Talk:Libertarianism
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Libertarianism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42Auto-archiving period: 21 days ![]() |
![]() | Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting. |
![]() | Libertarianism is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 25, 2005. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Template:Wikipedia CD selection Template:V0.5
This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Libertarianism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42Auto-archiving period: 21 days ![]() |
Ayn Rand
Self-identification is important, and Ayn Rand said that she was not a libertarian. (See the Talk at the Ayn Rand article.) Indeed, she and her Objectivist students have been sharp critics of it. Sure, she has been a tremendous, perhaps the biggest, single influence on libertarianism. But she has also dramatically influenced some conservatives, and this was another label she rejected. She should not be called either. Oolyons (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- So this article should be organized by labels rather than tenets? Xerographica (talk) 09:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- The tenets of libertarianism as defined by the CATO institute are almost polar opposites of the tenets of libertarianism as defined by everyone else for a century and a half. Finx (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- If the tenets are almost polar opposites then are we talking about different political philosophies? --Xerographica (talk) 21:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- It might be worth you rereading Long here, who indicates rather clearly that as a scholar he believes them to be related. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Why reread Long when all I have to do is look at this simple diagram? Do you think Long would disagree with that diagram? --Xerographica (talk) 22:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know exactly how to say this without sounding inflammatory, but that diagram is one of the most idiotic things I have ever seen. First of all, libertarianism used to be synonymous with libertarian socialism (and still is, outside the US), which is anarchism. Secondly, all anarchists (with the exception of Rothbard's very recent contribution) have historically been socialists. Lastly, conservatism in US history has been almost synonymous with classical liberalism. What is the basis for turning it into this kind of bizarre venn diagram? Finx (talk) 22:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- What's bizarre about the venn diagram? It reflects exactly what you are saying...it puts libertarian socialism...aka anarcho-socialism...right in between socialism and anarchism. Then it puts anarcho-capitalism right in between anarchism and libertarianism...aka classical liberalism. Then it puts libertarianism right in between liberalism and conservatism. Nobody cares about semantics...they just care about tenets. The diagram reflects exactly what you said..."The tenets of libertarianism as defined by the CATO institute are almost polar opposites of the tenets of libertarianism as defined by everyone else for a century and a half". My diagram clearly portrays libertarianism...aka classic liberalism...as being the polar opposite of anarcho-socialism. --Xerographica (talk) 02:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, he does, at length, by actually publishing scholarly opinion rather than uncited diagrams. I suggest you look at the Reliable Sources policy, the Weighting policy, and the concept of "I don't hear that" amounting to disruption. This article has had repeated attempts at disruption through attempting to reargue the topic and weight; and, the material you are using to try to reopen that debate is so far short of the quality of previous debates that it is not worth doing. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- "that diagram is one of the most idiotic things I have ever seen." I agree.
- "libertarianism used to be synonymous with libertarian socialism (and still is, outside the US), which is anarchism" That's irrelevant to what the definition of anarchism is generally considered today. "all anarchists (with the exception of Rothbard's very recent contribution) have historically been socialists". Again, same thing.
- Here's why I think it makes no sense: ONE- How can you both support socialism and economic liberalism at the same time? These are both referring to opinions regarding economic liberties (they're mutually exclusive). TWO- Same thing with 'capitalism' and 'economic conservatism' if we're saying 'capitalism' is free market (like the An-Caps want), which it doesn't necessarily mean. THREE-Any of those groups could be 'socially liberal' or 'socially conservative'. There are anti-abortion rights people who are generally considered to be liberal, and pro-abortion-rights people who are generally considered to be conservative. Byelf2007 (talk) 1 March 2012
- When you say things like "generally considered today" I have to ask "by whom?" To many people 'economic liberty' does not mean 'laissez faire capitalism' but rather *no* capitalism, and voluntary cooperation without ownership of production and coercive labor relations. If you're talking about 'neoliberalism' your description is accurate. Otherwise, there is nothing mutually exclusive. Socialism has been associated with liberty for a long time. I don't understand why you're bringing up abortion at all. I have opinions on this too, but the only thing I'm pointing out is that none of this matches the historic record. Finx (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Check the "anarchism" article. Citations 1 and 2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism#cite_note-definition-0 Byelf2007 (talk) 1 March 2012
- Those just confirm my point that anarchism has ~200 years of history as an anti-capitalist (ie: socialist) movement. Finx (talk) 14:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Can you substantiate your claim that Long would disagree with that diagram? --Xerographica (talk) 00:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- For one Long in the work cited in the lede, posits socialisation as one of the goals present within libertarianism in relation to property, and is aware of the genealogy of contemporary US libertarianism. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- So one of the goals present within libertarianism is to both violate and protect property rights? --Xerographica (talk) 08:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- For one Long in the work cited in the lede, posits socialisation as one of the goals present within libertarianism in relation to property, and is aware of the genealogy of contemporary US libertarianism. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Can you substantiate your claim that Long would disagree with that diagram? --Xerographica (talk) 00:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, Ward writes about libertarianisms that seek to overturn the central role of privately owned means and tools of production in the social organisation of the economy; some of Ward's libertarians oppose private property in production, some consider it less efficient, some revel in private property in production. Some of Ward's libertarians oppose personal possession in general. Some of Long's libertarians advocate private property in the means and tools of production, some believe that it can be corrupted and requires regulation or deregulation to achieve the full potential of liberty of private property, others believe that private property in certain or all means and tools of production is undesirable. As a complex social phenomena, the scholars actually describe the social complexity of that phenomena. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- So then all anarchists are libertarians? --Xerographica (talk) 10:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Are all conservatives libertarians? --Xerographica (talk) 12:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Clearly no. North8000 (talk) 12:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Why is it clear to you that not all conservatives are libertarians? --Xerographica (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- It's a definitional issue. Some conservatives value individual liberty, but some don't. Some are quite explicit about having a collectivist view about people (albeit while supporting relatively high economic freedom). They'd say "We want to maximize productivity and we have economic liberties to accomplish that" instead of "We allow X liberties because it's moral regardless of whether it maximizes productivity. Another common thing is "because God says so and/or we must sacrifice liberties for the 'greater good' when 'it becomes necessary'. Of course, it's very arguable that the vast majority of conservatives are also libertarians. Byelf2007 (talk) 1 March 2012
- First you said that all anarchists are libertarians...yet as far as I can tell neither David Friedman nor Peter Boettke have made moral arguments for anarcho-capitalism. Now you're telling me that a conservative is not a libertarian if they do not support liberty for moral reasons. Or they aren't a libertarian if they support a collectivist view...yet anarcho-socialists also support a collectivist view. Can you please try again to clarify why exactly it is that you don't believe that all conservatives are libertarians? --Xerographica (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- "neither David Friedman nor Peter Boettke have made moral arguments for anarcho-capitalism" Those aren't the only two anarcho-capitalists. "yet anarcho-socialists also support a collectivist view" They definitely say they do, but I don't regard any anarchist as a collectivist. I believe being a consistent collectivist necessarily requires that you support the existence of the state (among other things). In simple terms, if you're opposing the state, then you're opposing any mechanism to ensure a collectivist vision of society. Byelf2007 (talk) 1 March 2012
- Where did I say that David Friedman and Peter Boettke are the only two anarcho-capitalists? Are you saying that they aren't libertarians because they don't make any moral arguments for anarcho-capitalism? Anarcho-socialists would have no mechanisms to ensure collective ownership of the means of production? Again, what exactly and specifically is it that allows you to consider all anarchists to be libertarians but prevents you from considering all conservatives to be libertarians? It can't just be that conservatives support the continued existence of the state...unless you don't consider minarchists to be libertarians. It can't be that conservatives have religious views...I'm sure plenty of voluntaryists have religious views as well. So what exactly is it? --Xerographica (talk) 08:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- You only mentioned Friedman and Boettke (not having moral arguments) to [I think?] imply that there must be none/few that do. It's not like you said 'I have read every single major anarcho-capitalist work, and none of them...' "Anarcho-socialists would have no mechanisms to ensure collective ownership of the means of production?" I think that's different from 'collectivism'. Minarchists want collective law, for example, yet no one (except maybe some anarcho-capitalists) accuse them of being collectivist. The basic idea of 'collectivism' is sacrificing all for all. In my opinion, if this idea were applied consistently, it would involve the use of force to ensure it took place. "what prevents you from considering all conservatives to be libertarians?" Many conservatives want to use guns to force people to accept their way of living against those persons' will, which unlike 'collectivist anarchism' is explicitly collectivist (in policy terms). Anarchists (definitionally) cannot do this, because they don't want a single organization (in terms of laws enforced) to enforce laws. Byelf2007 (talk) 2 March 2012
- You're unfortunately correct that the vast majority of anarcho-capitalists do solely rely on the moral "taxes are theft" argument...so Friedman, Boettke and a few others are exceptional in this regard. My point in mentioning them was to question why you would exclude any conservatives from your definition of libertarianism on the basis of them solely making consequentialist arguments. Regarding imposing views onto others...Rothbard was extremely willing to push a button that would instantly abolish the state in one fell swoop. He is definitely not exceptional among anarchists in this regard. How's that any different from any conservatives that want to impose their views onto others? At least they try and do so through popular elections. Again, what exactly and specifically is it that allows you to consider all anarchists to be libertarians but prevents you from considering all conservatives to be libertarians? --Xerographica (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- All anarchists either make their arguments concerning political policy in terms of individual liberty, or they don't, but their position of being anti-state is inconsistent with their collectivist justifications; some conservatives both don't argue for political policies in terms of individual liberty and support the state. Byelf2007 (talk) 7 March 2012
Our policies are pretty clear, articles should be organised based on the weight in the highest quality sources available. Long, Vallentyne and Ward are some of the best in their respective fields of sociology, philosophy and history of libertarianism. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
It is similar to saying that Catholics and Protestants are polar opposites on such issues as transubstantiation and the apostolic succession that we should not have a Christianity article. TFD (talk) 23:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm writing this in a whimsical way but do believe that it is useful. One of the challenges of this article is that it is mostly about what thirty philosophers through the ages think. They might actually BE the topic instead of being sources on the topic. Possibly it should all be moved into a section title "terminology and classifications used by philosophers". Meanwhile for like 20,000,000 libertarians, libertarianism is simply about less government, greater personal freedom, and prioritizing those objectives. Most of those would say they have those libertarian values, and about half would flatly identify as libertarians. Whether one wants to call this common tenets, vagueness, or just the fact that the categorization systems of the philosophers are not very useful or relevant (like trying to herd cats) when it comes to these millions. For example, it could be that Ayn Rand could be identified by knowledgeable persons as being one of these, but was rejecting being "libertarian" as defined by the philosophers which may have also been the common meaning at the time. North8000 (talk) 11:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- The current article also submerges the massive past libertarian movements, organisations and political parties. One of the problems is that as a "vague" sentiment, the US movement and disorganised libertarians don't actually publish reliable retrospective analyses. Another is that organisations that are notable are well covered elsewhere. Do we really want a string of Main Article links out to (for example) the CNT? Fifelfoo (talk) 23:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Well, anything that was massive I think that we should cover. I'm hoping to get one of our best experts on that here (Fifelfoo) to start writing stuff. :-) :-). My comment was not a complaint about the article, nor really proposing any big changes. It was more just a little towards our multi-year effort at figuring out how to cover this topic that deals with the main issues that have ben raised. I do plan to develop a few sentence paragraph on the 20 million "vague libertarians", which I have found sources for. I've been slow in doing that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- The current article also submerges the massive past libertarian movements, organisations and political parties. One of the problems is that as a "vague" sentiment, the US movement and disorganised libertarians don't actually publish reliable retrospective analyses. Another is that organisations that are notable are well covered elsewhere. Do we really want a string of Main Article links out to (for example) the CNT? Fifelfoo (talk) 23:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm seeing alot of OR here. Do WP:RS call Ayn Rand a libertarian? Do WP:RS say Ayn Rand was not a Libertarian? Citations could clear up this issue.Gsonnenf (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- According to WP:RS that indicate that "libertarianism" is anarcho-socialism/capitalism then no...they would not say that she was a libertarian. According to WP:RS that indicate that libertarianism means limited government...aka classical liberalism...then yes...they would say that she was one of the most influential libertarians. According to WP:RS that indicate that "libertarianism" is everything except for conservatism...then yes...errr...no...they do...don't say that she was a libertarian. If you're seeing OR it means that you haven't read enough WP:RS. Stick around for a year or two and you'll be qualified to write your own WP:RS. --Xerographica (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- What is of more interest is the quality of the RS that makes a claim. I'd suggest that a review article from the peer reviewed Journal of Ayn Rand Studies (Ulrich's lists this as peer reviewed), would be the best. Lacking that, the preponderance of opinion from JARS regarding her relationship with libertarianism should be used when considering whether to mention her, and what to say. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- For example, Block W (2011) "AYN RAND, RELIGION, AND LIBERTARIANISM" JARS 21 notes she wasn't. Nobody else mentions in the title or abstract whether Rand herself was "libertarian". Fifelfoo (talk) 02:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- How is that of any interest? I have no idea what your conclusion is regarding how much coverage Ayn Rand should receive on an article on libertarianism. Maybe you should try and read some more RS so that you can come to a conclusion. --Xerographica (talk) 13:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- I don't go around proving null hypotheses. JARS is very interested in libertarianism's interface with objectivism. Block is the only author in 22 volumes that bothers to discuss Rand being libertarian herself, where he notes she wasn't. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- This ridiculous discussion only highlights the absurdity of trying to pretend that we're talking about the same thing here. You can't even make up your mind whether Ayn Rand should or shouldn't be discussed in this article. --Xerographica (talk) 07:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Xerographica—we don't edit articles based on making up our minds, we edit them based on secondary sources. I looked into one place, the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies where I had a reasonable expectation of finding a discussion of Rand and libertarianism. I found one paper directly discussing it in its abstract, where Walter Block—a practicioner in the US pro-capitalist mould—notes that Ayn Rand was not libertarian, despite the deep links between her thought and pro-capitalist US libertarianism. On the basis of reading Block, who through past extensive discussions here, and reading his works, I have some reason to believe is an expert in relation to US style pro-capitalist libertarianism, I would draw the conclusion that Ayn Rand should be in a "See Also" section of this article, but not noted in the body. That's the process of reading reliable sources and drawing conclusions based solely on what reliable sources say. I am of course open to this changing—Block's paper in a peer reviewed scholarly journal is only one contribution, other papers may weight the discussion of Rand differently. Then we'd need to look at the preponderance of scholarly opinion, ideally in the form of a review article. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- If you reread this discussion you'll read that I wrote this..."According to WP:RS that indicate that "libertarianism" is anarcho-socialism/capitalism then no...they would not say that she was a libertarian." What was your response? Blah blah blah blah...one anarcho-capitalist says that Ayn Rand was not a libertarian. Great! The thing is..."we" do not need to look at the preponderance of scholarly opinions...given that "I" have already done so. So "you" go ahead and make the effort to learn what limited government libertarians have to say on the subject. --Xerographica (talk) 03:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Rand is a libertarian (in a variety of its popular definitions). This has been established by multiple reliable sources. Block alone ain't enough. Byelf2007 (talk) 15 March 2012
- Go order someone else to work for you. If you feel confident regarding the preponderance of scholarly interpretation, edit the article and cite. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Why am I not surprised that you'll only do enough work to support your anti-government bias. Why don't I edit the article? Because I'm boycotting it. I'm just sticking around on the talk page to make it clear that you are using this article to promote your anti-government beliefs. Feel free to report me again for calling you out on this. --Xerographica (talk) 03:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Please do not edit wikipedia to make a point. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- I just said that I'm boycotting this article. What part of that sentence did you not understand? --Xerographica (talk) 04:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Please do not edit wikipedia to make a point. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Why am I not surprised that you'll only do enough work to support your anti-government bias. Why don't I edit the article? Because I'm boycotting it. I'm just sticking around on the talk page to make it clear that you are using this article to promote your anti-government beliefs. Feel free to report me again for calling you out on this. --Xerographica (talk) 03:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Go order someone else to work for you. If you feel confident regarding the preponderance of scholarly interpretation, edit the article and cite. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Xerographica—we don't edit articles based on making up our minds, we edit them based on secondary sources. I looked into one place, the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies where I had a reasonable expectation of finding a discussion of Rand and libertarianism. I found one paper directly discussing it in its abstract, where Walter Block—a practicioner in the US pro-capitalist mould—notes that Ayn Rand was not libertarian, despite the deep links between her thought and pro-capitalist US libertarianism. On the basis of reading Block, who through past extensive discussions here, and reading his works, I have some reason to believe is an expert in relation to US style pro-capitalist libertarianism, I would draw the conclusion that Ayn Rand should be in a "See Also" section of this article, but not noted in the body. That's the process of reading reliable sources and drawing conclusions based solely on what reliable sources say. I am of course open to this changing—Block's paper in a peer reviewed scholarly journal is only one contribution, other papers may weight the discussion of Rand differently. Then we'd need to look at the preponderance of scholarly opinion, ideally in the form of a review article. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- This ridiculous discussion only highlights the absurdity of trying to pretend that we're talking about the same thing here. You can't even make up your mind whether Ayn Rand should or shouldn't be discussed in this article. --Xerographica (talk) 07:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- I don't go around proving null hypotheses. JARS is very interested in libertarianism's interface with objectivism. Block is the only author in 22 volumes that bothers to discuss Rand being libertarian herself, where he notes she wasn't. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- How is that of any interest? I have no idea what your conclusion is regarding how much coverage Ayn Rand should receive on an article on libertarianism. Maybe you should try and read some more RS so that you can come to a conclusion. --Xerographica (talk) 13:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
There may be an end-run route around this available. Not try to classify her. But, take the approach / stance that whether she was or wasn't a libertarian, she's still relevant to libertarianism and germane to the article. (?) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- My entire argument is that we should organize political philosophy articles by tenets rather than labels. So I could care less what you call her...but if you're writing an article on limited government libertarianism then she merits coverage in proportion to her influence. Given that this article is both for and against property...both for and against capitalism...both for and against anarchism...then you might as well both include and exclude her from this article. --Xerographica (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- My "gut feeling" is the same as yours, but IMHO once you started trying to implement that you'd get mired down in issues and difficulties. Would yo prefer separate articles, and, if so, what would their names be? Keeping in mind that the names have to come from the real world, not something that we make up here. And then what specifically would you put in there? I belieeve that after about a year of thinking about it you would come to the conclusion that you should start building the material that you feel is missing in THIS article. I think that there is a lot missing from this article, but that there is no deliberate omission of anything from this article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Xero I will comment on your following post. If you're seeing OR it means that you haven't read enough WP:RS. Stick around for a year or two and you'll be qualified to write your own WP:RS. I am already qualified to write WP:RS, I publish these in peer reviewed journals. Though, your assertion that I'm not qualified is advised against by WP:OWNER. It would be best not to make such arguments.
- Back to the point, if you establish a criteria of libertarian and then look for wp:rs that describe these criteria, then conclude they are a libertarian because they match the criteria, it is WP:OR and should not be done. Gsonnenf (talk) 05:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- You're qualified to write RS on libertarianism? If so, then why did you have to ask if RS consider Ayn Rand to be a libertarian? --Xerographica (talk) 11:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- I said WP:RS, not your strawman WP:RS on ayn rand. You entirely miss the point which is YOU DO NOT WRITE WP:RS IN WIKIPEDIA.Gsonnenf (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't understand your point at all. Let's try again. You accused us of OR. But it wasn't OR...it was critical thinking based on the gazillion RS that we've discussed at one time or another in the past year or so. We already know what the RS say. That you thought that there was a disparity between what we were saying and what the RS say...clearly indicates that you have no idea what the RS have to say about the subject. If you did know what the RS had to say about the subject then you would have just shared your own critical thinking on the subject which would of course reflected all the gazillion RS that you had previously read. So far, you haven't had a single thing to say...referenced or otherwise...about whether Ayn Rand was...or wasn't a libertarian. --Xerographica (talk) 12:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- I said WP:RS, not your strawman WP:RS on ayn rand. You entirely miss the point which is YOU DO NOT WRITE WP:RS IN WIKIPEDIA.Gsonnenf (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- You're qualified to write RS on libertarianism? If so, then why did you have to ask if RS consider Ayn Rand to be a libertarian? --Xerographica (talk) 11:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- My "gut feeling" is the same as yours, but IMHO once you started trying to implement that you'd get mired down in issues and difficulties. Would yo prefer separate articles, and, if so, what would their names be? Keeping in mind that the names have to come from the real world, not something that we make up here. And then what specifically would you put in there? I belieeve that after about a year of thinking about it you would come to the conclusion that you should start building the material that you feel is missing in THIS article. I think that there is a lot missing from this article, but that there is no deliberate omission of anything from this article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Why is this article in the socialism portal?
I can't think of many socialist libertarians. Capitalism is closely related to the notion of economic freedom. 213.109.230.96 (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well, we generally rely on actual facts, rather than anecdotal evidence. And I guess you've never heard of Noam Chomsky. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 21:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- Right, but why put it into the socialism portal rather than putting it in the capitalism portal, both portals or neither of them? I see a lack of impartiality here. 213.109.230.96 (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- Another thing, I didn't say that I wasn't aware of any socialist libertarians at all, but I do assume that most libertarians gravitate toward capitalism rather than the former. 213.109.230.96 (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- Your assumption is not what we write articles upon. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- For over 150 years, libertarian and socialist has meant almost the same thing. It wasn't until the public relations industry got around to contranymizing that word in the 1970s that libertarian became seriously associated with laissez faire capitalism -- and even then only in the United States. The libertarian tradition has never thought capitalism to be synonymous with any kind of liberty, but just the opposite. They believed that economic liberty is working without being subjugated under coercive employer-employee relationships and owning/controlling the means of production. More information here. I think this article comes off as a little dishonest, actually, because it doesn't state this clearly enough. Finx (talk) 01:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think that all significant meanings of the term need to be covered. I think that the linked article is sort of a rant and completely misunderstands the main forms of US libertarianism (which is basically "less government" and everything that arises from that) by mistakenly defining what arises from "less government" as being core tenets. But that is a sidebar; I think that all significant meanings of the term should be covered. The article has been somewhat chaotic lately but most folks here are either committed to or OK with the latter. North8000 (talk) 11:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- I completely agree, but I also think they should be covered in context. It's relevant that for centuries anarchists have rather logically believed that employer-employee labor relations are hierarchical and coercive and sought to eliminate them. Excluding capital from the language of anarchism (and libertarianism) is very new phenomenon, and it's very US-centric to this day. I wish I had some better sources on this transformation of meaning. I think it's worth looking into. Finx (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Agree. Please do, making sure that it is in regards to libertarianism. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- I completely agree, but I also think they should be covered in context. It's relevant that for centuries anarchists have rather logically believed that employer-employee labor relations are hierarchical and coercive and sought to eliminate them. Excluding capital from the language of anarchism (and libertarianism) is very new phenomenon, and it's very US-centric to this day. I wish I had some better sources on this transformation of meaning. I think it's worth looking into. Finx (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think that all significant meanings of the term need to be covered. I think that the linked article is sort of a rant and completely misunderstands the main forms of US libertarianism (which is basically "less government" and everything that arises from that) by mistakenly defining what arises from "less government" as being core tenets. But that is a sidebar; I think that all significant meanings of the term should be covered. The article has been somewhat chaotic lately but most folks here are either committed to or OK with the latter. North8000 (talk) 11:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Friedrich Hayek Notability
When I added Friedrich Hayek to the list of influential libertarians I'm pretty sure I mentioned something about partial knowledge. Yet somebody decided to remove partial knowledge from his entry. From his Nobel Prize press release...
- His guiding principle when comparing various systems is to study how efficiently all the knowledge and all the information dispersed among individuals and enterprises is utilized. His conclusion is that only by far-reaching decentralization in a market system with competition and free price-fixing is it possible to make full use of knowledge and information. - Nobel Prize Press Release
The founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, cites Hayek's Essay on the Use of Knowledge In Society as the conceptual foundation for Wikipedia...so it shouldn't take much effort to understand and appreciate the value of the concept. Partial knowledge is of course contained within the economic calculation problem but the economic calculation problem is more commonly associated with Mises. Mises didn't say much/anything about the knowledge problem and was instead more focused on the private ownership of property. Therefore, Hayek's blurb should include mention of partial knowledge and Mises blurb should include mention of the economic calculation problem. --Xerographica (talk) 11:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- If there is a supported difference of opinion on this (as appears to be the case) I would suggest leaving it in. North8000 (talk) 11:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Just to clarify...are you suggesting that we leave partial knowledge in Hayek's blurb? --Xerographica (talk) 12:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, based only on the above, not expertise on my part. North8000 (talk) 13:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Just to clarify...are you suggesting that we leave partial knowledge in Hayek's blurb? --Xerographica (talk) 12:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Are All Conservatives Libertarians?
WP:SOAPBOX; please ask reference questions at a reference desk. Talk pages are for article improvement, not generic questions and discussion regarding the article's subject. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
In the section on whether Ayn Rand was a libertarian...several of you argued... A) all anarchists are libertarians B) all conservatives are not libertarians The problem is that none of you could come up with any objective criteria that would allow you to simultaneously hold both views. If you have no objective standards for determining what libertarianism is...or isn't...then how can you possibly argue either A) that all anarchists are libertarians or B) that all conservatives are not libertarians? --Xerographica (talk) 12:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
|
Specific Suggestion for Improving This Article
In order to improve this article we need to mention that libertarianism is a form of conservatism.
- Libertarianism is a form of Conservatism often considered separate from the more mainstream conservative ideologies, partially because it is a bit more extreme, and partially because Libertarians often separate themselves from other forms of more mainstream Conservatism. - Brian R. Farmer, American conservatism: history, theory and practice
- Libertarianism, sometimes considered a type of conservatism, believes in the autonomy of the individual and a minimal role for the government. - Charles W. Dunn, J. David Woodard, The Conservative Tradition in America
- However, most observers treat libertarianism as a strain of current conservative thought. - Michael Tanner, Leviathan on the Right
- Hoover distinguishes the traditional and libertarian strands jointly constitutive of "conservative capitalism," the ideology common to both the Reagan and the Thatcher administrations - Desmond S. King, New Right Ideology, Welfare State Form, and Citizenship - A Comment on Conservative Capitalism
Again, if you're not willing to use tenets to differentiate between the various political ideologies then you shouldn't have any objections to dedicating a significant section of this article to conservatism. Of course, then we'll have to change the lead accordingly. But at least we'll be that much more closer to our goal of hopelessly confusing readers. That is our goal isn't it? To convince people that libertarians are both for and against the abolition of the state...and both for and against capitalism...and both for and against social conservatism. --Xerographica (talk) 07:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- It is philosophically impossible for a Libertarian to be "for" Social Conservatism. That's absurd. Social Conservatism = Authoritarianism. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 12:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your suggestion, currently we're using a major scholarly encyclopaedia of philosophy, one of the preeminant scholars publishing on libertarianism definitions, and the major historian of libertarianism. Woodcock completely disagrees with your suggestion, Long substantively and at length, and Vallentyne is indifferent. The sources you present include a press with this abomination of a home page (here), a google ebook textbook aimed at American undergraduates only, a publication from a partisan political organisation, and a non-article (it is titled "Debates," rather than in the section "Articles") journal item specific to the analysis of the new right which claims, "I think Hoover is incorrect to use the term libertarianism to refer to all these sets of ideas. It is more helpful to group them as liberal principles, recognising libertarianism as a powerful subcategory. We do not disagree on the broad content of this category,10 but to use the term libertarianism rather than liberalism is misleading" (795). Compared to a scholarly encyclopaedia, Long's synthetic definitional work, and Woodcock's magisterial history; I don't find these sources persuasive. The best effort, King's, specifically excludes libertarianism from conservatism, even with its extreme hesitancy around the definitional debate. We'd want sources superior in quality to Woodcock, Long and Vallentyne supporting your position. Look for review articles in scholarly journals that summarise debates on the definition of libertarianism. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- George Woodcock was an anarchist, Roderick Long is also an anarchist...and Peter Vallentyne is an anarcho-socialist. Is that just a coincidence? Hardly. Clearly your biases are clouding your judgement. Either we change the title of this article to anarchism or we turn this page into a disambiguation page. It's absurd to try and pretend that we're talking about the same political philosophy here. The thing is, if you anarchists were capable of self-regulation then we wouldn't have to worry about the lead being constantly biased towards anarchism. This is definitely not a new problem and it's not a problem that's going to go away by asking you anarchists to show some discretion. Therefore, the solution has to be structural. Turning this page into a disambiguation page would allow readers to decide which political philosophy they are interested in learning about. It shouldn't be our job to make that decision for them. --Xerographica (talk) 09:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- I suggest you retract the personal attacks in the above; specifically the argumentum ad hominem. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Which part of my argument was not relevant to the topic in question? Are you trying to tell me that it's just a coincidence that the three "experts" you referenced all happen to be anarchists? --Xerographica (talk) 11:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Immediately retract your accusations that I have edited based on politics, and your aspersions that I hold particular politics. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Which part of my argument was not relevant to the topic in question? Are you trying to tell me that it's just a coincidence that the three "experts" you referenced all happen to be anarchists? --Xerographica (talk) 11:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Xerographica, this article is a work in progress regarding how to cover libertarianism. Neither perfection nor completion is claimed. And maybe your proposed statement is an attempt to remedy some actual issue with the article. But IMO saying that libertarianism is a form of conservatism is a statement that most would call in error, and which would be very confusing rather than informative. North8000 (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- What are your objections to turning this page into a disambiguation page? --Xerographica (talk) 11:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- First and foremost it's a top level subject that needs an article. North8000 (talk) 11:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- No, first and foremost it's a word that needs to be disambiguated. --Xerographica (talk) 12:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Deleting a 10+ year old article on a major topic just isn't going to happen. Why don't you tell us what your main point/objective/concern really is? North8000 (talk) 12:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- My point is that this article continues to give undue weight to anarchism and clearly there's nothing that you can do about it...assuming you've even tried. Compare the lead for right-libertarianism and left-libertarianism. Do you notice a difference? Half the lead on right-libertarianism is dedicated to left-libertarianism yet the lead for left-libertarianism doesn't even mention right-libertarianism. The anarchists are going to push their views anywhere they can...which is exactly why we should just convert this article to a disambiguation page and allow readers to decide for themselves whether they want to learn about anarchism or libertarianism. Why would you object to allowing readers to decide for themselves which political philosophy they want to learn about?
- Deleting a 10+ year old article on a major topic just isn't going to happen. Why don't you tell us what your main point/objective/concern really is? North8000 (talk) 12:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- No, first and foremost it's a word that needs to be disambiguated. --Xerographica (talk) 12:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- First and foremost it's a top level subject that needs an article. North8000 (talk) 11:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- What are your objections to turning this page into a disambiguation page? --Xerographica (talk) 11:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- I suggest you retract the personal attacks in the above; specifically the argumentum ad hominem. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- George Woodcock was an anarchist, Roderick Long is also an anarchist...and Peter Vallentyne is an anarcho-socialist. Is that just a coincidence? Hardly. Clearly your biases are clouding your judgement. Either we change the title of this article to anarchism or we turn this page into a disambiguation page. It's absurd to try and pretend that we're talking about the same political philosophy here. The thing is, if you anarchists were capable of self-regulation then we wouldn't have to worry about the lead being constantly biased towards anarchism. This is definitely not a new problem and it's not a problem that's going to go away by asking you anarchists to show some discretion. Therefore, the solution has to be structural. Turning this page into a disambiguation page would allow readers to decide which political philosophy they are interested in learning about. It shouldn't be our job to make that decision for them. --Xerographica (talk) 09:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- There needs to be one article entirely dedicated to the limited government libertarianism of Nozick, Hayek, Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, Mises, Herbert Spencer, Bastiat, Adam Smith...where anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-socialism are only mentioned in the See Also section. Trying to mix everything into this article just isn't working...and it will never work given that if you give the anarchists an inch they'll try to take a mile...as they have consistently demonstrated. So step one is to turn this article into a disambiguation page and then step two is to think of a name for the article dedicated to limited government libertarianism. --Xerographica (talk) 15:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. That is helpful. And I think that I agree with you about the imbalance, but not on it's causes. After seeing this article go through warfare and calm, stability and instability for the approx 19 months I've been active here, I don't think that the current state is a result of POV'ing by anarchists. I think that it is a result of being on a track of mostly being about philosophies rather than practice. So the article is about what 20 people have philosophized on libertarianism, using those 20 people as sources on themselves. What it needs is more material on the rest of the story. For example, I plan to put a section on the 20,000,000 person US "libertarian vote" (I have sources) but I have been slow to do that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- The thing that Xerographica seems to be confusing is the definition of "Conservatism," and how it relates to the concepts of "Small/Limited Government" and Libertarianism. The word "Conservatism" has nothing to do with being in favor of "Small/Limited Government," nor does the word "Liberal" mean "Big Government." Any quick check of the Wiki pages for such concepts, and Left/Right in general, will quickly show him/her the fallacy of such thinking, both in a historical and philosophical context. Also, most of the people he/she just mentioned (Rand, Hayek, Friedman, Mises, etc.) were primarily only concerned with economic/fiscal matters. Yes, Conservatism (in the modern US, at least) is fairly Libertarian on economic issues. But that's just half of the equation. Social Conservatism, which is an enormous factor in US Conservatism, is completely opposed to Libertarianism...which is why Libertarian philosophers and organizations generally describe US Libertarianism as being "Socially Liberal, but Fiscally Conservative." (See Boaz, Cato Institute, etc.) If Libertarians were simply "Conservatives," then there would be no need for any term to differentiate them from the Conservatives. (Same goes for Anarchism, by the way...) If you believe in the economic theories of Rand/Hayek/Mises/etc., but believe in the "Big Government," Socially Conservative positions of being Anti-LGBT Rights, Pro-Drug War, Pro-Christian Supremacism/Anti-Separation of Church/State, etc., (and/or "Big Government" Conservative foreign policy positions of being pro-interventionist in foreign wars) then you are just a "Conservative," and not a "Libertarian." You don't get to redefine terms to make them mean what you want them to be... --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 16:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- It could be a matter of definition, or it could be a way that they are using that channel to pursue a concern. Whether it be in the fireworks that we had early fall 2010 or in the comments of people that have wandered through sort of goes like this: They are one of the 250,000,000 people in the USA to whom the term means simply "more freedom, less government". And maybe half of them could go a little further and say "conservative on economic & size of government issues and liberal on social issues. 99% go no further than that into any particular libertarian philosophy as defined in this article. And to them anarchists Z(per the mainstream US definition of the term) are the people who break windows and throw firebombs or motorcycle gangs that take over towns. (per the common US meaning of all of those terms). And then they come to this article and see what you see here and say "this article seems to be about the fire bomb throwers and motorcycle gangs (anarchists) and obscure philosophers and arcane terminology that I never heard of, and has little about what the 250,000,000 of us consider to be libertarianism." Of course I see both sides, but that's one of them. North8000 (talk) 23:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- You've been working on this article for 19 months...yet you didn't feel qualified to offer an informed opinion when I brought up Hayek's partial knowledge concept in the above section. Hayek's partial knowledge concept forms the basis of the economic arguments for libertarianism. If you don't understand the economic arguments for libertarianism after working on this article for 19 months...then what are the chances that somebody interested in libertarianism will learn about the economic arguments for libertarianism after reading this article? Are you familiar with Bastiat's opportunity cost concept? Do you understand that the time we spend trying to fix this article could be better spent writing a new article where we don't have to worry about anarcho-capitalists or anarcho-socialists? Let's cut our loses and spend our time working on an article that can help people better understand the economic arguments for libertarianism. With that in mind...do you have any objections to creating a new page called Limited government libertarianism? --Xerographica (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Actually I've refereed here a lot more than I've edited the article. :-) Not sure about the title, but I think that some type of an additional article along those lines is in order, possibly to replace the one that never should have existed Right libertarianism. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm not sure about the title either. It sounds redundant doesn't it? Can you think of a better one? I mean...we shouldn't necessarily let a title bog us down...given that we can always change it at a later date. The point is to have a space solely and entirely dedicated to libertarianism...not anarcho-capitalism/socialism. Anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-socialism already have their own dedicated articles. Given that libertarianism as we know it is 10 times more popular than anarcho-capitalism/socialism...it stands to reason that the libertarianism of Nobel prize winners such as Hayek and Friedman merits having its own dedicated article. Including the term "limited government" in the title of the article would help people understand that it is not intended to cover any "no government" political philosophies. --Xerographica (talk) 02:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- When disambiguating articles where there is no solid term, wouldn't the use of brackets, such as Libertarianism (limited government) be a better suited title? I'd suggest you locate which works actually differentiate this libertarianism in comparison to other libertarianisms. I'd suggest Long, because he actually pays attention to all libertarianisms and publishes in a scholarly mode. This would give any term derived from Long much more weight in supporting the article, and the particular differentiation and specific coverage of the article. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Sounds good. We'll rename this article to Libertarianism (anarchism) and we'll use the Libertarianism page as a disambiguation page to allow people to decide whether they are interested in learning about Libertarianism (anarchism) or Libertarianism (limited government). --Xerographica (talk) 03:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- I oppose creating a "libertaranism (limited government)" page. "Libertarianism" has come to refer to (among other things, which get their own articles) a group of political philosophies with some similarities. I don't think we should get rid of it because of the particular difficulty of this article because of its unique issues. "Libertarianism", in this sense, is not the same as "limited government", if only because one (maybe) refers to advocacy of limited government (though this is bound to become a very controversial topic, just like whether or not libertarianism necessarily includes advocacy of private property was also controversail), but "limited government" refers to just that. It's just like how we have a "communism" and a "communist state" article, and a "minarchism" and a "night-watchman state" article.
- Having "libertarianism" go to disambiguation page sounds good to me (this already occurs with "libertarian". Byelf2007 (talk) 7 March 2012
- Sounds good. We'll rename this article to Libertarianism (anarchism) and we'll use the Libertarianism page as a disambiguation page to allow people to decide whether they are interested in learning about Libertarianism (anarchism) or Libertarianism (limited government). --Xerographica (talk) 03:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- When disambiguating articles where there is no solid term, wouldn't the use of brackets, such as Libertarianism (limited government) be a better suited title? I'd suggest you locate which works actually differentiate this libertarianism in comparison to other libertarianisms. I'd suggest Long, because he actually pays attention to all libertarianisms and publishes in a scholarly mode. This would give any term derived from Long much more weight in supporting the article, and the particular differentiation and specific coverage of the article. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm not sure about the title either. It sounds redundant doesn't it? Can you think of a better one? I mean...we shouldn't necessarily let a title bog us down...given that we can always change it at a later date. The point is to have a space solely and entirely dedicated to libertarianism...not anarcho-capitalism/socialism. Anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-socialism already have their own dedicated articles. Given that libertarianism as we know it is 10 times more popular than anarcho-capitalism/socialism...it stands to reason that the libertarianism of Nobel prize winners such as Hayek and Friedman merits having its own dedicated article. Including the term "limited government" in the title of the article would help people understand that it is not intended to cover any "no government" political philosophies. --Xerographica (talk) 02:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Actually I've refereed here a lot more than I've edited the article. :-) Not sure about the title, but I think that some type of an additional article along those lines is in order, possibly to replace the one that never should have existed Right libertarianism. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- You've been working on this article for 19 months...yet you didn't feel qualified to offer an informed opinion when I brought up Hayek's partial knowledge concept in the above section. Hayek's partial knowledge concept forms the basis of the economic arguments for libertarianism. If you don't understand the economic arguments for libertarianism after working on this article for 19 months...then what are the chances that somebody interested in libertarianism will learn about the economic arguments for libertarianism after reading this article? Are you familiar with Bastiat's opportunity cost concept? Do you understand that the time we spend trying to fix this article could be better spent writing a new article where we don't have to worry about anarcho-capitalists or anarcho-socialists? Let's cut our loses and spend our time working on an article that can help people better understand the economic arguments for libertarianism. With that in mind...do you have any objections to creating a new page called Limited government libertarianism? --Xerographica (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- It could be a matter of definition, or it could be a way that they are using that channel to pursue a concern. Whether it be in the fireworks that we had early fall 2010 or in the comments of people that have wandered through sort of goes like this: They are one of the 250,000,000 people in the USA to whom the term means simply "more freedom, less government". And maybe half of them could go a little further and say "conservative on economic & size of government issues and liberal on social issues. 99% go no further than that into any particular libertarian philosophy as defined in this article. And to them anarchists Z(per the mainstream US definition of the term) are the people who break windows and throw firebombs or motorcycle gangs that take over towns. (per the common US meaning of all of those terms). And then they come to this article and see what you see here and say "this article seems to be about the fire bomb throwers and motorcycle gangs (anarchists) and obscure philosophers and arcane terminology that I never heard of, and has little about what the 250,000,000 of us consider to be libertarianism." Of course I see both sides, but that's one of them. North8000 (talk) 23:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- The dab argument would require a fair amount of argument, given that this article covers libertarianisms that support limited government already. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- That's a joke right? Because it sure makes me laugh when you say that this article covers the libertarianism of the Nobel prize winners Hayek and Friedman. Especially if you're trying to say that this article covers their libertarianism in proportion to its importance to society. Perhaps you don't believe that Nobel prizes are an objective measurement of the importance of libertarianism (limited government)? In any case, this article has clearly been taken over by you anarchists so there's no point in me trying to waste any more time trying to fight you guys for space on this page. We tried that approach last year and obviously it didn't work. We'll deal with the dab argument once the Libertarianism (limited government) is developed. --Xerographica (talk) 03:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Go read Long and Woodcock. Woodcock's history notes Bastiat; Long deals with all forms of libertarianism. Wikipedia is written from the taxonomy contained in reliable sources, in this case reliable sources of the highest quality. We don't derive our taxonomies from personal inspiration. You have been mentioned at WQA for personal attacks, point and battleground disruption. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- When I search on JSTOR...do you have any idea how many more references I find for Nozick, Friedman and Hayek than I do for all your anarchist experts combined? Personal inspiration my foot. What a laugh. Speaking of funny things...it's amazing how quick you anarchists are to report people for frivolous reasons. --Xerographica (talk) 04:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not an anarchist. Byelf2007 (talk) 7 March 2012
- So you're a statist? --Xerographica (talk) 03:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- If your definition is "supports the existence of the state" then yes. Byelf2007 (talk) 8 March 2012
- On your page it says that you "adhere" to the Austrian School of economics. This is the first time I've ever encountered an Austrian economist that wasn't an anarcho-capitalist. Why do you support the existence of the state? --Xerographica (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- This isn't the place for that. I'll put my email on that (my) info page. Byelf2007 (talk) 9 March 2012
- This is the perfect place given that I'm trying to understand why this article on libertarianism is so skewed towards anarchism. --Xerographica (talk) 02:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what that has to do with making suggestions/resolving problems, which is actually what the talk page is for. It's probably (in part) because there's more widely known/influential anarchist-libertarian history/theory than non-anarchist libertarian history/theory. Most of the 'first wave' libertarians were anarchists. Also, I've personally put a lot of stuff from the anarchism page in here. Other pages (like right-libertarianism) aren't as well developed. Otherwise, I guess anarchist contributors to this page are disproportionate. Finally, I'm not sure how your understanding my reasons for being a statist would aid you in your endeavor regarding the anarchist skew. Byelf2007 (talk) 9 March 2012
- "there's more widely known/influential anarchist-libertarian history/theory than non-anarchist libertarian history/theory". This is incredibly untrue. By any objective standard...Adam Smith, Bastiat, Herbert Spencer, Mises, Hayek, Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, Nozick...are far more widely known and incredibly more influential than any anarchist theorists. That you believe that anarchist history/theory is more widely known/influential than non-anarchist history/theory does help me understand why this article is skewed towards anarchism. --Xerographica (talk) 02:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- Most of the people you mentioned are influential is the U.S., but not so much worldwide. People like Proudhon, Stirner, Kropotkin, Bakunin, Tolstoy, and Chomsky are generally influential both in and outside the U.S. Also, Mises and Hayek did very little political theory. Libertarianism is about politics, not economics. Byelf2007 (talk) 9 March 2012
- Proudhon ("is considered among the most influential theorists and organisers of anarchism."), Stirner ("one of the fathers of nihilism, existentialism, post-modernism and anarchism"), Kropotkin ("one of the world's foremost anarcho-communists"), Bakunin ("well-known Russian revolutionary and theorist of collectivist anarchism"), Tolstoy ("a fervent Christian anarchist and anarcho-pacifist"), and Chomsky ("Ideologically identifying with anarcho-syndicalism and libertarian socialism"). "Libertarian socialism" is better thought of as anarcho-socialism. Clearly we are talking about two entirely distinct political ideologies...I'm talking about "libertarianism" and you're talking about "anarchism". We don't need two articles on anarchism. It's a moot point though...at least for now. You guys can continue to use this page to promote anarchism and I'll work on the article on Libertarianism (limited government). --Xerographica (talk) 03:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- We establish the main topic, structure and weight of articles based on what field reviews say, not the opinions of individual editors. Again, I refer you to read Long, Vallentyne and Woodcock; all of whom indicate that libertarianism covers both pro- and anti-statist positions, all of whom indicate that property is a serious issue of question within libertarianism, with both Long and Woodcock indicating positions taken for and against private property in the means and tools of production. I encourage you, again, to find a propensity of sources of equivalent or higher quality, that are field reviews of libertarianism and not merely publications of a scholar's opinion, that supports an alternate construction of this top level article. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- Proudhon ("is considered among the most influential theorists and organisers of anarchism."), Stirner ("one of the fathers of nihilism, existentialism, post-modernism and anarchism"), Kropotkin ("one of the world's foremost anarcho-communists"), Bakunin ("well-known Russian revolutionary and theorist of collectivist anarchism"), Tolstoy ("a fervent Christian anarchist and anarcho-pacifist"), and Chomsky ("Ideologically identifying with anarcho-syndicalism and libertarian socialism"). "Libertarian socialism" is better thought of as anarcho-socialism. Clearly we are talking about two entirely distinct political ideologies...I'm talking about "libertarianism" and you're talking about "anarchism". We don't need two articles on anarchism. It's a moot point though...at least for now. You guys can continue to use this page to promote anarchism and I'll work on the article on Libertarianism (limited government). --Xerographica (talk) 03:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- Most of the people you mentioned are influential is the U.S., but not so much worldwide. People like Proudhon, Stirner, Kropotkin, Bakunin, Tolstoy, and Chomsky are generally influential both in and outside the U.S. Also, Mises and Hayek did very little political theory. Libertarianism is about politics, not economics. Byelf2007 (talk) 9 March 2012
- "there's more widely known/influential anarchist-libertarian history/theory than non-anarchist libertarian history/theory". This is incredibly untrue. By any objective standard...Adam Smith, Bastiat, Herbert Spencer, Mises, Hayek, Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, Nozick...are far more widely known and incredibly more influential than any anarchist theorists. That you believe that anarchist history/theory is more widely known/influential than non-anarchist history/theory does help me understand why this article is skewed towards anarchism. --Xerographica (talk) 02:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what that has to do with making suggestions/resolving problems, which is actually what the talk page is for. It's probably (in part) because there's more widely known/influential anarchist-libertarian history/theory than non-anarchist libertarian history/theory. Most of the 'first wave' libertarians were anarchists. Also, I've personally put a lot of stuff from the anarchism page in here. Other pages (like right-libertarianism) aren't as well developed. Otherwise, I guess anarchist contributors to this page are disproportionate. Finally, I'm not sure how your understanding my reasons for being a statist would aid you in your endeavor regarding the anarchist skew. Byelf2007 (talk) 9 March 2012
- This is the perfect place given that I'm trying to understand why this article on libertarianism is so skewed towards anarchism. --Xerographica (talk) 02:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- This isn't the place for that. I'll put my email on that (my) info page. Byelf2007 (talk) 9 March 2012
- On your page it says that you "adhere" to the Austrian School of economics. This is the first time I've ever encountered an Austrian economist that wasn't an anarcho-capitalist. Why do you support the existence of the state? --Xerographica (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- If your definition is "supports the existence of the state" then yes. Byelf2007 (talk) 8 March 2012
- So you're a statist? --Xerographica (talk) 03:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not an anarchist. Byelf2007 (talk) 7 March 2012
- When I search on JSTOR...do you have any idea how many more references I find for Nozick, Friedman and Hayek than I do for all your anarchist experts combined? Personal inspiration my foot. What a laugh. Speaking of funny things...it's amazing how quick you anarchists are to report people for frivolous reasons. --Xerographica (talk) 04:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Go read Long and Woodcock. Woodcock's history notes Bastiat; Long deals with all forms of libertarianism. Wikipedia is written from the taxonomy contained in reliable sources, in this case reliable sources of the highest quality. We don't derive our taxonomies from personal inspiration. You have been mentioned at WQA for personal attacks, point and battleground disruption. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Renaming this one and making libertarianism a DAB is a whole new question. Not sure, but I think I disagree. The libertarianism article needs to try to make sense out of the term. Maybe one could view that as a DAB article. North8000 (talk) 03:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Let's at least have an article that does justice to libertarianism...and then we can debate the DAB options. Should we sit on the title for a day or two? Or is Libertarianism (limited government) good enough to get started? --Xerographica (talk) 04:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, this is only a decision to start a Libertarianism (limited government) article. If so, I support that, either by that term now to get started, or first noodle a bit more on what the title should be. North8000 (talk) 04:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. That's fine (as long as we keep this one). Byelf2007 (talk) 7 March 2012
- I couldn't think of a better title. Do you want to create the page or shall I? Or should we first develop the outline on a practice page? --Xerographica (talk) 03:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not really interested in making the page, so you can go ahead, practice page or no (I may have objections to some of it, but I'll put them on talk first). Byelf2007 (talk) 8 March 2012
- My suggestion. Make sure you/we have an idea what the article is about, with a title to match. (to be honest, I'm not sure what either is) Then write a stub with a couple of references (to immediately adress wp:notability. Then develop on the article and talk page. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 04:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Now, if you were to ask for my recommendation of what to do overall, it would be to build material in THIS article. Lose the accusations and nastiness, recognize that those novel taxonomic theories/questions are not a useful place to start. And then start building in THIS article. Move in and have some fun. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- How could I contribute to this article? This article is primarily about socialism and anarchism...so should I just build material in the section on the criticisms of "libertarianism"? In the criticisms of "libertarianism" section I'd refer to Mises, Hayek, Rand...and all the other "libertarians" that dedicated their lives to debunking exactly what this article is about...anarchism and socialism. Naw, no thanks. Last time I tried to contribute to this article...each time I turned around my contributions were removed. That's not my definition of fun. --Xerographica (talk) 14:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, this is only a decision to start a Libertarianism (limited government) article. If so, I support that, either by that term now to get started, or first noodle a bit more on what the title should be. North8000 (talk) 04:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Let's at least have an article that does justice to libertarianism...and then we can debate the DAB options. Should we sit on the title for a day or two? Or is Libertarianism (limited government) good enough to get started? --Xerographica (talk) 04:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
As you describe and via whole new sections. IMHO you are misunderstanding the situation here. But that's your choice. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm just going to stick this here. Libertarian_Party_(United_States). Might be something useful in the ideology section of the Info box.Gsonnenf (talk) 18:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- How can Wikipedia maintain any degree of credibility when it contains trashy articles like Libertarianism - an article that would surprise and disgust just about everyone who would describe themselves as being ideologically "Libertarian" in 2012? This is why Wikipedia will never be accepted as a reliable and credible encyclopedic source - dishonorable hacks with too much free times on their hands (aka. the unemployed and mental health patients) have wantonly sabotaged this article in their efforts to censor Libertarian ideas and push their own political agendas. And, typically, the absurd morass of Wikipedia's incoherent rules and guidelines have been used to crush anyone who attempts to fix the appalling errors and lack of balance in this broken article. While most Wikipedia articles contain a few errors, the Libertarianism article is rife with absurd misrepresentations and blatant nonsense which can only be the result of a deliberate and sustained effort to sabotage the article. A pox on Wikipedia and all those who allowed this appalling situation to develop. 122.60.93.162 (talk) 11:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- I think that you have a few good points in there but buried inside of all of that nastiness, vitriol, insults and attacks against other well-meaning editors, nobody is going to notice them. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 11:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- That's just it - while you are a well-being editor, it is abundantly clear that far too many editors are not "well-meaning". As the current nonsensical state of the Libertarianism article and the absurd sophistry in the threads (above) on this talk page illustrate. I can just picture the truly well-meaning editors bashing their own heads on their keyboards before they log-off in frustration. The Libertarianism article is missing critical information while being packed with misrepresentation and abject nonsense. An innocent researcher who arrives here in search of information about Libertarianism is going to leave confused and hopeless misinformed. And that is no accident. 122.60.93.162 (talk) 12:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- If you came here thinking that the word "Libertarian" is a synonym for "Conservative," then yes...you'd bang your head in frustration, as that is not, and never has been historically, the case. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 13:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Who said anything about Conservatism? What has Conservatism got to do with Libertarianism, aside from a considerable over-lap (by no means complete) in economic policies? Why are you throwing this needless tangent into your response? Discussion around here are as pointless, dishonest and infantile as I remember. I already regret poking my head in for another look. 122.60.93.162 (talk) 21:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Frankly, because that is usually the reason that people get upset about this page. Sorry for assuming. (And you're absolutely correct about "Conservatism." --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 12:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- If anything deserves criticism it is the absurd predominance of Anarchism in this article. How the hell does Chomsky - a world-famous (Syndicalist) Anarchist - warrant mention in the Lede? How is it that Rand - probably the most well-known (neo)Libertarian philosopher of all time - rates nothing more than a single mention in a list of so-called "Libertarians" that is dominated by Anarchists like Bakunin and Bookchin. The Libertarianism article is an appalling farce that blatantly misrepresents Libertarianism and fatally misinforms the curious reader. A pox on Wikipedia and those who have deliberately sabotaged this article. 122.60.93.162 (talk) 12:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- Frankly, because that is usually the reason that people get upset about this page. Sorry for assuming. (And you're absolutely correct about "Conservatism." --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 12:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- Who said anything about Conservatism? What has Conservatism got to do with Libertarianism, aside from a considerable over-lap (by no means complete) in economic policies? Why are you throwing this needless tangent into your response? Discussion around here are as pointless, dishonest and infantile as I remember. I already regret poking my head in for another look. 122.60.93.162 (talk) 21:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- "an article that would surprise and disgust just about everyone who would describe themselves as being ideologically "Libertarian"" "The Libertarianism article is missing critical information, while being packed with misrepresentation and abject nonsense." So what exactly are these problems? I don't see that you've listed any. I think you should explain what your objections are so we can consider them. If you came here to just complain about wikipedia, then I'm not sure how you can present most wikipedia editors as being more silly than you. I mean, you're here on wikipedia contributing by writing this without explaining what your objections are, but you're also complaining on how most wikipedia editors use the site. I can't help but wonder if you're unemployed or a mental health patient. Byelf2007 (talk) 15 March 2012
- I'm outta here, lest I feed your obvious troll. Your user page says you subscribe to the Austrian School. I assume that you were being ironic (or setting up an ambush) when you put that reference in there, as your posts suggest you are far FAR removed from the laissez-faire philosophy of Hayek (et al.). Or perhaps you simply have no idea what the "Austrian School" means but you like the idea of personally paying less tax while welcoming government intervention into the lives of everyone else (God knows, I've met enough of those in my time). 122.60.93.162 (talk) 21:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- If you came here thinking that the word "Libertarian" is a synonym for "Conservative," then yes...you'd bang your head in frustration, as that is not, and never has been historically, the case. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 13:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- That's just it - while you are a well-being editor, it is abundantly clear that far too many editors are not "well-meaning". As the current nonsensical state of the Libertarianism article and the absurd sophistry in the threads (above) on this talk page illustrate. I can just picture the truly well-meaning editors bashing their own heads on their keyboards before they log-off in frustration. The Libertarianism article is missing critical information while being packed with misrepresentation and abject nonsense. An innocent researcher who arrives here in search of information about Libertarianism is going to leave confused and hopeless misinformed. And that is no accident. 122.60.93.162 (talk) 12:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- I think that you have a few good points in there but buried inside of all of that nastiness, vitriol, insults and attacks against other well-meaning editors, nobody is going to notice them. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 11:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- How can Wikipedia maintain any degree of credibility when it contains trashy articles like Libertarianism - an article that would surprise and disgust just about everyone who would describe themselves as being ideologically "Libertarian" in 2012? This is why Wikipedia will never be accepted as a reliable and credible encyclopedic source - dishonorable hacks with too much free times on their hands (aka. the unemployed and mental health patients) have wantonly sabotaged this article in their efforts to censor Libertarian ideas and push their own political agendas. And, typically, the absurd morass of Wikipedia's incoherent rules and guidelines have been used to crush anyone who attempts to fix the appalling errors and lack of balance in this broken article. While most Wikipedia articles contain a few errors, the Libertarianism article is rife with absurd misrepresentations and blatant nonsense which can only be the result of a deliberate and sustained effort to sabotage the article. A pox on Wikipedia and all those who allowed this appalling situation to develop. 122.60.93.162 (talk) 11:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
There are some really biased edits in the review history, Byelf2007 has been systematically removing content he finds personally disagreeable. Will objective people please review his edits for reason. There is a lot of confusion with the american and European definitions of libertarianism which he has really not understood. Ahahaha373 (talk) 05:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Will start on new subsection
I noted previously that I was going to start on a new subsection of the zillions of "vague libertarians", I have sourcing on a place to start. I'm planning on slowly buildign it in place rather than building it elsewhere and dropping it in. The things happen more slowly so that people can see, comment etc. So please excuse the stub etc. in the meantime. I plan to start now, probably in an obscure place such as under "21st century" Now I plan to actually start that. North8000 (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia former featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- Wikipedia former brilliant prose
- Old requests for peer review
- C-Class sociology articles
- Mid-importance sociology articles
- C-Class politics articles
- High-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- C-Class Philosophy articles
- Mid-importance Philosophy articles
- C-Class social and political philosophy articles
- Mid-importance social and political philosophy articles
- Social and political philosophy task force articles
- C-Class Libertarianism articles
- Top-importance Libertarianism articles
- Wikipedia articles that use American English