Talk:Libertarianism/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

Prominence of Viewpoints

According to WP:UNDUE..."Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, giving them "due weight". It is important to clarify that articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all."

Reliable sources clearly indicate the various definitions of Libertarianism are not equally prominent. Yet, the lead and body of this article gives equal coverage to less prominent definitions. When confronted with this problem BigK HeX responded..."Thanks, we've got it covered in the article with, "Right-libertarianism is thought to be better known than left-libertarianism"".

It seems that BigK HeX and others do not understand the concept of proportion. The easiest way to think of proportion is to think of a pie. If reliable sources indicate that one definition is the best known definition then that definition is the largest slice of pie. In other words, it should receive the most coverage in this article. Given that reliable sources and the results for CNN/NPR support the prominence of a single definition (a widely held view) then the other definitions should not be covered in the lead and should only receive proportional coverage in the article.

Libertarianism is founded on classical liberalism. From Omnipotent Government By Ludwig Von Mises...here is the classical liberal view on Anarcho-capitalism and Left-libertarianism / Libertarian socialism...

Liberalism differs radically from anarchism. It has nothing in common with the absurd illusions of the anarchists. We must emphasize this point because etatists sometimes try to discover a similarity. Liberalism is not so foolish as to aim at the abolition of the state. Liberals fully recognize that no social coöperation and no civilization could exist without some amount of compulsion and coercion. It is the task of government to protect the social system against the attacks of those who plan actions detrimental to its maintenance and operation.

The essential teaching of liberalism is that social coöperation and the division of labor can be achieved only in a system of private ownership of the means of production, i.e., within a market society, or capitalism. All the other principles of liberalism - democracy, personal freedom of the individual, freedom of speech and of the press, religious tolerance, peace among the nations - are consequences of this basic postulate. They can be realized only within a society based on private property.

The necessity of the state, private property, capitalism and free markets are all tenets that Libertarians hold dear. Those tenets combined constitute a widely held and very prominent view. It is so widely held that dedicating any less than 95% of this article to those views would be giving undue weight to very minority views. That means that no more than 5 out of every 100 sentences should be dedicated to minority views. Currently this article gives equal weight (coverage) to minority views in blatant and deliberate disregard for the NPOV policy.

Given the overwhelming prominence of the widely held view, based on Primary Topic, this article should be dedicated to that view. Doing so will help prevent future abuse from editors trying to deliberately promote and advertise their very minority views. For the past several years this article has suffered from such abuse and will continue to suffer from such abuse unless the scope of this article is narrowed and clearly delineated. If a viewpoint is clearly contrary to classical liberalism then it should be considered beyond the scope of this article. --Xerographica (talk) 01:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you 100%. The prominence of left-Libertarianism (etc), in the Wikipaedia article on Libertarianism, is absurdly out of proportion to the prominence of left-Libertarianism, vis-à-vis Libertarianism, in the real world. BlueRobe (talk) 01:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is shaping up pretty clearly. You can rage against the machine if you like, but it's looking pretty certain that "dedicating the article" to a single narrow view will be editing against consensus, and I give my assurances that I will personally seek blocks for disruption if any of that type of tendentious WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is attempted. The constant revisiting of this topic with 2 dozen threads in 2 months has gone way beyond tedious -- let the issue go. We edit by collaboration of the community. If the general understanding of the community lines up in a way that you don't like, please get over it and move onto something else. Soapboxing because you don't like community consensus is disruptive, as well. THIS IS NOT A FORUM! BigK HeX (talk) 02:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure I'm not the only editor who would back you up on any complaint. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX, the points made by Xerographica were clear, concise and extremely relevant. In response, you launched into a random soapbox full of hypocritical threats and allegations that have no bearing on the important points raised by Xerographica. STOP TROLLING OR YOU WILL BE REPORTED. BlueRobe (talk) 02:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I heartily welcome scrutiny of the actions here, and believe a report that gets action could vastly improve the productivity of this page. Please, by all means --- begin a notice. Something with the power to have people blocked, if you would. Thanks! BigK HeX (talk) 02:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX, Xerographica's post was a clear, concise, accurate and extremely relevant critique of the so-called reliable sources referred to by those supporting the so-called "broad" construction of the Libertarianism page. His critique was, quite rightly, made vis-à-vis Wikipaedia's own express rules. You failed to address his extremely relevant concerns. Quite frankly, Xerographica post is probably the most significant and relevant post on this entire talk page. But, instead of responding to Xerographica's damning allegations, you launched into tirade where you threatened to seek Blocks for users (Xerographica?) who disagree with your position. This is appalling behaviour on your part. Stop it. BlueRobe (talk) 03:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

From Xerographica's comment:"Yet, the lead and body of this article gives equal coverage to less prominent definitions." According to you, there are only two option: equal or only one. Since it is obvious that they are not equal (for no two things can be equal), you conclude that it should be only one.

It would be much better if you come up with a proposal as to how to proportion the coverage, instead of promoting the absurd idea that only the 'most prominent' view should be talked about. Following your idea, I would argue for removing minarchism, as, as far as I know, Rothbard's views are the most prominent form according to the literature. (Check my earlier post [1]) Yet I am not arguing for it, because your idea is absurd. Earlier you were campaigning for removing 'anarcho-capitalism'[2], now you are campaigning for removing 'left-libertarianism'. If this is not POV pushing, I don't know what is. Your favourite form of libertarianism is not the only form, and as such all have to be covered.

"Liberalism differs radically from anarchism. ..."-- We are talking about libertarianism not liberalism. (That libertarianism arose from classical liberalism, doesn't make liberalism relevant. Also, von Mises definition is 'european' and not the same as that of the English world. Check the quotes from Liberalism: In the Classical Tradition (von Mises) here: [3] and [4]) N6n (talk) 04:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism = classical liberalism + anarchism. According to von Mises, anarchism = absurdity. Therefore, Anarcho-capitalism = classical liberalism + absurdity. According to anarchist literature..."Within Libertarianism, Rothbard represents a minority perspective that actually argues for the total elimination of the state." Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy How minor? Less then 1% of the CNN/NPR results define Libertarianism as wanting to abolish government/private property. That's a fairly good indication of how coverage should be proportioned. That this article gives equal coverage to Anarcho-capitalism and Libertarian socialism clearly indicates how much it has been vandalized and how susceptible it is to being vandalized. --Xerographica (talk) 05:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

News media not RS for political theory

Popular news media ("CNN/NPR") are not reliable sources for claims about political or economic theory. News media are reliable sources for facts about current events. In some circumstances, articles published in news media can be reliable sources for facts that a reporter has researched. But generally, for political theory, we go to academic works in the field, political philosophers, historians of politics, and other reputed authors. For economics, we go to economists.

And we certainly should not use popular news media as sources for the definitions of terms of political or economic theory ... or any other scholarly field. Popular media frequently use terms in ways that diverge widely from their scholarly use: consider the difference between the psychological definitions of "schizophrenia" (or worse, "pedophilia") and the notions of these disorders used by popular media.

If someone (not you or me -- that would be original research) does a study of the various uses of the word "libertarian" in popular media, that study could be an interesting thing to mention in the article. But we wouldn't use it to decide what the article is about. That decision depends on reliable sources within the field -- not polls, or media studies. --FOo (talk) 06:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately the wp:rs standard does not include objectivity and expertise criteria. NPR and CNN, (both acting significantly as political operatives) would certainly not pass the objectivity test, although once NPR has chosen their biased angle/focus of coverage, NPR usually does an accurate job of covering that chosen angle. North8000 (talk) 11:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

FOo, you're missing the point. The problem with this article is lack of proportion based on prominence of the various definitions (viewpoints). Looking at CNN/NPR results is one method of identifying which definitions are most prominent (widely held). In academic circles, left versus right libertarianism is a very popular debate. Counting all the reliable references that mention the debate is not an objective way of deciding how widely held the left-libertarianism viewpoint is. It's like dedicating half the Christianity article to atheism because it's a popular debate. If a political ideology has no political relevance then academic debate is not sufficient justification for inclusion. In any case, left-libertarianism and Anarcho-capitalism combined should not receive more coverage than Ayn Rand. --Xerographica (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

News media cannot be ruled out and have their uses. On the other hand they can trump multiple WP:RS from academics and scholars, since with limited news budgets today, probably 20% of what we read in the news the defines terms or discusses history comes from Wikipedia! CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky

Why is Noam Chomsky given such prominence in the Libertarianism Wikipaedia page? Leaving aside the on-going discussion about the prominence of left-Libertarianism on the page, Noam Chomsky is an Anarcho-syndicalist. Indeed, he's probably the most famous Anarcho-syndicalist in the world. BlueRobe (talk) 08:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The person != the label. 'Anarcho-syndicalist' is only a label. A label is only an approximation, used because we wish to organize our knowledge. A thousand labels, which may contradict each other, can be valid for one person. Chomsky may call himself 'anarchist', 'socialist', 'libertarian', etc, and there is nothing wrong with that. I made this point a month back too. N6n (talk) 11:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

A number of editors concentrate on the differences between the various types of libertarianism rather than their similarities. The right of individuals to deny the holocaust and organize is not accepted by the Left. While the Left may sometimes oppose prosecuting victimless crimes, they do not argue that people have the right to do whatever they want so long as they do not harm others. And the Left is class conscious. It seeks to empower the working class not the community. TFD (talk) 12:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

minimize Noam i am actually a fan of his and have a book in my car, but even Noam acknowledges "left" is a very very small faction in the libertarianism, therefore we should reduce his weight here per his own words. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Source, please. TFD (talk) 13:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

if i provide the source, will it change your mind, if so how? Darkstar1st (talk) 15:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

When claims are made in reliable sources we then examine the subsequent literature in order to determine their degree of acceptance. Please become familiar with WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Obviously we accept consensus that is found in the literature. TFD (talk) 16:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

just a yes or no, if Noam said it in a rs, will you support minimizing Noam, if not, is a waste of your/my time. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Chomsky is not given much prominence in the wiki article. BigK HeX (talk) 17:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

but i think he and left libertarian should both have less, certainly not a debate in the lede as to the definition. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

We know you think that. Consensus appears to think differently about how the article should treat "the definition." You can safely let that issue go, IMO. BigK HeX (talk) 17:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX, I'm not sure you know what the word "consensus" means. Regardless, Chomsky is given way too much prominence in the Libertarianism page. Like Darkstar1st, I'm quite partial to Chomsky. Indeed, I suspect many other Libertarians respect Chomsky's criticisms of the political elite of Western countries. However, Chomsky is not a left-Libertarian (he's an anarcho-syndicalist) and, as such, he is given way too much prominence in the Libertarianism page. Indeed, it strikes me as utterly absurd that Chomsky is given such prominence while Ayn Rand is virtually ignored. BlueRobe (talk) 00:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I know very well what consensus means. The only thing I'm unsure about is whether you respect it. Time will tell... BigK HeX (talk) 02:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Murray Bookchin and his friends probably have greater influence on self-identified libertarian socialist activists. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX and Carolmooredc, is this your special way of finally admitting that left-Libertarianism is, basically, just another a version of Anarchism? BlueRobe (talk) 09:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

They self identify as some sort of libertarian and have lots of WP:RS. That's all that matters under Wikipedia policies. Feel free to find WP:RS that briefly deny they are libertarians and add them. No problema. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

So, basically, you all want to violate WP:Undue Weight? Noam Chomsky, along with so-called 'Left-libertarianism', should be given proportional coverage. Almost no political parties identify as libertarian socialist and popular recognition among libertarians (The group this article is about) is next to none. Adding equal (or 'broad') information for it would be like adding as much coverage for the 'Flat Earth' theory as the correct 'Round Earth' theory; the 'Flat Earth' people are a very small minority, just like self-proclaimed 'Libertarian socialists' (which I would argue is an umbrella term for Anarchism, as well as anti-state Communism and Socialism) are a very small minority. Toa Nidhiki05 15:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Since almost no political parties identify as "Right-libertarian", maybe we shouldn't have any information about right-libertarianism in this article...? Is that how this logic works? BigK HeX (talk) 15:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

That is because 'Right-libertarianism' is a superficial label used only on Wikipedia to justify the existence of 'Left-libertarian' articles. It is commonly and broadly understood that the primary, if not universal, form of libertarianism is what is called 'Right-libertarianism' on this website. Reexamine your logic. Toa Nidhiki05 16:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

"...used only on Wikipedia"? It's silly hysterical hyperbole like that which ends up having editors' opinions disregarded. BigK HeX (talk) 16:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Really. Real libertarians wouldn't hate it so much if it wasn't used so widely!!! Bleah. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

<backdent>FYI, "righties," one reason I fight to keep this in is to educate people to the facts (with lots of WP:RS which I'm accumulating) that in left/socialist libertarians there are issues of how much property current property holders will be "allowed" to hold. There are some left/socialist "libertarians" who would use various forms of organized libertarian action (nonviolent and probably violent, esp. vs. law enforcement protecting private property). There are others that only want redistribution through nonviolent voluntary means. This needs to be in all relevant articles and this one. But only in an NPOV way, which takes a while to put together. Plus, when you get to libertarian decentralism you see a lot more overlap between libetarian groups, another complicated issue I'm sifting through all sorts of WP:RS to document. In the meantime, feel free to look at the amusing quote from Lore Sjöberg on BigK HeX's main user page about those who don't think research or WP:RS are terribly important. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Carolmooredc and BigK HeX, you're being ridiculous. I don't know any right-Libertarians who describe themselves as "right-Libertarians". They call themselves "Libertarians", because, quite obviously, Libertarianism is right-Libertarianism, and we're only using the label "right-Libertarianism" for the purpose of clarification of discussion on this WP talk page. This isn't "silly hysterical hyperbole". This is how these terms are used. As you well know. Your lack of integrity on this bloody obvious point is disappointing. BlueRobe (talk) 01:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's cool the personal attacks on other integrity, especially against those who refer to WP:RS as opposed to "bloody obvious points." CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Carolmooredc, personal attack or otherwise, (it's otherwise), your use of so-called reliable sources are clearly in breach of Wikipaedia:Undue Weight. Or, are you seriously claiming that left-Libertarianism deserves equal weighting with Libertarianism on the Libertarianism page? BlueRobe (talk) 06:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Rothbard on 'left' and 'right' libertarianism

• Several libertarian thinkers, from “left-” and “right”-wing ends of the libertarian spectrum, have delivered trenchant critiques of the totalitarian nature of compulsory public schooling. Thus, left-libertarian British critic Herbert Read: ....

• Left-wing anarchists, for example, will oppose equally government and private organizations such as corporations on the ground that each is equally “elitist” and “coercive.” But the “rightist” libertarian is not opposed to inequality, and his concept of “coercion” applies only to the use of violence.

• In current terminology again, the libertarian position on property and economics would be called “extreme right wing.” But the libertarian sees no inconsistency in being “leftist” on some issues and “rightist” on others. On the contrary, he sees his own position as virtually the only consistent one, consistent on behalf of the liberty of every individual. ...

[For a New Liberty: A Libertarian Manifesto, Rothbard, 1973, 1978, 2002]

• Empirically, Rothbard did not tire to explain, the left-libertarians failed to recognize that the restoration of private-property rights and laissez-faire economics implied a sharp and drastic increase in social "discrimination."

• Libertarians, Rothbard stressed in this connection, must be opposed, as are traditional conservatives (but unlike social democrats, neo-conservatives, and left-libertarians),on principled grounds to any and all centralization of state power, even and especially if such centralization involves a correct judgment (such as that abortion should be legal, or that taxes should be abolished).

• Symbolic of this change in direction was Rothbard's dissociation, in 1989, from the Libertarian Party. Rothbard's action did not, as some prominent left-libertarians vainly proclaimed at the time, mark the end of his association with libertarianism or his role as the libertarian movement's guiding star. Rather, it marked the beginning of a systematic ideological realignment ....

[Introduction by Hans Hermann-Hoppe to The Ethics of Liberty, Rothbard, 1998]

All this to say: 'left-libertarian' is acknowledged even by Rothbard, so there is no question about its 'legitimacy'. N6n (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

That you inadvertently included a reference to the common left/right political concept to justify the uncommon left/right libertarianism concept is a perfect practical example of why we should exclude left-libertarianism. In other words, you can't even distinguish between the two concepts. Incidentally, nobody is denying that left-libertarianism exists...anymore than we would deny that socialism exists. Rather, it is a very minor view within libertarianism and should only receive proportional coverage. However, because of present and past abuses providing it with equal coverage the only logical solution is to exclude it, and Anarcho-capitalism, from the scope of this article in order to prevent future abuse. You folks greedily pushed your extremist views into the lead of this article and will continue to do so unless the scope of this article is narrowed. --Xerographica (talk) 16:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, if you need a hint figuring out which reference I was referring to...it's the one that indicates that libertarianism is synonymous with robust property rights. That should give you an idea how much coverage left-libertarianism should receive in this article. --Xerographica (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh.. if you need a hint figuring out why your soapboxing is less-than--useful, it is because the simple phrase "robust property rights" is not necessarily exclusive of left-libertarians who very strongly advocate theories of self-ownership. Moreover, the phrase "robust property rights" most certainly does NOT -- by itself -- just automatically translate into "the right-libertarian conception of appropriation of natural resources." The only thing I was able to gather from your "finding" of an "inadvertant" reference above is your POV.

But, here's a final hint for you ... believing that a person can't take for himself, what 'rightfully' belongs to others can still be understood as a belief in strong property rights. BigK HeX (talk) 17:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Based on the reference in question using the phrase "extreme right wing", the libertarian position on property would obviously have to include "private ownership of the means of production"...which is the total opposite of left-libertarianism. Therefore, in that instance (and most), "libertarianism" was synonymous with robust property rights. So no, it's not my point of view...it's a matter of being able to differentiate between the common/uncommon left/right concepts. That you've been editing this article for so long now and yet you failed to grasp the point despite my blatant "hint" is even more practical evidence why left-libertarianism should not be included in this article. --Xerographica (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Or ... more likely, the fact that I (and many others) have failed to support your POV is better viewed as an indicator that it is you who fails to get the point. But, feel free to get that push for your POV out of your system ... I expect that this will be one of the last few weeks the community will have to bear it. BigK HeX (talk) 19:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I've not really been involved with this much, but it might be a good idea to stop trolling Xerographica, BigK HeX, or the community might not have to bear you much longer. Toa Nidhiki05 19:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

As I've stated before, I gladly welcome scrutiny of the actions here, and believe a notice that receives action will do much to vastly improve productivity on this article. Please do begin a notice, if you see cause. BigK HeX (talk) 21:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

"All this to say: 'left-libertarian' is acknowledged even by Rothbard, so there is no question about its 'legitimacy'." -- thats all. The validity of the term has little or no relevance for our discussion.

@BigKHex: "The appropriation of natural resources" is certainly a very contentious issue! This is where the left/right discussion becomes useful, the left- (I suppose) asking for some sort of "benefit to all", while the right- arguing for granting full property-rights to those homesteading. While Rothbard supports homesteading, he does not seem to have a plan on how this will proceed.

@Nidhiki05, BigKHex is not trolling. N6n (talk) 09:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Prominence of Viewpoints

According to WP:UNDUE..."Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, giving them "due weight". It is important to clarify that articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all."

Reliable sources clearly indicate the various definitions of Libertarianism are not equally prominent. Yet, the lead and body of this article gives equal coverage to less prominent definitions. When confronted with this problem BigK HeX responded..."Thanks, we've got it covered in the article with, "Right-libertarianism is thought to be better known than left-libertarianism"".

It seems that BigK HeX and others do not understand the concept of proportion. The easiest way to think of proportion is to think of a pie. If reliable sources indicate that one definition is the best known definition then that definition is the largest slice of pie. In other words, it should receive the most coverage in this article. Given that reliable sources and the results for CNN/NPR support the prominence of a single definition (a widely held view) then the other definitions should not be covered in the lead and should only receive proportional coverage in the article.

Libertarianism is founded on classical liberalism. From Omnipotent Government By Ludwig Von Mises...here is the classical liberal view on Anarcho-capitalism and Left-libertarianism / Libertarian socialism...

Liberalism differs radically from anarchism. It has nothing in common with the absurd illusions of the anarchists. We must emphasize this point because etatists sometimes try to discover a similarity. Liberalism is not so foolish as to aim at the abolition of the state. Liberals fully recognize that no social coöperation and no civilization could exist without some amount of compulsion and coercion. It is the task of government to protect the social system against the attacks of those who plan actions detrimental to its maintenance and operation.

The essential teaching of liberalism is that social coöperation and the division of labor can be achieved only in a system of private ownership of the means of production, i.e., within a market society, or capitalism. All the other principles of liberalism - democracy, personal freedom of the individual, freedom of speech and of the press, religious tolerance, peace among the nations - are consequences of this basic postulate. They can be realized only within a society based on private property.

The necessity of the state, private property, capitalism and free markets are all tenets that Libertarians hold dear. Those tenets combined constitute a widely held and very prominent view. It is so widely held that dedicating any less than 95% of this article to those views would be giving undue weight to very minority views. That means that no more than 5 out of every 100 sentences should be dedicated to minority views. Currently this article gives equal weight (coverage) to minority views in blatant and deliberate disregard for the NPOV policy.

Given the overwhelming prominence of the widely held view, based on Primary Topic, this article should be dedicated to that view. Doing so will help prevent future abuse from editors trying to deliberately promote and advertise their very minority views. For the past several years this article has suffered from such abuse and will continue to suffer from such abuse unless the scope of this article is narrowed and clearly delineated. If a viewpoint is clearly contrary to classical liberalism then it should be considered beyond the scope of this article. --Xerographica (talk) 01:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you 100%. The prominence of left-Libertarianism (etc), in the Wikipaedia article on Libertarianism, is absurdly out of proportion to the prominence of left-Libertarianism, vis-à-vis Libertarianism, in the real world. BlueRobe (talk) 01:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is shaping up pretty clearly. You can rage against the machine if you like, but it's looking pretty certain that "dedicating the article" to a single narrow view will be editing against consensus, and I give my assurances that I will personally seek blocks for disruption if any of that type of tendentious WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is attempted. The constant revisiting of this topic with 2 dozen threads in 2 months has gone way beyond tedious -- let the issue go. We edit by collaboration of the community. If the general understanding of the community lines up in a way that you don't like, please get over it and move onto something else. Soapboxing because you don't like community consensus is disruptive, as well. THIS IS NOT A FORUM! BigK HeX (talk) 02:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure I'm not the only editor who would back you up on any complaint. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX, the points made by Xerographica were clear, concise and extremely relevant. In response, you launched into a random soapbox full of hypocritical threats and allegations that have no bearing on the important points raised by Xerographica. STOP TROLLING OR YOU WILL BE REPORTED. BlueRobe (talk) 02:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I heartily welcome scrutiny of the actions here, and believe a report that gets action could vastly improve the productivity of this page. Please, by all means --- begin a notice. Something with the power to have people blocked, if you would. Thanks! BigK HeX (talk) 02:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX, Xerographica's post was a clear, concise, accurate and extremely relevant critique of the so-called reliable sources referred to by those supporting the so-called "broad" construction of the Libertarianism page. His critique was, quite rightly, made vis-à-vis Wikipaedia's own express rules. You failed to address his extremely relevant concerns. Quite frankly, Xerographica post is probably the most significant and relevant post on this entire talk page. But, instead of responding to Xerographica's damning allegations, you launched into tirade where you threatened to seek Blocks for users (Xerographica?) who disagree with your position. This is appalling behaviour on your part. Stop it. BlueRobe (talk) 03:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

From Xerographica's comment:"Yet, the lead and body of this article gives equal coverage to less prominent definitions." According to you, there are only two option: equal or only one. Since it is obvious that they are not equal (for no two things can be equal), you conclude that it should be only one.

It would be much better if you come up with a proposal as to how to proportion the coverage, instead of promoting the absurd idea that only the 'most prominent' view should be talked about. Following your idea, I would argue for removing minarchism, as, as far as I know, Rothbard's views are the most prominent form according to the literature. (Check my earlier post [5]) Yet I am not arguing for it, because your idea is absurd. Earlier you were campaigning for removing 'anarcho-capitalism'[6], now you are campaigning for removing 'left-libertarianism'. If this is not POV pushing, I don't know what is. Your favourite form of libertarianism is not the only form, and as such all have to be covered.

"Liberalism differs radically from anarchism. ..."-- We are talking about libertarianism not liberalism. (That libertarianism arose from classical liberalism, doesn't make liberalism relevant. Also, von Mises definition is 'european' and not the same as that of the English world. Check the quotes from Liberalism: In the Classical Tradition (von Mises) here: [7] and [8]) N6n (talk) 04:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism = classical liberalism + anarchism. According to von Mises, anarchism = absurdity. Therefore, Anarcho-capitalism = classical liberalism + absurdity. According to anarchist literature..."Within Libertarianism, Rothbard represents a minority perspective that actually argues for the total elimination of the state." Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy How minor? Less then 1% of the CNN/NPR results define Libertarianism as wanting to abolish government/private property. That's a fairly good indication of how coverage should be proportioned. That this article gives equal coverage to Anarcho-capitalism and Libertarian socialism clearly indicates how much it has been vandalized and how susceptible it is to being vandalized. --Xerographica (talk) 05:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

News media not RS for political theory

Popular news media ("CNN/NPR") are not reliable sources for claims about political or economic theory. News media are reliable sources for facts about current events. In some circumstances, articles published in news media can be reliable sources for facts that a reporter has researched. But generally, for political theory, we go to academic works in the field, political philosophers, historians of politics, and other reputed authors. For economics, we go to economists.

And we certainly should not use popular news media as sources for the definitions of terms of political or economic theory ... or any other scholarly field. Popular media frequently use terms in ways that diverge widely from their scholarly use: consider the difference between the psychological definitions of "schizophrenia" (or worse, "pedophilia") and the notions of these disorders used by popular media.

If someone (not you or me -- that would be original research) does a study of the various uses of the word "libertarian" in popular media, that study could be an interesting thing to mention in the article. But we wouldn't use it to decide what the article is about. That decision depends on reliable sources within the field -- not polls, or media studies. --FOo (talk) 06:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately the wp:rs standard does not include objectivity and expertise criteria. NPR and CNN, (both acting significantly as political operatives) would certainly not pass the objectivity test, although once NPR has chosen their biased angle/focus of coverage, NPR usually does an accurate job of covering that chosen angle. North8000 (talk) 11:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

FOo, you're missing the point. The problem with this article is lack of proportion based on prominence of the various definitions (viewpoints). Looking at CNN/NPR results is one method of identifying which definitions are most prominent (widely held). In academic circles, left versus right libertarianism is a very popular debate. Counting all the reliable references that mention the debate is not an objective way of deciding how widely held the left-libertarianism viewpoint is. It's like dedicating half the Christianity article to atheism because it's a popular debate. If a political ideology has no political relevance then academic debate is not sufficient justification for inclusion. In any case, left-libertarianism and Anarcho-capitalism combined should not receive more coverage than Ayn Rand. --Xerographica (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

News media cannot be ruled out and have their uses. On the other hand they can trump multiple WP:RS from academics and scholars, since with limited news budgets today, probably 20% of what we read in the news the defines terms or discusses history comes from Wikipedia! CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky

Why is Noam Chomsky given such prominence in the Libertarianism Wikipaedia page? Leaving aside the on-going discussion about the prominence of left-Libertarianism on the page, Noam Chomsky is an Anarcho-syndicalist. Indeed, he's probably the most famous Anarcho-syndicalist in the world. BlueRobe (talk) 08:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The person != the label. 'Anarcho-syndicalist' is only a label. A label is only an approximation, used because we wish to organize our knowledge. A thousand labels, which may contradict each other, can be valid for one person. Chomsky may call himself 'anarchist', 'socialist', 'libertarian', etc, and there is nothing wrong with that. I made this point a month back too. N6n (talk) 11:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

A number of editors concentrate on the differences between the various types of libertarianism rather than their similarities. The right of individuals to deny the holocaust and organize is not accepted by the Left. While the Left may sometimes oppose prosecuting victimless crimes, they do not argue that people have the right to do whatever they want so long as they do not harm others. And the Left is class conscious. It seeks to empower the working class not the community. TFD (talk) 12:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

minimize Noam i am actually a fan of his and have a book in my car, but even Noam acknowledges "left" is a very very small faction in the libertarianism, therefore we should reduce his weight here per his own words. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Source, please. TFD (talk) 13:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

if i provide the source, will it change your mind, if so how? Darkstar1st (talk) 15:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

When claims are made in reliable sources we then examine the subsequent literature in order to determine their degree of acceptance. Please become familiar with WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Obviously we accept consensus that is found in the literature. TFD (talk) 16:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

just a yes or no, if Noam said it in a rs, will you support minimizing Noam, if not, is a waste of your/my time. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Chomsky is not given much prominence in the wiki article. BigK HeX (talk) 17:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

but i think he and left libertarian should both have less, certainly not a debate in the lede as to the definition. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

We know you think that. Consensus appears to think differently about how the article should treat "the definition." You can safely let that issue go, IMO. BigK HeX (talk) 17:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX, I'm not sure you know what the word "consensus" means. Regardless, Chomsky is given way too much prominence in the Libertarianism page. Like Darkstar1st, I'm quite partial to Chomsky. Indeed, I suspect many other Libertarians respect Chomsky's criticisms of the political elite of Western countries. However, Chomsky is not a left-Libertarian (he's an anarcho-syndicalist) and, as such, he is given way too much prominence in the Libertarianism page. Indeed, it strikes me as utterly absurd that Chomsky is given such prominence while Ayn Rand is virtually ignored. BlueRobe (talk) 00:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I know very well what consensus means. The only thing I'm unsure about is whether you respect it. Time will tell... BigK HeX (talk) 02:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Murray Bookchin and his friends probably have greater influence on self-identified libertarian socialist activists. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX and Carolmooredc, is this your special way of finally admitting that left-Libertarianism is, basically, just another a version of Anarchism? BlueRobe (talk) 09:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

They self identify as some sort of libertarian and have lots of WP:RS. That's all that matters under Wikipedia policies. Feel free to find WP:RS that briefly deny they are libertarians and add them. No problema. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

So, basically, you all want to violate WP:Undue Weight? Noam Chomsky, along with so-called 'Left-libertarianism', should be given proportional coverage. Almost no political parties identify as libertarian socialist and popular recognition among libertarians (The group this article is about) is next to none. Adding equal (or 'broad') information for it would be like adding as much coverage for the 'Flat Earth' theory as the correct 'Round Earth' theory; the 'Flat Earth' people are a very small minority, just like self-proclaimed 'Libertarian socialists' (which I would argue is an umbrella term for Anarchism, as well as anti-state Communism and Socialism) are a very small minority. Toa Nidhiki05 15:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Since almost no political parties identify as "Right-libertarian", maybe we shouldn't have any information about right-libertarianism in this article...? Is that how this logic works? BigK HeX (talk) 15:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

That is because 'Right-libertarianism' is a superficial label used only on Wikipedia to justify the existence of 'Left-libertarian' articles. It is commonly and broadly understood that the primary, if not universal, form of libertarianism is what is called 'Right-libertarianism' on this website. Reexamine your logic. Toa Nidhiki05 16:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

"...used only on Wikipedia"? It's silly hysterical hyperbole like that which ends up having editors' opinions disregarded. BigK HeX (talk) 16:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Really. Real libertarians wouldn't hate it so much if it wasn't used so widely!!! Bleah. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

<backdent>FYI, "righties," one reason I fight to keep this in is to educate people to the facts (with lots of WP:RS which I'm accumulating) that in left/socialist libertarians there are issues of how much property current property holders will be "allowed" to hold. There are some left/socialist "libertarians" who would use various forms of organized libertarian action (nonviolent and probably violent, esp. vs. law enforcement protecting private property). There are others that only want redistribution through nonviolent voluntary means. This needs to be in all relevant articles and this one. But only in an NPOV way, which takes a while to put together. Plus, when you get to libertarian decentralism you see a lot more overlap between libetarian groups, another complicated issue I'm sifting through all sorts of WP:RS to document. In the meantime, feel free to look at the amusing quote from Lore Sjöberg on BigK HeX's main user page about those who don't think research or WP:RS are terribly important. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Carolmooredc and BigK HeX, you're being ridiculous. I don't know any right-Libertarians who describe themselves as "right-Libertarians". They call themselves "Libertarians", because, quite obviously, Libertarianism is right-Libertarianism, and we're only using the label "right-Libertarianism" for the purpose of clarification of discussion on this WP talk page. This isn't "silly hysterical hyperbole". This is how these terms are used. As you well know. Your lack of integrity on this bloody obvious point is disappointing. BlueRobe (talk) 01:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's cool the personal attacks on other integrity, especially against those who refer to WP:RS as opposed to "bloody obvious points." CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Carolmooredc, personal attack or otherwise, (it's otherwise), your use of so-called reliable sources are clearly in breach of Wikipaedia:Undue Weight. Or, are you seriously claiming that left-Libertarianism deserves equal weighting with Libertarianism on the Libertarianism page? BlueRobe (talk) 06:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Rothbard on 'left' and 'right' libertarianism

• Several libertarian thinkers, from “left-” and “right”-wing ends of the libertarian spectrum, have delivered trenchant critiques of the totalitarian nature of compulsory public schooling. Thus, left-libertarian British critic Herbert Read: ....

• Left-wing anarchists, for example, will oppose equally government and private organizations such as corporations on the ground that each is equally “elitist” and “coercive.” But the “rightist” libertarian is not opposed to inequality, and his concept of “coercion” applies only to the use of violence.

• In current terminology again, the libertarian position on property and economics would be called “extreme right wing.” But the libertarian sees no inconsistency in being “leftist” on some issues and “rightist” on others. On the contrary, he sees his own position as virtually the only consistent one, consistent on behalf of the liberty of every individual. ...

[For a New Liberty: A Libertarian Manifesto, Rothbard, 1973, 1978, 2002]

• Empirically, Rothbard did not tire to explain, the left-libertarians failed to recognize that the restoration of private-property rights and laissez-faire economics implied a sharp and drastic increase in social "discrimination."

• Libertarians, Rothbard stressed in this connection, must be opposed, as are traditional conservatives (but unlike social democrats, neo-conservatives, and left-libertarians),on principled grounds to any and all centralization of state power, even and especially if such centralization involves a correct judgment (such as that abortion should be legal, or that taxes should be abolished).

• Symbolic of this change in direction was Rothbard's dissociation, in 1989, from the Libertarian Party. Rothbard's action did not, as some prominent left-libertarians vainly proclaimed at the time, mark the end of his association with libertarianism or his role as the libertarian movement's guiding star. Rather, it marked the beginning of a systematic ideological realignment ....

[Introduction by Hans Hermann-Hoppe to The Ethics of Liberty, Rothbard, 1998]

All this to say: 'left-libertarian' is acknowledged even by Rothbard, so there is no question about its 'legitimacy'. N6n (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

That you inadvertently included a reference to the common left/right political concept to justify the uncommon left/right libertarianism concept is a perfect practical example of why we should exclude left-libertarianism. In other words, you can't even distinguish between the two concepts. Incidentally, nobody is denying that left-libertarianism exists...anymore than we would deny that socialism exists. Rather, it is a very minor view within libertarianism and should only receive proportional coverage. However, because of present and past abuses providing it with equal coverage the only logical solution is to exclude it, and Anarcho-capitalism, from the scope of this article in order to prevent future abuse. You folks greedily pushed your extremist views into the lead of this article and will continue to do so unless the scope of this article is narrowed. --Xerographica (talk) 16:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, if you need a hint figuring out which reference I was referring to...it's the one that indicates that libertarianism is synonymous with robust property rights. That should give you an idea how much coverage left-libertarianism should receive in this article. --Xerographica (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh.. if you need a hint figuring out why your soapboxing is less-than--useful, it is because the simple phrase "robust property rights" is not necessarily exclusive of left-libertarians who very strongly advocate theories of self-ownership. Moreover, the phrase "robust property rights" most certainly does NOT -- by itself -- just automatically translate into "the right-libertarian conception of appropriation of natural resources." The only thing I was able to gather from your "finding" of an "inadvertant" reference above is your POV.

But, here's a final hint for you ... believing that a person can't take for himself, what 'rightfully' belongs to others can still be understood as a belief in strong property rights. BigK HeX (talk) 17:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Based on the reference in question using the phrase "extreme right wing", the libertarian position on property would obviously have to include "private ownership of the means of production"...which is the total opposite of left-libertarianism. Therefore, in that instance (and most), "libertarianism" was synonymous with robust property rights. So no, it's not my point of view...it's a matter of being able to differentiate between the common/uncommon left/right concepts. That you've been editing this article for so long now and yet you failed to grasp the point despite my blatant "hint" is even more practical evidence why left-libertarianism should not be included in this article. --Xerographica (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Or ... more likely, the fact that I (and many others) have failed to support your POV is better viewed as an indicator that it is you who fails to get the point. But, feel free to get that push for your POV out of your system ... I expect that this will be one of the last few weeks the community will have to bear it. BigK HeX (talk) 19:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I've not really been involved with this much, but it might be a good idea to stop trolling Xerographica, BigK HeX, or the community might not have to bear you much longer. Toa Nidhiki05 19:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

As I've stated before, I gladly welcome scrutiny of the actions here, and believe a notice that receives action will do much to vastly improve productivity on this article. Please do begin a notice, if you see cause. BigK HeX (talk) 21:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

"All this to say: 'left-libertarian' is acknowledged even by Rothbard, so there is no question about its 'legitimacy'." -- thats all. The validity of the term has little or no relevance for our discussion.

@BigKHex: "The appropriation of natural resources" is certainly a very contentious issue! This is where the left/right discussion becomes useful, the left- (I suppose) asking for some sort of "benefit to all", while the right- arguing for granting full property-rights to those homesteading. While Rothbard supports homesteading, he does not seem to have a plan on how this will proceed.

@Nidhiki05, BigKHex is not trolling. N6n (talk) 09:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

RFC: Should this page discuss only right-libertarianism?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The consensus was:

"Libertarianism" should be broadly construed to include all significant viewpoints from reliable sources.

---

There are two broad camps evident in those who have responded to this RfC:

Firstly there are those who believe that Libertarianism should be construed narrowly. Specifically, they feel that left-libertarian and associated views are not libertarianism, and should not be mentioned on this page.
Editors who hold this viewpoint include: Xerographica, BlueRobe, Darkstar1st, Toa Nidhiki05 Arguments made by this camp include:

• The terms right-libertarian and left-libertarian are invalid, there is only one libertarianism, that is the view , labeled by some, as right-libertarianism.
• 'Right-libertarian' (not withstanding the validity of this term) is the more common, and better known concept, and is the concept meant whenever one sees the term libertarian in the news or popular media (at least in the English-speaking world).
• 'Left-libertarians' are not really libertarians, and are merely co-opting the term 'libertarian' to describe themselves so as to 'muddy the waters'. They may better be described as anarchists.
• Per the disambiguation guideline, this page should only treat the most commonly used meaning of the term 'Libertarianism', and other conceptions should be disambiguated.

Secondly, there is another larger group of editors who believe that Libertarianism should be construed broadly.
Editors who hold this viewpoint include: BigK HeX, Carolmooredc, Jrtayloriv, Iota, NickCT, Zazaban, N6n, FOo, TFD. Notably, all uninvolved editors who came to this page in response to this RfC and who have voted, have voted in this group. Arguments made include:

• Almost all scholarly sources describe libertarianism as having variants, and these variants include 'left-libertarism'.
• Notable people have self-identified as left-libertarian, and have been identified as such by reliable sources.
• All concepts that have been described as 'libertarian' by reliable sources should be represented on this page.
• According to WP:NPV, all significant (as shown by reliable sources) viewpoints should also be represented on the page, more common viewpoints should be given more weight, but significant-minority viewpoints should also be included.
• Other pages on contentious multifaceted ideas include discussion of all concepts encompassed by the term. e.g. Liberalism, Christianity, Conservatism. This page should be no different.

Ultimately, for the purposes of Wikipedia policy, the question comes down to this:
Are the various conceptions of libertarianism currently expressed on the page aspects of the same thing; that is, there is a valid concept 'Libertarianism' that encompasses all of these ideas – just like the idea of Christianity includes Roman Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, etc.
Or,
Is 'right-libertarianism' so different from 'left-libertarianism' and other concepts (e.g. 'geo-libertarianism'), that they are essentially different ideas that should be disambiguated to different pages. That is, the terms represent ideas as different as goldfish (fish) and Goldfish crackers, Queen and Queen (band), and inflation (a rise in prices) and inflation (the early expansion of the universe). In that case, as laid out by the disambiguation guideline, right-libertarianism as the primary topic, should occupy the page.

Wikipedia answers such questions using reliable sources, and in this case, editors who hold the 'libertarianism should be construed broadly' viewpoint have offered multiple reliable sources that attest to the first interpretation. Reliable sources treat, on the same page, multiple variants of libertarianism – treating them as aspects of the same idea. (Unlike, for instance, goldfish and goldfish crackers, which no reliable source treats as aspects of the same thing.)

Editors who hold the 'libertarianism should be construed narrowly' viewpoint have offered reliable sources that use the term libertarian to mean only 'right-libertarian'. They have also argued that this is the primary meaning of the term. However, the fact that some regard the word to mean only one variant of an idea, does not negate the fact that an idea can properly include various variants. I.e. if some reliable sources have used the term Christian to mean only Roman Catholics, this does not mean that the concept of Christianity cannot properly include other Christian denominations, and that the page on Christianity should be restricted to only Roman Catholics.

This still leaves open the question of due and undue weight. Altough all variants should properly be described on this page, the weight given to various viewpoints should depend on their weight in reliable sources. This includes the weight in the lead, which should summurise the article, and reflect the weight given to various ideas in the article. Concepts that are only briefly mentioned in the article need not be mentioned in the lead.

--LK (talk) 07:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Should this page discuss only right-libertarianism, or should it also include other conceptions of libertarianism such as left-libertarianism? LK (talk) 07:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

neither, it should focus on the most widely understood definition of libertarianism which is neither left nor right. Modern libertarians most closely resemble the man who coined the term, Belsham. a free individual being most free within the context of a state which provides stability of the laws. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

To elaborate on the question, there are editors who have been fervently suggesting the the article should be stripped down to only grant coverage of a narrowly construed right-libertarian view that idealizes some form of capitalistic Night watchman state. There is the small chance that I'm misreading the desire of these editors as I'm gathering this from rather vague personal soapbox rants, as opposed to the quotations of any WP:RS. BigK HeX (talk) 10:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• I think you should re-write the question. The sources indicate a concept of libertarianism that has different strands in the same sense that liberalism has different strands (e.g., classical liberalism, social liberalism). The dispute is whether we should use the definition in the literature or the article should be about right-libertarianism only, because some writers mean that when they use the term libertarian. TFD (talk) 08:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by current participants

"Libertarianism" should be construed narrowly

of the unchallenged reliable sources that actually link to text: Liberalism: old and new, Part 1, p 187, Peter Vallentyne, the best known form of libertarianism - right-libertarianism. So if this is the best known form, shouldn't it be here, and the rest on the disambiguation page? Darkstar1st (talk) 09:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

No. Your question itself defies any logical application of policy. There is NO policy which suggests that "an article with multiple prominent viewpoints ["forms"] must only cover the one that may be more popular than the others." If anything, this is the exact opposite of what policy actually tells us to do. BigK HeX (talk) 09:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC..."it is often the case that one of these topics is highly likely – much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined – to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that term in the Search box." Left-libertarianism and Anarcho-capitalism have absolutely no political prominence (relevance). We all know that the only politically relevant libertarian viewpoint is the one that supports private property and acknowledges the necessity of the state. Given its political relevance, that viewpoint is more likely than all the other viewpoints combined to be the subject that people are searching for. Therefore, it should be the primary topic of this article. --Xerographica (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Narrow (comment amended)

I am no fan of the left-right distinction regarding Libertarianism. However, it appears that some editors are pushing to retain a left-wing version of Libertarianism - namely, "left-Libertarianism" - within this article. As a result, the predominant version of Libertarianism has been relabeled "right-Libertarianism", (at least, it has for the purpose of this Wikipaedia talk page).

Right-Libertarianism is the predominant version of Libertarianism. Right-Libertarianism entails a minimalist State that limits its interference into the lives of its citizens to the protection of private property rights (including the enforcement of economic contracts) and the protection of its citizens from physical harm by crime and by war. Ultimately, right-Libertarianism seeks to maximise each person's Negative Liberty (see Isaiah Berlin's "Two Concepts of Liberty"). Right-Libertarianism is a fundamentally individualistic political philosophy that rejects paternalism and Welfarism out of hand. Indeed, it is a fundamental philosophical principle of right-Libertarianism that all conduct by the State be constrained by adherence to the Harm Principle (see John Stuart Mill.) Some philosophers would suggest that one of the distinctive flavours of right-Libertarianism is respect for the principle embodied by Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative, (however, many Libertarians - including many Ayn Rand Objectivists - would dispute this.)

The various forms of so-called left-Libertarianism are akin to variations of Anarchism, Socialism and Communism. Indeed, there is no left version of Libertarianism - there is only Libertarianism (being labeled "right-Libertarianism" here) and a cluster of Anarchist, Socialist and Communist ideologies that have appropriated the name "left-Libertarian" for their collective identity. Examples include:

Libertarian Socialism This is a ridiculously oxymoronic label. Further more, the group of political philosophies it is said to represent appears to have virtually nothing in common with Libertarianism (or Socialism). Indeed, Libertarian Socialism appears to be founded upon a deliberate and conscious opposition to Libertarianism and Socialism. In Particular, Libertarian Socialism prohibits "private property in the means of production", which is entirely inconsistent with one of the core principles of Libertarianism. To be clear, aside from the use of the word "Libertarian" in it's label, Libertarian Socialism has nothing to do with Libertarianism.

Anarcho-Capitalism While this philosophy has much in common with right-Libertarianism, it is, ultimately, a distinct form of Anarchism with a Wikipaedia page of its own. Personally, I do see enough shared commonalities between right-Libertarianism and Anarcho-capitalism to support the inclusion of some discussion of Anarcho-capitalism in the Libertarianism article. That said, Anarcho-capitalism has no place in the lede for the Libertarianism article.

For all practical purposes, it is beyond dispute that right-Libertarianism is clearly the predominant version of Libertarianism. A look at the references in this talk page make it abundantly clear that almost all the noteworthy generic reference tomes describe "Libertarianism" in terms akin to right-Libertarianism. The Encyclopædia Britannica is the world's foremost reliable source. Left-Libertarianism is notable for its absence from the article on Libertarianism in the Encyclopædia Britannica, which observes that:

"Libertarians are classical liberals who strongly emphasize the individual right to liberty. They contend that the scope and powers of government should be constrained so as to allow each individual as much freedom of action as is consistent with a like freedom for everyone else. Thus, they believe that individuals should be free to behave and to dispose of their property as they see fit, provided that their actions do not infringe on the equal freedom of others."

Significantly, the Encyclopædia Britannica's comprehensive article on Libertarianism contains no reference to left-Libertarianism, whatsoever. Meanwhile, while the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy does acknowledge the existence of left-Libertarianism, it recognises that left-Libertarianism is little more than an also-ran ideology: "in addition to the better-known version of libertarianism—right-libertarianism—there is also a version known as "left-libertarianism"."

Similarly, Peter Vallentyne and Hillel Steiner, two of the most recognisable left-Libertarians, have acknowledged that left-Libertarianism has significantly less prominence than "the more familiar right-libertarianism". (Peter Vallentyne and Hillel Steiner (2000). Left-Libertarianism and Its Critics: The Contemporary Debate. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 1).

Meanwhile, the so-called reliable sources of those advocating the inclusion of left-Libertarianism are little more than a collection of rhetoric by a self-congratulatory band of self-important left-wing academics who have made careers out of swapping their mutual endorsements as rewards for their deliberate obfuscation of the concept of "Libertarianism" in the minds of the ignorant. At best, many of the advocates of left-Libertarianism are simply Anarchists and/or Socialists who have tried to squeeze under the moral umbrella of "defenders of liberty/freedom", that is presented by the favoured "Libertarian" label, by misusing the contrivance of Isiaiah Berlin's Positive Liberty.

Right-libertarianism is entirely incompatible with left-Libertarianism to the extent that left-Libertarianism: endorses the Positive Liberty concept of "freedom", opposes private property rights, supports taxation (to support Welfarism etc), endorses the Machiavellian exploitation or sacrifice of the individual for the collective good, supports a sizable State apparatus that goes beyond that required to perform the functions of a Minarchist role for government, endorses coercion and paternalism in violation of the Harm Principle, endorses needs-based distributive justice (Marxism) and endorses egalitarian-based distributive justice. Any commonalities that left and right Libertarianism do share are trivial, at best. They are, to coin a phrase, as different as chalk and cheese. Indeed, the "liberty" endorsed by left-Libertarianism, such as it is, is virtually incommensurable with the "liberty" endorsed by right-Libertarianism - each embraces their own distinct flavour of freedom. Thus, any attempt to merge left and right Libertarianism into a single article Libertarianism article, where terms like "liberty" entail contradictory - nigh incommensurable - meanings, can only lead to confusion for the readers.

Further more, in practice, almost all the self-styled "Libertarian" political parties and political activist groups around the world advocate variations of right-Libertarianism, including the Libertarianz (sic) Party of New Zealand, the Libertarian Party of Canada, the Libertarian Party of the United Kingdom, the Russian Libertarian Movement and the Libertarian Party of the United States.

There is also an interesting statistical observation. It's is clear that the ideology of Libertarianism has widespread recognition. Indeed, the Libertarian candidates in US Presidential elections routinely gain hundreds of thousands of votes (Ed Clark won 921,128 votes in 1980 and Bob Barr won 523,686 votes in 2008). Further more, Google shows 3.4 million hits for "Libertarianism". But, for all this popular recognition of Libertarianism, Google shows only 32,700 hits for "left-Libertarianism", (that's less than 1%!). Evidently, left-Libertarianism is such a fringe ideology that even the Libertarians haven't noticed it.

Right-Libertarianism is the predominant version of Libertarianism. The variations of so-called left-Libertarianism belong on a separate disambiguation page. Indeed, the cynic in me would respectfully suggest that the so-called "left-Libertarianism" is little more than an exercise in Orwellian doublespeak designed to sabotage the Libertarianism article with pointless tangents that are designed to confuse and obstruct the curious reader. BlueRobe (talk) 11:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't how imagine the mainstream view of Libertarianism could be called "right". Don't know if you've ever seen the "square" used to explain / define it, but the social / behavior half it is the same as the left. North8000 (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

North8000, (I have assumed that you are responding to my post and have indented your post for the sake of appearances - please correct this if my assumption is mistaken, with my apologies.)

I don't have a strong belief that Libertarianism is right wing. Indeed, it's one of the great ironies of a simplistically linear left-right political spectrum that right-Libertarianism is regularly branded as extremely right-wing, alongside Nazism, while Socialism - the basic foundation for all authoritarian and totalitarian ideologies - is popularly labeled left-wing. Clearly, right-Libertarianism transcends the simplistic approach of a linear political spectrum, while left-Libertarianism is just a generic label for a cluster of Anarchist, Socialist and Communist ideologies.

I am familiar with the "square". As I have noted, the labels of "left-Libertarianism" and "right-Libertarianism" are being used in this discussion for the sake of mere convenience. Frankly, the vast majority of Libertarians would reject the labels of "left-Libertarianism" and "right-Libertarianism" because, quite simply, there is no left version of Libertarianism - there is only Libertarianism (being labeled "right-Libertarianism" here) and a cluster of Anarchist, Socialist and Communist ideologies that have appropriated the name "left-Libertarian". BlueRobe (talk) 23:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The link to Encyclopedia Britannica provided by Blue Robe says in the lead, "Libertarianism’s distrust of government is rooted in 19th-century anarchism."[9] TFD (talk) 17:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Narrow

Even though libertarianism is socially liberal and economically conservative you would not say that it is a form of liberalism or a form of conservatism. Libertarianism is half liberalism and half conservatism. Anarcho-capitalism is half classical liberalism and half anarchism. It is not a form of libertarianism. Libertarian socialism is half socialism and half anarchism. It is not a form of libertarianism.

The distinctions are clear yet anarchists want to use this page to advertise their ideologies. They've gotten away with it for the past three years citing sources that give no indication to proper weight or relevance. The anarchists' views should solely be represented on the disambiguation page.

If people are interested in learning about Libertarian socialism or Anarcho-capitalism they would just google for those terms and find the wikipedia articles on those subjects. Why google for "libertarianism" if you are interested in learning about Anarcho-capitalism or Libertarian socialism? In mainstream media "libertarianism" is commonly understood to mean robust property rights, capitalism, social liberalism, free-markets and minimal government. This article should solely reflect mainstream usage. To do otherwise would give undue weight to extreme views. --Xerographica (talk) 13:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

They actually support economic liberalism not economic conservatism. TFD (talk) 14:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

You should have at least looked at the 2 references on the economic conservatism page before using that definition to support your "correction". Fiscal conservatism is synonymous with economic conservatism which is very similar to if not synonymous with economic liberalism and classical liberalism. The title of the economic liberalism article is misleading enough for some "less educated" person to think that economic conservatism had to mean the complete opposite...which you bought despite there not being a single reference supporting that definition. Liberals do not support classical liberalism while conservatives mostly do and libertarians certainly do. We have to say "economically conservative" because "economically liberal" implies the modern liberal approach to the economy which is state interventionism. --Xerographica (talk) 00:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

TFD, isn't it clear that Xerographica (and the Wikipaedia articles linked to) used the terms "liberal" and "conservative" as nouns, not as adjectives? I guess yours is just one more example of how vague terms like "liberal", "conservative", "left" and "right" just lead to more confusion. BlueRobe (talk) 00:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Narrow

BlueRob is absolutely correct here; 'Libertarian socialism' is little more than anarchists trying to rebrand themselves. The predominant, almost universal libertarian ideology is 'Right-libertarianism'. Toa Nidhiki05 20:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

'Who is trying to do what' is not relevant. Do [WP:RS] talk about it? The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy divides l. into right- and left-. The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought divides l. into anarcho-capitalism and minarchism. Yet some people here want the article to only cover minarchism. This has been pointed out tens of times already! It is quite frustrating. (links: [10] and [11]) N6n (talk) 10:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

"Libertarianism" should be construed broadly

• Broad. Because unchallenged reliable sources indicate that there exists a view that the anarchist and egalitarian understandings are merely variants encompassed by a more basic concept of "libertarianism", the article should discuss this understanding. Additionally, those wishing to strip this viewpoint have made no serious effort to show that people choosing to seek information on libertarianism would wish only right-libertarianism, and so much so that a censored right-libertarian article is "much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined – to be the subject being sought when a reader clicks the "Go" button for that term." Even further, having the wiki article encompass broad variations seems to be the convention pursued on basically every other article on political ideology having variants, even when the varying implementations may -- in some areas -- be in conflict with one another.

1. See Socialism which incorporates variations as conflicting as Marxist completely government-planned economies and anarchist completely government-less decentralized societies.
2. See Conservatism which has to incorporate material on both fiscal conservatives and social conservatives.
3. See Monarchy which has to give coverage to absolutist and constitutionally limited variants.

Given the commonplace treatment of this issue throughout Wikipedia, the reliable sources presented to indicate prominence, and the lack of strong reasons to censor the material, I think the matter was never really worthy of debate. BigK HeX (talk) 08:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Broad. WP:NPOV reads: All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors. While some good issues have been raised re: sourcing, etc., the constant barage of soapbox and threats to gut the article have had disruptive effect of discouraging editing of whole article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Broad -- per TFD and CarolMooreDC. There are plenty of reliable sources that discuss left libertarianism, libertarian socialism, etc. Per WP:NPOV we should discuss those. All of the !voting, original research, and debate not backed by reliable sources above is irrelevant. Just take a look at left libertarianism or libertarian socialism and you can see that there are plenty of reliable sources talking about each. We will represent these views here per WP:NPOV, whether people who don't agree with these terms (or who think they are ridiculous, stupid, oxymoronic, etc.) like it or not. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 14:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Broad-- Libertarianism is a vague term with a long and complex history. It far pre-dates the adoption of the term by certain classical liberals in the 1950s. In the contemporary world many understand "libertarianism" as a socialist philosophy, especially outside of the United States. The only common thread is that libertarianism means advocacy of individual freedom. This article shouldn't adopt a narrow or partisan definition.

On a side note, it's disappointing that many of the comments under this heading are devoted to bickering about the phrasing of the question, rather than addressing the substantive problem. Everyone recognises that free-market "libertarianism" contains both right- and left-wing ideas. The term "right libertarianism" arises from the fact that free-market "libertarianism" is obviously to the right of "left libertarianism".

On this talkpage we clearly need some sort of neutral terms to distinguish the different philosophies that call themselves libertarian. If you don't like "right libertarianism" please suggest a better alternative. Iota (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Broad-- All WP:NOTABLE political ideologies that grouped by reliable sources under the unmbrella term libertarianism ought to be included. NickCT (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
• Broad-- All versions are notable, all are grouped together by reliable sources. No NPOV reason has yet been given for the narrow approach. Zazaban (talk) 01:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

While the provided left-Libertarian sources are relevant to the proposition that left-Libertarianism exists, they are not reliable sources for the proposition that left-Libertarianism is a prominent (let alone, the predominant) version of Libertarianism. Indeed, most of them do not even appear to address the issue of left-Libertarianism's prominence as a form of Libertarianism at all. Further more, as has been shown by myself (above), even the Vallentyne and Steiner source suggests that, when compared with right-Libertarianism, left-Libertarianism is, at best, an obscure version of Libertarianism, (even if one accepts the dubious proposition that left-Libertarianism truly is a version of Libertarianism). The advocates of the broad construction of the Libertarianism article, who are endlessly repeating their mantra about reliable sources, need to recognise that their so-called reliable sources have missed the mark by a wide margin.

Seriously, how many of you have even examined the so-called reliable sources you keep referring to? BlueRobe (talk) 05:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone here has ever claimed that left-libertarianism is the predominant form of libertarianism, which would be incorrect. Zazaban (talk) 05:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

TFD, BigK HeX, Carolmooredc, Jrtayloriv, Iota, NickCT and Zazaban, please show us where your so-called "reliable sources" indicate that left-Libertarianism is a prominent version of Libertarianism.

From my examination of them, they do little more than merely refer to left-Libertarianism. As such, they are not reliable sources for the proposition that left-Libertarianism is a prominent version of Libertarianism. BlueRobe (talk) 06:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Evidence alone is enough to reasonably support the idea of left-libertarianism being prominent. Otsuka's book on left-libertarianism has over 100 citations. IMO, only unreasonable POV pushing editors would disregard such evidence of a viewpoint's prominence. BigK HeX (talk) 14:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is a link to a book about British left-libertarians: William Morris, Oscar Wilde]], George Orwell, Aldous Huxley and others - all prominent and arguably more so than David Nolan and Harry Browne. TFD (talk) 15:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

So which are you saying?:

1. Left-Libertarianism should be covered.
2. The overall article wording and coverage should accept the premise that tha "right" and "left" classifications are legit, useful or accepted by practitioners with respect to the most prevalent forms of Libertarianism?

North8000 (talk) 15:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Not to speak for TFD, but we've been pretty consistent in saying:

1. Reliable sources show Left-Libertarianism as a prominent view, and thus policy demands that it should be covered.
2. The overall article wording and coverage should discuss the "right" and "left" classifications, since it is prominent in reliable source. Whether they are legit, useful or accepted by practitioners with respect to the most prevalent forms of Libertarianism is immaterial to whether the classifications get discussed at all. With reliable sources, we can make sure to even cover whether the classifications are "legit, useful, or accepted" [and, in fact, the article already discusses whether it is accepted]. But, this is mostly irrelevant to the fact that the article should give coverage to the classification in some manner or another. BigK HeX (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Left and right are used, even if we don't like it. So it is up to us to find and integrate WP:RS for other descriptions used by self-described libertarians, be they spectrums of statist to anti-statist, pro and anti-property, more individualist to more collectivist, or other categories I'll add as I think of them. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The last two commenters said that #1 should happen. But both evaded directly answering the question #2. I think that a straight answer to #2 would help sort this out. North8000 (talk) 22:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

North8000, as even most self-declared Libertarians had never even heard of left-Libertarianism before seeing Wikipaedia's Libertarianism article, I don't see how the TFD and BigK HeX (etc.) could possibly claim that the ""right" and "left" classifications are legit, useful or accepted by practitioners". BlueRobe (talk) 00:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

That may be because we read books rather than polling people who think they are libertarians. A lot of people call themselves liberals and conservatives too without knowing what those terms mean. TFD (talk) 00:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, right...because nobody at CNN or NPR reads books. Or maybe they read books, poll people and have common sense. --Xerographica (talk) 01:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Broad -- Our goal is not to look good or coherent or sensible. Our goal is to represent whatever 'libertarianism' means. If RS talk about contradictory views, then we talk about contradictory views. If RS confuse the issue, then we confuse the issue. N6n (talk) 11:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Broad -- Because the history of the libertarian movement itself is broad. Because libertarianism is not just a narrow ideological doctrine, but a movement with a history and a rich variety of views. Because the mid-20th-century libertarian revival came out of a productive ideological exchange between minarchists, individualist anarchists, disaffected conservatives, and the New Left: i.e. because Murray Rothbard, Karl Hess, and Samuel Konkin worked together. Because you can't tell the early history of libertarianism without Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker, who were not rightists. Because defining the agorists, the geolibertarians, the individualist anarchists as "not libertarian" merely because they aren't rightists (or propertarians) is mere factionalism. Because those who seek to exclude left-libertarianism generally don't even know what it is. Oh ... and because reliable sources, scholars of the subject, talk about all this. --FOo (talk) 18:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Fubar, do you agree we should merge this article with the disambiguation page which has the exact same terms listed? Darkstar1st (talk) 18:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't object to the existence of a dab page listing various senses of the term, but it doesn't really seem necessary -- the only sense that really needs disambiguating is the metaphysical free-will one (antonym of "determinist"). My point is that this article should not adopt the viewpoint of a particular faction of the diverse libertarian movement, but should deal with the whole zucchini. --FOo (talk) 22:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Broad, as it is described in sources. TFD (talk) 11:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Support for Neither/Other

Comments by uninvolved outsiders

What do you mean by "uninvolved"? Anybody who looks enough at this to make an intelligent comment is no longer "uninvolved". North8000 (talk) 09:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Usually, it means editors who haven't actually been changing the article to reflect one view or the other -- even better, if you've had little previous interaction with the editors who have been editing the article recently. BigK HeX (talk) 09:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Well I guess that's me.

Faulty question The question presumes a (IMHO wrong) answer to the biggest open question. By most frameworks, Libertarianism is DEFINED by being neither "left" nor "right". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Lifelong avid party-less libertarian

I think you've answered a bit too quickly. Whether libertarianism "properly" resides on the left/right/neither end of the spectrum is not really the question here. Whether the labels are misleading or not, there actually are understandings called Left libertarianism and Right libertarianism. Editors on this page have been pushing to have the article narrowed to include only information about libertarianism which would likely be classified a some implementation of Right libertarianism. The question here is how the views of reliable sources should be treated. How would stripping the article down to a much narrower discussion of Libertarianism affect the article's compliance with the Due/Undue Weight policy.

I didn't get into coverage or non-coverage of all significant viewpoints, if only as such. I, in essence said that the wording of the question presupposes invalidity of widest held viewpoint, that Libertarianism is by definition neither left nor right. North8000 (talk) 10:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Excellent point I've stuck in the article myself, but it needs to be more of a lead concept. Getting some similar quotes from lefty libs would help (Greens are only ones who also have used that concept and some of them a libertarian socialists.) More on the statist - anti-statist spectrum would help and there doubtless are some WP:RS on that if we look. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope to read all three of the articles over the next few days in order to give a thoughtful informed answer. But here's my quick thoughts at the moment. Our mission should be to provide an informative article, and a part of that is to explore and inform on all significant meanings of the term that are somewhat related. And so all of these things that everybody is talking about here should be covered. That said, since the terms "right" and "left" are fundamentally faulty with respect to the most common meanings of the term "Libertarian" you've got to get away from such classifications and purge them from the main coverage. Just cover what those who significantly use those terms mean by them. I've been an avid Libertarian for many decades, and I never heard of of "right libertarian" and "left libertarian" until a few days ago when I jumped down the rabbit hole of this trio of articles. North8000 (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The labels you speak of are largely the result of partisan bickering of the kind seen here. Zazaban (talk) 20:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

North8000, I'd never heard of those labels either before reading this article a month or so ago. Let me get you up to speed. We're talking about two different left/right concepts. As you've mentioned, the common left/right concept does not apply to libertarianism. What's referred to in this article is the uncommon left/right concept which refers to social anarchism {Libertarian socialism} on the left, libertarianism in the middle and capitalist anarchism {Anarcho-capitalism} on the right. Carolmooredc is an anarchist, BigK HeX can't distinguish between reliable and relevant sources and TFD doesn't believe that libertarians are economically conservative. --Xerographica (talk) 23:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Libertarians are not economically conservative or conservative in any way. Right-libertarians for example are economically liberal. TFD (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

North8000, you're not alone. I'd never heard of left-Libertarianism before seeing the Wikipaedia Libertarianism article, either. Most Libertarians are in the same boat. Interestingly, while Google shows 3.4 million hits for "Libertarianism", it shows only 32,700 hits for "left-Libertarianism". Evidently, left-Libertarianism is such a fringe ideology that even the Libertarians haven't noticed it. BlueRobe (talk) 00:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Writers use terms in order to describe different takes of ideologies. for example, the competing ideologies in the U. S. are called Whig/democrat, Girondin/Jacobin, conservative/liberal, liberal/radical, right/left, right liberal/left liberal, conservative liberal/social liberal, constitutional/civic, etc. But no one disputes that there are ideological differences between the two camps. TFD (talk) 04:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Your comment contains an implied premise that the various opinions can be described as "two camps". This premise is unestablished at best, and IMHO, wrong. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Wrong or not, that is how these topics are treated in the literature. TFD (talk) 14:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you you are blending two different questions....."suitable to be covered" vs. accepting your implied "division" premise. By "treated in literature" are you saying that

1. There is significant coverage in literature of "right-libertarian" and "left libertarian"
2. That literature pervasively says that mainstream Libertarianism divides itself into those 2 camps.

Your premise relies on #2 being the case, which IMHO is certainly not the case. North8000 (talk) 15:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

"I'd never heard of left-Libertarianism" And this proves something? Hail the omniscient beings! N6n (talk) 16:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Obviously a single statement like that does not "prove" anything so that's sort of a straw man statement. But it does reinforce that such a term or categorization has nothing to do with the common meanings / practices of the term. North8000 (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) To me this appears to be a case of determining, if left/right libertarianism are forms of libertarianism. In that case, treating them in the same article would make sense (if they're independently notable, they might additionally have articles of their own). If on the other hand e.g. left-libertarianism would be an ideology that isn't a sub-unit of libertarianism, then it would IMO make sense to have a disambiguation link here/elsewhere pointing to that article. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Dailycare, left-Libertarianism is certainly not a "sub-unit of libertarianism". If anything, it is a hybrid/sub-unit of Anarchism, Communism and Socialism. The only reason that left-Libertarianism (aka Libertarian Socialism) even has the word "Libertarian[ism]" in its title is because of an archaic use of that word by some revolutionary Anarchist groups in the 19th century. BlueRobe (talk) 03:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

@North8000: Only statements of the form "I have studied libertarianism diligently, and I never heard of left-libertarianism" makes sense. Yet such a statement would be false, a simple www search proves that. The motives or the intelligence of those talking about 'left-libertarian' doesn't concern us. N6n (talk) 04:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

N6n, as i have noted previously: Google shows 3.4 million hits for "Libertarianism". But, Google shows only 32,700 hits for "left-Libertarianism", (that's less than 1%!). BlueRobe (talk) 06:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Your use of those numbers is quite illogical. BigK HeX (talk) 06:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The Kakapo is a native bird of New Zealand (an insignificant country with a population of only 4 million). The Kakapo gets 1,330,000 hits on Google. "Left-Libertarianism" gets only 32,700 hits. Clearly, left-Libertarianism is a fringe ideology. BlueRobe (talk) 06:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

What is your point? Let's just get to the heart of it. What will it take for you to stop incessantly harping on this subject? If I take the Google logic, and personally use it to make sure that left-libertarianism is not getting more weight than it's supposed to -- relative to "common US libertarianism" as you called it above (or right-libertarianism, as you also called it) -- would you just start harping on something else ... or actually give the article a rest for a few months? BigK HeX (talk) 06:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX, I am making constructive commentary in an effort to remedy the utter absurdity of Libertarianism sharing equal prominence with left-Libertarianism (etc) on the Wikipaedia Libertarianism page. Here's my solution: left-Libertarianism goes on the "left-Libertarianism" Wikipaedia page (which already exists, along with separate Libertarian Socialism and Social anarchism pages); and Libertarianism occupies the "Libertarianism" Wikipaedia page.

It is absolutely astounding that Libertarianism has been relegated to the status of an also-ran ideology, on its own Wikipaedia page, just so it can share the page with an ideology that already has multiple Wikipaedia pages of its own. BlueRobe (talk) 07:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

And you're telling us that left-libertarianism is an "also-ran ideology" based on ... what? The Google hits thing? BigK HeX (talk) 07:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Based on the reliable sources that I have provided in my extensive post that I atttached to my "narrow" vote (above). For goodness sake, the Encyclopædia Britannica doesn't even recognise it. My references to Google are just a little spice to inject some common sense where reasoned argument has failed.

Seriously, what is so wrong with the idea that left-Libertarianism goes on the "left-Libertarianism" Wikipaedia page while Libertarianism goes on the "Libertarianism" page? BlueRobe (talk) 07:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Libertarian socialism is not an ideology, it is an umbrella term used to describe, among other things, Anarchism, socialism, and communism. Since it is not an ideology, it has no place on an ideology page; I would understand adding it if this were a disambiguation page, but it is not. This deserves little more than a trivia note and a link, if anything.

On another note, expecting equal coverage of it on this page is absurd, seeing as it is neither an ideology, nor is it even a common term. If someone walked up to you and said 'I'm a Libertarian', would you not automatically assume they are what this website calls 'Right-libertarian'? Unless stated otherwise, the word 'Libertarian' is almost always used to refer to the 'Right-Libertarian' ideology. Toa Nidhiki05 17:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The issue is not giving "left libertarianism/libertarian socialism" as much weight, since it's pretty much agreed per WP:RS that they are less well known world wide. The issue is whether to completely eliminate them from the article, which is against NPOV policy. FYI. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

arbitrary break

This looks like a tertiary source on the subject, and it says that left- and right-libertarianism are versions of libertarianism. Now if left-libertarianism is a minority view (this depends on the weights in WP:RS, in fact that source seems to say that it is a minority view) then it can have a relatively short passage in this article, with a link to the left-libertarianism article. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 07:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Dailycare, that sounds agreeable to me. A small section, (with a link and a few sentences over 2 or 3 paragraphs) where left-Libertarianism is defined and juxtaposed against Libertarianism with regards to its key differences (such as communal versus individual property rights and the differences regarding the role and size of government), sounds very reasonable to me. Obviously, left-Libertarianism has no place in the lede. BlueRobe (talk) 07:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It already has a short passage in the article. I don't see it reasonably needing to be cut further. BigK HeX (talk) 07:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It currently has a lot more than that. Indeed, the term "left-Libertarianism" occurs equally as often as "right-Libertarianism" on the Libertarianism page. BlueRobe (talk) 08:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

My point stands. Its passage is ALREADY SHORT. BigK HeX (talk) 14:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Your point fails. "Left-Libertarianism" is not limited to the small passage you refer to. It is expressly referred to all through the Libertarianism page, including the lede. BlueRobe (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh.. you're referring to the portions of the article discussing the broad swath of libertarian history and the part that is supposed to summarize the contents of the article??? My point stands. BigK HeX (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

<backdent>While earlier versions of the lead did have too much about left libertarianism, currently it is more proportional. The bigger issue is that anarchism vs. minarchism should come first and economic issues that separate "left-right" or whatever you want to call the divisions over property should come second. That is what would be logical in an anti-state philosophy article. My flooded cellar is almost clean and I've finished resodding the yard, so I may yet get there with certain changes I'm half way finished with throughout article that will clarify all points. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

My experience on these kind of discussions is that it's sometimes easier to discuss a specific edit than to agree that "viewpoint x" should have less weight in the article. --Dailycare (talk) 21:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Trend of RfC

Not sure how long this is supposed to go on, but I do think it is significant that after 2 whole days we have 8 explicitly signed on in bold for broad and 2 for narrow, with a few who may having problems with the definitions of terms and thus did not explicitly sign on. Can we at least start to think about dropping the constant demands that most forms of libertarianism be dropped from the article? If the disambiguation page is redundant to this article, that's a topic for its talk page, not this one. It has been a very lean disambiguation page in the past and could be again, if people insisted. (I myself did in the past, but now don't really care.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

disagree, instead we should proceed to arbitration, as it is obvious no consensus, and mediation would yield little result. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Carolmooredc, I count 5 people supporting the narrow construction and 8 people supporting the broad construction. BlueRobe (talk) 02:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Then, perhaps count better...? BigK HeX (talk) 03:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I now see 3 boldly declaring narrow; 8 boldly declaring broad, and 1 without the bold declaring "Broad." And still a few who haven't explicitly declared. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there anybody who can clarify the core issue of this dispute? (CORE ISSUE, not talking points) Is it:

1. Folks who want to have / not have coverage of what some folks mean by "left / right Libertarianism?"
2. Folks who want to / not to continue to categorize / name mainstream Libertarianism as left/right Libertarianism? (IMHO a conflict with reality)
3. Some people-dynamics issue not driven by any fundamental dispute?
4. Some right or left or liberal or conservative persons wishing to further their causes via how this article or trio of articles is written?
5. Something else

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration does not consider content dispute and since only a few editors reject the overwhelming consensus that the article should be about libertarianism as it is described in reliable sources, the issue would seem to have been decided. TFD (talk) 22:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyone care to provide an answer? North8000 (talk) 22:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

5. Whether to define the topic based on how it is normally described in academic sources or to use the definition used in popular U. S. sources. The second approach would exclude some of the theories in academic sources but may include other theories that academic sources exclude. However, the "narrow" supporters have not presented a source for what the limits of libertarianism are. TFD (talk) 23:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

North8000, the basic issue is this: Should the Libertarianism Wikipaedia article include both right-Libertarianism (where this term does not enjoy popular usage and is used here solely to distinguish Libertarianism from left-Libertarianism in this talk page) and left-Libertarianism, or should discussion of left-Libertarianism be removed from the main Wikipaedia article and listed on the Libertarianism disambiguation page? Note that left-Libertarianism already has at least three separate Wikipaedia articles: Libertarian Socialism, left-Libertarianism and Social anarchism). I hope this helps. BlueRobe (talk) 00:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you to both of you.

1. So I assume that there is nobody specifically arguing for calling the common US Libertarianism "right" Libertarianism?
2. Is somebody arguing that common US Libertarianism be given a specialty name so as downplay or avoid the concept that it is the "main" form?

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

No. 5: People who want only minimal state pro-property views mentioned at all in the article for any country, despite WP:NPOV policy calling for mentioning "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." They don't want to call it "right" they just want it to be the only form mentioned at all. They have been soapboxing about it disruptively for 8 months, including through personal attacks and as Anon IPs, new editors (once anonymous IPs banned) and a couple of sock puppets. People who want their way and think badgering other editors, even when they are in a small minority, is the way to go. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

North8000, the common US Libertarianism is right-Libertarianism and is the predominant version of Libertarianism. Indeed, if common US Libertarianism is not representative of Libertarianism, then I don't know what is (unless I have completely misunderstodd what you mean by "common US Libertarianism"). BlueRobe (talk) 02:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that we are saying the same thing. The only slight difference is that I was pointing out that adding an adjective ( e.g. "right") makes is sound less like the main one. North8000 (talk) 10:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

We have the same problem with the term Liberalism which in the U. S. typically refers to one type of liberalism. The other type is usually called "Conservatism". But that does not mean we re-write those articles to reflect what the average American thinks they mean. TFD (talk) 16:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

North8000, I completely agree. I don't like the use of "right-Libertarianism" at all. But, sometimes we do so in the Libertarianism talk pages (only) simply to distinguish it from left-Libertarianism during discussions/threads about left-Libertarianism. Otherwise, I would never think of using that term. BlueRobe (talk) 22:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the terms 'right-libertarian' and 'left-libertarian' are generally not favoured by libertarians themselves. However, they are not terms invented by the editors here or restricted to Wikipedia. Instead they are commonly used terms (see [[12])], [13]), that appear in reliable sources ([14], [15]), including scholarly articles ([16], [17]), and are generally accepted terms used to differentiate between the two most common variants of Libertarianism. LK (talk) 02:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Which just makes the point that their are sufficient WP:RS for both variants to be included in this article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

North8000, note there is an article called Libertarianism in the United States. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

LK, no one is denying that left-Libertarianism exists. What is at issue is the excessive weight given to left-Libertarianism in the Libertarianism page.

While we have used terms like "right-Libertarianism" for the clarification of discussions in this talk page, that term has no relevance in the real world. And frankly, even referring to left-Libertarianism as being a "version" of Libertarianism is absurd. It is not a version of Libertarianism - it's a completely separate Anarchist/Socialist/Communist ideology that has nothing in to do with the predominant concept of Libertarianism.

I have absolutely no doubt, whatsoever, that Libertarians around the world will be shocked and appalled at the prominence of left-Libertarianism on the Libertarianism page, and that can only bring Wikipaedia into disrepute. BlueRobe (talk) 03:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

BlueRobe: The issue is not weight (except here and there in lead for me anyway when it got to weighty) as much as whether these topics should ever be mentioned at all. That's what the last 8 months of soapboxing and harassment have been about. If it was just weight, the issue would have been resolved long ago. So LK's characterization in original RfC was correct. As was his merely pointing out both terms are used widely. (The new smoke screen of "neither left nor right" is just another ploy to get an "left" or socialist libertarianism out of the article. I'm the one who keeps putting in the refs for neither left nor right; got a new one in fact.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The weight issue is incredibly relevant. "Left-Libertarianism" is mentioned equally as often as right-Libertarianism. This is utterly absurd! It's akin to referring to "God" equally as often as "the big bang" on The Big Bang Wikipaedia page. Lord knows, it would have enough reliable sources to justify putting God on the page. BlueRobe (talk) 01:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Weight would be judged by total number of words and on that score pro-property free market libertarianism is mentioned far more in whole article. After all that's the way I wrote a lot of it to be. (Others have put in some more lefty stuff, but not much. And some marketeers have even demanded that the box requesting more info on collectivists be left in. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

RFC conclusion

Looks like things are winding down for the RfC with involved editors going off onto different threads and topics, so let's go through the RfC.

Of those supporting some form of narrow writing of the libertarianism article, we have:

1. Darkstar1st suggests that anything other than the best-known form of libertarianism should be on a disambiguation page.
2. BlueRobe's original response looked like nothing but a huge Wall-O'-Soapboxing, and after the constant barrage of that over the last few weeks, I certainly am not motivated to go through his amended (i.e., expanded) comments.
3. Xerographica introduced some sort of unsourced philosophizing about links to classical liberalism. He tells us (without sources) that "In mainstream media 'libertarianism' is commonly understood to mean robust property rights, capitalism, social liberalism, free-markets and minimal government." Taking a less-objectionable meaning, that "the mainstream media in the United States uses the term libertarianism to describe 'robust property rights, capitalism, social liberalism, free-markets and minimal government'", only leaves us with a faulty argument for support of Xerographica's wishes, since nothing about that assertion would demand exclusivity. (Similarly, one could say "the mainstream media in the United States uses the term 'minorities' to refer to certain non-Whites," but trying to argue that "minorities" almost always means non-Whites (or even most often means non-Whites) is clearly fallacious. So, in the end, I'm not sure we can glean a productive suggestion from Xerographica's comment.
4. We have Toa_Nidhiki05 who gives us his personal assurances that the "almost universal libertarian ideology is 'Right-libertarianism'".

From the comments I went through, the theme of arguments for a narrow writing of the article seems to be varying arguments that hope to invoke WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.

Twice as many editors support a "broad" writing of the libertarianism article, many citing the presence of such understandings in multiple RS's. The arguments for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC have been rejected as editors have failed to show why the understandings of reliable sources on the topic of Libertarianism should be dismissed in the article on Libertarianism, and certainly no actual evidence has been presented to support the contention that only minarchist right-libertarianism is the topic that "is highly likely – much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined – to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that term in the Search box."

My conclusion from the RfC is that editors understand WP:DUE to be part of Wikipedia's policy pillars and applicable here. Obviously, there's no overriding consensus here to overturn the application of that policy on this matter. Indeed, consensus seems to recognize non-minarchist right-libertarianism as philosophies described in various WP:RS's. We are deciding a binary question here, so we can either have a very narrow article focused solely on minarchist right-libertarianism or not. Editors who have commented seem to overwhelmingly oppose the narrow view. The RfC should be closed as "Broad" and all of the soapboxing in reaction to the braod understanding should cease immediately upon closure. BigK HeX (talk) 22:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Good summary. And I'll become a vegan and lose 50 lbs if last sentence happens :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

While we're at it, I'd like a million dollars, a castle in France, and for Oscar Wilde to turn up alive and well. Zazaban (talk) 23:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources all indicate that right-libertarianism is the best known version. How well known? It is the only version found when searching CNN/NPR. The wikipedia policy of undue weight clearly indicates that proportion of coverage should reflect prominence. The prominence of the right-libertarianism viewpoint eclipses left-libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism to such an extent that it should be the primary topic for this article. Political relevance is the equivalent of prominence when the topic is a political ideology.

The burden of proof is a two way street. Please provide reliable evidence that indicates the prominence of left-libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism within libertarianism in order to justify the proportion of coverage you feel that they should receive in this article. The only evidence you have supplied thus far is that Chomsky has 100,000 plus fans on facebook. That is only evidence of his prominence within left-libertarianism but does not indicate in any way how prominent left-libertarianism is within libertarianism.

Many reliable sources compare modern liberalism with libertarianism. That in no way indicates that libertarianism is as prominent as modern liberalism. Who do left-libertarians vote for? They vote for the democratic party if anybody. Who do anarcho-capitalists vote for? They don't vote, they sit at home fantasizing over a hypothetical button that when pushed would abolish government in one fell swoop. --Xerographica (talk) 23:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

RE: "It is the only version found when searching CNN/NPR"

No one believed this blatant OR last time, and that is unlikely to change. In any case, you've already stated your case. I'm unsure why you're trying to do so again. BigK HeX (talk) 00:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Nobody believed that right-libertarianism is the only version found when searching CNN/NPR? The undue weight policy clearly states that viewpoints should be covered in proportion to their prominence. Since you want to include the left-libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism viewpoints then the burden of proof is on you to provide sufficient evidence justifying the proportion of coverage that they receive in this article. --Xerographica (talk) 00:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Already done! The multitude of RS's provided show that the proportion is significantly GREATER THAN ZERO. Thus, this libertarianism article will include it. The community overwhelmingly agrees with this. BigK HeX (talk) 00:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, so would you be willing to add equal weight to the Flat Earth psuedoscience theory on the 'Earth ' page, or add equal coverage to the 20% of people that think NASA faked the moon landings, or add equal weight on the Obama page to those that think he is a Muslim, communist non-citizen? Of course not; the WP:Due Weight Policy is designed to prevent this type of junk from happening. Toa Nidhiki05 00:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Comparing the minority viewpoint of libertarianism to the nearly unanimous, scientific understanding of geophysics is a stretch beyond any utility. Trying to complain about a viewpoint being minority within an already minority topic is fairly useless. So, to answer a more appropriate question ... YES, I think that the Square Flat Earther's might deserve coverage alongside the Oval Flat Earther's viewpoints in the Flat Earth article.

More seriously, your analogy to Flat Earth did not persuade most of the community whose input we've received. BigK HeX (talk) 00:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

For goodness sake, BigK HeX, the number of editors polled barely reached double figures and half of the "broad" voters were one-off contributors who had never commented before, or since, and only entered the discussion because they were conscripted for the purpose of throwing a couple of Molotov cocktail's for their left-wing causes. Let's not pretend that the poll results were statistically significant.

Further more, it is absurd to suggest that, with regard to the number of people/RS who think left-Libertarianism is a prominent form of Libertarianism, "the proportion is significantly GREATER THAN ZERO". A handful of crackpots misrepresenting themselves, and Libertarianism, may amount to "GREATER THAN ZERO", but that is not nearly enough to make them reliable or give their views equal weight within the Libertarianism article. Frankly, your claims are so utterly ridiculous that I get the distinct impression that the true Libertarians contributing to this talk page are being "punked". Where's Ashton Kutcher? BlueRobe (talk) 01:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, read WP:No personal attacks. Warnings and sanctions can result if it continues. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Without the personal attacks and other amusing histrionics, please do state specifically which "crackpots" you are referring to. Name some names and associated publications. Go. BigK HeX (talk) 02:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a clarifying note, outside opinions are valued specifically because they are outside the debate, and can see and comment on issues without bias. The opinions of established editors uninvolved in the debate are not to be disparaged as 'fly by night'. See WP:30 and WP:RFC, for how Wikipedia uses outside opinions to establish consensus in a debate. The only time this is not true is if there has been canvassing to stack the debate. I have been (quietly) policing the debate, and as far as I can see, this has not occurred. The only troubling thing so far is the appearance of new editors on this page, who edit daily and are apparently experienced with Wikipedia. LK (talk) 05:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Xerograpica, BlueRobe, Darkstar1st, Tao_Nidhiki05 -- Narrow.
• BigK HeX, CarolMooreDC, Jrtayloriv, lota, NickCT, Zazaban, N6n, FOo & TFD -- Broad.

The only argument offered for the 'narrow' viewpoint is that this is what (according to the people supporting 'narrow') the mass-media talk about.

This settles the Rfc for me. I wont enter this debate again. N6n (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

N6n, that is a singularly dishonest representation of the discussion. Shame on you. BlueRobe (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

"RfCs are not votes. Discussion controls the outcome; it is not a matter of counting up the number of votes." Actual discussion is still evenly split. Half of those engaged in actual discussion want this page to cover numerous ideologies (anarchism, anarcho-capitalism, left-libertarianism, libertarian socialism, etc) and the other half only want this page to cover a single ideology...libertarianism. Based on the name of this page, it's amazing that this is even a topic of debate. --Xerographica (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you get the impression that this is all part of some really elaborate bad joke and someone is about to jump in with the punchline? BlueRobe (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, when I read your Ashton Kutcher comment I'm glad I wasn't drinking anything or else I would have spewed it everywhere. --Xerographica (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be under the misimpression that endless soapboxing on a topic is equivalent to editors listing their views in a short and sweet version consistent with policy. Why not just work on Libertarianism in the United States and promote that all over the internet. (Of course, don't forget Murray Rothbard and the legions of anarcho-capitalists.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removal of ""Libertarian Socialism" section without discussion

I see that "Libertarian Socialism" section was removed at this August 6th diff by Seven days seven night -a two week registered essentially WP:Single purpose account editor who has since disappeared after multiple complaints of edit warring on his talk page. One of the new editors after AnonIps banned. Then someone made some changes to Left libertarianism discussion to include it.

There was no explicit discussion of this and I missed it because I haven’t looked carefully at whole article lately since waiting til totally focused on it. So I hereby object. There are differences and if the existing articles on both don't sufficiently reflect that I'll fix that and put back the section at some point, sooner rather than later.

While it might be possible to put both in one section, that section would have to have another title which I'll propose should I come up with one. So heads up. CarolMooreDC (talk)

Both should be included in one small section, in order to comply with WP:Undue Weight; neither is notable enough to have a separate section. Toa Nidhiki05 15:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Please provide reliable evidence indicating the prominence of the Libertarian socialism viewpoint within Libertarianism. --Xerographica (talk) 00:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

See recent talk archives for various links. And see my future edits. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You know that none of those links indicate the prominence of the libertarian socialism viewpoint within libertarianism. The links would have to say something like most/some/few libertarians are libertarian socialists...or many/some/few libertarians subscribe to the libertarian socialism viewpoint. The amount of coverage that this article on libertarianism provides libertarian socialism should reflect how widely held the libertarian socialism viewpoint is within libertarianism. It's Wikipedia policy. --Xerographica (talk) 03:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

If you want to argue that the viewpoint is not given any significant prominence in reliable sources, then feel free to take it to the NPOV noticeboard, as that case has already been made on the talk page, so I doubt repeating for the Nth time in this thread will change anything. BigK HeX (talk) 03:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Just want to be sure that the the editor is well aware that her actions would be in deliberate violation of Wikipedia policy. First evidence should be provided, then the material should be discussed. If and only if consensus is reached should the material in question be added to the article. You and Carolmooredc have continually made edits to this article without any attempt to first reach consensus on your edits. --Xerographica (talk) 04:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, then. I stand by my actions, though. (FYI: I've been here quite a while... I'm not sure if you've experienced enough here on Wikipedia to adequately lecture me on policy. Maybe you have ... In any case, thanks all the same.) BigK HeX (talk) 04:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX, spare us the argumentum ad hominem. You (and Carolmooredc) have repeatedly edited the Libertarian page without adhering to Wikipaedia protocols, (which is bloody ironic, given how often you two are both going on about Wikipaedia guidelines).

And now, subsequent to making your inappropriate changes to the Libertarianism page, you've both consistently misrepresented Wikipedia:Reliable Sources in your efforts to block correction by the rest of us. In particular, you, with your misrepresentation of your so-called reliable sources and the prominence you've attached to left-Libertarianism and Noam Chomsky (etc.), have completely disregarded Wikipaedia:Undue Weight, in violation of Wikipaedia protocols.

As if all that wasn't bad enough, you've threatened to take action to seek blocks on any user (especially Xerographica) who points out these short-comings. BlueRobe (talk) 05:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

no consensus on re-adding libertarian socialism, further discussion is required Darkstar1st (talk) 06:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Even by plain English the noun of "Libertarian Socialism" says that it is a form of Socialism, not Libertarianism. North8000 (talk) 10:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I claim that the Rfc has settled that the coverage be broad. Lets only talk about how to proportion the coverage. N6n (talk) 13:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I claim rfc has not settled the coverage, the discussion will continue. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed we will. Further more, N6n's remark that the editorial community has "settled" on the broad solution is bloody condescending, at best, and very inaccurate. It's my understanding that we're heading to some form of Wikipaedian dispute resolution over the issue. BlueRobe (talk) 23:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

We have gone through dispute resolution, that is what an RfC is. Ironically, although you, Darkstar1st and Karmaisking have objected to the article, none of you have explained what you think libertarianism is or provided any reliable sources for a definition. Editors must choose between a sourced definition and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. TFD (talk) 23:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you taking the piss? If the explanation attached to my "narrow" vote was any longer, I'd publish it in paper-back. BlueRobe (talk) 00:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it was a long time ago. Your thesis of libertarianism seems to include the beliefs of John Stuart Mill, Immanuel Kant, Isaiah Berlin, Ayn Rand, Bob Barr and the Libertarian Party of Canada. You also mentioned no paternalism and no welfare. Can you please point to a source that ties all of this together? It is not obvious to me that either the no harm or the categorical imperative would exclude welfare, and even more confusing how we can consider European rationalism and English empiricism to be promoting the same thing. And was Mill not influenced by Fichte? TFD (talk) 01:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD, you're misrepresenting my post. My reference to Bob Barr was solely as a recent (2008) Presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party of the USA. My reference to Immanuel Kant was solely with regard to his Categorical Imperative (always treat people as ends', and never as merely a means to an end's). My reference to Isaiah Berlin was with regard to his distinction between Positive and Negative conceptions of liberty (required reading for all political philosophers - his "Two Concepts of Liberty" is easily one of the top 5 most significant pieces of writing on political philosophy). I said no "Welfarism", (privately funded welfare (charity) is, of course, entirely consistent with Libertarianism). Ayn Rand's political philosophy is (whether the Objectivists like it or not - most do not) a subset of Libertarianism. John Stuart Mill's Harm Principle (another example of one of the top 5 most significant pieces of writing on political philosophy) is the natural caveat to the (negative) liberty endorsed by Libertarians. As for the Harm Principle and/or the Categorical Imperative prohibiting Welfarism (as distinct from voluntary welfare), welfarism is funded by breaching those two principles (tax = theft by coercion. As for "European rationalism and English empiricism", there's no need to make a mountain out of a molehill. The Libertarians' endorsement of Kant's Categorical Imperative alone does not amount to a blanket endorsement of everything Kant, (most Ayn Rand Objectivists HATE Kant) and the same applies to the works of any other philosophers. BlueRobe (talk) 01:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It is not obvious that welfare violates either Mill's or Kant's moral theories and I do not remember that these works contained any reference to state welfare. You really need a source that ties together these disparate theories and calls them libertarianism. It seems unusual too that a political philosophy could be based on three separate and conflicting theories of ethics. TFD (talk) 01:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

To be perfectly blunt, it is so incredibly obvious that tax-payer funded Walfarism violates the Harm Principle and Kant's Categorical Imperative that it never occurred to me that anyone would challenge this. Indeed, it still doesn't. How is the coercive taxation of one person (the means), to pay for improving the welfare of another person (the ends), not a violation of the Categorical Imperative? BlueRobe (talk) 01:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you make this stuff up, or would you like to actually point us to a single reliable source that you've drawn all of this from? BigK HeX (talk) 01:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You need a reliable source to show how the coercive taxation of one person (the means), to pay for improving the welfare of another person (the ends), is a violation of the Categorical Imperative? Okay, that does it. Now I KNOW I'm being punk'd. BlueRobe (talk) 02:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It appears the term "Right Libertarian" does not exist outside of Wikipedia. Such seems nearly also the case with "Left Libertarian". I think that any artificial terms, (including those that seem to exist only in the writing of one or two authors) should be purged from these three articles, which might include deleting or renaming one or two articles.

Where there is an unusual form of Libertarianism, I'd like to see it briefly covered. The article should be informative on Libertarianism, including clearing up confusion on offbeat terms and sects with "Libertarian" in their names. But right now this article is so flooded with disproportionate coverage of these tiny-minority groups and schools of thought that it fails to cover and is an incoherent choppy mess regarding the main topic, which should be per the overwhelmingly mainstream meaning of "Libertarian". North8000 (talk) 02:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

North8000, agreed. The suggestion (by Carol etc) that so-called right-Libertarianism has it's own page is disingenuous, at best, given that the term "right-Libertarianism" is all but non-existent outside these talk pages. And as you say, the incredible weight given to some fringe non-Libertarian ideologies, that just happen to have the word "Libertarian" in their labels, is both ridiculous and a breach of Wikipaedia's rules regarding Undue Weight. BlueRobe (talk) 02:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

@BlueRobe: No I don't need a source for that....I've requested a reliable source for the WHOLE THING. I've requested the single reliable source from which you've drawn this sprawling libertarian thesis from. Personally, it looks strikingly like WP:OR to me. Provide a single reliable source containing all of these gems or, if you do not have one source that all of this comes from, then quit polluting the talk page with your personal theses. Wikipedia talk pages are NOT A FORUM. BigK HeX (talk) 02:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

How about, any text on Libertarianism that is worth a damn? The reason I am being so flippant is that, quite frankly, I suspect that you are very aware of countless sources that spell out the "thesis" I have provided on Libertarianism. Aside from some discussion on the periphery, I cannot imagine that many right-Libertarians would challenge the claims I made (except for the reference to Kant, because some of them have hang-ups about him, lol). Certainly, none of the right-Libertarians contributing to this talk page have challenged anything I stated in that "thesis", (although, for all I know, they may well disagree on a few points). BlueRobe (talk) 02:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

So, you did NOT actually draw this from a source, and only offer us your conjecture that it must appear in a reliable source somewhere. Until such time that you actually have found that source, please keep your unsourced theses off of the article talk pages. Use your personal talk page for that kind of stuff. BigK HeX (talk) 03:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

These guy(s) couldn't even source the obvious point that some libertarians don't like being called anarchists. Geez. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that they can't source things ... but a few of the participating editors seem to think sourcing is unimportant if they explain it in a long-winded enough manner. As if their "thorough" explanation should suffice as a substitute for reliable sources. Or maybe they just like the idea that they are "spreading WP:TRUTH" on the talk pages. Meh.... BigK HeX (talk) 03:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

carol i have sourced that point at least 6 times, you have ask me for the link to the source 4 times and i will continue to provide it, each time you forget. all of the current anarchists are irrational collectivists, and therefore at opposite poles from our position. We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical, MURRAY ROTHBARD http://mises.org/daily/2801 Darkstar1st (talk) 04:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It is really a primary source and we need secondary sources for articles. I notice Rothbard wrote, "The individualist anarchists have contributed a great deal to libertarian thought. They have provided some of the best statements of individualism and antistatism that have ever been penned. In the political sphere, the individualist anarchists were generally sound libertarians. They favored private property, extolled free competition, and battled all forms of governmental intervention." TFD (talk) 04:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

no, you may not ask for a source, then deny it when the same source is used many other times in this article. most vegetarians are good vegans, but vegans get sick when they eat cheese. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX and Carol, I'm pretty sure that most Libertarians don't like being called vampires. But, I don't have any reliable sources for this fact, so this remains mere conjecture. Would you like some reliable sources to prove that the Moon is not made of green cheese, or is that mere conjecture, also? BlueRobe (talk) 05:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

There is very little in the article sourced to Rothbard, it is uncontroversial, and it certainly does not justify the source you provided. I would ask you to provide a reliable secondary source, but I fear that none exist. TFD (talk) 05:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD, how the hell can Rothbard be a Primary Source for the Libertarianism page? To quote the great wizard-philosopher, Ron Weasley, "that's just mental." BlueRobe (talk) 05:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

An article that explains the author's beliefs and his personal recollections is a primary source for his beliefs and personal recollections. They must be used with care in order to avoid original research. The best sources to use are peer-reviewed articles in academic journals and books published by the academic press. TFD (talk) 05:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

wow, your right, it was his "Aubrey Herbert," his pseudonym, i guess we cant use it. would the enlightenment free-thinkers who coined the term suffice? liberty: a free individual being most free within the context of a state which provides stability of the laws Darkstar1st (talk) 05:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

When we write articles about political movements we do not use sources that were written before the movements even began. TFD (talk) 06:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

So, we'll remove references to the Old Testament from the Christianity page, shall we? *facepalm* BlueRobe (talk) 06:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

@tfd incorrect, source was not written before the movement began Darkstar1st (talk) 08:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

BlueRobe, Chrisitianity and the Old Testament is a good analogy. One cannot use the Old Testament (or the New Testament) and provide your own interpretations of them to explain what Christianity is. That would be original research. Otherwise the article might say that Christians believe in the death penalty for witches. If you want to make such claims you would need a reliable secondary source that says that this is the consensus of the interpretation of Christianity. Also, you could not find that there is no mention of purgatory in the New Testament and determine that Catholics are not Christians. You should read and understand Wikipedia policies for writing articles.

Darkstar1st, yes it was written before the movement began.

TFD (talk) 14:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

@tfd wp:proveit