Jump to content

Talk:Libertarian Party (United States)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 194.70.34.202 (talk) at 15:30, 2 November 2012. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Introduction

The diction of the initial description seems biased and even exaggerating - "Hundreds of Libertarian candidates have been elected or appointed to public office, and thousands have run for office under the Libertarian banner," particularly. Additionally, the fact that the beginning of the very first sentence of the article mentions the size of the Party's membership and its growth suggests partiality. Though, that fact is certainly pertinent to the article and perhaps we should mention it later in the initial description.

Libertarianism vs. Right-Libertarianism

Given the wide variety of currents comprising modern libertarianism, shouldn't some qualifier be added to "Libertarian" in the ideology box? While it might be generally implied that this party advocates a laissez-faire/propertarian form of libertarianism by the mention of classical and economic liberalism further down the list, it nevertheless stood out as a potentially misleading statement to just refer to the general idea of libertarianism when there quite a few strains of libertarianism quite different than the sort advocated by this party (libertarian socialism, social ecology, etc.) I realize that in discussions concerning the "left" or "right" label as they apply to the two dominant parties that the attaching of qualifiers or spectrum positions to a party is a contentious issue; I'm not referring to an overall assignment of a spectrum position, just something that indicates this party's more or less minarchist-capitalist and propertarian stance within the broader context of libertarian philosophy. I will, of course, wait for feedback before adding anything, and anything I might then add will be reputably sourced. Not a big deal really, just thought I'd bring it up for specificity's sake. --Apjohns54 (talk) 05:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that the party is not representative of the whole of libertarian thought. As of now, I would agree that minarchist is the best term for the party. They have been moving more and more towards the libertarian-conservative train of thought lately, especially with the nomination of Bob Barr and the victory of the reform caucus. But I can tell you for a fact that most party members will flip shit if you apply a left or right label. --Estrill5766 (talk) 01:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely about the use of a linear spectrum location as a qualifier; in retrospect, it was a regrettable word choice. I have since gone over the talk page archives, and it seems that this subject has for the most part been addressed before. The same conclusion was reached about the use of a spectrum position as a qualifier for the type of libertarianism espoused by the party, and I guess the matter was dropped at that, which as far as "left" and "right" are concerned, I'm going to do here as well. I still think that the far more informative and far less controversial idea of stressing a minarchist or propertarian consensus within the LP would contribute useful information, and would therefore be justified. --Apjohns54 (talk) 02:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it should be "right-libertarianism." Libertarianism is a left-wing thing in the rest of the world and this party is right-wing. People are always saying that Americans have no idea what "Libertarian" means, well Wikipedia isn't helping the situation. --sbrianhicks (talk)

It seems the problem here is that we don't have a mechanism for deciding what the right definition of a word is. When they conflict, who wins: the European or the American? If 2% hear "libertarian" and think "socialist", while the other 98% think "free markets", does that mean two separate articles, or does it mean one article with 50% coverage to the non-popular understanding of the term? 99.62.174.117 (talk) 00:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While the party does attract a significant number of what Americans think are right-wingers, that does not qualify its ideology. For now I'll remove the "right" from the infobox. hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 00:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are different meanings to terminology. Liberal in much of the world is in the classic meaning and is considered right wing while in the US it is in the social liberal meaning and is considered left wing. I suppose if the world wanted some uniformity than US liberals would need to change to social democrats or green, libertarians would need to change to liberal, conservatives would need to change to liberal-conservative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.146.64 (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarianism in the US basically refers to forms of classical liberalism. In the US liberalism is use by the left social liberals so the US classic liberals use libertarian or conservative unlike much of the rest of the world were liberal means right wing and classic liberal. Basically US liberal equals EU social democrat, EU liberal equals US libertarian and conservative, US libertarian and conservative equals EU liberals, EU libertarian equals US anarchists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.255.227 (talk) 21:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minarchists, really?

Of course the LP isn't a socialist party, however you're going out on a limb saying that the LP is minarchist. Minarchist beleive in a nearly non-existent state, where the market makes the rules and protects the rights of individual. There is absolutely nothing to back up this idea of the LP being "minarchist". Shall we change the Socialist Party USA description to label them as communists? Napkin65 (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes -- really. Did you read the first part of the ""Principle" vs. "Pragmatism" debate". Libertarian Party ideological debates have been between minarchists and anarchists. This is a debate I watched flame up in my own local LP just this week. Join your local LP -- you might learn something about it! 99.62.174.117 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
I concur. The modern LP does believe in very minimal government in all areas of society. That is the truth. Besides, didn't you know that they had a big internal argument about whether or not they believed in the state at all? The Dallas Accord fixed that, with the anarchists finally being marginalized. I am sorry if you were fooled by their propaganda machine into believing that they were in any way moderate. --Drdak (talk) 23:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

is there support to add the links? also, i can not find information about the tag added june 2010 at the top, is there support to remove? Darkstar1st (talk) 07:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

are libertarians socialist, anarchist, geo, or transhuman?

the article libertarianism cites all of these beliefs, but no mention of that here, which of these ideas should we incorporate here? Darkstar1st (talk) 17:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of relevant political context from article

UserVOBO has twice removed relevant information about the political context in which the US LP party finds itself in the US. I believe this information is relevant for the reason just given. Any other opinions? Yworo (talk) 19:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re below, we don't really need a poll. A discussion is preferable. Why do some editors always pull the "poll card" before discussion has even started? Yworo (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is the page about the Libertarian Party - not about "libertarian leaning" voters. The material I removed is obviously both off-topic and misleading too, since it could wrongly imply that the poll was somehow about the Libertarian Party itself, which it clearly wasn't. "Libertarian leaning" voters and the actual Libertarian Party are two very different things, and it's disingenuous to claim that the material about the former should remain because it's somehow relevant to the latter - there's no necessary connection between the two. UserVOBO (talk) 19:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Libertarian Party doesn't operate in a vacuum. The political context in which is it situated is relevant both to its results and its platform. Since libertarian is spelled with a lower-case letter and it doesn't say "Libertarian Party", an intelligent reader would not make the mistake you are suggesting, that's a red-herring. We aren't writing to an audience of morons, after all. Yworo (talk) 20:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's simply a vague generality that doesn't answer my point. The fact that various voters may be "libertarian leaning" has absolutely nothing to do necessarily with the Libertarian Party itself, and nothing good is accomplished by including that information here - it tells us nada about the Libertarian Party. You're completely wrong to assume that readers wouldn't make the confusion you mention, and you insult people (the many people) who would indeed make that confusion by calling them "morons." UserVOBO (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you say so. It's nothing that can't be resolved with an improvement in wording, which I've done. Meanwhile, I find your attitude to be a bit belligerent, so if you don't mind, I'll wait for other editors respond rather then engage with you. Yworo (talk) 20:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You call my attitude belligerent, but it's you who has restored your preferred version of the article through doing multiple reverts - not me. You've argued that the material should be included because it's "relevant context", but that's simply not good enough. You need to explain specifically why this specifc material (which isn't even about the Libertarian Party per se) is so important to understanding the Libertarian Party that it absolutely must be included here - changing the wording doesn't justify including off-topic material of this nature, least of all in the lead. Please see WP:LEAD. The purpose of the lead is to summarize the article's main points, and while you might argue that this material belongs somewhere in the article, there's no possible way it's one of the main points because it's not even about the article's actual subject! It looks a bit like puffery designed to make the Libertarian Party seem somehow less marginal - something the article has been full of in the past. See what it looked like back before I started editing it in June. UserVOBO (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to note that the title you've given this thread ("Removal of relevant political context from article") is far from neutral, and looks like an attempt to bias discussion here. UserVOBO (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Guess what, editors are allowed to express their biases on talk pages. You are. Yworo (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Headings should be neutral; that's just common sense. It would be better if you could reply to the substantive points I made above - the material you restored is clearly inappropriate under WP:LEAD. UserVOBO (talk) 20:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's your opinion. But you and I are only two editors. Let's wait for other editors to express their opinions. There's no hurry, after all. Yworo (talk) 21:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's quote the guideline: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." It's a bit much to argue that what Kirby and Boaz found about "libertarian leaning" voters is one of the most important points covered in the article when it isn't even mentioned in the main body of the article. UserVOBO (talk) 21:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it doesn't belong in the lead, but don't see it being a problem in some other section that mentions/focuses on larger political context. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to see it removed entirely, but if other editors want to keep it in somewhere, fine, keep it in. It should be shifted out of the lead, though. UserVOBO (talk) 07:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to concur with UserVOBO. The material seems to be well-suited for an article that focuses on Libertarianism in America, but not the LP's page.--Drdak (talk) 22:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kirby/Boaz poll

Yworo has restored material I removed in August with the edit summary, "restore material removed in August w/o discussion on talk page." When I removed that material, more than a month ago now, I gave perfectly good, clear reasons for doing so; see the revision history of the page. Nobody objected at the time, and there was no need for discussion on the talk page, since the edit was not controversial. If Yworo wants to restore this material, he will have to give a better reason for doing so than that there was no talk page discussion. Since it isn't about the Libertarian Party itself, it's off-topic for this page, and misleading too, since including it here might wrongly imply that the poll was somehow about the Libertarian Party. UserVOBO (talk) 19:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although I inserted the information, I've no strong opinion here. After reviewing both side's arguments, I'm in favor of removing the information from the lead. --Galactic Traveller (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the information in the Party supporters section.


Thoughts? --Galactic Traveller (talk) 19:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is about the Libertarian Party which supports non-interventionist foreign policy, a poll which only talks about fiscal and social issues really is not as relevant. I think it should be removed to avoid confusion. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. BTW (sorry for being off-topic) I think the article Political ideologies in the United States needs some work to include a separate libertarianism section as libertarians constitute a significant portion of the population. --Galactic Traveller (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Third?

I've seen current sources for 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th. In addition the the Constitution Party (United States) , which (in terms of official membership) is essentially a CA-state only party, the Green Party may have more members, and there's a NY-state only party. However, we need to report what is said in reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Provide reliable sources that give other numbers and editors can decide which are most reliable. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This news google search will have a number of sources. Try to figure out which are the most reliable and recent. Vin S. is just repeating what every one says. Try ballot access news. They probably have pretty good info. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ballot Access News says "5th", but the data says "6th"; the NY Independence Party, whether or not combined with the Reform party, is 4th, exceeding both the Green Party and the Libertarians. We need a self-consistent recent source. Replacing with "said to be 3rd", until we can figure out what's going on. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote 1 and footnote 26 contradict each other, which is a significant problem. I have never seen a footnote like 1 (or2) anywhere else on wikipedia and I think its mere existence calls into question the entire sites objectivity. Third Largest should be replaced with something like "Major U.S. Alternative Party" or the accurate "6th" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.219.43.178 (talk) 13:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote 26[1] is raw, primary data: "EARLY 2008 REGISTRATION TOTALS". Many of the sources in Footnote 1 are more recent and most are more authoritative. The "Registration by party" section should probably be rewritten to reduct the weight of the single source.   Will Beback  talk  17:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If Ballot Access News is reliable, reporting that the LP is the 6th-largest party falls under WP:CALC; although only the Green Party resembles a "national party". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Applying WP:CALC to the December 2010 Ballot Access News reporting October 2010 figures, pulling out parties specifically named in the "Other" column with over 100,000 members,
  1. D 43,140,758
  2. R 30,700,138
  3. AIP/Constitution 476,669 (almost all in California)
  4. !NY Independence 426,005
  5. L 278,446
  6. !FL Independent Party 262,116
  7. G 246,145
  8. !NY Conservative 148,412
So, among national parties, the LP may well be third, although 5th among all parties and 4th of 6 in California. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mostly do reliable sourcing work, and I was drawn here by a discussion of Verifiability not Truth. Footnote two is a mess. You could probably rely simply on the two textbooks. There are a number of red flag unreliable-for-politics sources used in that footnote, and it would make me suspicious of the rest of the article. When people source by a litany, it discredits the point they're making. I'm fairly worried about the CALC stuff above, CALC'd material certainly isn't as reliable as academic texts for this. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with the proposal that "When people source by a litany, it discredits the point they're making", so long as the individual citations each support the assertion. It makes no sense to me that providing two citations in support proves a point while providing 20 disproves it.
The BAN page is raw information. Party affilitiation at time of voter registration is not synonymous with party membership. State parties are not the same as national parties. 2008 is not the same as 2011. And so on. We should use the best available sources, and it's hard to see how our own calculations from a single table should be used to trump the considered conclusions of expert journalists and scholars.   Will Beback  talk  21:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Social leaning

Everyone knows it's "Left" on personal social issues, and "right" on collective social issues. It's usually referred to as "left" on social issues, though, in spite of an editor who insists on changing it to "Center" to "Center-right", without giving a single shred of a source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The LP opposed the Civil Rights Act. It is socially libertarian not socially progressive. Hence, centre-left to centre-right.--Drdak (talk) 15:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose we need a definition of "social issues". I would have put the Civil Rights Act as a business issue, although not fiscal. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Civil Rights Act in the United States was not a "business-related" issue. It was a social issue, as most people agree.--Drdak (talk) 21:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We'll have to agree to disagree. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Libertarian Party is not socially left nor right. We believe in leaving social decisions to individuals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.255.227 (talk) 21:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked more closely, we (Wikipedia) have no definition of socially liberal or socially conservative which the LP fits. None of the articles social conservative, left-wing politics, or right-wing politics have any intersection with what we have in this article as the libertarian position on social issues. I've replaced the social positioning with a ???, as we have no information as to what should be there. We can agree that the Republican Party are right, and the Democratic Party are left, but we don't have anything we can attach to the LP in the "social" realm.
As I said above, normally allowing individual acts in private is considered "left" (well, unless it wastes energy or involves cigarettes), and allowing businesses to discriminate is considered "right" (at least by some, unless it's on a "politically correct" position, such as smoking; i.e., allowing businesses to discriminate against smokers is considered left-wing). We know where the LP fits on those issues, but we don't have anything I can find on Wikipedia which describes the left and right positions on those issues. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are many primary sources, coming from Reason Magazine and prominent Libertarians, stating that Libertarianism is socially Left, particularly in America. I have added an RS from an academic journal to point this out as well. --Bryonmorrigan (talk) 15:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As chairman of the local Libertarian Party I see some mistakes.

One for now is that we are "socially left-wing" is incorrect. We have some that are socially left, some that are socially right and some that are socially moderate. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.255.227 (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that's nonsense. We know what the LP position is on (most) social issues, but we don't know which is left and which is right. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Libertarian Party policy, as well as the stated positions of the major Libertarian think-tanks and philosophers (like the Cato Institute [2])...would disagree with you. Regardless, the RS (from a peer-reviewed, academic journal) disagrees... If someone is socially "Right," then he/she is NOT a Libertarian...because Social Conservatism is "big government" Authoritarianism at its most anti-Libertarian aspect. "Libertarian" is not a synonym for "Conservative," regardless of what some Conservatives would have you believe. --Bryonmorrigan (talk) 16:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian in State Lower house

The chart in the info box states that there is a libertarian in one of the state legislators, but the text of the article says none hold that level of office currently. Which is it?74.105.134.233 (talk) 22:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Political Stance on Intellectual Property

There's no mention about it in the article. However, I've got some information from the von Mises Institute that the opposition against IP rights among Libertarian thinkers is greater than among people of any other political ideology. So, what's the official policy in the LP if there's actually a consensus about it? Eyesighter (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Symbols

I entered some info about the porcupine being used as a symbol of libertarianism in the U.S. (the reasoning is that it is defensive and doesn;t attack but when attacked the results can be brutal). Many people have accepted this rather than the penguin as a symbol because they too feel as though the porcupine is a good symbol for their live and let live attitude and their philosophy. Why was this taken down? I was under the impression this was a growing symbol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.202.88.131 (talk) 06:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Immigration

Some IP added some un-sourced nonsense about the LPUSA wanting to "deport" all immigrants or something, and referenced the LP party platform as a "source." The only reference to immigration in the platform is the following:

Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.

I hardly think that supports the IP's assertions. -- Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 18:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ideology vs. positions

Re: this revert:

  • Removal of that in underline: ideology = Libertarianism
    Classical liberalism
    Cultural liberalism
    Free market economics
    Minarchism or Anarchism
    Non-interventionism
    • Free market economics is either or both ideology or position??? Why remove it? From one or either?
    • Anarchism is already mentioned in the article as one position some LP members take
  • Putting back Fiscal: Right-wing + Social: Left-wing
    • Left and right wing are NOT positions, they are ideologies, so that's just muddled and silly. You have a position on specific issues in economics or civil liberties or foreign policy, etc. Otherwise it's just all ideology.
    • In fact, This link doesn't supply enough info to know if source "Daniel Mosley" even uses "left wing", not to mention right wing, which seems unsourced.
    • If the article is going to use those terms it needs a section on how some call the LP left and/or right wing but the LP or many members do NOT consider it left or right wing.
  • What evidence do you have that |international = Interlibertarians - which you put back - is anything but WP:OR??

Please respond with policy based arguments. Thanks. CarolMooreDC 16:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was only concerned with the elimination of the "Political Position" elements. I didn't notice the others, and don't really have a "dog in that fight." As for your contention regarding "Political Positions," if you click on it, you'll note that it links to the Left/Right spectrum, so that section is intended to denote the "position" on the spectrum. Mosely used "Liberal" and "Conservative," rather than Left/Right, and that's the same terminology used by Libertarian groups like the Cato Institute and Reason Magazine, (i.e., "Socially Liberal and Fiscally Conservative,") and someone changed them for some reason. I'll fix them back to the original sourced information. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 16:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Caucus linkfarm

The External links section has more than enough links even without the prior campaign sites. Adding these various caucus sites will only get the article on Nixeagle's list. Moreover, they are variations of the official party site, which should be limited in number IAW WP:ELOFFICIAL.--S. Rich (talk) 00:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
Thank you for seeking consensus on this issue. First off, Nixeagle's list applies only to articles with more than 20 external links. The real point of including the "internal caucus" links, however, is just to show the different divisions within the party, so I suggest that the names of those divisions, and not necessarily the links to their websites, be incorporated into existing sections, like "internal debates".
Regards,
Gold Standard 01:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done, but only used two. I didn't think the others really fit anywhere. I am fine with leaving the rest out. Gold Standard 01:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is not any real difference between 18, 20 (Nixeagle's number), or 22, etc. Nix picked a number and has provided a valuable service in doing do. Our editing analysis should be IAW the EL guidelines. In any event, I'm glad that you are working to make the article more encyclopedic. --S. Rich (talk) 05:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More left than Democrats, more right than Republicans?

Can someone explain to me what this sentence, in the Introduction, means: "It is considered by many to be more left-wing than the Democratic Party but more right-wing than the Republican Party when comparing the parties' positions to each other."

This would appear to defy any logical understanding. I am assuming it is either a joke, or that the contributor meant to say the LP is more liberal than the Democrats on social issues but more conservative than the Republicans on fiscal ones? If so, perhaps it needs changing! 194.70.34.202 (talk) 15:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Libertarian_Party_(United_States)&oldid=521064357"