Talk:Libertarianism/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

Rothbard on appropriating the word "libertarian" from the left

‘One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, “our side,” had captured a crucial word from the enemy... “Libertari­ans”... had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over...’ -- Murray N. Rothbard, The Betrayal of the American Right, Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2007, p. 83

That should really be mentioned, given that the right-wing "libertarians" get so bothered by actual libertarians using the term... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.40.192.31 (talk) 10:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The quote is available at page 83 of the electronic copy available here. A full citation would be Murray N. Rothbard, The Betrayal of the American Right, Thomas E. Woods Jr. (ed.) Auburn, Alabama: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2007, p.83. Given the often PRIMARY role of partisan presses in relation to this article, I'd suggest other editors carefully determine the reliability of this source before using it. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

128's the rude wording aside, I guess that that reinforces the point that certain meanings of the word (or words sometimes used in definition discussions like "left") may have changed dramatically over time. And that certain summaries lists of key tenants may have to be given a time-line context. North8000 (talk) 12:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It definitely reinforces the point that Born2cycle (Libertarianism (Word) and Requested Move) and I (Reliable vs Relevant) brought up a while ago that this article should discuss the current meaning of the word "libertarianism" and not all the meanings that the word has had.

I hate to point this out, but anarchists still use the word "libertarian" to describe their ideas. They were using it in the 1950s when Rothbard and company decided to "capture" it. So any discussion of "the current meaning" needs to include the left-wing use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.40.192.31 (talk) 07:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

My section on the scope of government offers a rough timeline of the current meaning...rather than the various meanings of the word. The philosophy of limited government has not changed significantly in the past 200+ years. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

Modern liberals stole the word "liberal" from modern libertarians (classical liberals) so modern libertarians stole the word "libertarian" from classical libertarians. Modern liberals support big government, modern libertarians support limited government and classical libertarians support no government.

"John Stuart Mill, the great and generous theorist of liberalism, and Herbert Spencer, a major exponent of laissez-faire individualism, whose writings appealed immensely to the Spanish anarchists, can be - and have been - rightly designated as 'libertarians'" - Anarchist seeds beneath the snow

Thanks 128 for providing additional evidence that we're dealing with different meanings of the word "libertarianism" --Xerographica (talk) 21:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Beating that dead horse again? The word does not have "different meanings", it rather forms a semantic continuum, which is precisely what this article should elaborate. Yworo (talk) 06:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Seeing a continuum in meaning might be the interpretation of some sources, but it's not the view of Rothbard nor of many other libertarian thinkers. Definitely a semantic discontinuity implied here:

“Libertarians,” in contrast, had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over,

and more properly from the view of etymology; since we were proponents of individual liberty and therefore of the individual’s right

to his property.

--Born2cycle (talk) 06:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yawn. The tertiary sources sort this out by finding the elements which are common across the continuity while also showing in what way the variants differ. We should follow these tertiary sources for the logic and structure of the article, as has been previously discussed and agreed on except by one or two habitually tendentious editors. Feel free to wear the shoe if it fits. Yworo (talk) 06:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Please stop with the personal attacks.

Tertiary sources like Brittanica don't even recognize the different meaning of the term which Rothbard refers to as "had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists". The anti-property sense of the word is generally not recognized in generic tertiary sources like Brittanica (Boaz), Stanford (Vallentyne) and IEP (Zwolinski). See Talk:Libertarianism/OverviewDraft2. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The historical approach/emphasis to use of the word is best since involves least WP:OR, except where one or preferably more sources have a good analysis. Rothbard's words obviously relevant and should be attributed to him. While by the time many of us got to libertarianism (like me in 1979) we'd lost the old history of the left association, and it should be made clear Rothbard's views on that. But Hess's views on the evolution of the word - and seems to me there's some ref somewhere - also relevant. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Anti-copyright

Anti-copyright page claims: "Libertarians, particularly proponents of Austrian economics, including McElroy, Palmer, Lepage, Bouckaert, and Stephan Kinsella, argue that copyright is invalid because, unlike physical property, intellectual property is not scarce and is, they claim, a legal fiction created by the state. That is, infringing on copyright, unlike theft, does not deprive the victim of the original item, and so enforcement of copyright law constitutes aggression on the part of the state". Does this claim represent libertarian point of view properly? If not, it probably should be corrected. Ipsign (talk) 05:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

That is the opposite to Libertarian view on intellectual property. Intellectual property rights are of paramount importance under Libertarian political philosophy. 219.89.249.161 (talk) 10:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

This is one of the differences that makes some pro-property libertarians call themselves "left libertarians" which of course confuses the issue even more. Libertarians have a spectrum of views, one of which is that many of benefits of copyright can be obtained through contract without involving anything more coercive than a state court (and enforcing police), for minarchists and private agencies for anarchists. It probably should be mentioned in the article and will try to remember and find sources. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

As a temporary fix, wouldn't it be better to replace current "Libertarians,..." with "Some of libertarians,..." on Anti-copyright page? Ipsign (talk) 07:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

This is actually a bone of contention amongst libertarians, even within the right-libertarian or pro-capitalist set. Some, following Ayn Rand, consider copyright to be a natural right of authors, and support copyright maximalism. Others, such as Stephan Kinsella, regard it as a government-created monopoly. --FOo (talk) 18:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Libertarian perspectives on intellectual property

Another page with similar claims is Libertarian perspectives on intellectual property#Copyrights and patents. Should it be left in current shape or it should be fixed (at least into "Some libertarians..." from "Many libertarians...")? Ipsign (talk) 11:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixed above. How many somes become a many? :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, I've removed 2 unsourced sections from the article completely (they seem to be much better covered in specific views below), removing the problem of "how many somes become a many?" :-) Ipsign (talk) 05:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Time Framework for "Common Tenets" Development?

This refers to work in the overviewdraft2 sub-page. Looking for just your "quick gut feel" answer on this. What I'm getting to is to what extent any description of common tenets would need to acknowledges changes over time, which means how much have they changed? I guess the three possibilities would be:

1. Very little No special provision need be made for changes over time.
2. Changes in just a few areas. Just adding notes about those particular changes would suffice.
3. Major Changes Any desctiption of common tenets must be given an era context (e.g. present day, mid 20th century, prior to the 1960 etc. ) And if you pick this one, could you suggest (an) era description(s) to include in addition to "present day"

North8000 (talk) 11:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

First, are you talking about the History section of final article? (Let's not drift into WP:OR analysis as just mentioned above.) If so, give us examples of section titles that might help divide it up. (Also give link to the relevant page every time. I always forget where it is.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Right now it's basically using (and possibly tweaking) the structure in overviewdraft2 to arrive at common tenets which would be used to guide a draft of the overview section.North8000 (talk) 00:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd greatly prefer to avoid "quick gut feel" and stick to "reliably sourced". If sources discuss changes over time we're golden. If they don't, we don't. "Gut feel" sounds far too much like "our own opinions", which isn't a sound route for articles to take. TFOWR 00:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

This was only to decide whether the "common tenets" section in the worksheet needs to be split into eras, not to create content. North8000 (talk) 12:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that, but I still believe it's a bad idea. /OverviewDraft2 should be referenced just as much as the article itself or we stray into OR territory. Our own views, our own opinions, should not be a factor either in the article or in the development of the article. We're editors, not researchers or academics. There are plenty of fora on the Internet where we can debate stuff like this, but here we should focus on the article and on the development of the article, and we should do that by following reliable sources, not by undertaking our own research. The purpose of the draft is to look at high-level, tertiary sources and apply weighting based on occurrences in those sources - not to detail our own views and then try and find secondary (or even primary) sources that fit with our own opinions. That seems to have been a recurring problem with this article in the past, and it's something that I'd really like to move away from so that we focus on editing and not research. TFOWR 12:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with TFOWR. That's why I would provide only the briefest sectional outline OR a fully sourced draft. One of these days :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess that we'll let the need or non-need for an era split on the worksheet be determined by the work there. North8000 (talk) 10:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It has some usefulness if it is ref'd material, but of course new refs can change any temporary consensus at Talk:Libertarianism/OverviewDraft2 (bold for those who are confused about what page is being discussed.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you've seen many different time division in RS's. Pick one!  :-) And I'll make the headings accordingly. If someone objects (which I doubt) we can revisit it. North8000 (talk) 20:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

But Talk:Libertarianism/OverviewDraft2 really doesn't mean much unless it is structured the way the article is. Just not clear how much weight some material should have. And of course some of it is new and I'm not familiar with what refs people propose using. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if we're talking about the same thing. I am just inquiring whether or not it is necessary to divide the "common tenets" summary section (on that work page) by eras. Such would be the case if there were major changes in the meaning/tenets over time. North8000 (talk) 13:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Willhaslett, 7 November 2010

{{edit protected}} "The US Libertarian Party, is the third largest political party..." should not have a comma. will (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Marginally better to restore the apposition: The Libertarian Party, the third largest American political party, has over... But the change requested is an acceptable solution. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Either is fine by me. North8000 (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. And thanks for giving an example of proper formatting for making such requests. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the comma. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's move forward

Everything has focused on the work on overviewdraft2 (including common tenets development), which I think is excellent work not only for the overview, but as a foundation for other work on the article. But work there seems to have stalled. Is anybody planning on adding more material in the next couple weeks? If not, I think that it's time to start summarizing based on what is there. North8000 (talk) 11:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd say it's stalled; last edit was only a week ago. There is still some fairly major work to do: Stanford (Vallentyne) needs to be fleshed out. Apart from that if everyone could check Britannica (Boaz), Stanford (Vallentyne) and IEP (Zwolinski) that would be good - it'll ensure we're all on "the same page". But once Stanford is done I agree we could move on to sorting out weightings etc - more tertiary sources would be nice but three seems fine. TFOWR 13:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess me saying "stalled" was an overstatement. North8000 (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but we probably needed a boot up the backside anyway ;-) I'll try and take a look at Zwolinski over the next few days (it's one area I've not done anything in, so I figure I'm a good choice for looking it over). If you could either check Boaz or expand Vallentyne that would be good, too. TFOWR 14:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

That last edit summary should have been "np" for "no problem", not "no". Oops! TFOWR 14:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty good at making imperfect but agreeable steps forward if the need arises. North8000 (talk) 15:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to determine if this source would be useful to add into the overview stuff: Bevir, Mark. Encyclopedia of Political Theory. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications, 2010. pp810. BigK HeX (talk) 20:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

If you had read the discussion on Cherry Picking sources you would know that the person who wrote the entry on libertarianism, Daniel Attas, also wrote a book entitled...Liberty, property and markets: a critique of libertarianism. We've already included Peter Vallentyne, who, by any reasonable standard, is a critic of libertarianism and you want to add the viewpoint of yet another critic? --Xerographica (talk) 22:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

We need to have a perspective here. The article is a mess, and a core item of the cease-fire agreement was that we could move forward with a new process. In terms of being analyzed/consensused, on a scale of 0 to 10, 2/3 of what's in the article is a 1 or a 0. Worst case scenario (if we get wild and crazy) whatever comes out of overviewdraft2 will be an 8 or a 9. And trying for a 10 will make it take 3 months per paragraph.

OK, if nobody else does it, in a week I'm going to start summarizing from what's there. Ideally, somebody more expert/thorough than I will beat me to it.  :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

At least half of what's in there has survived several years of hundreds of eyes looking at it, which makes it pretty consensual. And Talk:Libertarianism/OverviewDraft2 is not yet anything like the draft of an article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think I mis-spoke in some respects. Though IMHO the article is a confusing and uninformative mess, I should not have implied that it is full of contentious material. But my main points remain. North8000 (talk) 19:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Xerographica's weak objections being the only ones, I'll go ahead and incorporate another tertiary source, since the Encyclopedia of Political Theory lays out a lot of the philosophy. BigK HeX (talk) 03:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's Roll

Regarding my November 7th comment:

"OK, if nobody else does it, in a week I'm going to start summarizing from what's there. Ideally, somebody more expert/thorough than I will beat me to it.  :-)"

Here goes. Feel free to modify or revert me. North8000 (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Willhaslett, 7 November 2010

{{edit protected}} "The term libertarian in a metaphysical or philosophical sense..." While there are many senses for 'libertarian', I'm pretty sure (as evidenced by the article) that none of them are *about* the nature of reality. 'Metaphysical' seems like it's being used here as something like a synonym for 'deep', which it is not. I suggest simply deleting it. will (talk) 18:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. The nature of the human will is a deeply metaphysical question; if Romanes were the earliest OED quotation instead of the last, I might suggest theological for both adjectives. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Quoting the full sentence and the one following which has a specific example shows why it is appropriate there. The term libertarian in a metaphysical or philosophical sense was first used by late-Enlightenment free-thinkers to refer to those who believed in free will, as opposed to determinism.[13] The first recorded use was in 1789 by William Belsham in a discussion of free will and in opposition to "necessitarian" (or determinist) views.[14][15] CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed minor change to lead

Just came back to read this article after a long hiatus. It strikes me as odd that the lead introduces opinions from three people without explaining who they are. I propose the following underlined changes to the lead. LK (talk) 04:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Libertarianism is the advocacy of individual liberty, especially freedom of thought and action.[1] Philosopher Roderick T. Long defines libertarianism as "any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power [either "total or merely substantial"] from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals", whether "voluntary association" takes the form of the free market or of communal co-operatives.[2] David Boaz, vice president of the Cato Institute, writes that, "Libertarianism is the view that each person has the right to live his life in any way he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others" and that, "Libertarians defend each person's right to life, liberty, and property--rights that people have naturally, before governments are created."[3]

Economist Karl Widerquist writes of left-libertarianism and libertarian socialism as being distinct ideologies also claiming the label "libertarianism".[4] However, many works broadly distinguish right-libertarianism and left-libertarianism as related forms of libertarian philosophy.[5] Also identified is a large faction advocating minarchism, though libertarianism has also long been associated with anarchism (and sometimes is used as a synonym for such), especially outside of the United States.[6] Anarchism remains one of the significant branches of libertarianism.[7]

This looks good. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Adding context like this is helpful, IMO. BigK HeX (talk) 06:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that the proposed change is good. This is not to say I like that very confusing second paragraph, but the change in it is fine. North8000 (talk) 12:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The proposed change is good in general, though I think it's important to identify Boaz somehow as a leading authority on libertarianism, or at least as a libertarian writer, as that is presumably why he was chosen to write the entry on this topic at Brittanica (which is the relevant source).

So for this part:

David Boaz, vice president of the Cato Institute, writes that, ...

I propose:

David Boaz, libertarian writer and vice president of the Cato Institute, writes that, ...

--Born2cycle (talk) 19:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Although you could argue this addition for the other two guys as well, I think that for them it's much more apparent that they are also writers.

So, to clarify, the proposal is LK's proposed changes, with the expansion on the Boaz description per Born2cycle? North8000 (talk) 11:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

If so, OK with me. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Libertarianism is the advocacy of individual liberty, especially freedom of thought and action.[1] Philosopher Roderick T. Long defines libertarianism as "any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power [either "total or merely substantial"] from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals", whether "voluntary association" takes the form of the free market or of communal co-operatives.[2] David Boaz, vice president of the Cato Institute, writes that, "Libertarianism is the view that each person has the right to live his life in any way he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others" and that, "Libertarians defend each person's right to life, liberty, and property--rights that people have naturally, before governments are created."[3]

Request

{{edit protected}}

So, to make it easy for the admin, we request adding the underlined words to the lead (but don't underline them in the lead)

Libertarianism is the advocacy of individual liberty, especially freedom of thought and action.[1] Philosopher Roderick T. Long defines libertarianism as "any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power [either "total or merely substantial"] from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals", whether "voluntary association" takes the form of the free market or of communal co-operatives.[2] David Boaz, libertarian writer and vice president of the Cato Institute, writes that, "Libertarianism is the view that each person has the right to live his life in any way he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others" and that, "Libertarians defend each person's right to life, liberty, and property--rights that people have naturally, before governments are created."[3]

Economist Karl Widerquist writes of left-libertarianism and libertarian socialism as being distinct ideologies also claiming the label "libertarianism".[4] However, many works broadly distinguish right-libertarianism and left-libertarianism as related forms of libertarian philosophy.[5] Also identified is a large faction advocating minarchism, though libertarianism has also long been associated with anarchism (and sometimes is used as a synonym for such), especially outside of the United States.[6] Anarchism remains one of the significant branches of libertarianism.[7]

I think I tagged it......if I didn't do it wrong.... my first one of these. North8000 (talk) 15:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC) }}

Tried again North8000 (talk) 11:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

this still looks good. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, all  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Reminder

As a reminder, and note to new folks, the focus of the work on this article moved to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Libertarianism/OverviewDraft2. While I think that that workspace will create a multi-use long term foudation for other work on the article, the action item at the moment is to arrive at a "common tenets" list to guide and assist the writing and sourcing of a new "overview" section. Please participate, and let's get it to the finish line. North8000 (talk) 11:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

And as a reminder, some of us have some WP:OR concerns about that page. I consider that it a somewhat useful exercise only if it is used to back up some new drafted material. However, it should not be used as an excuse to exclude any source from any future draft. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Carol, I don't think that there is any agenda there. North8000 (talk) 14:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Considering contentious editing in past, just wanted to throw in those 32 cents (inflation). :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Whew...the pressure was off when it was only 2 cents. That's progress!  :-) North8000 (talk) 21:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this page dead?

A few months ago, the discussion on this page had devolved into the truly ridiculous. Now, it appears to be dead. Well done, Wikipedia. 122.60.93.162 (talk) 05:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

That seems to be the pattern with full protection. Please see the workspace note under "Reminder" above. While even that has gone nearly dead, we should draft the new "overview" section in there, get it put up, and then get the protection removed. North8000 (talk) 10:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Remove the protection? So the Libertarianism page can be inundated with even more Anarchism, Socialism and Communism using spurious sources from agenda-driven academics using a revisionist vocabulary? 122.60.93.162 (talk) 10:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

A needed rest for all that blazing testosterone (including mine :-). But thanks for a little kick in the butt. I'm halfway done with a relevant new article and then will go through and make a draft page of my suggested changes. By first of year :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 10:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

To 122.60..... One could argue that the article is already so overwhelmed with that stuff (without context of prevalence) that it can't get any worse. (Not that I would want mention of all of thosevariants removed)

To Carol and all. By it's title, this is the main article on Libertarianism. I think that it is important to keep it moving forward. North8000 (talk) 14:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the volume presented is probably adequate, but the presentation is not encyclopaedic, it pushes the reader all over the shop. I'm quite happy to wait for Carol to present a major draft, I've got a lot of faith in Carol's encyclopaedic editing. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Carol, are you working on THIS article, or a different one? North8000 (talk) 02:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm starting another libertarianism article that I've found has some good refs relevant to here, and just want to get a new article under my belt. (And of course I get sidetracked by other issues that jump up which I think are central to wikipedia's integrity, but don't get me started.) I really don't have massive changes, just a new section/paragraph/sentence or two and clean up and consistency. Plus of course I'll look at that sources page.

My one question to others would be, is history section that has been copied into Libertarianism in the United States overly long for this article? Maybe cut 20-30% or so and refer to that article? CarolMooreDC (talk) 08:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm kind of neutral on that, except that it seems like the wrong place to worry about in this article, i.e. like #10 on it's list of problems. North8000 (talk) 10:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

With most stuff archived, and tempers cooled, might be good time just to list those issues in general terms anyway. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

the use of the word libertarian

I propose adding a small section at the beginning called "use of the word "libertarian" "and dealing there with the fact that The term "libertarianism" is globally considered a synonym for anarchism while the United States is unique in its associatiation of that word with a classical liberal pro-capitalism ideology. If we don´t add this idea, this article will suffer a serious Wikipedia:Systemic bias and might well deserve this tagging

.--Eduen (talk) 00:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

suggest you read the talk page archives and the warning at the top of this page. Fifelfoo_m (talk) 01:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of that issue, if not quite the perspective you want according to all WP:RS, has been in and out of the lead and seems to me it's still in there in the body. Read the whole article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The associatiation of the word libertarian with a classical liberal pro-capitalism ideology, especially since the 1970s, is prevalent throughout the English speaking world, including the UK, Australia and (English speaking, not French) Canada. You can find libertarian organizations in all of these countries that advocate classical liberalism and minarchism rather than anarchism or even anarcho-capitalism, though there is that too. But I support the idea of adding clarification at the top of the article that in other languages, and sometimes (but not prevalently) in English, the word is more closely associated with anarchism. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The more informative the article is the better. Including overviewing topics such as the above. But we need to try to also go by weight. I.E. weigh by significantly held beliefs (past or present). Right now the article is a confusing mess because it fails to do so. North8000 13:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

agree, we should clarify the term in the lede Darkstar1st (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, it's been in and out many times. Sigh... CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a need for its own section. Just put a sentence or two into the relevant "History" text. BigK HeX (talk) 19:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

notice when you type in "libertarian" in google, the lp party and the wp article appear, but no socialist or anarchist links. my favorite retort will come from the usual suspects, "using the worlds most popular search engine as a gauge of public understanding is not wp:policy" Darkstar1st (talk) 20:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

There isn't going to be a quick answer. It will take a lot of work to bring the article out of the confusing mess that it is, and including overview material that gives some perspective, while still covering the bases. Work on the overview section would be a a good place to start. It's about 3/4 done, but seems to have fizzled. North8000 21:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC) North8000 21:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Please stop collapsing this discussion. The prohibition stated at the top of this page is against disputing the consensus about the "the breadth of libertarian ideologies discussed in this article". No one is disputing that consensus in this section - please stop collapsing it. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Editors may be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Discussion_of_Scope_at_Talk:Libertarianism Fifelfoo (talk) 00:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Well its tru the term is different in nature from the us to europe where it is considered right-winder in the former and left-winged in the latter. I dont know the sources on it unless an academic lecture from a OhD can be cited.(and a reputed school)(Lihaas (talk) 01:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)).

On the use of "libertarian" in the english speaking world in the sense of anti-state socialism I want you to consider for example an important overview on the history of anarchism written by the canadian George Woodcock called [http://www.amazon.com/Anarchism-history-libertarian-ideas-movements/dp/B0006AXTWU Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements] (1962) in which no pro-capitalist ideology but actually radical anti-capitalists like Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, the First International, etc are dealt with. It was re edited on the 1970s. Now it might be true that in google if you write the word "libertarian" you get the USA Libertarian Party first and then you get liberal and neoliberal websites. But now if anyone writes on google the word "libertario" on the first page you get the links for the venezuelan anarchist newspaper "El Libertario" which is strongly anti-capitalist even going as far as accusing Hugo Chavez of helping capitalist penetration inside Venezuela and denouncing multinational corporations. You also get a link to a spanish publication called "Socialismo Libertario", a website called "Portal Libertario OACA" which is also strongly anticapitalist and advocating workers rights and class war. If one writes "el libertario" one gets the previously mentioned venezuelan anarchist newspaper, a link to the Argentine Libertarian Federation which was founded in October 1935 with the name of the Anarcho-Communist Federation of Argentina and that since 1985 it has been publishing the political journal El Libertario. If anyone wants to find anything pro-capitalism in the FLA she can very well go to their website. El Libertario from Argentina was first published in 1933 and before it was called "Accion Libertaria" ("libertarian action"). In the seventies there was an argentinian anarchist organization called Resistencia Libertaria and if anyone wants to doubt it was a socialist organization can very well go to this english language article about it called "Resistencia Libertaria: Anarchist Opposition to the Last Argentine Dictatorship" written by Chuck W. Morse. --Eduen (talk) 10:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

In the french language the situation is similar if one consideres that the Anarchist Federation (France) which is also strongly anticapitalist and for class war has a radio station called Radio Libertaire in which all kinds of capitalist abuses are denounced. That organization with about 60 groups nationwide also publishes Le Monde Libertaire. Another french organization called Alternative libertaire is explicit about being for anarcho-communism.

But it happens that Alternative Libertarie is a member of an international federation of similar organizations called International Libertarian Solidarity in which anything pro-capitalist is considered an enemy. International Libertarian Solidarity has as members organizations from Argentina, Brazil, Czech Republic, France, Ireland, Italy, Italy, Lebanon, Mexico, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, South Africa, Uruguay and from the United States and Canada the North Eastern Federation of Anarchist Communists.

It is possible that all this might surprise one or more USA citizens or residents present here but in the rest of the world this is something rather trivial actually and the International Libertarian Solidarity organizations all are active and propagandizing in those countries today about class war and anticapitalism. Also let´s remember the widespread word libertarian communism and the british website http://libcom.org/ which dedicates itself on that.

If anyone wants me dealing with Italy and the italian language I will be glad to do that.--Eduen (talk) 10:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I just found about the Libertarian Book Club. The wikipedia article says that it was "founded in the late 1940s...It has published original and translated texts written from various anarchist and syndicalist perspectives, and re-printed earlier texts that have influenced left-wing politics. It also organized lectures, panels, and forum events on libertarian socialism...The Libertarian Book Club still exists as a small press publisher based in Lafayette Street in New York City, and runs the New York Anarchist Forum."--Eduen (talk) 10:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

To Born2Cycle (responding to your post many lines up ) As you noted, this material should not be hidden or deleted. What you may not be aware of is that the "prohibition" in the template, beyond being inapplicable, is not even legit. It was written by one of the participants in a dispute, not by an admin or by any official WP action, and talk page restrictions were not the finding of any process. North8000 13:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, it seems to me there were a couple of RfCs and a couple of rejected name change moves that showed a clear consensus to not try to delete all material on this topic. I have the links to all of them listed in past archives and can pull them out again if necessary for any talk page or administrative related postings. Dig deep enough in google, or type in left libertarian or libertarian socialism and you find more than enough material. The issue remains one of how much weight is appropriate. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Eduen, it sounds like you know this stuff. My favorite conversation is with someone who know something better than I do. Before we get to article content, may I ask a few "devil's advocatge" tyep quesitons for the sake of learning? OK, so there's the English word "Libertarian" which usually means pro-capitalism. And then there's the non-English words Libertario, Libertaria which often mean anti-capitalist. Different words, different meanings.......sounds like they are not the same word!? :-) And doubly so when you bring up socialist oriented groups, as socialism means bigger government, an exact opposite view of most libertarians/anarchists/anti-statists Second, do you know who/where the major libertarianism is outside of the US? I mean, a view held only by an 8 person Libertarian club in Zanzibar would only confuse the discussion/reader. Now, on to article content. Either way, if you could write a few sentences summarizing what you are saying above, speaking for myself, I'd love to see it in the article. It should put it in context. If, despite the above "2 different words" points above, we really are talking about Libertarianism elsewhere, this further points out the need to summarize widespread common tenets. We've been working on that in a s3eperate page, initially for a new "Overview" section. North8000 15:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The proposal at Talk:Marseille to move that article to Marseilles on the grounds that "Marseilles" (with an s) is the predominant English spelling was recently rejected essentially on the grounds that while the with-s spelling was until fairly recently indeed preferred in English, lately, perhaps as recently as in the last 10 years, it has fallen out of favor and the French spelling without-the-s is now predominant in English, and so that is what Wikipedia should reflect. I say that only to point out that what is most relevant to this article with respect to what libertarianism means as well, is relatively recent usage in English. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

As long as we're trying to *seriously* use the left-right spectrum, we're going to just create lots of confusion. I dare say, we should extend the Wikipedia list of logical fallacies to include "left-right [political] fallacy", lol. It's actually an example of black and white thinking. Look at "The Political Compass" and "similar political spectrum proposals". While they are not perfect (it's impossible for any spectrum to attain perfection), they give us a more tangible and reasonable way of thinking of political ideology and classification. The "left-right" fallacy is only going to cause dispute among us and make the article garbage.

We can NOT simply think libertarianism concerns the divide between socialism and capitalism (free enterprise). In it's broad sense, one can be a libertarian-communist or a libertarian-capitalist (and by "capitalist", I'm actually pointing to free enterprise / free market, rather than the Marxist definition). Libertarianism has to do with the divide between authoritarianism/totalitarianism and anarchism/individualism. Libertarian ideologies can be either "right" or "left" in economic thinking. Anarchism and libertarianism, however, are not the same thing. Libertarianism is an ideology, and anarchism is a form of government. So anarchists and minarchists are both "Libertarian" thinkers. The word does not mean anarchism nor minarchism itself. Such a notion only sews confusion and mucks up the reader's ability to make a good interpretation. But... this only addresses the broad scope of the word...

The word "libertarian" is almost unanimously considered an ideology which promotes total individualism, both socially and economically. The common usage of the word refers to thinkers who would be in the bottom-right quadrant of the "Political Compass" spectrum and others (which are so far the best spectrums we have). Some Marxist thinkers have latched onto the word because they believe socialism is the only way to attain economic freedom...or we could say, "freedom FROM economics". I disagree with this usage of the term, however, and so do most Marxists who simply identify themselves as communist/socialist and egalitarian/collectivist. Libertarianism is simply the concept of total individualism, and is defined by the ideals of self-ownership, free enterprise (freedom to own materials/commodities and trade them without hindrance from state or society), self-reliance, etc. This is what the world is talking about when they refer to "libertarianism", though the term is less popularly used in other ways, such as these links to communist revolutionaries. North8000 may actually be correct that these are actually different words they're using and should be treated as such -- but I don't know enough about the language(s).

Anyway, there's my 43-cents... Of course, adjusted for even MORE inflation! ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.163.26 (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you! I think that you have defined the common tenets the same as where our workspace work pointed us. Also, I think that the picture that has been emerging is that while the topics covered in the "Left Libertarian" and "Right Libertarian" articles are probably good ones to have articles, the titles for those articles are really bad.

If I had to add a note, it would be to note that a libertarian can be someone who pragmatically wants their country to be more (but not totally) libertarian. In fact, they probably outnumber the others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) 21:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

[Added later: Attention User talk:67.142.163.26 and "Unsigned":] Wikipedia:Soapbox#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox first paragraph reads: Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. Followed by a list of examples. Please read it and comply. Discuss specific changes with detailed references here only. When this article opens up again, I think those of us fed up with SOAPBOX should just work together to do WP:ANIs on anyone who engages in it if they refuse to stop after one or two warnings. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything here that comes close to soapboxing here. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Carol, I don't see anything even vaguely resembling what you are accusing. North8000 02:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I added/clarified what I was responding to in my post. I was talking about the three long paragraphs from the anonymous IP User talk:67.142.163.26 and the encouragement by unsigned in the form of praise for it. I don't see any WP:RS there, just links to a couple non-WP:RS pages. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Removing left and right from the article

These terms are confusing the readers. there is no left libertarian party, not right libertarian party. the average user is searching for the same definition they seek on google, which is the modern understanding of libertarian. Darkstar1st (talk) 00:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Much as I wish it was possible, the simple truth is that mainstream and academic sources use the terms and its best to make sure that readers understand how they are used - rather than confuse them by not using them at all. Also to make clear that many libertarians (especially pro-free market) don't like their use at all. We cannot deny what far too many WP:RS actually say. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

But there are 5.6 ghits million for "libertarian", and 35k for "left-libertarian". That's less than 1%. Even in Scholar there are only 1,640 hits for "left-libertarian", less than 300 for "right-libertarian", and over 77,000 for "libertarian". That's 2%. Now, 1,640 might seem like a lot for a piece that uses sources numbered in the dozens, but compared to 77k? Let's keep things in perspective and abide by WP:DUE. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Those "ghits" (sic) statistics are meaningless if we don't know what kind of libertarianism the hits are about. Plus comparing numbers of hits, even when their nature are very clear, is only one of several indices for inclusion. I don't know why people are arguing about this without bothering to show how they would change things, like with their own draft version. It's more soapbox. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Are there any relatively recent (last decade or so) sources in English that refer specifically to some form of "left libertarianism" as just libertarianism? How prevalent is such usage? --Born2cycle (talk) 16:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

This idea that there are millions of left leaning libertarians and the article needs to be locked to ensure neutrality for this minority is nonsense. This article needs to be unlocked immediately so we can give the entire picture of a full libertarian agenda. The article as it stands now is a white washed far right propaganda piece. Stop locking articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.230.227 (talk • contribs) 06:11, 2010 December 29

What matters on wikipedia is what WP:RS say. Just searching NEWS sources for last 5 years I find these returns. I'm sure there are more in recent books and scholarship. So it remains worth mentioning, the question is weight of specific sentences in specific sections. But I guess it would take work to have to find them, look at the sources, think about their relevance and weight, etc. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Clarifying left and right distinctions

Carol, I think that the picture that is emerging is that the strains of Libertarianism covered by the "Left Libertarian" and "Right Libertarian" are significant and probably should be articles. But, it looks like the those terms aren't real names for strains of Libertarianism, it seems that they are terms used for categorization purposes by writers and Wikipedia editors. What I propose is that we keep exploring / clarifying these issues in the talk pages, without you accusing the participants of soapboxing, and without Fiferloo trying to delete/hide talk. I think that the talk was converging with the research work on the "core tenets" separate work page. I propose we bring that work to a conclusion, get a new "overview" section put up, and save the source work there for future use. And eventually, we open the question of continued existence of the "right/left" articles (I'm guessing the answer will be yes) and possible renaming of them. So far, this ISN'T about the old inclusion/exclusion question. If that question arises, I'll strongly stick with you on the "inclusion" side. But let's let the other discussions progress, and let's not look at everything through the lens of ancient warfare. Instead, let's have some fun here making good Libertarian articles  :-) Sincerely, North8000 15:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's not really possible for a term to be "used for categorization purposes by [numerous WP:RS] writers" but somehow not be a "Real Name". BigK HeX (talk) 15:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the answer, I am trying to learn it. But it looks like the core difference is for and and against capitalism. But the words "right" and "left" are unfortunate at best....in the US, both of those terms mean some things that are the exact opposite of some pervasive tenets of Libertarianism. North8000 16:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)North8000 didn't say they aren't "real names". He said they aren't "real names for strains of libertarianism". I agree, "left libertarianism" is a real name for the political philosophy distinct from "libertarianism" (as libertarianism is used today in reliable secondary English sources), used as synonym or near-synonym for "libertarian socialism", and "right libertarianism" is a synonym for "libertarianism" used in contexts where left libertarianism is discussed. Every recent source we have is consistent with this usage. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

And are there any that don't? This just proves the futility of long discussions of personal opinions as opposed to sources, and you know what that's call - wash board... :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I showed the contemporary use of the word "libertarian" and so this cannot be avoided. The word libertarian has been used by anticapitalists anarchists since 1858. I think this article put it very nicely "The first anarchist journal to use the term “libertarian” was La Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement Social. Somewhat ironically, given recent developments in America, it was published in New York between 1858 and 1861 by French communist-anarchist Joseph Déjacque. The next recorded use of the term was in Europe, when “libertarian communism” was used at a French regional anarchist Congress at Le Havre (16-22 November, 1880). January the following year saw a French manifesto issued on “Libertarian or Anarchist Communism.” Finally, 1895 saw leading anarchists Sébastien Faure and Louise Michel publish La Libertaire in France." 150 years of the use of 'Libertarian. So the weight of history should be accounted for in this article but also the real contemporary use of the word libertarian where everywhere and sometimes even in the USA is associated with anarchism as i showed before. The use of USA liberals of the word apparently only started in the sixties or seventies as the article mentioned previously says.--Eduen (talk) 21:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Also lets consider that outside the USA, even in the UK what the americans call "libertarians" in the UK and in the rest of the world are called "liberals". Also new or recent pro market economics such as Hayek and Friedman get called "neoliberalism". I am aware also of the use of the word "liberalism" in the USA meaning what in the rest of the world is called "socialdemocracy". So this shows why in the rest of the world "libertarian" is associated with anarchism while people like Friedman, Hayek, Rothbard, etc are called liberal or neoliberal economists.--Eduen (talk) 21:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

For more on the use of the word "liberal" outside the USA lets consider the Liberal International which has as members parties that promote free market capitalism.--Eduen (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The suggestion that "libertario", "libertarian" and "libertaire" are "different words" is simply absurd. Obviously all of these refer themselves to "libertad", "liberty" and "liberte". And lets also remember that anarchism has not only dedicated itself on anticapitalism but also civil liberties such as freedom in love and sex and can be seen in Anarchism and issues related to love and sex but also on similar "libertarian" issues such as freethought, libertarian pedagogy and education, antipsychiatry, Conscientious objection, etc. Anarchism has pioneers of modern LGBT rights such as Adolf Brand and of birth control methods promotion such as Moses Harman and so for a good reason "anarcha-feminism" has a long history going back to the XIX century with prominent feminists such as Emma Goldman or the more recent theorist Germaine Greer. This shows the reasons for the use of "libertarian" by anarchists and so it is clear how dedicated they have been for promoting "liberty".--Eduen (talk) 22:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

A word on individualism. Anarchism is clearly an individualist position as can be seen in the defense of the "individual" that is present in Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta and Max Stirner. There is even a tendency within it called individualist anarchism. Now i will want to debate the suggestion of someone before me that individualism in economics can only mean pro capitalist market views. There are many individualist anarchists who were also anarcho communists. The italian individualist anarchists puts it this way "Only ethical and spiritual wealth" as "invulnerable. This is the true property of individuals. The rest no! The rest is vulnerable! And all that is vulnerable will be violated!" The anarchist Oscar Wilde defended socialism as the economic system that can guarantee true individualism in The Soul of Man under Socialism. What these individualists focus on is freedom of spirit and of control of one´s own body and not on accumulating things and property such as vulgar right wing liberals would reduce "libertarianism" sometimes. Oscar Wilde in that essay wrote "With the abolition of private property, then, we shall have true, beautiful, healthy Individualism. Nobody will waste his life in accumulating things, and the symbols for things. One will live. To live is the rarest thing in the world. Most people exist, that is all. Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism, 1891. For a good reason individualist anarchists in Europe justified theft in what is known as individual reclamation and Ilegalism since they saw private property was something that the individual can very well disrespect if she desires so.--Eduen (talk) 22:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

"These terms are confusing the readers. there is no left libertarian party, not right libertarian party. the average user is searching for the same definition they seek on google, which is the modern understanding of libertarian."

The modern understanding of libertarian is someone for liberty and for civil libertarianism. If you want to provide accurate information for readers you shold tell them that libertarianism since the XIX century has been associated mainly with an ideology called anarchism while also in the last 3 decades there has appeared a use by USA liberals of the word "libertarian" to describe their views. Lets remember this is not a USA wikipedia but an english language wikipedia and so in the UK the use of "libertarian" by anarchists is familiar to them and in places like Spain, France and Latin America anarchists use the words "anarchist" and "libertarian" to describe their views and so the existence of anarchist publications with the title "el libertario" or "Le Monde Libertaire" or the french "Radio Libertaire" or the word "libertarian communism".--Eduen (talk) 23:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I, too, would dispute the claims that the "terms are confusing the readers". On the other hand, I think the article also does a fair job of covering the association with anarchism already. BigK HeX (talk) 00:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

While the article isn't perfect in making these distinctions, the best way to deal with any discontents is to suggest actual language with references. Otherwise it looks like WP:Soapbox and as you may have noticed I've had it up to here with that. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Edeun, I have to disagree with you on

" also in the last 3 decades there has appeared a use by USA liberals of the word "libertarian" to describe their views."

While US Liberals and Libertarians (using US meanings of the terms) overlap on the "social" corner, the are opposites in other areas. North8000 11:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Globalize tagging

{{Merge from|Libertarianism in the United Kingdom|date=January 2011}} {{Merge from|Libertarianism in the United States|date=January 2011}} {{Merge from|Libertarianism in South Africa|date=January 2011}}

Have placed Merge to in above, this would address the tagging. Lycurgus (talk)

Oppose: The Globalise tagging is about due WEIGHTing between the movement which originated in Paris in the mid 19th Century (which is primarily described as Libertarianism in South America, the Continent, and the Commonwealth), and the movement which originate in the US in the late 20th Century (which is primarily described as Libertarianism in the United States, segments of the US's political periphery, and the Commonwealth). Fifelfoo (talk) 22:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Support Except for US, and rename the containing § National Variation or the like with the US subsection a precis of the article with a link to the main one. Noting that I haven't actually read the content of this group. Wiki policies, to be coherent, must be independent of the content they're applied to. WP:CSB , would therefore be the applicable one here. Tags are not given "abouts" specific to local article situations, situational semantics that define what the tags are for. I started this thread purely on an assessment of the amount of text in the various articles and the complaint in the tag. Guiding principle: for any subject 1 strong article is better than a bunch of weak ones, other things being equal. There are likely other merge sources. cf. with Anarchism which takes a completely different approach with a well written exposition of the subject and a See Also link to a list of regional variants. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 02:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The ideal for this article would be something much like Anarchism's structural approach including its sub-article approach; but, I have concerns that Anarchism's structure is deeply synthetic rather than being based on highest grade scholarly tertiary (for taxonomy and structure) and secondary sources. Also, imho, it is fairly important to keep the sub-article stubs right now, to avoid country-specific cruft being added pellmell to this article. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The deeply satisfying thing is that Anarchism with its drive for self-organization is in a far better state than Libertarianism. It's true that I've been on steep libertarian trajectory for some time but in a left orientation which alienates me strongly from the typical US libertarian. In essence, liberty/an-archy, same thing. Carry-on to whatever resolution you can reach on the globalize tag, which I did not place (in this last comment made some adjustments to the markup of other commentators). 72.228.177.92 (talk) 14:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose: Different countries have different movements and there is no reason to remove sourced content and jam it in here. Category:Socialism_by_country has 112 entries, a clear precedent. Libertarianism easily could have a couple dozen articles by country if someone wanted to write them. As for the tagging, the problem has been that a) that people did not add material on many movements and that b) later people removed info that had been included. So go back in time and find some of that material and re-add it - if the article is ever opened again - or long enough. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. I don't understand the rationale for this request - why would we want to merge these articles here? The proposer says nothing that I understand, just some opaque remarks about tagging. john k (talk) 07:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Temporarily Oppose I also could not understand what the proposer was saying. We're still trying to get our act together on a clearer picture on strains, division, practice, time frame, locations, terminologies, weight (degree of practice) of Libertarianism. Until we make progress there, it too early to decide what the "Big Picture" of articles should look like, and we should delay mergering, creating and renaming articles until we make some progress there. North8000 (talk) 17:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Given the negative reaction to doing this, and User:Lycurgus failure to explain the topic or link to this discussion on any of talk pages of three articles in question, I think these tags should be removed by Monday night unless there is some major change in status. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Reminder

As a reminder, and note to new folks, the focus of the work on this article moved to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Libertarianism/OverviewDraft2. While I think that that workspace will create a multi-use long term foundation for other work on the article, the action item at the moment is to arrive at a "common tenets" list to guide and assist the writing and sourcing of a new "overview" section. Please participate, and let's get it to the finish line. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

You mean you think the focus is there. Some of us keep disagreeing. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Carol, I have NEVER heard anyone disagree until now. What's up?

I guess what I really meant is that that effort had been dead for a shorter time than progress in the article itself which has been 100% dead for a long time. North8000 (talk) 01:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

THen you failed to read at least three of my past postings, and perhaps others. In fact, if I looked someone (perhaps you) probably disagreed with me repeatedly. Look at archives if you want to verify. Otherwise, take my word for it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you point me to one of those? North8000 (talk) 12:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

This is one of a couple sections where I commented on it. I am not saying that I said people shouldn't do it, only that it was not necessarily the final arbiter of what was in the article and that proposed drafts of language to be inserted in the article are generally more relevant. I don't think I have to take a half an hour to find everywhere I said it and prove I said it. I'm saying it now (again). CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The one that you pointed out, and your last post is more the way I remember it. North8000 (talk) 16:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Liberal

What's the difference between Libertarian and Liberal? Is this just another example of Americans inventing a word when there already is a perfectly good one? Like burglarise is to burgle? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.168.132 (talk) 11:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

In the US they have absolutely different meanings. We're trying to write an article that explains the prevalent meaning of Libertarian but so far have been a total failure. The need for your post (vs. being able to get it from the article) re-confirms that......Thanks for reminding us. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

If libertarianism is liberalism, it is one version of many and merits its own name. TFD (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Liberalism means absolutely different things in different places, with the US being somewhat unique. Regarding US Liberalism, Libertarianism is not a branch of it and it is not a branch of Libertarianism.

North8000, remind us of your specific suggestions for improving the article through added WP:RS info. THanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Finish the new overview section , with a focus on common tenets. Expand every part that relates to actual practice (of some magnitude) of Libertarianism. Parties, groups, think tanks, publications etc. Then we need to write some truly explanatory material on there areas which are unclear to a typical reader. All sourced. That should keep us busy for the first 3 months. Then set the plan for the next 3 months. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Anarchism remains one of the significant branches of libertarianism.

Informal Federation of Anarchy claimed responsibility for the bombings in italy. there is such a vast political difference in this article, perhaps it should be split into 2 articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Is that a different type of anarchist than those whose goal is to have no government? North8000 (talk) 15:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

a reasonable person could divine libertarians want no government after reading this article, hence the need to split the very different meanings. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I think we know that the article is very confusing to a reader. Hopefully we can start making some progress on that. Maybe sorting this one out would be an example. I don't know anarchism very well, but it appears that (all of these definitions are from dictionary.com) that there are sort of three groups of meanings of anarchism/anarchist/anarchy:

1. The Libertarian-ish one: "a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society." and anarchy: "a state of society without government or law." and anarchism: "a doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental restraint as the indispensable condition for full social and political liberty."
2. The smoke and flames bunch: Anarchist: "seeks to overturn by violence all constituted forms and institutions of society and government, with no purpose of establishing any other system of order in the place of that destroyed" and *"promotes disorder or excites revolt against any established rule, law, or custom." and anarchism: "the methods or practices of anarchists, as the use of violence to undermine government"
3. What it means to most people Anarchy: "political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy." and "confusion; chaos; disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith."

We should start explaining this stuff in the article, especially #1, and that it is not necessarily #2 or #3. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

what we want to call anarchism doesn't really matter if the people currently using the term are bombing stuff. wp is supposed to provide the most well-known/accepted version, not necessary the most "correct". Darkstar1st (talk) 22:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

What would you say to this:? Even if #2 and #3 and the more common meanings of the term, #1 does exist, and is the only (arguably) Libertarian-ish one. And, IMHO, lets cover it and explain it? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

i think we are trying to be a little to politically correct for the good of wp. the average reader will think bombing/lp usa. where is the anarchistic branch of libertarianism located? where are the people who practice this form of libertarianism? the anarchist have claimed responsibility for the bombing, where are the anarchist libertarians claiming they do not support the bombing, should none exist, does that mean the anarchist libertarians support the bombing? would a reasonable person assume such after reading the wp article? Darkstar1st (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that an average reader, after reading this confusing article would say "I still have no idea what Libertarianism is; and reading this article got me even more confused rather than helping. But if someone were to say the the answer were to not even cover it in this article, I would not agree with them. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, this article is very informative, but not concise, more of morass of conflicting ideas. should we burn the voting booth down, or form grass-roots support for fiscal conservatives. most social issues are addressed by the "what's it gonna cost me credo most lp usa follow. if the answer is zero, no matter the depravity, libertarians simply do not care what you do on your own time. most are against FEDERAL spending of even the most well intended program, not mandated by the constitution. perhaps we could agree the wording, "Anarchism remains one of the significant branches of libertarianism" is a bit misleading at best. the lp usa is the only significant branch of libertarianism. the other forms are very popular in rs, but all the sources presented here discuss the past use or misuse of the term, or the opinion people have of ideology "left-libertarianism", or "anarchist libertarian." it would be like describing chocolate and peanut butter without ever combining the two. it sounds like a great idea, yet no one does it. on the other hand, hundreds of thousands of lp usa members practice, vote, and campaign for the type of libertarians who don't use bombs or want to disassemble the rule of law described by the US constitution. most simply want the limited government laid out by our nations fore-fathers, who were inspired by the same free will crowd who invented the term. Darkstar1st (talk) 04:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree 99%, and part of what you said agrees with me on the other 1%. The 1% is that because so much of the article is such a jumble of conflicting ideas, with no "forest for the trees" info, I don't think that it is very informative on the big questions. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Deja vu Soapbox all over again. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Carol, will you quit mislabeling everything "soabboxing".

Wikipedia:Soapbox#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox: Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for: Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, sports-related, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views... And if your favorite view is that no form of anarchism is part of any form of libertarianism, or whatever, and you keep yapping away about it without providing ANY WP:RS, you are soapboxing. And there is no reason that others of us have to put up with it. It does not establish any consensus either. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see "no form of anarchism is part of any form of libertarianism" argued in the above discussion. That strawman set aside, do you have specifics to your assertion of "soapboxing". Carol, I don't want to argue here, I just want to stop arguing. And, IMHO you keeping tossing "soapboxing" accusations at civil, conversations that are germane to the development of the article is fighting where there is no fight. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

unless there is an objection, remove the passage Anarchism remains one of the significant branches of libertarianism. Darkstar1st (talk) 00:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I made a sub-section for this proposal. It would have been helpful if the original poster had bothered to tell us they were quoting a sentence in the lead and made a specific proposal with actual reasons to remove it. And then they wonder why it sounds like soapbox. (And it is when it goes on and on attacking the concept per se, as further discussion did, without making clear right off it's related to something specific in the article.)

But now that I know what the heck this thread was about in the first place -- there is a problem with not pointing out that the source is talking about "modern libertarianism" and comparing Rothbard factions with minarchists. I think that sort of thing belongs in the lead, though not necessarily in that place with that sentence. Do you want to discuss a constructive alternative? CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Where is the new subsection?North8000 (talk) 14:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

You are there. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Anarchism is a branch of libertarianism was rejected by the Anarchy article, why keep it here?

Minarchist are pro-capitalist, anarchist are anti-capitalist. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

And the WP:RS is? CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

perhaps you have a rs saying minarchist are not pro capitalist, or that anarchist are pro capitalist? Darkstar1st (talk) 00:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

how can we have two large well watched articles that are not in agreement with each other? if we can't have the same definition of libertarian at the anarchism article, that should be a darn good indication the definition here is flawed and should omit the anarchist part. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

And the diff showing where the deletion is so we can evaluate it - or see if it has been put back - is what?? More information if you want to have an actual discussion instead of a "circle soapbox." :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

perhaps you have a rs saying minarchist are not pro capitalist, or that anarchist are pro capitalist? -- If nobody has a source that says this, these statements shouldn't be included, just like your unsourced statement above shouldn't be included without reliable sources. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

great, so does anyone oppose removing the section title from the article? if not, i request this change to be made Darkstar1st (talk) 17:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anarchism#Anarchism_is_a_branch_of_Libertarianism. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anarchism&oldid=404852936

Your argument is faulty regarding the anarchism article. In that article, there are many adjectives you could use to describe anarchism besides "libertarian", and the problem was that you selected only one (to disruptively make a point). But you already know all of this, since you were told by another user there (who said: So using the methodology of Darkstar we might have to say at the beginning of this article "Anarchism, a part of libertarianism, antiparlamentarism, feminism, antiracism, ecologism, socialism, antimperialism, is a political..."). They were not rejecting the notion that anarchism was a strain of libertarian thought, but just your disruptive insertion of this fact in the first clause of the first sentence of the lead. Did you just forget about that and misrepresent what happened there accidentally, or is this a more deliberate thing like your repeated false allegations of anti-Semitism against TFD? This is an article on libertarian thought, and thus including a detailed description of the relation between anarchism and libertarianism makes perfect sense. So what happened at anarchism when you tried to disrupt things there really has no bearing here (other than providing more evidence that your contributions are consistently disruptive, misrepresentative, and non-productive). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

my question is very simple. is anarchism a branch of libertarianism or not? if so, why isnt this mentioned on both articles? Darkstar1st (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, anarchism is a type of libertarianism, as has been demonstrated to you with reliable sources over and over and over again. Give it up. The reasons it was not included in the article anarchism, in the manner that you attempted to include it, have been explained to you there. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

why shouldn't anarchism identify it is a branch or a larger ideology in the lead if not before? Darkstar1st (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

This has already been answered above, and at Talk:Anarchism. I'm done wasting my time with this, since I don't think anyone is taking it seriously anymore. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

actually, the talk page made the point why it should not be mentioned in either article. please reread. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

While I agree pick Jrtayloriv's side in the debate, I gotta say, IMHO, Darkster seems to be civilly discussing, and Jrtayloriv seems to be insulting and taking swipes at Darkster. Let's lighten up and have some fun here. North8000 (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Anarchism and libertarianism have a very complex relationship to one another, complicated by the fact the words are used synonymously in many parts of the world, and to simplify the matter in the lede based on a tertiary source is a Very Bad Idea

this was the opinion of the anarchism talk. so if it is a tertiary source, and it does not belong in the lead of anarchism, why does it belong in the lede of libertarianism? Darkstar1st (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think that all of the "unusual" stuff should go out of the lead, and I suspect that anarchist libertarians might be in that category. I just meant that it appears that they do exist and this article is an appropriate place to clarify it for people. North8000 (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

agree, is there any objection to removing the passages from the lede? Darkstar1st (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. For the reasons that have been repeated to you every time you've asked - namely that it's extensively covered in reliable sources, no valid reason has been presented for removing it, and the lead is supposed to summarize the article (which talks about anarchism). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

the reason it was removed from the lede of the anarchy article is because it is a tertiary source, please see above. Darkstar1st (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

First of all, you're repeatedly misrepresenting why your disruptive edit was removed from the anarchism article, even though everyone can clearly see that it's false. (You also did this with your repeated false allegations of anti-semitism against another editor, and I'm really having a hard time understanding why you would keep lying when everyone can tell that you are doing so. Lying is usually done in situations where people might possibly believe that you are telling the truth.) Anyhow, I'll point everyone to my statement above (Beginning with "Your argument is faulty regarding the anarchism article...."), or simply to Talk:Anarchism, for an honest description of why it was removed.

Second, regarding the fact that the Blackwell Encyclopedia is a tertiary source, please read this passage from WP:OR:

Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources. Some tertiary sources may be more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others.

The lead is an overview and a summary of the topic, and Blackwell encyclopedias are amongst the most high-quality tertiary sources. There is absolutely no problem with using them as a source for this statement in the lead. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

then why did you accuse me of disrupting the anarchism article when i tried to add the exact same text from the same tertiary source? either it is a branch of libertarianism or it is not. Darkstar1st (talk) 04:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

See above. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

adjectives you could use to describe anarchism besides "libertarian", true, but according to the rs, it is actually a branch of libertarianism, not an adjective. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Do you really not understand what that sentence meant, even with the example that the other user provided for you? Do you really not understand that the article anarchism is not the same as the article libertarianism and that the same information might be given different weight in each of the topics? I'm not really sure how to help you if either of these are the case, except to tell you to work really hard to try to understand them, because you'll never understand why your edit isn't being accepted until you get a grip on each of these concepts. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

but if it is a branch of libertarianism, why wouldn't that fact be in the lede? Darkstar1st (talk) 05:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems like I'm the only person taking this nonsense seriously right now, so I'll say this once more, and then I'm done: See above. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

anarchism was a strain of libertarian these are your words, seems odd they would not fit in the anarchy article? Darkstar1st (talk) 06:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Links don't work

Please provide actual diffs to what the text and references removed were for those not involved in that discussion. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 67.169.72.25, 12 January 2011

{{edit protected}}

It states at the beginning of the article that libertarianism is about belief in "freedom of thought and action". As a friend pointed out, this is oxymoronic. There is no way to control "thought", so by nature every person has freedom of thought. So libertarians have no interest or need in promoting freedom of thought; people already have that. The sentence should be changed or deleted.

i.e.

Libertarianism is the advocacy of individual liberty, especially freedom of expression and action.

67.169.72.25 (talk) 01:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The WP:RS says thought and action. If you have refs that agree there is no way to control thought or better refs for lead, best to just join in the debate on the lead, when the article opens up in about 20 days. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It reminds me of what Victor Eremita said in Either/Or: "How absurd men are! They never use the liberties they have, they demand those they do not have. They have freedom of thought, they demand freedom of speech." TFD (talk) 03:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

There may be something in this about Orwell's suggestion that you control thought by shaping language - but whether we can get any practical use out of this or not I have no idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.121.242.7 (talk) 10:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

There's no need to wait until Feb 1. We should have been developing consensused changes all along. North8000 (talk) 14:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Unprotected

The page has been unprotected early. Please remember the mess and idiocy we had before; if that starts to happen again it will quickly get re-protected. In the meantime, where's that rewrite we've been promised? Sorry to wake everyone up early but you might have to rush it now :) --Errant ^(chat!) 21:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Extra text in template

As determined in a lengthy discussion, the extra text in the template was found to be the the opinion of one of the participants, slighty tweaked by a person who said they were NOT acting as an admin. It's location and tone deceive readers into thinking it was written by someone in authority or containing an official determination. Further, it falsely implies that someone must provide sourcing to make a comment on a talk page. It is improper to put personal opinions into the templates as such to give them unequal longevity on the talk page and more weight by deceiving readers into thinking that they are by an authority, and to place them unsigned. These need to go out February 1st, if not immediately. North8000 (talk) 14:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

agree i was disciplined for asking for sources on a talk page before(i put an "according to whom" tag on a comment), implying sources are required is misleading. i try to source mine when i have the time, but do we really want to make that the defacto law? Darkstar1st (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

For the articles that work, the way it happens is that people have discussions, and develop material, with sourcability and sourcing in mind, and then sources it. That doesn't mean requiring sourcing for someone to say something in the discussion; that would just jam it up.North8000 (talk) 19:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone is saying that sources are required to say anything. For instance, if there is a problem with the way a paragraph is written, or perhaps the article should be organized differently, then nobody is required to provide sources to make suggestions on how to fix them. But what shouldn't be done without sources is long-winded discussions about whether or not anarchism is a type of libertarianism, what "real" libertarians believe, which libertarian's arguments make the most sense, etc. This type of unsourced discussion about the topic of the article (rather than the structure of the article) is known as soapboxing, and is what people are referring to when they say that sources are needed. (Case in point: I don't need sources for this post, because I am not talking about the topic, but a procedural/structural issue. If I was discussing why we should/shouldn't include a particular strain of libertarianism in the article, I would need to provide sources.)-- Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I mostly agree with what you said. One of the specific problems discussed here is the the extra text in the template implies otherwise. The area I disagree with you (and I'm thinking more about friendly group efforts on difficult articles like this one, not contentious areas, Lets say one or more folks have read 100's of reliable and unreliable wp:"RS's" on the topic which often conflict with each other, or whose scope is too narrow. In the real world of articles that work, they might work out the text based on that and then source it. I think that this article needs that, and that one of the reasons it is such an uninformative mess is that that wasn't done. North8000 (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you regarding the template. I don't like the way it's written either. I don't agree with you that we should "work out the text" and then provide sources, regardless of how much people say they've read on the subject beforehand. Let's assume (probably incorrectly) that everyone here has read a lot about this subject. We obviously have many divergent viewpoints about what the truth is in spite of this. We've also had several editors misusing sources or trying to insert content that's not in any sources at all, so it's very hard to trust that people are making accurate assertions unless they provide sources. Because of this, I think it would be safest if any suggestions for passages in the article have reliable sources in them. The sources are going to be the first thing requested anyway (and it's certainly the case that nothing is going into/out-of the article without them), so we might as well just go ahead and add them from the onset. Again, though, I agree with you that the template is poorly written and doesn't represent the consensus view on what should be happening here. Perhaps we should figure out how to rewrite that first (another example of a discussion where sources are not necessary). Perhaps saying something along the line of "Suggestions regarding the addition or removal of any statements of fact or opinion to/from the article (as opposed to structural/grammatical changes) require the presentation of reliable sources to justify said changes." Obviously this would need heavy rewriting for legibility, but something along those lines seems to be in the right ballpark, and is specific enough to alleviate concerns about "people requiring sources to say anything here". -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

new template suggestion

Obviously the template is currently out of date. If people don't try to open up old issues, we shouldn't need one. If they do maybe we need one with this text (in addition to a 1RR warning:

Thoughts? CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

disagree the community consensus you mentions is disputed. Darkstar1st (talk) 00:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

By anyone but yourself and banned user BlueRobe? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Carol, lots of issues with that but let's move past that and just not need another intervention. North8000 (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

What if we made a general note for people to look at the archives and past RFCs before getting involved, and requested that they provide sources in the cases I suggested above? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

And by the way, I just noticed the comments like "which does not include material deletionists do not like". These should go. We should just link to the RFCs, and say whether they were accepted/rejected. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

During that time period there was only one substantial RFC, and I don't see the result there. Plus the whole thing looks like fighting. Let's move on and work together to make a good article. I really don't see any big POV differences here, just an ancient feud which some seem to be still mentally stuck in. Let's move on, Where shoud we start? Sincerely. North8000 (talk) 03:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I really don't care about the template that much, and would be glad to have not wasted the time talking about it in the first place. Since you started the conversation on this, if you would be willing to mark the conversation as "Resolved", so it can be archived, I'd be fine with that. As far as the "feud" on the other hand, I think the reason that people are concerned about keeping the template, is that Darkstar1st is still hanging around and trying to remove reliably sourced content that the RFCs have repeatedly stated should stay. I don't think that the arguments about anarchism are going to go away until either (a) he leaves, or (b) he stops trying to remove it, and learns to accept a consensus decision he doesn't agree with. But that's something we can discuss in a new section, if he wishes to keep it up. Anyhow, if you think that we should move on, I think it is fair that you close this topic, since it was your concern to begin with, and you seem to feel that it's not worth talking about anymore. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• North8000s suggestion is an excellent example of AGF. We should do so. I suggest that the characterisation of the past page disputes above is a little unfair, but that it probably is important to hold a "link list" to add to any future discussion if such a discussion does go down bad old roads we've all been down too many times before. I'm a little disappointed in the unlock, if only, because the editors who were working on an improvement had a time frame. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Like I wrote If people don't try to open up old issues, we shouldn't need one. - and the message was for Darkstar1st especially. Better language might be found to describe some of the entries on the list. North8000: what was the "only one substantial RFC" that you don't see the result of? CarolMooreDC (talk)

04:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Due to limited time this is going by memory and imprecise, but it is the one where the conclusion was to include all of the forms of Libertarianism that are significant based on RS's. North8000 (talk) 11:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It wouldn't hurt to have a list of those links near the top of the talk page. It doesn't need any of the warnings, just a note that interested editors can review these past RfC's. BigK HeX (talk) 18:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal on overview section and reference work supporting it

Proposal: Lets bring the work at Talk:Libertarianism/OverviewDraft2 to a conclusion. Somebody draft of new "overview" section or a section of the "overview" section from the material in that workspace. Base it on common tenets as per that workspace. Then let's discuss it and put it in.

Also retain the reference work done in the workspace for future use.North8000 (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that the overview there is a clear case of why WP:POVFORK was written. It relies on 3 references, most heavily on Boaz, who is a right libertarian. The article almost exclusively stresses individualism, capitalism, and statism. And even where it does use sources, such as the Stanford Encyclopedia that discuss left-libertarianism, for some reason that is conveniently left out. I don't think it's a good idea at all to have individual users write their own "What I think Libertarianism is" article. What we currently have, for all of its many problems, is much closer to where we need to be. We do need to discuss article structure, but we can do that here, where everyone can work on it in a single place, rather than splitting the conversation off into multiple places. Maybe I'm missing something though. Can someone explain to me who decided that we needed to break the discussion away from this page? Was that not just a decision made because the article got locked? Now that we have the article as a draft, I think this is all obsolete.

Why can't we just say "Hey, I think that this needs to be added to section X, and I think that we should have a new section about Y that goes here?". Why is this less desirable than having everybody write their own POV fork and then getting angry when nobody accepts it? I think we're more likely to make progress taking small steps, rather than trying to have people rewrite the article all at once. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Going from memory, it was an outside "semi-mediator" type person (very sourcing-oriented, with NO POV) who started it as a way to navigate out of the morass that we were in. I supported the idea. I think that the intent was the exact opposite of what you describe. My angle is that this article is a confusing uninformative mess because it's lacking "forest for the trees" type statements. I'd be happy if ANYBODY started writing them. If they are consensused, they will be sourcable.North8000 (talk) 16:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I had vague recollections that North8000 proposed the side-project or it may have been someone else, though I do think the semi-moderator thought it may be a good idea. I think the original efforts were well underway before the protection. It started at Talk:Libertarianism/OverviewDraft but a fork was spun off that ended up with the heavy right-lib effort. BigK HeX (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm confused. I didn't even know that OverviewDraft (without the 2) existed until just now when you mentioned it. North8000 (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually ... I'm starting to remember more now. The efforts were originally started on this talk page before I moved them over to that subpage. BigK HeX (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

May I suggest the following to keep things from getting crazy again

In addition to the normal stuff:

1. Take it easy. There's no rush! If we go a million miles an hour in circles we won't go forward
2. Make edit summaries say what you did, not just a sidebar comment to help it slip by.
3. You know if what you are going to do is controversial or not. If it is, discuss it at least a bit first, even if not obtaining a full blown consensus

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Unlock the article

This article is a dishonest whitewash of Libertarianism. Unlock the article so the the full agenda of libertarians can be exposed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.230.227 (talk) 08:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, it was unstable when open, and completely dead when locked. The latter leaves an important article in a state of being a confusing jumble. I think that unstable was the lesser of two evils. North8000 (talk) 11:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Some of us have schedules based on Feb 1. Why start the arguing and running to WP:ANI over WP:"Refusal to get the point" so soon? At least I hope people are thinking up specific suggestions and not same old WP:SOAPBOX blah blah blah. My juices are getting flowing seeing the deadline only 3 weeks away for a brand new draft proposal. So many articles, so little time. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Carol, are you working on something for THIS article? If so, that would be good and I'm looking forward to it. (can't say the same for your continuous soapbox accusations  :-) ) But I seem to remember that you were talking about work on other articles, not this one. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately I keep getting pulled into fixing up defamatory articles. But almost finished with current one and then plunging in here. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Cool! North8000 (talk) 15:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

agree unlock instead of helping, the lock simply froze this mess for half a year. the reason for the quagmire is the widely held views of libertarianism are in direct conflict with several academic text. a solution has been suggested to separate the articles. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The unlock question aside, IMHO we should try to and arguably decided to cover the strands of Libertarianism in this article. And then some higher level summaries on common tenets, prevalence etc. IMHO there might be just one strain (socialist) which is no-way-libertarian. When we get to sub articles, IMHO we might find the "left" and right" are terms writers use for dividing material rather than strands. But IMHO things like the Libertarian type of anarchists should be in the article. Also, maybe we can help by bringing the "common tenets" sub-page and overview development section to a conclusion / proposal Sincerely, 20:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Right now we should be creating consensused changes and getting them put in....Feb 1 is when unconsensused changes start going in  ;-) So there's no reason to wait. Except I'd like to see what Carol is coming up with. North8000 (talk) 13:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Feb 1 is when unconsensused changes start going in  ;-) -- No, Feb 1. is when we start making changes to the article backed by consensus. This type of attitude, from people you've so energetically supported (such as Bluerobe), is what got the article blocked in the first place. He's gone now, and hopefully you won't be picking up the torch. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 14:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

(added later) Jrtayloriv, your characterization & implication there is far off base. You should read the talk pages more closely before / if you try to make such (erroneous) characterizations and implications about. I also think you might have missed my point/humor about Feb 1st. I thought it was pretty obvious. What changes February 1st regarding consensued changes? Maybe the bar gets a bit lower, and it gets a bit easier/faster to put them in, but my point is that we shouild have been making consensused changles all along, vs. this article being completely dead. North8000 (talk) 15:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me for thinking you were serious. I thought this due to your broad support of such behavior in the past, and am glad to see that you have changed your perspective. If you now think that people should have been adhering to consensus all along, then I wholeheartedly agree with you, and apologize for the misunderstanding. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 15:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

You are multiplying your mis-characterizations are errors instead of correcting correcting them. Briefly, I have been the one that has been sort of in the "middle" on this huge old war that predates me. But briefly, I chose the side of Carol/BigK et all regarding the question at hand (inclusion vs. exclusion of the more unusual forms) And, in fact, it is when I said that I would (at least temporarily) actively oppose any effort to exclude those items (I.e. that I would actively oppose Bluerobe and Darkstar et al) which ended the conflagaration. But I am also against warring. And, the way I see it, the folks on "my" side of the subject debate have been the ones doing the worst warrioring...... and trying to use the Wiki system to attack their opponents like Bluerobe, Darkstar etc. And so when I see such behavior occurring, I did defend those being attacked, even though my opinion was & is opposite theirs on the main debate. 18:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The fact that you still consider Bluerobe's behavior reasonable, and think that he was banned because he was "being attacked by his opponents" is problematic, and is exactly the type of support for disruptive behavior that I was referring to (and is by no means a mischaracterization). Also, I'm not sure how you can claim that you have been "in the middle", and then subsequently talk about "your side". You have by no means been "in the middle", but have consistently sided with a small group of editors (smaller now, since at least one of them is gone) who have been fighting to remove reliably sourced content and insert unsourced content, and have been endlessly soapboxing on the talk page. What stopped the conflict is not your eminently reasonable moderation, but the banning of the most egregious source of disruption (BlueRobe), and the locking of the article. Anyhow, as I said, if you've decided to no longer support the type of behavior that got this article locked, then I commend you for it. But I don't think that I've mischaracterized anything about your past behavior. Anyhow, let's get to editing, now that the article is finally unlocked.-- Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to find even a single sentence in what you just wrote that isn't fundamentally confused and wrong regarding my positions in and history in this article. But let's move on, as you suggest. North8000 (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• North8000 raises good points worth evaluating in the 28 days after 1 February 2011. Unsigned editor 20:04 7 January 2011 has some problematic views. If authors use a taxonomic division, this is the division Wikipedian editors ought to use per RS and V. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
• I will be happy to help the article in anyway I can, at least in attempting to circumvent the constant deterioration of its quality and encylopedic value. Sir Richardson (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
• The article should be unlocked if there is no one available authorized to actually try to make it better, using the ideas suggested in this discussion. As an example, it states at the beginning of the article that libertarianism is about belief in "freedom of thought and action". As a friend pointed out, this is oxymoronic. There is no way to control "thought", so by nature everyone has freedom of thought. So libertarians have no interest in promoting freedom of thought; people already have that. The sentence should be changed or deleted. And that is only the most egregious example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.72.25 (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: unconsensed changes, obviously that was poor wording. When an article has as many problems as this it probably is best not to do anything controversial without bringing it here first; but sometimes it's better with smaller changes to just do it and it may look less controversial once done than it would if proposed first. In any case, we should stick by Edit/Revert/Discuss and if any real edit warring starts up, I personally will immediately ask for 1RR per day and strictly monitor it. Yes, and I feel you all breathing down my neck for my long vaunted proposal - which may be more or less radical than you might expect. I'm working on it, among the many smaller distractions that arise. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Breathing down your neck, but in a nice way! Looking forward to it. I'm with you on the edit warring. BRD is fine and encouraged, but we all gotta resolve to not accept edit warring. Let's make this fun rather than painful, and make a good, informative article. Unlike other articles that were / are contantious, so far I don't see huge POV differences here. That might help. But scars from old warfare seem to be too big in some folks thought processes, which could hurt. North8000 (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's deal with Anarchism

Here's my understanding of it, and I would like to request preliminary feedback on the accuracy of this (and accuracy will equate to sourcability) and also on the idea of putting an explanatory intro in a libertarian-anarchist secton to this effect, and also whether it would address Darkstar's concerns

A common meaning of anarchist is:

a person who seeks to overturn by violence all constituted forms and institutions of society and government, with no purpose of establishing any other system of order in the place of that destroyed.

a person who promotes disorder or excites revolt against any established rule, law, or custom.

(from dictionary.reference.com)

Where any aspects of a anarchism as a political philosophy are secondary or non-existent.

However, anarchism is also a political philosophy:

a doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental restraint as the indispensable condition for full social and political liberty.

(from dictionary.reference.com)

Which is usually considered to be a form of Libertarianism, and which lends it name to various strands of Libertarianism.

(followed by Libertarian-anarchist section or sections)

Again, looking just for preliminary feedback, not for people to "sign on the dotted line" North8000 (talk) 11:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I put in a smal section introducing this. North8000 (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Potential Sources

Repeatedly cited in Klandermans & Roggeband (eds) Handbook of Social Movements Across Disciplines is della Porta, Donatella and Dieter Rucht (1995) "Left-Libertarian Movements in Context: A comparison of Italy and West Germany, 1965–1990" 229–272 in The Politics of Social Protest: Comparative Perspectives on States and Social Movements B. Klandermans and C. Jenkins (eds) Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletions by User:Fifelfoo when walking through citations

Hi,

As I'm correcting citations, I get to see a few paragraphs which simply do not add to an article at this level, and worse, remove space which ought to be rightly dedicated to their topic. Of course, given that I'm deleting content I'm raising it here. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Edits:

• [diff] In Anarcho-capitalism. Specific to two intellectuals only. Minutae. Best raised at the Main article for the section.
• Culled Noam from Libertarian Socialism as an example of repressive libertarian socialism (Surely the FAI in government, the Makhnovishchina, or even the Hungarian student's arrest of AVO/AVH forces for their own protection are better examples than yet again Noam)
• In Libertarian Socialism. A Mutualist FAQ: A.4. Are Mutualists Socialists? clearly failed verification as mutualist.org takes no editorial responsibility, fails to indicate authors, dates, etc, etc, etc.
• In Libertarian Socialism. Sims, Franwa (2006). The Anacostia Diaries As It Is. [Unknown]: Lulu Press. p. 160. failed verification as Lulu is SPS publish on demand

I agree. What a large amount of nice work you are doing. North8000 (talk) 12:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Framework / roadmap to get to new lead and overview sections?

-#1Develop the "new paragraph" as needed for step #2. Core thoughts would be to say:

- - - begin editable section - everyone feel free to change - - -

Named libertarian philosophies vary significantly, and the philosophies of libertarian individuals and organizations may combine tenets of the named philosophies, and adapt their tenets to varying degrees. One significant variable between the named philosophies is the degree to which the state should be reduced. Minacharists advocate a greater reduction, to near-elimination of the state. Anarchism is a philosophy advocating complete elimination of the state; this meaning is different that the commonplace meaning of the term. Another is those for and against private ownership of land and natural resources; these are often grouped as right and left libertarians respectively.

Editing history

North8000 (talk) 17:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

North8000 (talk) 14:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

- - - end of editable section - - - -

-#2 Move everything beyond the first two sentences in the current lead into the "Overview" section. Then put the above paragraph in as the second paragraph of the lead.

-#3 Start cleaning up the "overview" section, which now has all of moved-in material in it. North8000 (talk) 17:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC) support the choices the reader must make:

• order of law/anarchy
• right/left
• pro property rights/anti property rights
• a return to government as prescribed by the constitution and its amendments/dissolving congress, supreme court, states, and presidency.

how will the reader figure out which his crazy neighbor with the dead sticker on his electric humV meant when he said he was a libertarian: "right minarchist, left minarchist, right anarchist, or gigglesnickergiggle left anarchist, meaning an anarchist the does not recognize someones legal title to land"? RS describe one type more popular than all the others. since WP seeks the most widely known use of the term highlighted, and the minor uses minimized, and abstract versions be omitted, could we structure the lede to reflect the popular understanding of the term? Darkstar1st (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

How 'bout if we briefly mention in the lead that this is different than the popular understanding of the term? I think that the main popular understanding of the term refers to folks who are not libertarian, so IMHO that definition should not get a lot of coverage in the Libertarian article. I think that in the big picture, that has been what you have been saying and I agree with you on that. Where I have disagreed with you in the past is on complete exclusion of coverage of the libertarian flavor of anarchism here.

Regarding left and right, I'm no expert, I'm just the one that recognizes that we have to help the reader navigate the chaos of the widely varying uses of those terms.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that I may have missed your point. If you mean that the lead leans more towards the common meaning of Libertarianism, I think that what I proposed above sort of does that. But please feel free to mark up that proposed new paragraph. Right now my version is not very good, it was just throwing ideas out. North8000 (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to be bold and do it. This will leave the expanded "overview" section a little ragged. If you think that the structure is a step in the right direction, please improve from there. If you disagree with the whole change, feel free to revert. No hard feelings. North8000 (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• Good bold edit, reads better structurally. One quibble, "Named libertarian philosophies" is extremely awkward English! Fifelfoo (talk) 15:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, I know about "named" being awkward. But I think it's important to somehow make the distinction in order to make it clear that there can be philosophies of individuals and organizations which are combinations (common tenets) of named philosophies, or of scaled back versions of named philosophies. IMHO this could even be one of the "rosetta stones" for the issues with this article. If someone can say it better than I, that would be great. North8000 (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Anarchism and USA right wing liberalism

I think in the introduction to the article we should state that contrasting and even what could be said to be political enemies have used the word libertarian. I mean by this for example neoliberal economists like Milton Friedman on one side and anarcho-communists and anarcho-syndicalists. And so to correct the overemphasis that this article has on the USA pro-capitalist liberal tendency which calls itself "libertarian" I suggest checking this group of political theorists from Australia known as the Sydney Libertarians which i found out about recently. As I check their political line they seem to have been in a libertarian socialist line of thought as they cite for example anarcho-communist Errico Malatesta, Marx and the freudo-marxist Wilhelm Reich. Germaine Greer which is an important recent feminist theorist has been open about her affinity with anarcho-communism and marxism and is associated with this group.--Eduen (talk) 09:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

For those interested in colaborating in fixing this article I suggest checking these two articles. Ayn Rand and the perversion of libertarianism which deals with the differences and obvious conflict between USA pro-capitalist liberalism and libertarian socialism. Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy which deals with this USA right wing movement. 150 years of Libertarian which deals with the anarchist use of the word:

"in the United States the term “libertarian” has become, since the 1970s, associated with the right-wing, i.e., supporters of “free-market” capitalism...Somewhat ironically, this results in some right-wing “libertarians” complaining that we genuine libertarians have “stolen” their name in order to associate our socialist ideas with it! "

Beyond the polemic on "who´s the real libertarian", the english wikipedia article should inform readers well about this situation, of course taking a neutral but fair work of reporting.--Eduen (talk) 10:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and good ideas. The one thing that I think that you are absolutely wrong on is associating Libertarianism in the US with the "Right Wing". They are direct opposites on social issues and others. But, US Libertarians are generally pro-capitalism. And they generally don't weigh in on being for or against private ownership of resources or land, which once could say means tacitly accepting those things. Would you say that either of those last two things makes US Libertarianism different than elsewhere? North8000 (talk) 13:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Our less-commonly known meaning of anarchism

The the common meaning of anarchism/anarchy is violence and chaos, and not associated with any philosophy. This common meaning is very different that the libertarian meaning. It is important that note that somewhere in the article. North8000 (talk) 13:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Anarchism is the absence of government. There is a common connotation of an accompanying chaos, but that's not really part of the strict definition when we are speaking in the context of political philosophies. I don't really see it needing to be noted in the lede. If such a note is desired then that material should briefly explain the difference instead of just saying that there is some difference. BigK HeX (talk) 14:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. And I agree that it doesn't need to be in the lead. North8000 (talk) 14:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes although the american anarchist Hakim Bey does see Chaos not as a bad thing on itself and incorporates views from Quantum mechanics and chaos theory for that.--Eduen (talk) 06:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Un-hyphenated Libertarians

We have a lot about specialized Libertarian philosophies in this article. There are a whole lot of libertarians (and I would guess a majority) who identify themselves only as "libertarians." Though there may be two or three different meanings of the term depending on where you are in the world, in each case unhyphenated "Libertarian" is itself a philosophy. This isn't about the straw-dog argument that they are claiming to the "real" libertarians, just that the term has a meaning which is none of the current philosophies listed in the article. North8000 (talk) 14:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you referring to minarchist right-libertarians? BigK HeX (talk) 15:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

In the USA, I think the general philosophy of "unhyphenated" Libertarianism is (only):

"Libertarians support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence. Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties." Not opposing capitalism, and mute on / not opposing private ownership of land and resources.

And that outside of the USA, there are one or two other other meanings/philosophies of "unhyphenated" Libertarianism which I do not have the knowledge/expertise to describe. North8000 (talk) 15:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Outside of the United States, and within the United States in culturally specific contexts two primary meanings of unhyphenated "Libertarian" as an ideology and/or social-political praxis exist:

• Class-struggle revolutionaries, a general term, as a synonym with "Libertarian Socialist" in its broad meaning (an autonomist Marxist, council communist, Marcusean social philosopher, class-struggle anarchist, or particular Australian Greens supporters could refer to themselves in this context, or be referred to as such.) "Don't bother arguing about Dual Power or the centrality of the revolutionary party in the dictatorship of the proletariat with her; she's a libertarian." The term would be used to encompass the totality of views, rather than simply the anti-state portion of ideology; particularly as it flows down through a variety of micropositions, organisational issues, and tactics.
• Mutualist anarchists and other small-private property only, anti-capitalist anarchists. This is mainly because of the continuing synonym between "Libertarian" and "Anarchist" as total ideologies / social praxes, in the UK, Australian and NZ. "He supports private property? What, like BHP?" —"No, he's a Libertarian following Proudhon".

• Generally you'd be looking to expert citations in the tradition of Colin Ward for these uses. Particularly Colin Ward. For some uses of the first you'd be looking to critiques of the '68 movements, and some of the attendant post-68 movements; and, to some of the discussion of "Post-Fordist" revolutionaries. A particular example of contemporary useage for the first would be "Class struggle anarchists are not the only revolutionary forces on the left, and are not the only libertarian left revolutionary forces." in Nate Hawthorne "[Review:] [ http://www.peopleofcolororganize.com/about/ Marxism, Anarchism and a Critique of 'Black Flame']" People of Color Magazine [online only], which appears to be edited, and "While unapologetically left in orientation, People Of Color Organize! is non-sectarian and offers a diversity of viewpoints from many movements." Nate uses libertarian fluidly as a synonym for "Libertarian Socialist" in the broadest sense, and is aware that there are other non-left libertarianisms, "left revolutionary forces" is acting as a qualifier on the nature of the libertarianism the three times he uses it, rather than a hyphenate as when he uses "Libertarian socialist". Colin Ward is still the best source though, due to his magisterial position as an expert. I hope this fills in the gap in North8000's expertise, which I concur with on US unhyphenate uses outside of the specific cultural circumstances mentioned above. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

For the English Wikipedia what terms mean "outside of the United States" is too broad for relevance here.

What are the meanings of unhyphenated libertarianism in English outside of the United States? More importantly, are there any reliable secondary English sources demonstrating usage of unhyphenated libertarianism to mean anything other than what North quoted above? --Born2cycle (talk) 01:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• "For the English Wikipedia what terms mean "outside of the United States" is too broad for relevance here." English is spoken outside of the United States, in a strangely large variety of places as a first language, including England. For secondary sources of High Quality RS, the kind that FAC demands: Colin Ward. People of Color Magazine exceeds the standards of reliability currently in the article (the unreliable publisher, LewRockwell.com, or unreliable magazines published by Mises (Mises _also_ publishes reliable magazines), and meets the standard of reliability for periodicals: editorial control. Consider also the AK Press', a reliable publisher, promulgation of a call for papers of an Italian journal Anarchy Now!; AK translates the call as, "Call for submissions: Anarchy now! Maps, ideas and stories of libertarian movements in the contemporary world" which, following Ward's observation, uses Libertarian as an interchangeable synonym for the first, and possibly, the second use I outlined above. AK Press publishes in both American and United Kingdom English, and distributes broadly into areas where Canadian, New Zealand, Australian, Singaporean, Malaysian and Indian English are spoken and written. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, unhyphenated Libertarian is a word and an English word. While most words have one near consistent meaning worldwide with respect to a topic, it looks like unhyphenated Libertarianism has 2, possibly more. Because of significantly different meanings (even in the topic context) in English, I can't imagine it having a consistent translation in other languages. So I think we're talking about it's meaning in larger (groups of) countries where English is the primary language in order to be creating a definition of the word. Fifelfoo is so expert and so detailed that it's hard to see the forest for the trees in what he/she is saying. I think that Fiferloo is saying that one of these definitions spans at least England/Australia/New Zealand. Fiferloo, could I ask for your thoughts on a quick plain-english statement on what unhyphenated Libertarianism means there? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks North8000—In UK Au NZ unhyphenated libertarianism (in a political context, as opposed to philosophy of free will, for example), means either anarchism generally or libertarian socialism specifically. This use is spread amongst the trade union movement, the revolutionary statist left, and academic sociology. Libertarianism is hardly ever used in the media. Minarchist capitalist uses do not appear in the procapitalist discourses, neo-liberalism dominates that discourse. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

This is BS. I live in NZ, and I've recently lived in both AU and the UK; AFAIK, I've never encountered a single person who, when I spoke of libertarianism, thought I meant "anarchism generally or libertarian socialism specifically". A very few didn't know the term; most thought I meant minarchism in the usual sense; some thought of Rand. (I tried to talk them into anarchism, but not the nuttylefty variety) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.160.53 (talk) 05:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, of course English is spoken outside of the United States, but "outside of the U.S." is too broad - it doesn't restrict us to only English-speaking places outside of the U.S., which it should. Anyway, do you have citation and/or exact quote from Colin Ward? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• Have you read the article? Check footnote 5 at "Colin Ward (2004). Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction. [unknown]: Oxford University Press. p. 62." I strongly suggest you familiarise yourself with the article. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

That's talking about usage of the word. I'm looking for an actual example of usage of the word in a secondary source where the meaning of the word - made obvious by context - is different from the meaning North provides above. You know, like a newspaper or magazine article that is writing about libertarians or libertarianism (not the word or how it's used), and using it in a way that essentially means left libertarianism or libertarianism socialism. I suggest that if there are no (modern) sources that use it (unhyphenated) in that way, that we should not be presenting it as if it is used in that way. By the way, Ward goes on to say[1]:

In the late 20th century the word 'libertarian', which people holding such a viewpoint had previously used as an alternative to the 'anarchist', was appropriated by a new group of American thinkers

It's clear that this supports the notion that while prior to the 20th century the word 'libertarian' was used to mean 'anarchist', it no longer does. So not only is this source not an example of usage of the unhyphenated term to be a synonym for anarchist or left libertarian or libertarian socialism (which is what I asked for), it explicitly says that the term is no longer used to mean that, and hasn't been used in that manner for decades.

Can you cite any sources that support your position, rather than refute it? --Born2cycle (talk) 03:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

That new group of American thinkers, i.e., Murray Rothbard, called themselves "anarchists". TFD (talk) 03:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but did they use the term libertarian (unhyphenated) as a synonym for "anarchist" (much less for what "left libertarianism" and "libertarian socialism" is now understood to mean")? If so, where? Where is the source? Everyone acts like it's so obvious but can't come up with a single example of such usage, much less enough to justify coverage of that usage? --Born2cycle (talk) 04:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Libertarianism is about freedom - libertarians believe in maximizing the freedom of the individual by reducing the power of the state over the individual. You are getting distracted by variations. TFD (talk) 04:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Born2cycle says, "can't come up with a single example"

For Reasons of State (1973) has such usages. Enjoy. BigK HeX (talk) 05:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Add Libertarianism (2002) as well, with such phrases as, "libertarianism's anarchist stance is a powerful objection". BigK HeX (talk) 05:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

See also: Anarchism: A Documentary History of Libertarian Ideas (2005+) for yet more usage. BigK HeX (talk) 06:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah... there was already a whole citation block in the article because of the last time this topic was raked over....

• Colin Ward (2004). Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction. [unknown]: Oxford University Press. p. 62. For a century, anarchists have used the word 'libertarian' as a synonym for 'anarchist', both as a noun and an adjective
• David Goodway (2006). Anarchist Seeds Beneath the Snow. [unknown]: Liverpool Press. p. 4.
• Paul Kurtz (2003). "Conservative Anarchism: An Interview with Dwight Macdonald". In Michael Wreszin (ed.). Interviews with [[Dwight Macdonald]]. Conversations with Public Intellectuals [Series]. [unknown]: University Press of Mississippi. p. 82. Well, anarchism (or libertarianism) does not mean "chaos" as the New York Times and most American editorialists, think. {{cite book}}: URL–wikilink conflict (help)
• Charles Bufe (1992). The Heretic's Handbook of Quotations. [unknown]: ??!See Sharp Press. p. iv.
• [unknown] (2006). "[unknown]". In Kathyln Gay (ed.). Encyclopedia of Political Anarchy. [unknown]: ABC-CLIO / University of Michigan. p. 126.
• George Woodcock (2004). Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements. [unknown]: Broadview Press. Uses the terms interchangeably, such as on page 10.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: postscript (link)
• Alexandre Skirda (2002). Facing the Enemy: A History of Anarchist Organization from Proudhon to May 1968. [unknown]: AK Press. p. 183.
• Frank Fernandez (2001). Cuban Anarchism: The History of a Movement. [unknown]: ??!See Sharp Press. p. 9.

Hopefully, we've seen the last of this pointless "usage" POV attempt. BigK HeX (talk) 06:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

but don´t forget the many current anarchocommunist and anticapitalist anarchist non-english speaking groups and magazines who also use "libertarian" unhyphenated to describe themselves. Examples: the venezuelan and argentinian anarchist magazines called "El Libertario", Argentine Libertarian Federation, the organization Alternative libertaire from France and the french anarchist periodical Le monde Libertaire, Red Libertaria de Buenos Aires, Red Libertaria Popular Mateo Kramer from Colombia, Libertäre Aktion Winterthur from Switzerland, . And also consider the anarcho-communist international federation of current organizations called International Libertarian Solidarity "with over 20 participating organizations from North and South America, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa." as the wikipedia article shows and points out which ones.--Eduen (talk) 06:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that we have a lot of experts here who are carrying the results of reading hundreds of sources in their heads. An un-admitted secret (some would call it wiki-heresy :-) ) of successful articles is that, in complex areas, editors rough out something on the talk page based on that integration of 100's or 1,000's of sources that is called expertise, and THEN get it sourced. Areas that can define the term are larger english-as-a-primary language areas. I sense that Fiferloo is an expert on the meaning of unhyphenated Libertarianism in an indicative (if not Lion's share) area outside of the US. I asked Fiferloo (and hereby ask all others who know) for a down to earth answer in their own words, not for sourcing. Such answers should not be criticized for lack of sourcing. North8000 (talk) 11:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for keeping our attention on article improvement. I would summarise my understanding, drawn from broad contact with the topic, as below. Sadly it appears to end up being an article section introducing a sequence of comparative heads of topic: ideology, methodology, Fifelfoo (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• Outside of the United States, libertarianism is a set of political ideologies and movements that attempt to realise people's economic and social self-determination by replacing oppressive or exploitative social structures, including the state, with communal or social structures: the word libertarianism is a synonym for anarchism and libertarian socialism. This libertarianism is anti-statist, anti-capitalist and anti-property.

• (Footnote 1: However, a very few strands of this libertarianism seek to merely minimise the role of the state in society; and, similarly, a very few strands of this libertarianism seek private property in a generally anti-corporate framework.)

• This understanding of what political libertarianism is, is utterly dominant in French, Italian, Portuguese and particularly Spanish speaking regions. It is also dominant in the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand.

• (Footnote 2: However, since the mid-90s, small think tanks and parties have formed in the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, influenced by the United States dominated minarchist or anarchist pro-property libertarian movement which sees capitalism as a liberating social structure; as of 2011, these meanings are not dominant in political discourse referring to libertarianism in the United Kingdom, Australia or New Zealand.)
• (Footnote 3: In particular social and political contexts, political libertarianism in the United States is identified as the International meaning: these contexts are limited to the "radical," "progressive," or "revolutionary left" political discourses, and generally only appear when class struggle anarchism or libertarian socialism is discussed in these circles.)

• This International understanding of political libertarianism shares much with the primary understanding of political libertarianism in the United States. Both are ideologies, in the sense of political world views dedicated to the establishment of a social and economic order different to our current life. Both are either anti-state, or seek to reduce and minimise the role of state intervention. Both often emphasise the defence of civil and political liberties, including through the use of activist judicial means. Both form organisations, both on ad hoc and more permanent bases—though only movements in the International understanding appear to form trade unions. Both, also, see private property and capitalism as an issue of central concern.
• They differ over the desirability of private property and capitalism. They also differ in terms of who the subject and agent of social change is: the conception dominant in the United States sees the private modern individual as the social agent; the Internationally dominant conception sees the public social individual as the social agent. The two concepts of political libertarianism also differ significantly in the methods used for social analysis. They differ significantly on the issue of what forms of action for social change are desirable, and their justification of actions for social change are mutually irreconcilable, having fundamentally different political analyses of what makes particular social actions acceptable.

• (Footnote 4: between these two conceptions, and at their margins, there are ideological or political positions that are libertarian, and "stand between" these two poles. In general, these conceptions lack historical significance or political currency when compared to the conceptions dominant Internationally or in the United States.) Fifelfoo (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

@North8000. My responses are mostly directed at Born2Run who is well-aware that he's raised this issue unsuccessfully before. BigK HeX (talk) 13:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Fiferloo, it's going to take me a day or two to fully absorb what you wrote. BTW, too me a bit to figure out who wrote the last one (unsigned)....I marked it Born2, I'm guessing that you are from the USA like me. I think that we both understand that unhyphenatede US Libertarianism in the USA is a philosophy which is not yet covered in the article and needs to be. It also looks like there is another meaning of unhyphenated libertarianism outside of the US and I think that we should try to learn if that is so and cover that too. North8000 (talk) 15:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

BigK, I don't have access to all those sources, but I'm just asking for some quotes that are cited to secondary sources, preferably a newspaper or magazine. I mean, if no one can find a single quote in any newspaper or magazine in which unhyphenated libertarianism is clearly used to refer to a philosophy or thinking that is opposed to property rights (i.e., "left-libertarianism", without calling it that), then why are we?

As to Fifelfoo's examples of usage from Argentina and other countries in which English is not the primary language, you make my point.

To be clear, I'm asking for a quote that says something like this: "John Doe, a libertarian activist who lives Smallville, has been arguing that Mr. Big owns too much land and should be forced to hand it over to the community to be used for the new free clinic."

My contention is that although you can probably find usage in French and other languages using "libertarian" or "libertarianism" like that, you cannot find usage like that in any ENGLISH reliable sources that has been written in the last few decades. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you Fifelfoo. With respect to what you wrote, I'm looking for sourced examples of modern English usage that clearly support what you wrote, particularly the combined implications of the highlighted assertions in this excerpt:

• Outside of the United States, libertarianism is a set of political ideologies and movements that attempt to realise people's economic and social self-determination by replacing oppressive or exploitative social structures, including the state, with communal or social structures: the word libertarianism is a synonym for anarchism and libertarian socialism. This libertarianism is anti-statist, anti-capitalist and anti-property.

• (Footnote 1: However, a very few strands of this libertarianism seek to merely minimise the role of the state in society; and, similarly, a very few strands of this libertarianism seek private property in a generally anti-corporate framework.)

• This understanding of what political libertarianism is, is utterly dominant in French, Italian, Portuguese and particularly Spanish speaking regions. It is also dominant in the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand.

• (Footnote 2: However, since the mid-90s, small think tanks and parties have formed in the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, influenced by the United States dominated minarchist or anarchist pro-property libertarian movement which sees capitalism as a liberating social structure; as of 2011, these meanings are not dominant in political discourse referring to libertarianism in the United Kingdom, Australia or New Zealand. )

That is, if it is true that usage of the unhyphenated term libertarianism or libertarian in the UK, Australia or NZ to refer to an idea, thinking or movement that is anti-property is "utterly dominant", it should be easy to find plenty of examples of recent (last few decades) usage (in English) of the unhyphenated term libertarianism or libertarian in the UK, Australia or NZ to refer to an idea, thinking or movement that is anti-property.

If nobody can provide examples of such usage in modern English reliable sources, then we should not be using it to refer to anti-property concepts in the article. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Born2cycle, you are misunderstanding libertarianism. It is not primarily about "realis[ing] people's economic and social self-determination", it is about freedom. Libertarians have certain attitudes toward property because they believe only certain property arrangements are necessary for people to be free. TFD (talk) 18:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Why is Born2cycle's question still going after I listed like a dozen sources???? BigK HeX (talk) 19:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Fiferloo, I guess one thing that is unclear about your definition to me is that it is using a term "libertarian socialism" which has an even bigger identity problem. In the US, socialism means larger government and greater confiscation of wealth by the government. Or possibly this is just that dream and reality of socialism conflicts with itself. North8000 (talk) 20:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Why did you suddenly start talking about "US socialism" as an objection against "libertarian socialism"? You do realize the two are not the same thing??? BigK HeX (talk) 20:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• BigK, I did not ask for a source. I asked for a sources that specifically demonstrate "usage of unhyphenated libertarianism" to mean left-libertarianism. What are the specific words from any of these sources (or any others) that demonstrate usage of the unhyphenated term libertarian or libertarianism with an anti-property connotation? If it's so so rare that it is impossible to cite, why is it getting any mention in the article at all?

  From those in your list that I could look up, I did not find a single example of what we need to have support statements like "Another difference is in groups who are supportive of private property rights in the ownership of land and natural resources and those who are opposed to such rights". What group that is referred to as being unhyphenated libertarian in reliable English sources (in the last few decades) is "opposed to [private property rights in the ownership of land and natural resources]"? Such groups are not referred to as being (unhyphenated) libertarian... they are referred to as being either left-libertarian, libertarian-socialist or left-anarchists, or something like that, but not just plain unhyphenated libertarian. I make the following simple assertion that should be trivial to refute (with sourced citations) if it is false: Any group referred to as being just plain unhyphenated libertarian is pro property rights. We should not say anything to the contrary, unless sourced citations can be produced that refute this statement. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Sources have been provided. Do as you like with them. I'm done with this asanine POV push. It will get NOWHERE. BigK HeX (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

BigK, answering your question to me: First to clarify, I'm talking about the meaning of the word "socialism" to USA'ers. Second, I was not objecting to anything. I was saying that the hopefully-simpler explanation that Fiferloo was kind enough to try to provide is confusing to me because it uses a term that is confusing and might itself have multiple meanings. North8000 (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

BigK, I think that you are imagining / misreading things if you are seeing a "POV push". This is just a bunch of editors/ people trying to get some confusing terminology questions sorted out as a step towards writing an informative article. North8000 (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Born2cycle's intent has always been clear. Going through yet another rehash (of the same topic) is unnecessary to say the least. BigK HeX (talk) 21:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that here. What you are saying seems like the exact opposite of wp:agf. Like IBF ....Imagining Bad Faith. This is simply an attempt to learn what un-hyphenated libertarianism means outside of the USA. North8000 (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)BigK, I'm not pushing a POV. I'm asking for substantiation of the claims made in the article. A random list of "sources" without any indication of what they actually say is not helpful. When you look at them you might be seeing something I'm missing, I don't know. The point is, I don't see it, so please quote the exact words that demonstrate usage of unhyphenated libertarian in modern English to refer to anti-property philosophy or thinking. If you can't do that, then I really think those claims need to be removed from the article.

As far as I can tell, and you have not provided a single actual quote indicating the opposite, none of those sources provide examples of modern English usage of the unhyphenated term libertarianism to refer to a philosophy or thinking that is opposed to property rights, or anything that supports the claim I just quoted from our introduction about groups that oppose property rights being referred to as unhyphenated libertarian in modern English usage. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

You've gotten what you've requested, which is far more than was merited, given the results of your last attempt. So, from here on out, I'll just re-point you to: [2] BigK HeX (talk) 21:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Citing a discussion section in which were unable to provide any sourced quotes makes my point. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Citing a discussion where you ignored the examples you requested, and where you disregard consensus makes MY point. BigK HeX (talk) 22:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

BigK, this is a moment when I think that wp:agf is not only a good idea, but a much more accurate view of the situation. This is both a very very confusing / complex topic, and also I fear that some folks are still (mistakenly) seeing the situaion here as a continuation of / and through a lens of last summer's battles. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Which source says un-hyphenated "libertarian" is anti-property?

born keeps asking for the exact wording, others keep pointing to a list, yet none have the actual wording. could someone post the exact text for those of us that simply do not see the claim? Darkstar1st (talk) 21:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

No one can produce something which does not exist. The problem is that the article is currently written as if usage of the unhyphenated term libertarian to refer to anti-property philosophy or thinking is common in modern English reliable sources. It clearly isn't (apparently it does not exist at all, much less is common), and that's a problem. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

[3], [4] . . . . Enjoy! BigK HeX (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course ... nevermind that Born2cycle already got a whole list that even includes some quotes that he conveniently ignores. When someone is so determined to ignore the evidence THEY requested and disregard a rather obvious consensus, it's clearly worthless to engage in much discussion. BigK HeX (talk) 22:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

bigk you may not have seen the part where i am asking for the exact text, please post here, not a link or diff, the actual words. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Even better, I'll refer you to: [5]. BigK HeX (talk) 22:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Can libertarian with a small l be used of those who are anti-property?

Certainly. Consider this page, quoting William Morris as supporting the abolition of property (on the grounds, of course, that it is an infringement of liberty, as well as a social harm), from a chapter on Morris as an Expression of Libertarian Thought (this is title case; there are plenty of references to Morris as libertarian in the text).

Does the small l libertarian have to be anti-property?

No, obviously not; but since there is no proper noun Libertarianism which includes libertarian anarchists or libertarian socialists, they tend to be lower-case.

The substantive issue whether Libertarians (or, for that matter, Fabians) are in any meaningful sense libertarian is an entirely separate question. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

no bigk, we have all seen your links a few times now, just paste the actual text here. Septentrionalis, your link is broken, could you type the words for us here? Darkstar1st (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, this link to p. 109 should work better; the words from Morris include "I desire the abolition of private property"; the description of this as libertarian is throughout the surronding chapter. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thanks PM. It's becoming quite clear that BigK does not really understand the objection. Maybe you can help.

This discussion is solely about small-l libertarianism. I'm looking for exactly the kind of source you provided... showing usage of the term libertarianism, without any qualification whatsoever, to mean anti-property. However, I'm looking for something from modern English (the last few decades) about modern times. That one is talking about "libertarians" in 1886. No one is denying existence of that meaning/usage in English in the past. The issue is about whether unhyphenated/unqualified libertarian is used today in reliable source to refer to philosophy or thinking that is anti-property rights. It is my impression that there are no modern sources that do this, but it's an impression that could be easily remedied if it is in error. Thanks.

Also, I note that source is from Quebec. It's also my impression that French speakers use the French meaning of libertarian -- which includes the anti-property connotation -- when speaking and writing in English. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not citing Morris, who is not quoted as calling himself libertarian; I'm citing Freedom and Authority by William Russell McKercher, published 1989. (The idea that a McKercher is writing Franglais is far-fetched; a web-search suggests that he's actually at King's College in Ontario.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Born2cycle keeps up the ridiculous reaching every time he receives an answer he doesn't like. He tried this "oh, that wasn't really written in English" bit before, and even then it was personal speculation completely useless WRT wikipedia policies.

Even more importantly, Born2cycle's current line of criticism is wholly irrelevant to the content of the article. BigK HeX (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Dubious tag re: claim that some libertarian groups are anti-property

Please DO NOT TAG THE ACCEPTED MATERIAL AGAIN WITHOUT A NEW CONSENSUS to overturn what currently stands at [6]. There's been far more than enough disruption on this article from the same handful of people who continue to defy the wishes of the community. BigK HeX (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

What is the relevance of "accepted" here? What is relevant is the lack of any SOURCE that supports the following claim...

Another difference is in groups [of libertarians] who are supportive of private property rights in the ownership of land and natural resources and those [libertarians] who are opposed to such rights"

Where is the modern English SOURCE that refers to any group which is opposed to private property rights as unhyphenated libertarian?

Unsourced claims are dubious. I'm not going to revert-war you about the tag, but if you don't provide a source for that specific claim within 48 hours it will have to be removed. Will someone else chime in here, please? Am I missing something? --Born2cycle (talk) 00:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not humoring your willful blindness to the consensus of multiple relevant community discussions. At this point, whether you ever choose to accept the consensus is immaterial to the article. Pretend that this hasn't been discussed to death if you like, but I don't think anyone else is hardly convinced. BigK HeX (talk) 01:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

BigK, I'm simply asking for substantiation in reliable sources for a certain specific claim. If that specific claim was discussed in any of the above, let us know, otherwise please stop listing this stuff as if it's relevant. If you can't provide the source, then say so, and stop filibustering. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

You've gotten sources. You choose to disregard them yet again. Don't be surprised when you don't get responses on the Nth time you ask for them, when you ignored them every previous occasion.

Sources have been provided, there is already a standing consensus on this exact matter. I will absolutely not respond further to these tendentious POV-pushing requests from you with anything more than a link to the community opinion which you will no doubt continue to disregard. BigK HeX (talk) 02:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

If any source substantiates the statement in question - the one that implies groups opposed to property rights are referred to as unhyphenated "libertarians" - please footnote the statement accordingly. Is that too much to ask? To cite sources of a challenged statement? See Wikipedia:Verifiability.

This policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question.[1]

I hope that's clear. That's all that's going on here. Everything else is beside-the-point noise. Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the two citations, BigK, but I don't see how they support the statement. The two you provided are:

• [2] Carlos Peregrín Otero (2003). "Introduction to Chomsky's Social Theory". In Carlos Peregrín Otero (Editor). Radical priorities. Noam Chomsky (Book Author) (Expanded 3rd ed.). Oakland, California, USA: AK Press. pp. 9–48.
• [3] Vallentyne, Peter (September 5, 2002). "Libertarianism". In Edward N. Zalta. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2009 ed.).

There is no link to the first one, Otero, though I found it on google docs, but you provide no quotation about what it even supposedly says in support of the claim of the statement in question. I do note that the first reference to "libertarianism" in the book is as adjective... "libertarian socialism". So it appears that this will not be an example of usage of the unqualified term "libertarianism" to mean anti-property rights, but maybe there is later in the book. We really need that.

For the second one, Vallentyne, this is what he says about property rights:

• "Libertarianism holds that agents initially fully own themselves and have moral powers to acquire property rights in external things under certain conditions"
• "Libertarianism asserts that each autonomous agent initially fully owns herself and that agents have moral power to acquire property rights in natural resources and artifacts."

Of course this is the common use of libertarianism to refer to pro-property-rights philosophy and thinking. I still see no support for the implication that groups opposed to property rights are referred to as unhyphenated libertarianism. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

If you don't care to expend the effort in verifying the sources, then that is out of my hands. Refer to your previous attempt at raising this same issue. Good day. BigK HeX (talk) 06:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I just expended the effort to look into both of those sources, and explained why they are insufficient. This is the same standard used for sourcing any material in WP. You're the one claiming these sources support that statement in the article. You didn't even provide a page number, much less the exact quote that you believe supports it. Give me a break. --Born2cycle (talk) 09:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Dovetailing with work that Carol is doing

Carol, could you tell us the scope of the work that you are doing? That would let us try to work around it without freezing the whole article for weeks. North8000 (talk) 11:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Sidetracked by dealing with meta-wiki civility issues, but now it's wide open. So deciding if want to do piece meal or whole thing; and may do former impulsively, as is my wont. And still haven't written Libertarian decentralism or beefed up Libertarian municipalism which want to integrate a bit more. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's develop a revised lead

The current lead is very confusing. The first 60% is a bunch of different people's statement of what Libertarianism is. Probably fine for the lead, but not in lieu of a summarizing few sentences. The last 40% is a confusing hodge podge. I think it should go out of the lead totally. In several areas it makes a confusing statement about specialized material that is covered elsewhere in the article. In those cases, I think that we should just delete the material from the lead. Then it talks a lot about anarchism, but anarchism (per-se) is not covered in the article. (just anarcho-capitalism). There I think we should move the material out into a new libertarian-related anarchism section. It's become clear that neither we nor the articles has any real explanation of what left and right libertarianism mean, probably because they are words used by authors (each with their own meaning for that purpose) to organize libertarian material or the presentation of libertarian strands. Either, until somebody can write a clear summary about what those terms mean, I think they should go out of the lead. Finally, add a summarizing sentence or two....my first thought is half-way through the lead. Something to the effect of

Libertarianism includes a diverse range of philosophies, organizations, political parties. All advocate either minimization or elimination of government, and maximization of individual liberty and freedom.

Any thoughts on this?

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that the lead is terrible, and the individual definition quotes need go. In the lead, we should be summarizing the contents of a large body of sources (especially tertiary/review sources), not cherrypicking a couple and including them in the lead. I also think that your suggested rewrite is very close to what I would start with. However, a lead should summarize the article, so I do think that conservative, left, and anarchist/socialist libertarianism all need to be mentioned there in summary of whatever the article says. In addition to those, I'd also suggest that we include a brief summary of the historical and geographical usage of the term in the lead as well. (All of this is assuming of course that everything there is using reliable sources AND summarizing content in the article). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Cool, let's roll.North8000 (talk) 11:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

"It's become clear that neither we nor the articles has any real explanation of what left and right libertarianism mean..."

Even if there is the possibility that the article could be more instructive, it's pretty clear what the terms mean --- your insistence that they are "made up" "non-real" terms, notwithstanding. BigK HeX (talk) 10:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't mean to disparage the terms, and I don't claim to know the answer. Certainly they are "real" in the sense that they have been used by authors. Instead of talking this to death, here's a way to kill 6 birds with one stone. Why don't you write a few sentences summarizing what those two terms mean, and then you or me put what you wrote into the article? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

"Libertarians exhibit differing approaches in areas such as the treatment of property rights, especially with respect to natural resources, with some libertarians advocating private ownership rights, while others hold that private ownership should be avoided as being inconsistent with the basic principles of libertarianism. Respectively, these groups are broadly distinguished as the right-libertarian and left-libertarian variants of libertarianism."

If there's a severe deficiency, you'll have to be more specific. BigK HeX (talk) 18:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The statement has no deficiency per se, it's just that it's not a statement of what RL & LL are. In that context, the issue is that this just says that they differ on that one topic, no statement that this is what LL and RL are. Also it implies that only certain philosophies fall into these, but I think that all strains would fall under one of the other. However, if this is the main definition of those terms, then the following would say it:

Libertarian philosophies are sometimes categorized into right-libertarianism and left-libertarianism based on differing treatment of property rights, especially natural resource property rights. Those advocating private ownership rights are categorized as right libertarians. Those who hold that private ownership should be avoided as being inconsistent with the basic principles of libertarianism are categorized as left-libertarian. These meanings of "right" and "left" are different than the common political meanings of those terms.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It should be clear that the property referred to is land and other natural resources. TFD (talk) 19:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

One paragraph should be about differences between left and right. The next between minarchism and anarchism among property libs and libertarian municipalism and anarchism on left. (Have to find my refs on that.) And then there's the issue which libertarians of all ilks have discussed often enough - when does a voluntary arrangement become a minimal state? But the important thing is to end the confusion by clearly separating the issues by paragraphs as was done a year ago before people came in here and got everything confused. :-( CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Draft of Statement on Right & Left Libertarianism

- - - Beginning of editable section - feel free to modify - - -

Libertarian philosophies are sometimes categorized into right-libertarianism and left-libertarianism based on differing treatment of land and natural resource property rights. Those advocating private ownership rights are categorized as right libertarians. Those who hold that private ownership should be avoided as being inconsistent with the basic principles of libertarianism are categorized as left-libertarian. These meanings of "right" and "left" are different than the common political meanings of those terms. The word "libertarian" has also been combined into names or statements of philosophies and beliefs which some argue are not libertarian, or are even the opposite of libertarianism.

Last edited by: North8000 (talk) 13:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

- - - End of Editable section - - -

Hello TFD. Changed it per your feedback. Everybody please feel free to change it again/more. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem here is that it implies lefties are against all private ownership, when there is a range of opinion from that viewpoint, to the principles allowing people to own small businesses, farms, homes etc and only larger industries would be cooperatively owned. And of course it has to be made clear how this would be enforced - including in the article - since obviously not everyone will go along. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Carol, keeping in mind that I think that this about the narrower topic of the definition of the LL and RL TERMS, could you just edit the draft to comply with what you are suggesting?

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

In reading through the talk history it becomes clear why nobody is willing able to answer the above question. It looks like what BigK and Carol hinted at the definitions/distinctions between the two when you are talking abot actual libertarians. It also looks like a lot of people have added the name "libertarian" to other philosophies which ha little to do with, or are even theopposite of Libertarianism. I'll add a sentence or two to the draft which vaguely acknowledges this complexity. North8000 (talk) 12:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

"Left-libertarians doubt that private property is a universal good, and, believe some or all forms of private property are unjustly coercive." ? I think this covers your left Georgists, left capitalist libertarians, libertarian Social Democrats, Fabians, Mutualists, and Hardcore Communists in one stroke. Underlying their position is a questioning of private property from very weak forms (Private property in land / certain kinds of information) through intermediariates such as social democrats or mutualists (unrestricted private property is coercive and unjust power / private property outside of immediate physical individual control is unjust), through to your spectrum of communists (property is theft). I think one of Long or Vallentyne's papers supports this interpretation; but, to be honest, I'm sticking to my citations :) Fifelfoo (talk) 13:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

How significant is the issue of private ownership of land? In the nineteenth century many capitalists were hostile towards land ownership, which they saw as a remnant of feudalism. The founding fathers confiscated loyalist estates and Thatcher began to break up feudal estates in London. In south America, liberals and Christian Democrats broke up haciendas. It seems more a technical than a substantial issue. TFD (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks TFD. The difference between Left and Right Georgists (perhaps the key example here, as they subsume left and right mutualists, and right wing "neoliberals") is that left Georgists have a doubt regarding the validity of the private property form, a form inexorably tied up with Capitalism and Modernity; whereas, pro-private property doubters of feudal rents and rentiers criticise these from a stand point of a non-property form of bondage: ie: seigneurage or feudal oaths ties and bonds. Putting property on the table is the key way to indicate these ideologies differ regarding property in Capitalism as a modern issue. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The other thing I forgot to mention that belongs in the lead is that "right" libertarianism (bleah, i hate that term) is the better known world wide, per wp:rs. As for an alternate lead, I'm burned out from absurd ridiculous nonsense on another article, but I have opened a lead I like from the past in my word processer and will integrate the new good material and get back to you. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Not that I want to even nibble at much less tackle that article, in the Lef Libertarian article (clarified by an exchange with Carol on the talk page) There are hyphenated Libertarians who advocate a welfare state (= bigger government, more taxation et al) IMHO we need to at note something like my last sentences in the draft. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 00:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

That clarification would help, if not in there yet. Plus I don't see objections to two issues above so you never know when I'll dip in like a starving gull after fish and make some changes; just barely controlled making some I drafted right now. This article remains a mess. But so is the house right now ;-( CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Right/left description as in the lead

Well, I think that authors sometimes use right-libertarians and left libertarians to organize material on libertarians strains. I think that under most definitions, in many ways (such as social issues) "right" is the opposite of "libertarian". And I've never heard of any libertarian identifying themselves as right libertarian. I'm the one who wrote the disputed sentence in the lead. But, as I said the, my main action then was a major reorganization of material in the first two section, made not claim that I wrote thing well, and invited other to change them. My thought was that we should explain the main dividing metrics in Libertarianism. We should see what folks objections are to this. If the issues are confusion due to conflict with the normal meaning of these terms, then possible a sentence which immediately explains that these are very different than some common meanings of "left" and "right".  ??? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The term "right libertarian" is very confusing, and we need to be clear on not only what we mean by it, but also how it's different from the usual connotation of "right" in political contexts. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It's fine as-is, IMO. Not only is Right-libertarianism wiki-linked, but it is elaborated upon within the article, as it is supposed to be. Our goal should not be to move the article body into the lede.

Further, the contention that "right is the opposite of libertarian" may not even be an accurate premise to begin with. BigK HeX (talk) 01:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

As clarification, I didn't say that right was (generally) opposite Libertarian I said that in many ways (such as social issues) "right" is the opposite of libertarian. North8000 (talk) 03:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

You guys are still missing the point. Libertarianism is about "freedom". TFD (talk) 03:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you 100%....actually 1000%. But, for better or worse, that has been lost in this article is a sea of specialized terminology and confusion and debates about terminology. My own efforts have been to try to sort that out so that we can finally cover both. North8000 (talk) 12:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The belief in individual freedom is so ingrained in some editors that they forget that it is not a central value of most ideologies. TFD (talk) 04:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Not so sure about "most" unless you count those who say it but don't prioritize it. North8000 (talk) 12:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Individual freedom is not the central value for either conservatism or socialism, which focus on order and equality respectively. Note that the U.S. has fewer restrictions on freedom of speech and gun ownership than any other country on earth. TFD (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and agree. North8000 (talk) 02:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Gay

It might be helpful to look at Gay and compare how that article is written and organized as compared to this one. Might a similar approach improve this article? --Born2cycle (talk) 19:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

No. Again, this discussion has been had. If you're going to use another article as a model, see the various political ideology articles. BigK HeX (talk) 20:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Left-Libertarian is actually just anarchy?

compare and contrast: Darkstar1st (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

This is WP:NOT#FORUM. BigK HeX (talk) 00:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Darkstar1st, this discussion page is not for general discussion of the topic. TFD (talk) 02:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Update on un-hyphenated libertarianism

So it looks like it is clear roughly what philosophy unhyphenated US libertarianism is. It's along the lines of the USLP definition, that being just one of many examples. I'm am going to try to put something in on that.

It looks like it's still unclear what un-hyphenated libertarianism (in major English speaking areas, big enough to create a definition of an english term) outside of the US means. Fiferloo seems to be an expert and know, but his/her explanations are indirect, hard to follow, and use so many other only-semi-defined terms that I'm not sure exactly what they are saying. BigK is still interpreting everything through the distorted lens of a now-ended war of last summer, and Born2 is challenging the discussion out of concern that we might be headed into a wrong definition. If I might try to gel the question, it's "What philosophy does simply 'libertarian' mean in England, Canada, and Australia/New Zealand?" Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of which, just ran into this from Time Magazine ayear ago Monday: "A former Duke University economics professor, Naylor heads up the Second Vermont Republic, which he describes as 'left-libertarian, anti-big government, anti-empire, antiwar, with small is beautiful as our guiding philosophy.'" CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Seemed to be hinting against at least larger scale corporate ownership/rights to natural resources which I guess matches the summary of left-libertarianism that we have struggling to put together. North8000 (talk) 12:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

"taxing equitably the corporate behemoths that exploit Vermont's "commons," which includes everything from the state's groundwater, surface water, wildlife and forests." there are already laws on the books protecting the water, does being a left libertarian mean you would simply raise the license fee {tax}? "New Hampshire and Vermont treat groundwater as a public trust. In Vermont, that means that groundwater is a public resource, whereby you must have a license to use it. The license can be revoked if it’s not being used for the public good, and citizens can go to court to sue for adverse effects if large withdrawals are contrary to the public good." Darkstar1st (talk) 12:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Darkstar, I think that what you are saying is that the guy's statements don't make much sense. Or maybe that "left libertarians" haven't really thought through what they are saying. But what do you think about the definition of "left-libertarian" as being people against ownership of land and natural resources? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

i would love for someone to compare and contrast LL with anarchy. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing "distorted" about my view of the situation. That you've always been quite sympathetic to Born2cycle's POV push really does not give you a neutral position (though, of course, you've taken an infinitely more diplomatic approach to the editing of the article which has probably been a quite sizable contribution).

In any case, this topic has been discussed. Clearly established consensus already covers that left-libertarians/libertarian socialists/anarcho-capitalists/mutualist-libertarians/etc etc ARE declared by multiple RS as BEING JUST LIBERTARIANS EVEN WITHOUT "HYPHENATION".

Certainly, if there are good reasons to ignore the existing RfC (where uninvolved editors are satisfied with the sourcing), please let me know. Otherwise, I'm confident that we can safely move on from this issue. BigK HeX (talk) 13:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

BigK, you are doing the exact opposite of wp:agf. Even when good faith is pretty clearly present, you are assuming bad faith. Why don't you try wp:agf and see what happens?

It's confusing what you are saying about the various strains. Long story short, the substantive RFC basically said to have them in the article. And, although there was no RFC finding per your "declared" sentence, certainly hyphenated libertarians are libertarians by the general meaning of the word. I'm not sure whether or not you are implying that such precludes unhyphenated libertarian also having some additional more specific (probably geographic-specific) meaning(s). Sincerely North8000 (talk) 14:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

"the substantive RFC basically said to have them in the article"

Born2cycle was trying censorship. What are you trying to accomplish? BigK HeX (talk) 15:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

An accurate, good article that EXPLAINS things for the average reader. That's IT!!!! Nothing more, nothing less!!!!!

My politics are irrelevant, but if you are curious, they are libertarian, in a very simple and realistic way, 100% describable by 5 words. "Smaller and less intrusive government", and that the US LP trying to be be a party (instead of a movement) is a bad idea / wasted vote. But what the US LP says is still very representative of what unhyphenated libertarian means in the USA. North8000 (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I should rephrase... What are you specifically trying to accomplish with this thread. BigK HeX (talk) 16:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The first is to sort of summarize / build consensus for the idea that there probably is a strand of libertarianism which unhyphenated libertarianism is in the USA. And to give a heads up that I plan to try to put that in as a strand of Libertarianism. I think that the USLP defines it well.

Second is to try to get the folks who know this better than I to (there are many here) to decide whether unhyphenated libertarianism outside of the us (in major english-speaking countries) is another specific strand/meaning, and, if so, to tell us what it is. And the put/not put something on that in the article accordingly. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

North8000: Wikipedia is not about "what we know" but what we are willing to research. Find an answer to your question through news/scholar/books google and other search engines. Or even a (gasp) library. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Concur with Carol. If you find any reliable academic sources that note a significance of "unhyphenated libertarianism in the US", then there's no need for a huge deal on the talk page about it. If there aren't yet any such sources, then this issue doesn't need to be discussed right now, IMO. BigK HeX (talk) 20:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Whatever you experts agree on will have come from sources and will be sourcable. Without that to start with, you have the incomprehensible mess that this article is slowly evolving out of. North8000 (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

You can have best info and best sources on planet, but if the organization is messy and illogical... don't get me started... CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd guess it might be (weakly?) sourceable that "the term libertarianism without qualification in the US usually refers to right-libertarian minarchism" or some such; I'm just not sure that such discussion over "unhyphenated libertarianism" is a significant point outside of this talk page. If you find sources that analyze the issue, then put it into the article. If there are no sources on that point at this time, then there's not much to discuss. BigK HeX (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Carol and suggest we remain focused on what the article says and the relevant sources. To wit, the following statement is still in the article, the last sentence in the intro:

Another difference is in groups who are supportive of private property rights in the ownership of land and natural resources and those who are opposed to such rights;[2][3]

As noted above, I've looked into both cited sources,

• 2. ^ a b c d e f g Carlos Peregrín Otero (2003). "Introduction to Chomsky's Social Theory". In Carlos Peregrín Otero (Editor). Radical priorities. Noam Chomsky (Book Author) (Expanded 3rd ed.). Oakland, California, USA: AK Press. pp. 9–48.
• 3. ^ Vallentyne, Peter (September 5, 2002). "Libertarianism". In Edward N. Zalta. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2009 ed.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2009/entries/libertarianism/. Retrieved March 5, 2010.

and I don't see how either says anything that supports the aspect of the statement in question that implies there are groups referred to as being unhyphenated/unqualified "libertarian" that are opposed to private property rights in the ownership of land and natural resources. In fact, Vallentyne refers to only the pro-property type. I didn't read all of Otero's book. Is there any specific quotation that is an example of referring to anti-property groups as being unhyphenated/unqualified "libertarian"? If so, what are the relevant words and where are they in the book? If not, is there any source that supports the anti-property-rights aspect of this statement? If not, it needs to be removed. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Sources support the statement. You'll get nowhere trying to censor it yet again. BigK HeX (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Born2cycle says, "Vallentyne refers to only the pro-property type"

Editors already informed you otherwise in your last RfC. If you choose not to accept their advisement, that's fine, but stop POV pushing a topic that's already been decided. BigK HeX (talk) 20:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Just FYI, in my experience left libertarianism or libertarian socialist usually are described thusly, but I'm not willing to go by just my experience. I'm not sure what the reference in question is, but if it needs to be proved a source uses it without an adjective or hyphen, it would help to just quote that use in the ref and end the discussion. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Article states, "Another difference is in groups who are supportive of private property rights in the ownership of land and natural resources and those who are opposed to such rights;[2][3]"

SEP says, "...in addition to the better-known version of libertarianism—right-libertarianism—there is also a version known as “left-libertarianism”.......A radical version of joint-ownership left-libertarianism, for example, holds that individuals may use natural resources only with the collective consent"

As he was informed in the RfC, the sentiment of the article's statement is clearly supported by RS. Whether it is supported according to what seems to be a "policy" that Born2cycle has concocted is fairly irrelevant to me until such time that he shows that his dispute has a basis in Wikipedia's actual policies in the first place. BigK HeX (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Carol, all I'm asking for is support in sources for the statement in question.

Thank you, BigK, for providing a quote of the actual words that you believe support the statement in question. However, I don't see how "there is also a version known as “left-libertarianism” is evidence of using unhyphenated/unqualified "libertarianism" to refer specifically to left-libertarianism. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I really have no desire to persuade you. Umpteen RfC's were unable to do so. And as the statement I've quoted stands as one obvious example of reliable sourcing for the article material, you'll get nowhere trying to remove it, so I'll not waste my time any further. BigK HeX (talk) 00:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

You might be discussing two different points.

All or nearly all forms of libertarianism (including the hyphenated ones) "taxonomically" are libertarian. One or two folks may be thinking that Born2 is arguing against that; I don't believe that he/she is. (?)

I think that the narrower question of the moment is that, per the common use of the word in the USA, in the USA, is there a second meaning of unhyphenated libertarian particular philosophy. Sort of a second meaning of the word. I think that the answer is yes. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

None of the above, North. My question is simple, and very specific to the article and sourcing, not nearly as general as anything you're talking about. Does this statement from Vallentyne:

"...in addition to the better-known version of libertarianism—right-libertarianism—there is also a version known as “left-libertarianism”.......A radical version of joint-ownership left-libertarianism, for example, holds that individuals may use natural resources only with the collective consent"

Support the following which is implied by the statement in question:

"Some groups who are opposed to private property rights in the ownership of land and natural resources" are sometimes (if not commonly) referred to as being plain unqualified/unhyphenated) "libertarian".

I don't see how a statement which clearly states that such groups are known as "left-libertarian" is evidence of such groups being referred to as unqualified/unhyphenated "libertarian". Do you? Carol? Anyone? It's a simple question about whether article content is supported by the sources. The lack of sourcing that supports this statement suggests it is WP:OR. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you, but I don't think that that statement is in the article. Are you saying that it or something to that effect is in the article, or concerned that somebody is arguing to put it in? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The actual wording that is in the article is:

Another difference is in groups who are supportive of private property rights in the ownership of land and natural resources and those who are opposed to such rights;

Isn't the reference to "groups" here a reference to groups referred to as being "libertarian"? If not, why is it in the "libertarianism" article? If it is, then what this statement means is:

Another difference [among groups referred to as being "libertarian" in reliable sources] is in [those] who are supportive of private property rights in the ownership of land and natural resources and those who are opposed to such rights

Am I misunderstanding if I read this to mean there are groups opposed to property rights that are referred to as being libertarian? If not, then where are these alleged references? --Born2cycle (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I wrote that, although possibly the wording has been changed. Maybe it is overstating what is merely a classification system used by some authors. Maybe it should have said that such is a classification system used by some. In my defense, at the time I wrote that I said that my main thing was doing a major reorganization of the first two sections, and that my wording might be crappy and that people should feel free to change it. The same still goes. I don't think that there are any libertarians who would self-identify as right libertarians. But, on the question at hand, I think it says that those are under the overall umbrella of libertarians, but not necessarily beinga school of thought that would be identified an unhyphenated Libertarians. North8000 (talk) 04:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

My point is this: Unless we can cite sources that use the term libertarian to refer to groups that oppose property rights, we can't say or even imply there are libertarian groups that oppose property rights. Maybe it can be fixed to make a source-supported statement, but I don't know what that would be. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Welp ... I hope North8000 is no longer confused on Born2cycle's goal ..... censorship. BigK HeX (talk) 05:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

So, removing content per WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR is now "censorship"? Oh, please. any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The material challenged has not been attributed to any "reliable, published source". Citing sources to which the material cannot be attributed, as has been done in this case, is not complying with WP:VERIFY. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

unhyphenated sec break 1

Outdent. Let me posit the following statements out in order to try to clarify the discussion. I am NOT proposing to put this in the article. There are some strands of libertarianism who are, to some extent, against private ownership of natural resources. In the "taxonomic" sense these fall within the overall tent of libertarianism. In the USA, (and possibly elsewhere) unhyphenated libertarianism also has a second meaning which is a particular libertarian philosophy, which is roughly as defined by the definition and platform provided by the USLP. This second meaning favors private ownership of natural resources, and advocates reduction of but not abolition of the state. In the US, when libertarian strands which have some views opposite to these are discussed, their specific NAMING always (or nearly always) is something other than just "libertarian" (e.g. left libertarian, anarchists) even though they may be in the overall libertarian "tent".

Now, is there anything in the above that anybody feels is wrong / unsourcable? Again, this is just to move the article discussion forward, NOT for insertion into the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Finally starting to get your point here. This has been confusing because you aren't talking about hypens as in hyphenated "left-" or "right-"libertarians but about adjectives; ie that most mainstream english sources mean private property libertarianism when they just say "libertarianism," right? Of course, many also do say "right libertarian," even news papers, etc. So it is all very confusing and there isn't a source you can just quote that describes the actual situation, so saying it without getting into WP:OR is difficult.

That's why the best thing to do is just provide specific language with refs for how you think the lead - or whatever - should be expressed. Speaking in generalities (esp when using inaccurate terminology) just leads nowhere, as this thread shows. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, boy. Yes, within the umbrella of mainstream libertarianism (what is referred to as "right libertarianism" or "minarchism" in this article) are left and right variations. For example, if you see a reference in the news about Bob Barr being a "right libertarian", that means he leans, among libertarians, for a relatively large military and worldwide presence. But I don't think we have any citations in mainstream usage (like newspapers or news magazines) of the use of "right libertarianism" to distinguish property-rights supporting libertarianism from anti-property-rights ideologies. I could be wrong, but if I was, my impression here could be easily refuted by a citation from the news to the contrary. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that mainstream Lib also has its "left" and "right" versions compounds the absurdity that just being more or less "statist" was supposed to clear up in the first place. Sigh. Check "right libertarianism" article for links regarding your comment mainstream usage (like newspapers or news magazines) of the use of "right libertarianism" to distinguish property-rights supporting libertarianism from anti-property-rights ideologies. Or do an internet search. Don't think. LOOK... CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if we'll ever be able to write something that mere mortals can understand ! ! North8000 (talk) 03:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Read the short but enlighting The Elements of Style. It sure helped me when I first read it 46 years ago ;-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I was particularly thinking about the fact that much of this article is naming/ terminology based, yet every name / term seems to have a zillion different meanings, some of them conflicting. More so than with other topics. North8000 (talk) 16:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Carol, in general, those supporting a challenged statement in an article are supposed to be the ones providing the citation. Since this article makes the claim that there are "libertarian" groups that are anti-property, those citations verifying that claim need to be inlined at that statement. Currently, they are not. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Obviously that needs referencing but I didn't realize that was an issue and from memory it seems there were such refs in article. If they need to be added to whichever statement you feel they need adding, add them. If they don't exist, somebody better get to work. (Note that often people don't put such refs in lead if material ref'd in body. But if people dispute the lead info, they can request it be ref'd or ref it themselves.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The only references to anti-property groups known as unqualified "libertarian" in the English-speaking words I can find in the article are from before the 1950s. I don't see how that supports the inclusion of a statement in the intro that clearly implies such usage is current. The specific wording in question, and the problem, is identified above in the quotation boxes. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

@Carol .. the lede material had already been ref'd (which you're already aware of as of this posting, since I see you recently edited the refs a bit). But in any case, there is NO indication that the material isn't verifiable, IMO, and now that it does have cites, I would guess that Born's objections are about as dead as it gets to me  ;) BigK HeX (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello Born2. I'm a bit confused as to what your concern is. (sourcing goes without saying) To help sort this out, could you tell me what your thoughts are on what I said a few posts up? (starts with "Outdent Let me...") In particular the distinction between that two meanings of just the word "libertarian", one being the overall tent of all libertarian philosophies, (including hypnenated ones,) and the other where unhyphenated "libertarian" means a particular philosophy. Because you seem to be saying that the wording claims that anti-property libertarians are the latter, and I don't think that the wording says that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

North, we have academic sources that use the term libertarian in the umbrella sense to include the historical meaning it had prior to the 1950s, and still has in other languages and perhaps in academia (particularly outside of the U.S.). However, I'm not aware of any citations in the article of relatively recent English mainstream sources (newspapers, news magazines) that indicate use of the unqualified word libertarian in a connotation other than where it has a pro-property-rights meaning. In particular, I don't see any citation for any particular modern anti-property-rights group being referred to as unqualified "libertarian" in any recent English source.

I do think the statement in question, "Another difference is in groups who are supportive of private property rights in the ownership of land and natural resources and those who are opposed to such rights; ", implies that anti-property rights groups are referred to as being libertarian. It implies this because, as I noted above, the only groups it could be reasonably talking about are groups referred to as being "libertarian" in reliable sources. If these groups (or "strains") are not referred to as being "libertarian" in reliable sources, then why are we talking about them in a paragraph about "libertarian" groups and strains?

Let's look at the challenged statement again... perhaps you're reading it differently than me. If you wanted to clarify exactly what groups you're talking about, how would you reword it? Would the following be fair? " Another difference among libertarian strains is in groups who are supportive of private property rights in the ownership of land and natural resources and those who are opposed to such rights;" Please provide an example of a libertarian strain or group opposed to property rights, including a citation from a source identifying it as being a libertarian strain or group. Without such a source, the statement seems to me to be unsupported in sources. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello Born2. I'm the one who wrote that, and didn't intend it to sound the way that you are reading it. Which means that I probably wrote unclearly. I'll put in what you suggested and see if it flies. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'm somewhat sure that I'm the last person to have edited that section, and both of us seem fine with it the way it is and believe the sources well-support the assertion made. The article almost certainly does not need to be tortured in a futile attempt to satisfy someone who refuses to accept that his view is not the prevailing understanding of RS's. Consensus is not with Born2cycle (and, really, editors may be unanimous against his position). BigK HeX (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I saw the change as being just a minor clarification. What do you think about the change itself ? North8000 (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The change is OK-ish, but changed nothing, IMO. The original statement was already clear, and now the clarification only says the same thing ... just now with more words. I removed "strains", due to it just being redundant due to "groups" already in the sentence. BigK HeX (talk) 20:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)BigK, all I can glean from your words is disagreement. With what, exactly, I'm not sure. The lack of specificity in your objections to seemingly anything and everything I say makes it impossible to understand what exactly you're disagreeing with. To provide some clarity, please indicate whether you agree or disagree with each of these statements, and, if you disagree, why.

1. Given the context of being in an article about libertarianism in a paragraph about "strains of libertarians", the statement in question -- "Another difference is in groups who are supportive of private property rights in the ownership of land and natural resources and those who are opposed to such rights; " -- implies that there are libertarian groups -- groups referred to as being "libertarian" in reliable sources -- that are opposed to private property rights.
2. The article does not cite any modern English sources that refer to any particular anti-property-rights groups as being unqualified "libertarian".
3. Because of (2), the statement in (1) is unsupported by the sources.

Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

@North8000 To be blunt, it is clear to me that Born2cycle wishes the article not to respect the many RS that consider left-libertarianism to BE libertarianism. No amount of WP:AGF suggests any other interpretations. Ultimately though all of the other editors seem able to accept that RS's report this understanding, and as such there is no confusion on the point for anyone else. There's no way to satisfy Born2cycle and stay with policy and RS's. As far as I'm concerned, policy trumps Born2cycle's desires, so he'll have to remain forever unsatisfied. BigK HeX (talk) 20:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Once again, you ignore specific points and questions in favor of expressing your irrelevant opinions about your impressions of my irrelevant supposed "desires". --Born2cycle (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It's entirely intentional. BigK HeX (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)