded in 1999 by militants of the anarcho-syndicalist union CGT. It operates mainly in Catalunya.

ALTERNATIVE LIBERTAIRE (AL - FRANCE) www.alternativelibertaire.org/

Alternative Libertaire was founded in 1991. It is part of the international libertarian workers' movement which provides it with its strong ideas, though it does not reject positive contributions from other areas. It works within the workers' movement, with young people and inside social movements. Its action is founded on two distinct levels of organization and expression:

   *the organization and development of a new libertarian current based on class struggle;
   *the emergence of a vast anti-capitalist and self-managed movement in which the libertarian current can be an equal player. 

AL publishes the monthly journal Alternative Libertaire and the magazine Debattre.

CONFEDERACION GENERAL del TRABAJO (CGT - SPAIN) www.cgt.es/

This anarcho-syndicalist organization grew out of the 1979 Congress of the Spanish CNT. It was obliged to take the name CGT in 1988 after losing its claim to keep its name and heritage to the "historical" wing of the CNT. It has 50,000 members and is the third-largest union in Spain The CGT publishes the monthly Rojo y Negro and the magazine Libre Pensamiento .

CONSEJO INDIGENO POPULAR de OAXACA - RICARDO FLORES MAGON (CIPO-RFM - MEXICO) www.nodo50.org/cipo/

The CIPO-RFM is a native american libertarian organization which follows the examples set by Ricardo Flores Magon, the best-known Mexican anarchist militant who, together with Emiliano Zapata was one of the leaders of the Mexican Revolution. The CIPO-RFM has close ties to the EZLN and joined the latter on its national march in February 2001 which reached Mexico City.

FEDERAÇAO ANARQUISTA GAUCHA (FAG - BRAZIL) www.fag.rg3.net/

The FAG was founded in 1996. It operates principally in the southern state of Rio Grande do Sul whose capital is Porto Alegre. This was the site, in 2001, of the Anarchist Days which were held to coincide with, and criticise, the World Social Forum. The FAG is a member of the Concentraçao Anarquista Brasileira together with other organizations and groups from other Brazilian states. The FAG is also a member of the Coordinacion Anarquista de America Latina (CALA) together with the OSL (Argentina), the FAU (Uruguay) and the CUAC (Chile).

FEDERACION ANARQUISTA URUGUAYA (FAU) - URUGUAY) www.nodo50.org/fau/

The FAU was founded in 1965 during a revolutionary period. It is the oldest and most experienced South American anarchist organization. It was the mover behind the creation of the single central trade union (CNT) which at present has a mainly reformist direction. During the military dictatorship from 1976 to 1984, the FAU took part in the armed struggle and fought alongside the Tupamaros. Many of its militants were subjected to imprisonment, torture and exile and others were assassinated. In 1984, about 30 comrades decided to rebuild the FAU, taking advantage of the support and solidarity of the Spanish CNT and the Swiss OSL. At present, the FAU has over one hundred militants and produces several publications including the journal Lucha Libertaria.

It is a member of the CALA together with the FAG (Brazil), the OSL (Argentina) and the CUAC (Chile). LA MARMITA (GREECE)

This is a libertarian group formed around the magazine of the same name. Its members are mainly young militants who are active in schools and in solidarity with and the struggle for political prisoners. They are presently working towards the formation of an organized anarchist current in Greece.

ORGANISACION SOCIALISTA LIBERTARIA (OSL - ARGENTINA) http://www.geocities.com/jmheredia.geo/index.htm

The OSL is the most recent organized anarchist group in Argentina. It publishes the monthly journal En la Calle and has groups in Buenos Aires, Rosario and La Plata. It is involved in the widescale mass struggle which is currently taking place in Argentina and its militants are frequently targeted for State repression. It too is a member of the CALA together with the FAU (Uruguay), the FAG (Brazil) and the CUAC (Chile).

ORGANISATION SOCIALISTE LIBERTAIRE (OSL - SWITZERLAND) www.rebellion.ch/

Founded in 1985, the OSL is deeply involved in social, labour, feminist and anti-racist struggles. Its militants were among the founders of the SUD-Public Services union which now has 8,000 members. The OSL publishes the journal Rebellion.

Organizace revolucních anarchistu - Solidarita (ORA- S - CZECH REPUBLIC/SLOVAKIA) www.fdca.it/fdcaen/international/oras.htm

The ORA-S was founded in 1999. Initially is was an anarcho-syndicalist organization, but took on a libertarian communist orientation and now works towards the autonomous organization of workers within the factories. Much of its activity is dedicated towards the struggle against capitalist globalization and in fact it was at the organizational heart of the anarchist and ecologist sectors of the demonstrations against the IMF and World Bank summits in Prague in September 2000. The ORA-S publishes the monthly Solidarita.

SVERIGES ARBETARES CENTRALORGANIZACION (SAC - SWEDEN)

The SAC is an anarcho-syndicalist confederation and revolutionary syndicalist organization founded at the start of the 20th century. It has 9,000 members and is the most important revolutionary organization in Sweden. It was in the frontline of the protests against the EU summit in Goteborg in 2001. It publishes the weekly paper Arbetares.

RESEAU NO PASARAN (FRANCIA) nopasaran.samizdat.net/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=65

No Pasaran is a network of anti-fascist collectives in France.

CONFEDERAZIONE ITALIANA di BASE - UNICOBAS (CIB-UNICOBAS - ITALY) www.cib-unicobas.it/

FEDERAZIONE DEI COMUNISTI ANARCHICI (FdCA - ITALY) www.fdca.it/

AL-BADIL AL-CHOOUI AL-TAHAROURI (LEBANON) flag.blackened.net/revolt/inter/albadil.html

RED LIBERTARIA APOYO MUTUO (RLAM - SPAIN) www.red-libertaria.net/noticias/index.php

AUCA - SOCIALISMO REVOLUCIONARIO (ARGENTINA) BIKISHA MEDIA COLLECTIVE (SOUTH AFRICA) struggle.ws/inter/groups/bikisha/main.htm

LUTA LIBERTARIA (BRAZIL) http://www.ainfos.ca/05/aug/ainfos00102.html

NORTHEASTERN FEDERATION OF ANARCHO-COMMUNISTS (NEFAC - CANADA/USA) nefac.net/

ORGANISATION COMMUNISTE LIBERTAIRE (OCL - FRANCE) oclibertaire.free.fr/

WORKERS SOLIDARITY MOVEMENT (WSM - IRELAND) www.wsm.ie

ZABALAZA BOOKS (SOUTH AFRICA) www.zabalaza.net/zababooks/

http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/index.html "The Anarchist Library. Liberty - Mother, not Daughter of Order"

http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/mlc/index.html "The Manifesto of Libertarian Communism by Georges Fontenis, Platformist Anarchism. Transcribed from an Anarchist Communist Edition distributed by the Anarchist Communist Federation."

http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/guerin1.html Daniel Guerin's essay on the origins of the words Anarchism and Libertarianism. Anarchism: A Matter of Words (Where the words "Anarchism" and "Libertarian" come from) From Chapter 1, part 1 of the book "Anarchism", by Daniel Guerin

"Today the terms "anarchist" and "libertarian" have become interchangeable." "Some contemporary anarchists have tried to clear up ... misunderstanding by adopting a more explicit term: they align themselves with libertarian socialism or communism. " "During a street meeting on May 4, 1885, in Haymarket Square, a bomb thrown at the legs of the police in an unexplained manner provided the necessary pretext. Eight leaders of the revolutionary and libertarian socialist movement were arrested, seven of them sentenced to death, and four subsequently hanged (a fifth committed suicide in his cell the day before the execution). Since then the Chicago martyrs-- Parsons, Fischer, Engel, Spies, and Lingg-- have belonged to the international proletariat, and the universal celebration of May Day (May 1) still commemorates the atrocious crime committed in the United States. "

http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/lastlib.html A Letter to the Editor of The Match Taken from Issue #86, Summer 1991 P.O. Box 3488 Tucson, Arizona 85722 Dear Fred: I'm a 1967-style Libertarian, and that seems to have little in common with the "Libertarians" we've picked up since 1980. You have no idea of the corruption that entered the "Party of Principle." Reason Magazine sold out. The great anarchistic "Mr. Libertarian", Murray Rothbard, joined with an arch-fascist; most state-level positions have been lost to the conservatarians. Why? Because the right-wingers had so much more money than the left-wingers. They were able to flit about the country and create a controlling clique that people without money couldn't keep up with... Personally, I think the whole Capitalism vs. Socialism argument is a red herring. We're still in medievalism. You tell me what class your daddy was and I'll tell you which one you're in - just like the twelfth century. First, we get out of medievalism, then with everyone starting off equally, we'll see about the Capitalism vs. Socialism bit. However, you would be doing the real Libertarians a favor if you called these pseudo-Libertarians by their true name: Conservatarians. " "Walk Karwicki II Box 2372 York, PA 17405 "

http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/puente.html Isaac Puente's essay on Libertarian Communism.

"LIBERTARIAN COMMUNISM by Isaac Puente First published by the CNT in Spanish as a widely distributed pamphlet in 1932, with many subsequent editions. - The first english translation appeared in 'The Cienfuegos Press Anarchist Review' #6 Orkney 1982. This Edition published 1985 by MONTY MILLER PRESS P.O. Box 92 Broadway, Sydney 2007, Australia. "

http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/mcelroy1.html Individualist Anarchism vs. "Libertarianism" and Anarchocommunism by Wendy McElroy This article appeared in issue #12 of the New Libertarian, October, 1984.

"the two movements which seem to be natural homes of individualist anarchism -- libertarianism (for which it used to be a synonym) and the anarchist tradition (of which it is a subset) -- are now uncomfortable places. This wasn't always true...

Rothbard is also often credited with modern libertarianism, which I consider to be a movement separate from individualist anarchism: that is, I believe they have distinct and often antagonistic goals and strategies. When Tucker referred to himself as a libertarian, it meant individualist anarchist, but words have lives of their own and meanings change...

The word liberal once referred to an individualist who defended the free market; now, it means almost the opposite and libertarians need to use the term "classical liberal" if they want to be clear. Similarly, the word "libertarian" has changed due to the fairly successful efforts of the Libertarian Party to associate libertarianism with political goals and the political means, both of which are anathema to individualist anarchist theory...

More and more, libertarianism has become identified with the Libertarian' Party. More and more, the goal of libertarianism has changed from dismantling the State to joining the State and replacing the face behind the desk of power as though it were the particular face and not the desk -- the position of unjust power itself -- that was the enemy.

As libertarianism becomes increasingly political, it will become increasingly hostile to individualist anarchism, because anarchism poses as great a threat to the political ambitions of the LP as it does to the conventional defenders of government...

The anarchists will then learn from political libertarians the same lesson that the Russian anarchists learned from the Bolsheviks -- we are fellow travelers no more."

Oisinoc (talk) 06:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

PS Ms Mac Elroy's paper is directed at, and reflects an American LP and/or Individualist audience; the US LP is not the global emperor of Libertarian thought - a fact which should be recognised in the tone and content of this article. Oisinoc (talk) 06:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

List of references for Libertarianism before 1950

Whole section moved to Talk Archive 11, however, list of references in that section duplicated here

To start, every reference to Libertarianism before 1950 involves the first libertarianism. How do sources for the New York Times work for wikipedia? They have many articles talking about Libertarians before 1950, but it looks like they are pay for. Can I use those? I will get many more for you, but "mainstream sources" i am trying to follow, and that is an initial mainstream source that extends. Thanks q (talk) 18:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's an article from the Harvard Crimson from 1978 which talks about the Libertarian Party which included all Libertarians at that time. And discusses Libertarianism as it existed. Great read for this topic.

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=146716

"The largest organized group of libertarians in the Boston area is the MLP. MLP, affiliated with the National Libertarian Party which was founded in 1972, has about 100 members. Nason, the editor of MLP's newsletter, estimates that about 100 more people are involved in the party without being official members. "A lot of people don't believe in political parties," Nason explained.

"There are all kinds of people in MLP: anarcho-capitalists, anarcho-socialists, minimal statists. We're not a standard political party," Nason said. The party sponsors libertarian candidates in elections throughout the country, and serves as a mechanism for libertarians to meet other people interested in working on specific political issues, like tax reform and local civil liberties issues."

Libertarians discussed as one group, not just Anarcho-capitalists as in the article here.

Tons and Tons of paid for articles from all different time frames referencing only Libertarians as they were before 1950. Not Anarcho-Capitalists. Can I used paid for articles, I have passed over 100 in just a few minutes. Non-paid for mainstream sources are very difficult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notque (talk • contribs) 18:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9C00E6DB103AE633A25751C1A9639C946396D6CF Free New York times article from May 12, 1912 explaining the movement, quotes some of the magazines they used, one is called "The Libertarian" q (talk) 19:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,770659,00.html Monday, Jul. 05, 1937 "Rightist propaganda announced: "In Santander 15,000 rioters have seized Government buildings and proclaimed a Communist Libertarian Republic.""

From Spanish Civil War fighters who were Libertarians against Hitler, Franco, and Mussolini. q (talk) 19:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It's also a bit difficult to separate articles because many publications connect all Anarchist information with Libertarians, because they were! So even if it doesn't specifically say Libertarian (anarchism is a subset of libertarianism), they connect them all anyway for searches. Very difficult! Still working though, I've passed maybe 500 articles on Libertarians/Anarchists I can't use. Still going for mainstream sources. q (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9A07E6D6123AE433A25752C3A9639C946696D6CF Anarchist/Libertarians calling conscription anti-libertarian. May 31, 1917 q (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Congrats for coming up with a list, which is relevant to history. But remember in general, people aren't too interested in lengthy dissertations on OLD definitions of words, so keeping it short and proportionate in the history section is necessary. What does MPL stand for, by the way?

At this point concentrate on adding WP:RS in proportionate manner. Then can start deleting all this nonsourced opinion stuff which may distort article in a number of ways. That's what I'll be doing :-) Carol Moore 19:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

It isn't an old definition of a word. It means the same thing in the rest of the world, the U.S. has just adopted a different version of the word, and mostly ignores the other definition. It still exists in the rest of the world, and in our history, and must be discussed. It makes it doubly important because no one is aware of it. it's part of the history, and an important history at that.

The main consideration is that this article needs a rewrite. My rewrite attempted to deal with that, and leave all content that was there, still there. That has been reverted. This article needs to clearly articulate the agreements, work through the history of what it has meant, and still means today in most of the world, then focus on the ideas and meanings of the different groups. That is my take. q (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9F06E4DD1638E333A25757C0A9649D946196D6CF Libertarian Japanese Socialist from December 4, 1910

"We are accustomed to think of the Japanese as naturally progressive, the "Yankees of the East," but I learn that Denjiro Kotoku is an "intellectual" who has devoted his abilities and energies to the spreading of libertarian ideas in Japan. As editor of the Tokio daily paper, Yorozu Cho-ho, (Thousand Morning News.) Kotoku enjoyed great popularity and appreciation." q (talk) 19:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Would it help if I start quoting from now? Uses of Libertarianism now that conform to this idea from all over the world? This is not an old usage that is gone, this is a vibrant usage in the rest of the world. The U.S. is completely out of touch with the usage of the word based on it's political leanings, and the jailing and attacking of Libertarians. There was a wish Libertarianism would be destroy in the U.S., and it succeeded in many respects. That needs to be discussed. The history of it, not just an entire article on what Libertarianism that started in the 1950's believes. q (talk) 19:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

And when I say all over the world, I am talking English speaking countries as well. This isn't a minor difference, the rest of the world uses the old pre U.S. 1950 version of Libertarianism. That is not some small difference relegated to a history section somewhere else. There are many articles that discuss what the 1950's version of Libertarianism means, from the Libertarian Party page, to the Anarcho Capitalism page, and I'm not against another Libertarianism article on Right Wing Libertarianism which includes all of this information. But it shouldn't exist like this on the Libertarianism page. You wouldn't have a slavery page that just focused on our slavery for the word slavery, would you? This seems like common sense. q (talk) 19:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Just glanced over the Slavery page, that seems like an excellent way to handle this article. I'm sure about any topic is handled better than this article, which again is one area of a topic, and 99% contains that one area of the topic ignoring everything else. q (talk) 19:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9D02EEDA1030E333A25750C1A9679D94699ED7CF Article on london meeting of libertarians from November 13, 1898 addressing the Libertarian Lecture Society of London q (talk) 19:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt//spain/ruta.html A history of Spanish libertarian youth paper 'Ruta' 1936

I can really go on forever. The sheer amount of New York Times articles on Libertarians in the U.S. is massive. q (talk) 20:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

And this is a particularly stupid list given that the same assembly of ideas has existed under other party labels at least as far back as Patrick Henry (US before 1775). Nothing magic about the modern political party names of Libertarian. It is still the idea of the optimal environment for the development and evolution of type A individuals and the total disinterest/sacrifice of type B individuals and formal social organizations (especially government in any non-voluntary form or size larger than village). Very Darwinistic. Romantic idealization of the Greek city-state only much smaller (grin). 69.23.124.142 (talk) 07:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Restructuring Movement Sections/ new US movements article

The principles section is still a mess and needs lots of work, but I wanted to quickly restructure last three sections, perhaps something like the below.

• Libertarian movements
  • Think Tanks (list around the world, including top personalities)
  • Activist organizations (list around the world, including top personalities)
  • Political parties (list around the world, including top personalities)

What do you think?? Also, I do think there is a necessity for a Libertarianism in US article that could detail the history and fights and development, some of which alluded to in this article and should be removed, esp. when unsourced. Maybe rename the short Libertarian Movement article to Libertarianism in US, since it is a on that topic anyway. Carol Moore 03:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Ok, I did some more work earlier than this proposed section. But want to stop and give people a chance to catch up. Meanwhile:

• I think the left lib history needs a title, that was just working title.
• History needs more beefing up with actual important recent events of importance to both sections.(Removed two UNDUES, one from each section.)
• Principles still a mess - shall it only have the minimal principles common to all varieties of libertarianism and then have subheadings on issues? (Which is also done at Controversies within libertarianism, though not very well)
• All those references above to lefty groups can be inserted either in the appropriate subsection as references or into the articles themselves. Why let good research go to waste? But I'm not going to do it. User:q? User:Oisinoc?

Carol Moore 13:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Big, big improvement. Huge. Thank you very much, seriously; that's really much better. What, can't we just continue to whine and wail, and let you do the work? Oisinoc (talk) 16:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I am editing as I have time. I'm mostly working on correcting factual errors at the moment. It seems the contributions that seem to stick from me are just correcting complete factual errors, and while they still exist, that is the work I should focus on. 72.208.186.17 (talk) 20:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Libertarianism, and some qualifiers

Ok, so having gone through a bunch of academic journals, here are some references - instead of snarky comments or hand-waving accusations from me, you know, just for a change:

Peter Vallentyne (2007). LIBERTARIANISM AND THE STATE. Social Philosophy and Policy, 24, pp 187-205 doi:10.1017/S0265052507070082 http://journals.cambridge.org.libezproxy.open.ac.uk/action/displayAbstract?aid=611248

Abstract

Although Robert Nozick has argued that libertarianism is compatible with the justice of a minimal state—even if does not arise from mutual consent—few have been persuaded. I will outline a different way of establishing that a non-consensual libertarian state can be just. I will show that a state can—with a few important qualifications—justly enforce the rights of citizens, extract payments to cover the costs of such enforcement, redistribute resources to the poor, and invest in infrastructure to overcome market failures.

Laurent Dobuzinskis (2004). Real Libertarianism Assessed: Political Theory after Van Parijs. Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique, 37, pp 1053-1055 doi:10.1017/S000842390441021X http://journals.cambridge.org.libezproxy.open.ac.uk/action/displayAbstract?aid=328065

Real Libertarianism Assessed: Political Theory after Van Parijs, Andrew Reeve and Andrew Williams, eds., London: Palgrave, 2003, pp. x, 223

Philippe Van Parijs' Real Freedom for All (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995) is one of the most stimulating contributions to left-libertarianism published in the last decade. It is, therefore, not surprising that an edited volume that critically examines his ideas has now been published. The contributing authors (two of whom, Peter Vallentyne and Hillel Steiner, are other well known left-libertarians) raise interesting and often pointed questions, but they all have some good things to say about Van Parijs' original proposal.

Evan Charney (2004). Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty and Libertarianism Without Inequality. Perspectives on Politics, 2, pp 564-566 doi:10.1017/S1537592704220370 http://journals.cambridge.org.libezproxy.open.ac.uk/action/displayAbstract?aid=246624 In Libertarianism Without Inequality, Michael Otsuka seeks to combine a libertarian principle of the right of self-ownershipwith a robust commitment to egalitarianism. He does this in two ways: First, he argues, against Robert Nozick, that all schemes of redistributive taxation are not on a par with forced labor. Something like a “luxury income tax” for redistributive purposes, Otsuka argues, cannot be considered as equivalent to forced labor since it is easy to avoid; that is, persons can forgo the extra income that amounts to a “luxury.” Second, he denies that one’s right of ownership over worldly resources that one uses for income is as full as one’s right of ownership over oneself: Persons can acquire unowned worldly resources only if they leave enough so that everyone else can acquire an equally advantageous share of unowned resources, where “equally” advantageous means that one can derive the same degree of welfare from it. Furthermore, he claims that persons possess only a “lifetime leasehold” on worldly resources, which lapse into a state of nonownership upon death.

Libertarianism Without Inequality. By Michael Otsuka. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. 168p. $39.95.

Libertarianism without inequality. Author: SREENIVASAN, GOPAL Source: Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Volume 74, Number 3, May 2007 , pp. 792-796(5)

Distributive Lessons from Division of Labour Author: Dietsch, Peter Source: Journal of Moral Philosophy, Volume 5, Number 1, 2008 , pp. 96-117(22) Abstract: In their justification of individual entitlements, libertarians appeal to the concept of self-ownership. This paper argues that taking into account the division of labour in society calls for a fundamental reassessment of the normative implications of self-ownership. How should the benefits from division of labour—in other words, how should the co-operative surplus—be distributed? On the assumption that the parties to the division of labour are interdependent, and that this interdependence is mutual and of the same degree, I argue for an equal distribution of the co-operative surplus. In form, my argument bears similarities to the left-libertarian position that calls for an equal distribution of natural resources. Despite its radically egalitarian implications, an equal distribution of the co-operative surplus remains a libertarian principle.

TI: Book Reviews SO: Journal of Applied Philosophy VL: 19 NO: 1 PG: 75-90 YR: 2002 ON: 1468-5930 PN: 0264-3758 DOI: 10.1111/1468-5930.00206 US: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-5930.00206 AB: Books reviewed: Gordon Graham, Evil and Christian Ethics J. C. Lester, Escape From Leviathan: Liberty, Welfare and Anarchy Reconciled Peter Vallentyne and Hillel Steiner (ed.), The Origins of Left-Libertarianism: An Anthology of Historical Writings; Left-Libertarianism and Its Critics: The Contemporary Debate James P. Sterba, Social and Political Philosophy: Contemporary Perspectives R. S. Downie and Jane MacNaughton, Clinical Judgement: Evidence in Practice John Hardwig, Is There a Duty to Die?: with other essays in Bioethics James M. Humber and Robert F. Almeder (ed.), Is There a Duty to Die?

The Origins of Left-Libertarianism: An Anthology of Historical Writings;

Left-Libertarianism and Its Critics: The Contemporary Debate James P. Sterba,

Review: [untitled] Mark E. Kann The American Political Science Review, Vol. 72, No. 2 (Jun., 1978), pp. 633-634 Berki presents his main thesis: 'Socialism is not a single thing, but a range, an area, an open texture, a self-contradiction'." "Berki provides an analytical framework which convincingly differentiates four normative tendencies in socialist thought and their historical representatives. Socialist 'egalitarianism' is associated with the underdeveloped world; socialist 'moralism' is linked to Western social democracy; socialist 'rationalism' is tied to Eastern European/Soviet communism; and socialist 'libertarianism' is connected to the New Left. His point is not that one value defines the essence of each variant; rather, Berki demonstrates that the primacy of one value is always in historical tension with (if it does not contradict) the other three."

New Forms of Political Representation: European Ecological Politics and the Montreal Citizen's Movement Timothy Thomas Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue canadienne de science politique, Vol. 28, No. 3 (Sep., 1995), pp. 509-531 Published by: Canadian Political Science Association and the Société québécoise de science politique "Kitschelt maintains that the left-libertarian parties can be considered 'left wing' in their policy orientations because they affirm the principle of equality, and reject the primacy of markets as the final arbiters of social development and justice. They follow libertarian thinking, however, in rejecting the socialist vision of centralized planning and party organization, and call for greater individual autonomy and for citizen participation in public affairs."

Review: American Politics and Conservative Libertarianism Walter J. Nicgorski The Review of Politics, Vol. 31, No. 4 (Oct., 1969), pp. 534-537

CHRISTINA BEHRENDT (). Hilde Bojer (2004), Distributional Justice: Theory and Measurement, Basingstoke: Routledge, 151 pp., £55 hbk, ISBN 0 415 29824-5. Journal of Social Policy, 34, pp 323-324 doi:10.1017/S004727940529880X http://journals.cambridge.org.libezproxy.open.ac.uk/action/displayAbstract?aid=289492 "...In the last chapter of this section the concepts of Marxism and libertarianism as put forward by Nozick, Friedman and Hayek are summarized."

Le libertarisme de gauche et la justice [The Libertarianism of the left and justice] Peter Vallentyne Revue économique, Vol. 50, No. 4, Économie normative (Jul., 1999), pp. 859-878 "Libertarian theories of justice hold that agents, at least initially, own themselves fully, and thus owe no service to others, except perhaps through voluntary action... theories are right libertarian in that they hold that natural resources are initially unowned and, under a broad range of realistic circumstances, can be privately appropriated without the consent of, or any significant payment to, the other members of society. Left libertarian theories, by contrast, hold that natural resources are owned by the members of society in some egalitarian manner, and may be appropriated only with their permission, or with a significant payment to them. I examine the main implications of self-ownership and the main approaches that left-libertarianism can take to the ownership of natural resources."

Review: [untitled] Harvey Klehr The American Political Science Review, Vol. 73, No. 4 (Dec., 1979), pp. 1126-1126 The American as Anarchist: Reflections on Indigenous Radicalism. By David DeLeon. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979. Pp. xiii + 242...) "The factors in American life which DeLeon believes have made our society particularly open to anti-statism ... have produced a variety of indigenous radical traditions: liberalism, right libertarianism and left libertarianism." "DeLeon turns to the 1960s revival of radicalism and discerns elements in both the Students for a Democratic Society and the Young Americans for Freedom that hearken back, respectively, to left and right libertarianism."

Review: Reconfiguring Socialism George Ross The Review of Politics, Vol. 58, No. 1 (Winter, 1996), pp. 189-192 Published by: Cambridge University Press for the University of Notre Dame du lac on behalf of Review of Politics "Kitschelt wants to account for the differential responses of European social democratic parties to the challenges of changes in political preferences in the 1980s in 'advanced capitalist societies,' primarily new 'libertarian' or 'communitarian' concerns. In their 'left-libertarian' or 'right' (pro-market) varieties these new preferences focus of the forms of decision-making and deeply felt issues about individual participation and identity." "What happened, in general, was that the distribution of preferences changed as these new libertarians and communitarians permeated an older spectrum of pro-equality socialists pro-market capitalists and anti-democratic authoritarians. The change presents a major threat to most social democratic parties."

Self-Ownership, Communism and Equality G. A. Cohen and Keith Graham Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes, Vol. 64, (1990), pp. 25-61 Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of The Aristotelian Society "In this essay I argue that Marxism has failed to distinguish itself sufficiently thoroughly from what I shall cal 'leftwing libertarianism'." "A libertarian, in the present sense, is one who affirms the principle of self-ownership, which occupies a prominent place in the ideology of capitalism." "The libertarian principle of self-ownership has been put to both progressive and reactionary use, in different historical periods." "Libertarianism... may be combined with contrasting principles with respect to those productive resources which are not persons, to wit, the substances and powers of nature. As a result, libertarianism comes in both right- and left-wing versions. All libertarians say that each person has a fundamental entitlement to full property in himself, and, consequently, no fundamental entitlement to private property in anyone else." "Right-wing libertarianism, of which Robert Nozick is an exponent, adds that self-owning persons can acquire similarly unlimited original rights in unequal amounts of external natural resources. Left-wing libertarianism is, by contrast, egalitarian with respect to initial shares in external resources..."

Yeah, I know, I should have just gone and found these first instead of blowing a gasket. Oisinoc (talk) 16:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

First, feel free to write up some paragraphs on the leftie stuff. Although I have hung out with leftist libertarian/anarchist/syndicalist/communists on and off for 30 years, I would not try to describe their views/principles since really don't have knowlege or energy to defend anything I said against disagreements. (Plus the last 8 years most of the ones I've interacted with are more interested in smashing windows than learning or talking ideology.) So don't complain about article being lopsided if those who understand these views don't contribute to it.

Also, I'm keeping a file of all this stuff so can look at it in systematic, as opposed to scatter shot, way after the basic structure is more together. A lot such detailed material belongs in some of the more detailed articles on libertarian sub-groups and those on theory (many of the latter right now are just unsourced original research with wikilinks to other unsourced original research articles!) Carol Moore 18:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Anarchism section

We must be very careful attributing information to Anarchism. It's very easy to attribute a type of anarchist as all of Anarchism, and it's important that if you state it that it fits the broad picture. I understand it's very difficult to make these determinations unless you are aware of the technical meaning of the word. Anarchism is a large, and specific section of thought. An umbrella of thought. It's important not to pick any one thing under the umbrella, and state that's what Anarchism means.

Does that make sense? q (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It would make sense if you said what change you want to make in the text or made it. The sections on anarchism and minarchism both need work, but people can always go to the article. (Some of other sections too long.) But even the anarchism article I believe has a variety of types including individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism.

Also note the needs expansion section. Plus I'm almost ready to replace the Libertarian movement with all the US stuff for one with subject sections where groups of all pursuasions more easily can be added, as I wrote about above. Have to work this PM. Hopefully by tomorrow afternoon at latest. Then who ever wants can add whatever groups seem appropriate, as long as not WP:UNDUE. I'm not going to try to figure out which leftie ones are or aren't. Carol Moore 15:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I don't know who made the POV change to anarchism. Let's at least look at the main article and do a summary of that and not just pick some reference supporting a POV point. I put up the basic structure for Current World Libertarian Movement. I'll add a few of the larger organizations, important individuals I'm knowlegeable about, with wikilinks or external links proving they have some minimum notability. It's your job to add notable ones you have knowledge of in same way. Also, I'm not sure what the policy is with a lot of links to pages that only are in foreign languages. But cooperative editing should make it all work out. There's also a lot more work to do, some of which i mentioned in edit summaries. Carol Moore 02:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Contradictions

There should be a section on contradictions. For example: anarchist groups would appear to be a contradiction. Groups necessitate a common belief, idea, or desire. Therefore, there is always a common direction. Would someone who believed in strict authoritarian government be allowed to join an anarchist group? If the answer is no, then there is structure, governing rules, etc. for an anarchist group. Joining or forming an anarchist group would seem to be a contradiction, therefore. It seems that really what every group wants is not more or less government, but good government and the right amount of government. Moreover it would be good government for a particular class of people. The class of all people is included in the phrase "a particular class of people," as is a class of one. That is, everyone wants a particular form of government for whatever reason, and that form of government is most beneficial to a particular class. So, communism and socialism is generally considered a government designed to primarily benefit the largest group of people possible. A fascist government is designed to primarily benefit a small group of people. An anarchist government is designed primarily to benefit an individual. That is, I am a group of one, and my decisions will be made to benefit me. This of course means that the anarchist individual is outside whatever is the prevailing largest group's government. There seems to be no way for an individual to keep others from forming groups. At least it has never been done before. Therefore there is some form of collective government at all times, and the anarchist may be at odds with the larger group on policy making. That is to say that any system, naturally formed or otherwise will act in one way or another. Any system can be optimized for the benefit of one outcome over another. Governance makes determinations and puts into practice those regulations that attempt to achieve optimization of a given outcome. Let's look at a concrete example which I call the bathroom example. In the bathroom system there is an individual and a toilet. The individual can choose to evacuate his or her bladder in at least two ways. One way is to direct the flow of urine into the toilet bowl optimizing for sanitation. The other way is to direct the flow of urine onto the floor, walls, and other surfaces to optimize for individual expression. For an individual, that choice is made by the brain or some other part of the nervous system. That part of the nervous system is the governing force in this example. In a group governing dynamic, perhaps a man directs his urine into the toilet because he fears his wife or wants sex. Here the wife's wish is the governing force. Nevertheless there is a governing force at work. If a central government decided to enact a law, requiring that all evacuators directed their urine into a toilet bowl, This is generally done by some collective body like a senate. Here some might believe this to be too much government. Others might feel that health issues necessitate enactment of health codes restricting self expression via urine. Let's assume that most groups would choose to optimize this system for a groups benefit. And let's further assume that an anarchist would choose optimize for the self. Decisions in either case will be made either by group governance or individual governance. Let's further assume that the optimization goal may be the same or different for the group or individual. It is not really germane to the argument. In both cases a decision on what resources will be given over to the decision making process, monitoring, evaluation., and enforcement will be made. The group might decide to leave these responsibilities and powers to the owner of the bathroom or to a government agency or to the individual. The anarchist individual would most likely decide to leave the responsibilities and powers to his or herself. Nevertheless decisions are made, and I would argue that these decisions are made with the view that the best amount of government (all things not being equal) has been chosen. Moreover, no one should argue that no governance at all was used in making the decision to aim for the bowl or maximum floor/wall coverage. One should only argue on whether too much or too little or good or bad governance was employed achieving the resultant decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.94.176.22 (talk) 00:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

So find some reliable sources that make these points and start a criticism section. Note there used to be one that did not have inline reliable sources and was deleted. Carol Moore 12:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Factual error in Nolan chart

While the traditional political “left-right” spectrum is a line, the Nolan chart

NOTE: This chart has an error of fact. The lower left corner should be totalitarian. Populist can be anywhere on the chart depending on what is "popular" with the general public. Can someone fix this error? 71.131.13.192 (talk) 17:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

First Use of the word "libertarian"

The word is dated to the 1780's by dictionary.reference.com/browse/libertarian (and 1789 by Webster's Ninth New Collegiate dictionary). 1790 is well earlier than 1857, and that makes the following statement misleading, so I removed it from the article: The French anarcho-communist Joseph Déjacque's use of the word "libertaire" in an 1857 letter to Proudhon is said to be the first use of the term, which translates into English as "libertarian." I'll try to add exactly 'how' it originated in the 1780's (with a verifiable ref, of course) to the article later today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.196.211 (talk) 16:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

While it's fine to use that as first use, it also is accurate to mention what we now know was another use in other circles, if only to keep the complaints down in talk :-) Carol Moore 15:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

External links to Reason and Libertarian Wiki: what say you?

Yesterday, I did an edit, putting in external links to Libertarian wiki and Reason Magazine,
here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libertarianism&oldid=256713388

Within 4 minutes it was undone, the reason cited being:
"there are thousands of links that would be salient; this section ought to contain a small number, and only those that meet WP:EL."

My response? Name 10 external links more salient.

The current links aren't even direct to a Libertarian article or source.

I mean come on, Reason is perhaps the best known Libertarian publication, and if Conservapedia--which can't even say for sure that Obama was born in Hawaii--can get an article, why not a LW link in an article about Libertarianism? Yartett (talk) 01:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

External links, if they are to be included at all, ought solely to provide the reader with further high quality information on the topic; neither of the promotional Reason or "libertarianism wiki" links do so. See the external links guidelines. Regards, Skomorokh 01:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. First off, the WP:EL doesn't explicitly ban links to Wikis: "Links <to be avoided> to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Wikis that meet this criteria might also be added to Meta:Interwiki map. Where there are no explicit numbers or parameters, there is an opening for haggling and decent argument for inclusion.

Second, if we were to use your arguement: "ought solely to provide the reader with further high quality information on the topic", we might be excluding that which, though might be affected by a POV, might nonetheless provide good information. For example, let's say that there was a particular political philosophy that had good number of adherents. Now with your argument, links should be made only to stuff about them, never to their sites that promote their views, even though, again, there might be additional info; or that the supposed NPOV objective sites about them might be lacking, subjective, or very much POV (not implying anything about the neutrality or objectiveness of two current links). Thirdly, would linking to Britannica be like eating chips--you just can't have one? Why not Britannica links to Objectivism, environmentalism, feminism, et al? Lastly if personal anecdotes mean anything to the discussion, I didn't even know that there was a LW, until I read this article--or earlier history thereof. Seems that I was merrily informed by it, and why should others be so denied my good fortune? ;-) Yartett (talk) 00:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, could this be User:Sarsaparilla aka User:Aldrich Hanssen aka more recently User:Ron Paul...Ron Paul... and User:Lightning Thundercat??? Now actively editing at libertarianwiki.org under a name I shall not repeat.... Because this is doubtless true, I'm not responding to your comments. Bad boy!!! CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

My oh my, you've got the wrong number CarolMooreDC. I hope your arguments—if any—for the removal of my links aren't as bad as your presumptions about me. Not only am I not any of those, I never heard of them.

A little history about myself. Early this this year, I thought I'd get politically involved—advocating the case for Obama in the contest between him, McCain, and Hilary. I did the Yahoo! Answers, and thanks to reporter trolls, and Y!A not having humans review reports (making reports instant deletions), I got suspended (8 times!!). I had more success with Answerbag. I signed up as "Yartet," but after learning a bit of "code" I changed it to "[Gary Dug Her]," and did rather well. Obama won. In the meantime, I signed up on Wikipedia as "Yartet," lost my password, and tried again as "Yartett," where I spend much of my time asking questions and defending my minor edits that are often quickly blown away. As per my above comments, I found out about Libertarian Wiki in an edit of this very article, and figured that aside of my admitted motive for promoting the site, it might actually serve an interest to the cause of Wikipedia. Now, unless I'm given a good reason to do otherwise, I will restore the links in a few days, as well as go to the help desk to see if there could be some oversight to this issue. Yartett out!Yartett (talk) 23:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

If you are telling the truth, you can understand the problem caused by persistent sockpuppets - they make people suspicious of anyone who had edited two or three of the same pages as the other socks, or even on two or three of the same topics, not to mention at the site where I was hoping he would now direct all his efforts, in an honest way under his own name. Anyway: In my opinion Reason should be - if it isn't now - mentioned under libertarian movement section. And Libertarianwiki isn't really notable enough and is missing MANY MANY articles of interest, plus I think there might be some policy on linking to other wikis. I think that's discussed in recent WP:RS/N discussions. 23:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Admittedly, I've used multiple accounts—not on Wikipedia (save in the aforementioned one created and never used), but never for sockpuppetry. Why would people be bothered by sockpuppetry any more than engaged in it? Seems somewhat pathetic: "ME AND MY VAST INVINCIBLE ARMY OF SOCKPUPPETS!!!". Wasn't there a case of the nazis publishing a book called "99 Aryan scientists prove that Einstein was wrong," Which Einstein quipted, "If I was wrong, you'd need only one to prove it."? As for Wiki size, I addressed that issue yesterday. Thank you for your comments. :-) Yartett (talk) 01:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, a few days have past, and the the only person who has commented since my 2nd last post here, CarolMooreDC, half agrees with me; and our disagreement in the latter is, in my view, is more quantitative than qualitative. I will thus restore the links--maybe add one more from an even bigger wiki. Yartett (talk) 19:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Since you've raised this again, Yartett, let me say I couldn't give a rat's arse for any so-called libertarianism which is about 'politics' and contesting elections, especially US elections. Political parties are authoritarian by their very nature, and thus to be shunned by any self-respecting libertarian. However, I have looked at your external link and seen the LW's first three 'principles', which are 1 Original research is allowed and encouraged; 2 On topic is our concern, not notability; 3 We're not concerned about encyclopedic neutrality. All this seems to flout Wikipedia conventions, so why bother? Why not stay with LW and leave WP alone? Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 05:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed text not for lead; where to put it?

The term "libertarianism" is also used almost interchangeably with the term classical liberalism by those who support limited government.) REF:Raimondo Cubeddu, preface to "Perspectives of Libertarianism", Etica e Politica (Università di Trieste) V, no. 2 (2003). "It is often difficult to distinguish between 'Libertarianism' and 'Classical Liberalism.' Those two labels are used almost interchangeably by those whom we may call libertarians of a minarchist persuasion: scholars who, following Locke and Nozick, believe a state is needed in order to achieve effective protection of property rights." REF: Steffen W. Schmidt, American Government and Politics Today (Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth, 2004), 17. Is the opinion of some people about pro-property libertarianism, but not all. I guess it could be stuck at end of pro-property section. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not opinion but objective fact. All it is saying is that some people use the terms to refer to the same philosophy. It is not an assertion that it is correct to use the terms interchangeably. There are those that people called classical liberals that people also call libertarians. For example Milton Friedman, Hayek, Mises, etc. Atomela (talk) 06:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The first issue is placement. Because of all the discussion/complaints above and in archives about POV of only pro-property libertarians, we're keeping the lead neutral. So you will have to move it according to long standing consensus.

The second problem is "The terms "classical liberalism" and "libertarianism" are sometimes used synonymously.[7]" is pretty much redundant to what is belong in the article. If you put in more about who uses it, it would be worth putting in the principles section. Europeans and/or those who against noninterventionist foreign policy and/or those afraid of the cultural/social issues who don't want to call themselves conservatives, or whateverthe case may be. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I dont have to move to "according to long standing conensus." Whatever the consensus was before, it's changed now that I'm here. It's important to note in the lead that when someone is using the term to describe themself, they may simply be a classical liberal. Putting the synonyms in the lead is appropriate, and the best place for this. Atomela (talk) 18:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, my goodness. Is this User:Sarsaparilla playing S.P. games again?? Well, it's the holidays so if people leave it up for another week or so, don't think that's a consensus. I'll be deleting one of yartett's links and maybe even looking for a little info on who uses C.L. to put those two sentences in the right place. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

What? Atomela (talk) 19:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

And if I put it back that means there's not a consensus that it shouldn't be there. What's your point? Atomela (talk) 20:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a section on "Critiques of Libertarianism"?

Shouldn't there be a section on "Critiques of Libertarianism"? There are books and articles devoted to opposing libertarian ideas. It makes sense to at least summarize and link to them here. ThinkerFeeler (talk) 04:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

There was one that was not inline sourced and not always clear in long long list of notes as formerly organized what were the references. After no one sourced it for a month it was deleted. Previously discussed in talk/archive if you want to find details. Unsourced info can be removed. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

"Synonymous with anarchism"

Yes it is, for some people, but as I have said in edit summaries:

• Just having a lot of refs with no quotes to show they actually say that is WP:UNDUE. Quote the two you think are best to make your case firmer; I'm just going to delete last few extras; you decide which you want to keep.
• Pro-property libertarians also have this debate, with some considering it synomous, and one of those refs should be in there. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Strange Cato-derived lead

Just reinstated the earlier long-standing more accurate version of the lead over the new-minted inaccurate one, a sudden offspring of the factional (however laudable) Cato Institute homepage.

Which major US political party would not say it "combines an appreciation for entrepreneurship, the market process, and lower taxes with strict respect for civil liberties"? This is recruit-seeking talk, not a definition. Even the final part of the sentence - "skepticism about the benefits of both the welfare state and foreign military adventurism" - would not find legions of dissenters among politicians, if pressed, of both main parties of government. These are words primarily calculated - understandably perhaps on an institutional homepage - to achieve maximum support rather than minimal government.

In every possible way, this capricious substitution for what must be hundreds of hours of collaborative effort over months by numerous editors is . . . inadequate. Not to mention somewhat at odds with the libertarian spirit, however you care to define it. Wingspeed (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion of the lead is simply to point out that there are two main ways that the term "libetarianism" is used. Sometimes it refers to philosophy that seeks to minimize the state, while other times it refers to anarchism. Costho (talk) 18:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Point very much taken. The lead needs to do that: the two broad categories, and emphasize the sheer diversity overall. Seems to me that's the great uplifting thing about libertarianism: the sheer diversity and the consequent openness to change. Nature is diverse; advanced societies less so. Political parties are inherently, for all sorts of reasons, constantly pulled towards rigidity. The lead would be misleading if it gave the impression (much more a lexical hazard in the US than elsewhere) that libertarianism is primarily some kind of political party. It is legion. The lead needs to reflect this. Wingspeed (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

A new group is putting in some pro-capitalist stuff. Frankly, I don't think the most recent sentence is bad, but who the heck are those references? At least come up with some links. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Most recent version seems like good and balanced. Have been reading WP:lead lately and other should too :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Please pass lead changes by talk page??

IN case anyone getting ready to change the lead bothers to read the talk page, could you propose changes here for discussion? There are people with a variety of views trying to change it a variety of ways and we'd like to keep something that's quasi consensus. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Is this quote in the lead useful?

After reading the source, I agree the following is probably a fair assessment:

"There is no single theory that can be reliably identified as the libertarian theory, and no single principle or set of principles on which all libertarians would agree."

However, if you replace "libertarian" and "libertarians" with the name of just about any other political-economic philosophy and its adherents, I suspect the statement will remain true, yet I doubt you will find such a statement quoted in the lead about any other such philosophy. For example, consider:

"There is no single theory that can be reliably identified as the socialist theory, and no single principle or set of principles on which all socialists would agree."

True also, no? So what? So why is it relevant to point this out here? To the contrary, what differentiates libertarianism from other political philosophies, is what the same source states a sentence later:

"Although there is much disagreement about the details, libertarians are generally united by a rough agreement on a cluster of normative principles, empirical generalizations, and policy recommendations."

So what makes libertarianism distinctive is that the above is true for libertarianism, and not really about any other philosophy. Again, let's try it with socialism:

"Although there is much disagreement about the details, socialists are generally united by a rough agreement on a cluster of normative principles, empirical generalizations, and policy recommendations."

Really? I don't think so. Try to find a few socialists who can even state a few socialist principles, much less state the same ones. Good luck.

So, shouldn't an article on libertarianism use the quote that distinguishes libertarianism from other political-economic philosophies, rather than one that stresses something that is basically true of all of them? --Born2cycle (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I myself had a problem with mentioning the issue twice, but now I can see that mentioning it at all is problematic. The current "spectrum" or replacing it with "diversity" probably would be sufficient. I don't think the reasons for keeping all that, except that it was info showing their were different views sourced by a WP:RS, have been made clear by those who support. Thoughts from those who want to keep one or both relevant sentences, i.e. "What it means to be a libertarian in a political sense is a contentious issue, especially among libertarians themselves. There is no single theory that can be reliably identified as the libertarian theory, and no single principle or set of principles on which all libertarians would agree."REF:Zwolinski, Matt, "Libertarianism", [[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]], retrieved 2008-08-09 {{citation}}: URL–wikilink conflict (help)CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree the sentence should be removed. Socialism and other ideological labels may be more vague, but as far as I know there is a single general principle on which all libertarians would agree: the sovereignty of the individual. IIRC, someone put something to this effect in the lead a while back but it was reverted. The first sentence of the 'Principles' section says it in so many words (below). It should also be in the lead.

Libertarians are committed to the belief that individuals, and not states or groups of any other kind, are both ontologically and normatively primary

The disagreement comes and the variations arise over the question of how best to achieve it. But if two libertarians cannot agree that the sovereignty of the individual is their common principle, one of them is not a libertarian. Future2008 (talk)

What is Ironic is that the same source that makes the statement "no single theory that can be safely identified as the libertarian theory" then goes on to make statements which are used as the core of "libertarian principles" in that section and no one has quarreled with it! Actually, the lead itself is pretty much cobbled together, for example "classical liberalism" not even mentioned as one of the libertarian viewpoints!! Something that actually reflects what the article says might be better like:

Libertarianism is a term used by a broad spectrum[1] of political philosophies which seek to maximize individual liberty[2] and minimize or abolish the state.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9] The two main issues of debate among various viewpoint are the role of private property and whether or not there should be a state in any given territory. The word libertarian is an antonym of authoritarian.[15]

Note that while there probably is a ref somewhere on "the two main issues" the point becomes an obvious summary point when you look at the rest of the text. (Your partial sentence above too abstruse for most readers.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

<backdent
Given that no one has disagreed that it is absurd to have the source that says in the lead that libertarians don't agree with anything then be used as the main source for a detailed account of what libertarians believe in, I am going to delete: ""There is no single theory that can be safely identified as the libertarian theory, and probably no single principle or set of principles on which all libertarians can agree."[10]" Also summarized actual structure of article rather than haphazard listing of just two varieties, per earlier comments. Might need tweaking. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Any objections?

While we're mulling over the above, any objections to expanding this statement in the lead:

Some versions of libertarianism are synonymous with classical liberalism.

to:

Some meanings of libertarianism, including what is usually meant by the term in the United States today, are synonymous with classical liberalism.

I think it's misleading to talk about versions of libertarianism, because that implies clearly distinct versions, instead of the highly related variations that actually exist. I also think most common usage of the term in America today, in newspapers, magazines, college courses, even blogs, is essentially synonymous with classical liberalism. In fact, the reason that the term libertarianism was adopted in America instead of liberalism is because liberalism already had a well-established common meaning in America that no longer had much in common with classical liberalism.

By the way, I appreciate the request to discuss changes to the lead on the talk page first, but, if someone does make a bold change to the lead, if you revert it is important to provide a reason for reverting it other than simply "not discussed on talk page". That is, you should only revert an edit, including a bold edit, if you have a substantive reason to object to that edit ("not discussed on talk page" is not a substantive reason), in which case you should specify that reason. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Liberal or classical liberal often is used in Europe/Latin America and not just US so I object to specifying US. Meanings is good replacement. And it should have relevant refs.

Saying something goes against past consensus, discuss on talk, often necessary for the various POV changes that get stuck in the lead. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

While liberal and classical liberal are often used outside of U.S., is libertarianism used outside of the U.S. synonymously with classical liberalism as exclusively as it is in the U.S.? Specifying the reason for the revert on the talk page is fine, again, as long as the reason is not merely that the edit in question was not discussed. --Born2cycle (talk) 09:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know but this just shows why there needs to be a good source clarifying all these issues; preferably not in the lead if it is that complicated. 01:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Why was "Neolibertarianism" deleted?

??????????????????????? King of Corsairs (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Haven't seen that. How long has it been missing? Whose term is it? Is it the same as Right-libertarianism? Cheers Bjenks (talk) 02:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I talked to RHaworth about bringing it back. He said to first start a section about in the main libertarianism aticle. If survives for awhile, he'll make it a redirect. Then we can start talking about amking it its own article again. If you want anybody wants to help me with it, that would be great. But please source your info, that why the last was deleted. ApocalypseNow115 (talk) 04:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The recently inserted section on "Neolibertarianism" clouds the issues (if any) very badly and seems to lacks any authoritative justification. ApocalypseNow115, I have a mind to remove the entire section soon unless you can (a) write it in more succinct and intelligible language, and (b) provide proper citations (of which the POV 'libertarian wiki' specifically CANNOT be one for WP purposes). And you must improve the following purported "definitions" as well as providing reliable third-party sources for them.

• Pragmatic domestic libertarian; Hawk strong on defense
• Hobbesian libertarian
• Big-Tent libertarian

--Bjenks (talk) 01:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Well this was the same reason the first one was deleted, correct? Can I first ask, what exactly counts as "reliable third-party sources"? Most of the ones I listed were the main voices of the neolibertarian camp. And the ones who defined it were the same people who coined and first started using the term. I will take off the Libertarian Wiki one though. I know I need to summarize it down more. But I'm having a bit of trouble getting down to the ammount of words the other summaries have. Give me some time though.ApocalypseNow115 (talk) 03:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, now I have down sized the description to make it in line with the sections of the article. I think I sumarized it up pretty well. I removed all the lengthy things and non-important things. ApocalypseNow115 (talk) 04:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The WP policy on 'reliable third-party sources' is spelt out here and is really quite straightforward. If your 'main voices' are the subject of reputable unbiassed publications, that's fine. If not, you are probably going into WP:OR which is not OK under strict policies. Imho, the Quando blog site is a sectional online opinion forum which is not independent of 'neolibertarian' exponents. The same seems to apply to other sources you cite. In support of my criticism, I quote the section of policy which states

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.

I welcome your sincerity in trying to upgrade this, but I would also point out that (a) you have hastily published a section which deserves to be removed, at least temporarily, on the strength of its very poor grammar, spelling, etc; (b) You use citations which don't support the reference (eg, the Libertarian Defense Caucus does not describe itself as 'neolibertarian', nor did the first of your wikilinked names mention the word; (c) I get the feeling that this is about American politics and probably belongs in a different article. I reckon you need to do a lot of sandbox work on it, and decide where to place the result. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 16:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, Neolibertarianism deserves only a sentence under conservativsm, mentioning only the relevant publications and their links. The article was eliminated as being basically a non-noteworthy fansite. This entry is basically the same thing, with serious BLP violations since no refences prove these people or any WP:RS call these people neolibertarians. I'll remove all that immediately. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I note above that User ApocalypseNow115 seems not to be familiar with wikipedia policies on Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Please read those links and you'll understand why the original article was deleted and why I an others do not think this topic deserves its own section. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I am fimiliar with wikipedia policies. But I am not understanding your logic here, simply a sentence under conservatism? Why so? Also, I feel these are reliable sources, the people on these sources call themselves neolibertarians and have explanations to what the term means. Also, I did not appreciate you trying to claim that I had something to do with the blog posting about you on the Libertarian Defense Caucus website. Also, should the libertarian socialism article be removed and simply made into a sentence under the main socialism article? What about geolibertarianism? Should it simply be a foot note in the anarchism article? ApocalypseNow115 (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

If you are familiar with policies then you know that:

• Wikipedia:RS#Self-published_sources "Self-published sources may be used only in limited circumstances, with caution. Keep in mind that if the information is worth reporting, an independent source is likely to have done so."
• By the way that also would apply to the Geolibertarianism article and section and it's probably time to get rid of them too.
• Merely asking people on their talk pages if they are connected to certain relevant blogs or websites or articles published is perfectly appropriate under WP:COI. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Well apparently Lew Rockwell takes enough time out of his day to argue against neolibertairanism, meaning he must see it as an actual ideology with actual believers. Link. Also, why do you feel a need to delete all these geolibertarian, libertarian socialist, etc. articles/sections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ApocalypseNow115 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Rockwell articles usually are WP:RS though I have never seen one mentioned in relevant articles.

You are referring to my comment on my talk page: Over last year I have helped delete or redirect about a dozen libertarian-related articles that were written either as self-promotion and/or with no or few WP:RS references. Part of general cleanup of the topic per WP:policy. which is self-explanatory. I have not mentioned libertarian socialist and am pretty sure I'd come up with WP:RS on geolibertarians and will take a look at that soon. Why not put your energy into finding some WP:RS on Neolib rather than asking about my motives?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I was just asking why, I wasn't really asking about motives. Listen I think I have a solution to the problem here. Let's merge libertarian conservatism, Libertarian Republican, south park republican, paleolibertarianism, and the neolibertarian section all into the main article Right-libertarianism and label each one a faction of right-libertarianism. Same thing should apply with left-libertarianism and everything relating to it. What do you think? ApocalypseNow115 (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The new edits seem pretty good. This is probably the best format. But may I ask which reference links were under question on the neolibertarian section in particular? ApocalypseNow115 (talk) 03:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

As explained numerous times, including in the deletion of the article, it helps to have some third party sources that talk about the subject. So actually the tags for Geolib and Neolib should be {Primarysources|date= March 2009} which I just replaced them with. IE third party sources that note that these phenomena actually exist and are notable. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Cold War Mentality Paragraph; correcting text per original sources

I didn't go far enough back to find the actual text, but the following was NOT in sources I used when first wrote this last summer here.

• "traditional class hierarchies"
• "neoconservative libertarian organizations like the Society for Individual Liberty,"

It's WP:original research to stick in words not in sources. You can't just make stuff up under NPOV. Also I failed to correct draft dodger (which unfortunately is the name of the article) to draft resistanced. If you want to write about left wing libertarianism that belongs in the anti-property paragraph above this one. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Libertarian Party

Shouldn't there be a separate section for (US) Libertarian Party? Its effect upon US politics is certainly notable:

• Electoral vote for Hospers & Nathan in 1972.
• Presidential candidates on ballot in all 50 states, in several elections.
• Hundreds of people elected to public office on this party line.
• Several state legislators elected.
• Claims to be the third largest political party, by several measures.

Tripodics (talk) 07:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It could be put under the U.S. movement section with brief facts you mention, but otherwise link probably sufficient since all the info there. Any section would have to be on all parties world wide, many of which already listed or could be under "Current libertarian movements" section. Otherwise we end up back at last years arguments about US/LP POV of article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Geolibertarianism problems

I brought up issues of Geolibertarianism - like neolibertarianism - having few good sources and there's a discussion on whether it deserves an article on its talk page. Includes a few more refs. It's really a matter of deciding once you join wikipedia if your goal is to promote libertarianism (or your own little corner of it) or to be a good editor, even if it means keeping the fringes of libertarianism in perspective in articles. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Restructuring viewpoints

An alphabetical listing of views can just confuse people not familiar with libertarianism. Also the earlier section differentiated between the two.

First, anarchism vs minarchism exists as an issue in both types of libertarianism, since left libs like Bookchin want small government largely independent municipalities so that might be mentioned under an earlier section as well as below

Assuming that.. I suggest something like this (more as bullet points than subsections per below):

Anti-property libertarianism

• Anarchism: etc.
• Left-libertarianism: etc.
• Libertarian socialism: etc.
• Mutualism: etc.
• Geolibertarianism: attempt to merge with Georgism, though I'm not sure if technically pro or anti-property! etc.

Pro-property libertarianism

• Anarcho-capitalism: etc. including "left-libertarian" duo Konkin/Long here (not notable enough for own section)??
• Minarchsim: (noting differences between centralist and decentralist minarchism I've been meaning to put in when line up WP:RS)
• Libertarian conservatism: etc. including Neolibertarianism self-published sources
• Objectivism: etc
• Libertarian Transhumanism: which I assume is pro-property

Thoughts? CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Agreed that we have to restructure the list of variants, Carol. However, I don't see a need to give them prominence and a duplicated presence, since they all seem to have their own articles. I see, too, that some of them (eg, Libertarian transhumanism, are virtually the exclusive work of one editor. I suggest that we keep your section headings and (a) use an intro paragraph with wikilinks to point to the variant sub-ideologies; then (b) proceed to treat 'Viewpoints' and 'Principles' as subsets of each category (instead of having them as full sections as at present). This will, of course, involve a much-needed revamp of the entire article. Incidentally, I would question whether Georgism belongs here at all, since it is more an economic doctrine than an ideology of freedom. (Indicative treatment below) Bjenks (talk) 14:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Non-property libertarianism

The broad category of libertarians whose ideology derives from opposition to authoritarian forces (state, church, family, mores, etc) rather than material property rights includes so-called anarchists, 'left' libertarians, libertarian socialists, mutualists, and geolibertarians

Shared principles and viewpoints

etc, etc, etc

---

Your proposal above not entirely clear to me and might involve too much WP:original research in compare and contrast of principles. Or it might cut too much since it shouldn't be necessary to go to a separate (and sometimes lower quality) article to get a brief definition of each of different views. Lib. transhumanism may be by one editor but has some relatively good WP:RS (assuming they are specifically about LIB brand and not in general) and certainly has/had a lot of adherents in its day. Geolibertariasm was promoted by a bunch of former pro-property libertarians for a while, though like Neolibertarianism is semi-extinct. A brief section or sentence to prevent others from re-inserting a lot more later a good idea. After I work on it a little I'll have a better idea of what I'm proposing :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Serious error. Some social anarchists still support some form of personal property, while holding their opposition to "private property" (meaning the private ownership of the means of production). Your proposal, therefore, grossly generalizes the anarchist schools.

I, therefore, suggest an alternative categorization, perhaps, non-propertarian anarchism (which consists of anarcho-communism/syndicalism/collectivism, social ecology, autonomism, geoanarchism, mutualism, and other types of social anarchism) and propertarian anarchism (embracing Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism, voluntaryism, agorism, Lysander Spooner's natural law anarchism, and all other types of propertarian market anarchism).

In addition, the genre market anarchism has two distinct branches. One branch consists of non-propertarian market anarchism, the types of market anarchism which opposes the private ownership of land. Examples:

• Proudhonian mutualism
• geoanarchism
• Tuckerite and Carsonian individualist anarchisms, and
• Some 19th century individualist anarchists, such as Josiah Warren and Stephen Pearl Andrews (which excludes Lysander Spooner because he supports private land ownership).

The other genre, called propertarian market anarchism, consists of all of those who support a market, while additionally advocate private land ownership. Such systems consist of:

• Spoonerite natural law anarchism (Spooner's advocacy of private land ownership contrasts with Tucker's opposition of absentee ownership of land)
• Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism
• Friedmanite anarcho-capitalism (a more utilitarian theory)
• Samuel Konkin's revolutionary agorism
• Carl Watner's voluntaryism
• Wendy McElroy's individualist feminism (she has written an article opposing collectivism [2]), and
• "Post-Objectivism" [3], with its supporters such as Stefan Molyneux and George H. Smith.

This summaries the branches of anarchism accurately: the (pro/anti)-propertarian anarchism and the (pro/anti)-market anarchism. Some anarchists support both propertarianism and markets, termed as propertarian market anarchism; while some others support markets but oppose propertarianism (non-propertarian market anarchism). 71.175.41.166 (talk) 20:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Now let us list some non-anarchist libertarian schools of thought.

The non-anarchist propertarian libertarianism schools:

• Minarchism - The belief in a state limited to police forces, courts, and a military. In minarchism, the state neither regulates nor intervenes in personal choices and business practices, except to protect against aggression, breach of contract, and fraud. Minarchist celebrities include Harry Browne and Michael Badnarik. However, minarchists often disagree with each other on the level of government centralization. This ranges from the centralist minarchists who support global government, to the middle-ground minarchists who support states' rights, and to the decentralist minarchists who think that every city should have its own government. Such proponents of extreme decentralization include Carol Moore, Robert Nozick, and Jeffersonian republicans.
• Classical liberalism - An ideology that favors moderate government intervention. Classical liberals often compromise their ideology because they favor moderate government intervention in some "public goods" such as roads.
• Objectivism - Ayn Rand's ethical and political belief system.
• Right-libertarianism (A highly vague term meaning completely different concepts.)
• Libertarian conservatism - An umbrella term for paleolibertarianism, neolibertarianism, and Constitutionalism. We should note that Constitutionalists and neolibertarians differ very little, and they often disagree only on foreign policy. However, both Constitutionalists and neolibertarians describe themselves as "small government conservatives."
  • Paleolibertarianism - A culturally conservative and often religious ideology, but it opposes state enforcement of morality. Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Thomas Woods, Thomas DiLorenzo, Llewellyn Rockwell, and Stephan Kinsella identify as paleolibertarian. Recently, however, Constitutionalists and neolibertarians began use this term as a mere synonym for their ideology.
  • Neolibertarianism - A pro-war version of Constitutionalism. Prominent neolibertarians include Jeff Flake and the majority of the Republican Liberty Caucus members. Arguably, we can consider quasi-Randian organizations such as Reason Magazine as neolibertarian, since Randians also usually support an aggressive foreign policy.
  • Constitutionalism - Constitutionalists strongly support states' rights and anti-federalism, even if it means increased government power at the state level. They use "constitutionalist" as shorthand for anyone who supports a constitutional republic. Probably the most vocal libertarian movement. Groups identifying as "constitutionalist" include the original intent proponents, the Ron Paul movement, the John Birch Society, and the Alex Jones conspiracy theorists.

There only exists two major non-anarchist non-propertarian libertarian (but pro-market) schools:

• Georgism - An economic ideology favoring a land value tax or property taxes.
• Distributism - An economic ideology favoring an equal distribution of the means of production while supporting markets.[4]

Glad to see people are playing with this, though my mind too boggled from other editing issues to opine on current changes above. One of these days. :-) 12:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Newly suggested organization

We should use propertarian instead of property because it gives a more accurate picture, since propertarianism explicitly excludes mutualism and geolibertarianism.

• Non-propertarian libertarianism
  • Libertarian socialism (includes libertarian municipalism, social ecology, and social anarchism)
  • Mutualism (Proudhon, Benjamin Tucker, Kevin Carson, etc.)
  • Geolibertarianism (Geolibertarians oppose propertarianism because they support property but oppose land ownership.)
• Propertarian libertarianism
  • Propertarian market anarchism (includes Rothbardian and Friedmanite anarcho-capitalism, agorism, Roderick Long, etc.)
  • Minarchism
  • Classical liberalism
  • Libertarian conservatism
    • Paleolibertarianism (Mostly members of the Ludwig von Mises Institute and LewRockwell.com.)
    • Neolibertarianism (Most Republican Liberty Caucus members still advocate the Iraq war.)
    • Constitutionalism (We should include this very popular libertarian movement, such as Ron Paul, the John Birch Society, and Alex Jones.)
  • Objectivism
• Libertarian transhumanism

Misrepresenting Carol Moore's views in the article

Still haven't read all the changes above, but noticed someone stuck me in there and misrepresented my view as ONLY supporting small government community options when I support both anarchist and small government ones. And there isn't even a reference, like to my web site http://secession.net or the several articles at Carol Moore that might accurately make that point. I'm on my best behavior by not editing stuff about me anymore (except where fact date clarification needed) so someone else feel free to delete reference to me or properly/accurately source it. Thanks :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI I later stomped out a couple names not properly ref'd so did myself too. I'm not stomping on lead because it is a very good restating of a more general point, unlike a lot of the stompable WP:OR, POV stuff that has gone in there before. And of course people can stomp on anything I do that is against policy too, esp. if there's been a tag on it and no one else has stomped on it. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Didn't mean to be cheeky. Thank you so much for the compliment, Carol; I regard it as an honour. (Was a little fearful my tweak might suffer the same fate as my feeble effort a while back to throw some light on the otherwise shrouded William Belsham.) Have since found out (in a recent BBC Radio 3 talk by the excellent philosopher Jonathan Rée) that Belsham was the headmaster of the great William Hazlitt. Shall attempt to find out more when I eventually manage to retrieve my copy of the DNB, currently in storage, buried in a damp (I hope not too damp) garage on the other side of London. Regards. Wingspeed (talk) 02:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Why no link or section dedicated to "criticism of libertarianism"

Interestingly, with this page (as with "feminism" and a large number of other articles pertaining to a small and dedicated minority), it seems a small number of editors have hijacked the discussion. I'm sure most philosophers, political scientists and social theoriests who know what libertarianism is are enormously critical of it. Why then, in the article, is there is not even a LINK to the wikipedia page Criticism of libertarianism? Nor is there mention that such criticism might exist, in an article over 10 pages in length!BFBbrown (talk) 02:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed a couple times in talk before. See archives. In short, there was a section with no inline references. After several months of a tag requesting that and warnings the section would be eliminated without it, it was eliminated. If you want to do the work to put it back together using WP:RS go for it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Communitarianism

That was a good call by User:Carolmooredc here. There may be more than a few correspondences between the views of libertarians and "communitarians". However, the rhetorical notion of "community" is essentially solidaristic and thus authoritarian. A libertarian view which is uncompromisingly anti-authoritarian will reject value-based terms capable of misleading use. (Cf. "the international community", "the shooters' community", etc.) A less authoritarian view is that society exhibits a plurality of conflicting interests all being equally valid and capable of separate consideration. A similar criticism has been applied to the term politics which inherently begs the question of a body politic with implied authoritarian status. A less authoritarian term might be social theory, etc, etc. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 04:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually as long as it is voluntary, I don't think it's necessarily authoritarian, however, there is no doubt some versions are authoritarian. The larger problem is it is not sourced to apply to all the types of libertarianism discussed in article and I don't think a credible, no partisan, source can be found to do so. If there was one it would belong in the relevant section below. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This article needs a serious restructuring

This is just a humble suggestions, since I don't have the time to do the needed work.

I think the taxonomy of pro-property and anti-property is not that great. Some 'anti-property' libertarians (anarchists), such as mutualists do in fact support forms of property. A historical approach would work better. Perhaps something that shows how these different meanings of the word 'libertarian' (and associated prefixes) came out from the interaction between the Enlightenment ideas of Locke, John Stuart Mill, Ricardo, etc. and the historical current of communist/communitarian ideas (Diggers, early industrial workers movements, Marx, French utopian socialists). The first set of ideas is better defined and is clearly in favor of property rights. The second set is a bit all over the place, mostly anti-property, but in places it come in contact with the first set (especially with utopian socialists) and some mixing occurs. And it goes the other way, with stuff like anarcho-capitalism. The fact that 'libertarian' is a label for both pro-capitalist and anti-capitalists is a result of this mixing. It took a different forms in different countries, which explains why in USA it has the first meaning, but in Europe the second one is more common. This is still happening and the same label is still being used for two different currents. So to summarize, instead of the ill-fitting taxonomy of anti- and pro- property libertarianisms, we should have an exposition how the different trends formed and interacted across history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.53.155 (talk) 23:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a major job and somebody's got to do the work. The lefties have a section to do their part but have not. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Anarchism series sidebar

An editor recently added the anarchism "part of a series" sidebar to the article. I removed it, stating my reasons in the edit summary, but he dissented and reverted, so I thought it best to bring it here for discussion. Here are why I don't think it belongs:

Currently, there is a libertarian sidebar. I believe two are unnecessary and don't look particularly good together. If the libertarian sidebar doesn't adequately cover the anarchist dimensions of the philosophy, it should be edited to include those, but a separate sidebar added to this article is unnecessary and unwieldy.

Libertarianism (like most political philosophies) is a broad and somewhat vague topic, encompassing belief systems from numerous ideologies/philosophies and many people have different interpretations of what its definition is, even among self-identified libertarians. Similar articles on political philosophies/ideologies follow the same principle, only displaying the navbox of that discrete philosophy, despite the fact that they doubtlessly share traits with similar philosophies. This is the case in liberalism, conservatism, communism, socialism, fascism, Marxism, Trotskyism, nationalism, green politics, and even anarchism itself.

No doubt there are some shared traits or principles between anarchism and libertarianism (just as there are between any number of the above), but identifying the two together is not helpful and can in fact be deceptive. I do not believe the large majority of self-identified libertarians would also self-identify as anarchists. Nor do most libertarians prescribe to a truly anarchist (i.e. no government or no "rulers") school of thought. Therefore, I think including a prominent anarchist sidebar is inadvertently deceptive to readers who might be coming to the article to learn what libertarianism is in the first place. Strikehold (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent myself. What percentage of libertarians call themselves anarchists? What percentage of anarchists call themselves libertarians? I doubt there are surveys and we might all make different guesstimates. My bias is against it just because it might confuse people. Others' thoughts? CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Your points are all valid, and I have to agree with your conclusion. It is my personal opinion that most libertarians don't self-identify as anarchists, but of course have no proof of that assertion. However, if many or if even most did, the fact that a large group most likely do not would have me against the inclusion. This is for the same reason that I don't think socialism article should have the communism sidebar (or vice versa). It could create confusion, and in my opinion, unnecessarily simplifies the true relationship between the schools of thought. Strikehold (talk) 18:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The Communism/Socialism example makes the problem clearer. The fact that both categories include the specific groups which have different views (anarchist has anarchist capitalist; libertarian has various left libertarian views) makes it even less necessary. So I'll support and delete it when necessary. But it would be helpful if proponents commented. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Dubious Tag in Lead; sources only support their own POV?

User:Introman - whose user page says My name is Introman, and I only do intros. Working on bodies of articles is beneath me. - chooses to distort an introduction that outlines the current version of the article. He really mocks the process of cooperative editing and the consensus built over time of what the intro will say.

Instead User:Introman dumps sources in the article which he says support: Common usage of the term "libertarianism" varies according to geography - in the United States it most often refers to a free market capitalist viewpoint, whereas in some other parts of the world it usually refers to a socialist anarchist philosophy. Please just give us quotes from the three or four most authoritative sources which support this statement. Meanwhile we can find sources showing the word is used in a variety of ways worldwide, and not in such either or terms. If no evidence is provided, it's reason for reversion. Also make sure you specify what phrases these sources use for what you call "free market capitalism" and "socialist anarchism." I'm pretty sure that is original research. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Just curious. What POV would that be? I'm curious to know what POV I'm pushing, myself. Introman (talk) 03:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Interviewer: "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..." UNDERSTANDING POWER THE INDISPENSABLE CHOMSKY Edited by Peter R. Mitchell and John Schoeffel

• "Throughout the text the author uses the term "libertarian" in its original sense: as a synonym for "anarchist." Indeed, it was used almost exclusively in this sense until the 1970's when, in the United States, it was appropriated by the grossly misnamed Libertarian Party. This party has almost nothing to do with the anarchist concepts of liberty, especially the concepts of equal freedom and positive freedom - the access to resources necessary to the freedom to act..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. Fortunately, in the rest of the world, especially in the Spanish-speaking countries, "libertarian" ("libertario") remains a synonym for "anarchist." It is used in that sense in this book" Fernandez, Frank. Cuban Anarchism. The History of a Movement. See Sharp Press, 2001, page 9

The others are examples of texts explaining that there are two different uses of the term, one to mean anarchist, which is associated with American philosophers, and the other using the term to refer to anarchism and differentiating it from capitalist philosophy. Introman (talk) 03:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You must not be in the U.S. Everybody here knows that those who call themselves "libertarians" are capitalists. Introman (talk) 03:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Both those sources could be used but being themselves POV should be identified, just like if you had a capitalist libertarian claiming that libertarian mostly meant capitalist all over the world (which could also be true) you would name them. In fact a paragraph later in the article with opinions on both sides might be relevant.

However, I think this material belongs in the anti-property section. Feel free to put it there and even quote it, since that section is now shorter (though not ad nauseum and Undue Weight-wise.

Do any of those other sources represent anything besides personal opinion?

I don't know if there's been an independent survey to show what percentage of people who use or are aware of the word world wide - and on a country by country basis - think it means anti-property as opposed to pro-property. HOwever, if one were to line up WP:RS among mainstream media world wide, which really has not been done in this article - and especially in English speaking countries, I think the prop-property definition most definitely would be the major one. Therefore putting a more neutral introduction like the one you replaced may actually be doing you a favor since WP:RS probably would have a sentence saying something like: Common usage of the term "libertarianism" refers to a free market viewpoint, though some groups may refer to a socialist or communist anarchist philosophy. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

A survey isn't necessary. All that's necessary is that there's a reliable source. Chomsky, for example, is certainly a reliable source on how the term "libertarianism" is usually used in the U.S. Are there any sources who would dispute it? I can't imagine there being. This is well known information. In fact that reason that we use the term "libertarian socialism" in the U.S. is because "libertarian" by itself is nearly always taken to refer to someone whose views support unregulated capitalism, so "libertarian socialist" has to be used to distinguish. In Europe, anarchist socialism is just called libertarianism so they don't have to call it "libertarian socialism." Introman (talk) 00:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• You still have too many sources so please pick the most relevant ones and quote what they say; unquoted ones will be removed soon otherwise since you don't have verification upon request.
• The quotes from chomsky and fernandez do not mention "free market" nor do they say "socialist anarchist" so you have to remove the first and say "socialist or anarchist" or "socialist and anarchist" or you are engaging in WP:OR.
• Because much of the world's mainstream media has adopted the free market definition of libertarianism, obviously lefties have had to fight back with quotes reclaiming the word. But there still should be sufficient quotes saying what it means in most mainstream circles. Will find soon. In the US of course there are small socialist factions calling themselves libertarian, just like elsewhere. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Chomsky said "unbridled capitalism." What do you think that means? It means unregulated capitalism. What does unregulated capitalism mean? It means free market capitalism. A free market is an unregulated market. Use his term "unbridled capitalism," if you want. I don't care. It means the same thing. And Chomsky says "Now, that's always been opposed in the European libertarian tradition, where every anarchist has been a socialist." It seems like you're looking for the terms "socialist" and "anarchist" to be adjacent? That's ridiculous. Introman (talk) 18:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course there may be some "small socialist factions calling themselves libertarian." But it's not claiming that only capitalists use that label. It says "most often." Introman (talk) 18:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

In wikipedia we quote sources and the only two sources you have verified use their own terminology. And "most often" is still one or two person's opinions, since you haven't quoted what these other sources allegedly say. Plus whole debate over who uses it most does not belong in the lead where you have mistakenly put it. That is not the way you write a good lead. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

In the lead is exactly where this belongs. If someone in the U.S. looks up libertarianism on Wikipedia because they saw someone mention it in the news, they should be able to know straight off whether it's most likely referring to capitalism or anarcho-socialism. Introman (talk) 02:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been deleting your reference - most found through books.google - that do not support the statement they are used as references for. The edit summaries explain each. Most generally note there are differences between anarchism and libertarianism, though sometimes not with sufficient detail to know which brands of anarchism or libertarianism they are talking about. Two actually only ref the previous sentence that there are a lot of types of libertarianism. I don't see that you used the Chomsky quote at all. And given that only one of your many other references that I found supported your statement, I must doubt Ward (the only one I could not find) does also, unless you do other editors a favor and quote what he said.

I am currently accumulating other relevant references to show this is a debate that belongs elsewhere, not in the lead and the original sentence should be put back.

Please be more careful that your reference actually supports what you say instead of making people go through and find a bunch of references that in fact do NOT do so. We are all volunteers here and not paid by the hour so you are wasting our valuable labor by making us go through these efforts to correct your referencing errors. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand the sources. They are not saying there's differences between anarchism and libertarianism. They are saying that the word has two different meanings. American writers use the term "libertarianism" to refer to a capitalist philosophy. Other writers use it as a synonym for anarchism, specifically the socialists forms of anarchism. The word has two different definitions. Do you understand? The sources do indeed backup what I put in the article. Introman (talk) 17:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The Ward source says "For a century, anarchists have used the word 'libertarian' as a synonym for 'anarchist', both as a noun and an adjective. The celebrated anarchist journal Le Libertaire was founded in 1896. However, much more recently the word has been appropriated by various American free-market philosophers..." Introman (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, so you do have 3 sources (Chomsky, Ward, Cuban) now that support what that sentence says, i.e., explicit mention of use in world vs. US. The rest were much more general and don't belong referencing that sentence. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources related to worldwide use of libertarianism as pro-property

I don't have a specific sentence I would want to use these for, but I think these references, including from some relatively neutral sources, prove the point that that your lead sentence claiming libertarianism is mostly used in US as pro-property is contentious and belongs in some later discussion section which I will move it too soon and replace original sentence:

• Public relations theory II Worldwide, libertarianism has been as much the hallmark of media struggles for political and economic independence as it has been for nonmedia enterprising seeking liberalized investment policies.
• Real World Politics and Radical Libertarianism: Worldwide, there have also been huge advances that should not be understated. Stalinism is dead. China is moving toward freer markets with Constitutional guarantees of private property rights – not airtight guarantees, of course, but still a definitive mark of improvement since Mao. Much of the world has followed the classical-liberal trend toward freer trade. Central planning is not as popular as it was in the interwar years. Looking at the situation over the last several centuries, slavery in the purest sense is not as officially and openly defended as it once was universally worldwide.
• Preface for the Japanese Edition of Libertarianism: A Primer: The publication of a primer on libertarianism in Japan is another sign of two heartening developments: the continuing process of the world's people being drawn closer together, and the worldwide spread of the ideas of peace and freedom at the end of a century of war and statism.
• Brian Doherty’s comprehensive guide to American libertarianism (Book review): The main focus, however, is on the movement’s leading twentieth-century figures. For Doherty, there is a Big Five: the Austrian economists Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek, who provided highly influential theoretical defenses of free-market economics as well as devastating critiques of socialism; Milton Friedman, whose work has had the most direct and visible influence on public policy, from abolishing the draft to exchange rates; Ayn Rand, the most pervasive libertarian cultural influence through the millions of novels she has sold worldwide; and Murray Rothbard, by far the least well known of the group, advocate of anarcho-capitalism and, for Doherty, “the most uniquely and characteristically libertarian of libertarians.
• Radicals for Capitalism (Book Review): Libertarians have helped bring about policy changes such as deregulation, tax cuts, privatization and an end to the military draft and have encouraged market-oriented reforms throughout the world.
• 'Free staters' pick New Hampshire to liberate for sex, guns and drugs guardian.co.uk: A libertarian movement promoting "minimalist government", the free market, drugs, prostitution and gun ownership plans to infiltrate New Hampshire to create a breakaway American regime, its leaders will announce today. The Free State Project, which has supporters in the UK and worldwide, will reveal today at a meeting in New York that its members have voted for the small but highly-symbolic north-eastern state as its target to win power.
• Economic freedom still rising worldwide - UPI: Despite the continuing drumbeat of short-term bad news about the U.S. economy, its prospects are actually better than ever because economic freedom continues to flourish around the world, according to an influential Washington think tank. The libertarian Cato Institute, in conjunction with Canada's Fraser Institute, has released these findings in the sixth annual "Economic Freedom of the World" report. Edwards, reflecting Cato's libertarian philosophy, said that nations certainly require some amount of government to maintain prosperity and order. However, he said, they should limit their tax take to an amount equivalent to 10 percent to 15 percent of gross domestic product.

I'm sure I could find lots more if I took another 1/2 hour. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)