Talk:Right-libertarianism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Unsupported claim?[edit]

I'm wondering if this claim about neolibertarians should be cited:

"They may also support the arrests of antiwar activists"

That seems like it should be sourced. I'm kind of new to this... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.46.224.69 (talk) 05:27, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Disparaging Term used by Opponents[edit]

The term right-libertarianism is used only (or primarily) by opponents of libertarian capitalism. One will note that all citations given for the term are from opponents of capitalism wanting to paint it as authoritarian. Proponents of capitalism rarely if ever call themselves "right libertarian." They prefer "libertarian capitalist," "anarcho-capitalist," or simply "libertarian." PhilLiberty (talk) 20:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I've been talking about doing the following starting 2 years ago at the libertarianism project but never started. I think that "Right-libertarianism" and "Left-libertarianism" aren't even real distinct topics; they are just two-word sequences used by different people for different purposes, some of them in a disparaging manner. The lack of sourcing to place the insertions in this article under that heading further reinforces this. These articles should be reduced to very small articles about the usage of the "Right-libertarianism" and "Left-libertarianism" terms. The underlying gorilla in the living room is there are not just varying strands of the term, the term has fundamentally different common meanings in the US vs. elsewhere. North8000 (talk) 20:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Note that the redirect to this article Libertarian capitalism now has identical content to this article, and is being worked on further. Usedtobecool ✉️  21:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I think that we need a bunch of AFD's on the hyphenated libertarian articles. Or reduce them to very short articles on the usages of those terms, and only when the source talks about the usage of that term. The recognized specific philosophical strands can stay or be expanded. This article would be a good place to start. Let's roll!? North8000 (talk) 22:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I have no opinion on the matter. I was just dropping an FYI, in case someone can be bothered to resolve the copyvio with proper attribution. But good luck to whichever proposition is the more objectively sound one, assuming there's a multitude. BTW, I see plenty of discussion on the other pages's talk about why that title is unsuitable. Just wait till they notice what's happened. LOL!Usedtobecool ✉️  22:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I think that we need a bunch of AFD's on the hyphenated libertarian articles. Or reduce them to very short articles on the usages of those terms, and only when the source talks about the usage of that term. The recognized specific philosophical strands can stay or be expanded. This article would be a good place to start. Let's roll!? North8000 (talk) 22:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I think the articles themselves are fine, but that using a derogatory term that mainly opponents use for one of them is wrong. Left libertarians indeed do call themselves "left libertarian." But it is these same left libertarians who refer to opponents as "right libertarian" in order to contrast their ideology. Georgists call libertarian capitalists "royal libertarians." Why not use that loaded term? It seems to me that a neutral term that everyone understands is libertarian capitalism."—Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilLiberty (talk) 22:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
2D Ideomap
I don't have a strong opinion, but may I debate you only for the purpose of sorting this out? What is the objective definition of the topic of this article, if such exists? And, you are suggesting a title where the noun is "capitalism". So the idea would be to define the topic of this article as a certain type of capitalism? Maybe a good idea, but I'm just putting the question on the table. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
@PhilLiberty: I could be wrong, but I think that's your own POV-pushing. It's simply not true that right-libertarianism is only a disparaging term used by opponents. I don't know if he was the one to actually first coin the term, but Rothbard used the term right-libertarianism and even devoted an article talking about the libertarian political spectrum. Right-libertarianism doesn't necessarily mean it's a right-wing ideology; it just mean it represent the right-wing of libertarianism. Unlike libertarian socialism, libertarian capitalism isn't very much used. As far as I know, left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism are preferred and more common. It's just in the United States where libertarianism is generally used to mean right-libertarianism whereas internationally it still means left-libertarian philosophy such as anarchism and libertarian socialism, so that causes confusion. You claim "all citations given for the term are from opponents of capitalism wanting to paint it as authoritarian", but that doesn't make them necessarily unreliables. They aren't exactly nobody either. Or are you insinuating that anyone claiming that capitalism can be and actually is authoritarian must be necessarily biased? Furthermore, proponents of capitalism also include liberals, conservatives, Christian democrats and social democrats, among others; and they don't call themselves libertarians or with any other term you cited, unless you equate capitalism with the free market. I hate to do this, but Nazis never referred to themselves as fascists, yet political scientists consider and cite them as far-right, fascists, so just because someone claims, or doesn't claim, to be something doesn't make it so. I personally think libertarianism is simply anarchism and libertarian socialism whereas right-libertarianism is just another form of liberalism; that anarcho-capitalism and other similar right-libertarian ideologies are anti-state, private state and stateless variants or forms of liberalism rather than anarchism or libertarianism, but that's my own opinion based on what I researched about the topic. After all, Rothbard himself acknowledged that the word was co-opted.
I personally think the pages are fine, but can be further improved rather than deleted. Left- and right-libertarianism are very much a real thing and are largely differents, not just on property but even on what liberty or freedom actually means, although they may agree on a few things. Either liberty or property is equally enjoyed by all, without any privilege, or indeed it turns itself into another authority, hierarchy, or privilege for those who can't enjoy equal liberty and becomes the opposite of libertarianism. Another issue is that right-libertarians confuse liberalism with libertarianism, perhaps because they use the word libertarianism to mean what they refer to as classical liberalism. For instance, liberal philosophers such as Locke, Spencer and Summer, among others, are considered libertarians when the word itself in the political sense was coined to mean anarchism, specifically libertarian communism. They weren't libertarians, they were liberals; it is those right-libertarians that are these old-style liberals, not viceversa. So I think that the libertarianism, left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism pages should be kept, especially considering the confusion caused by the word libertarianism in the United States vis-à-vis the rest of the world.--79.53.62.185 (talk) 02:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Both libertarianism and liberalism have very different common meanings in the US-English language vs. elsewhere. Somebody speaking/writing accurately using the common meaning of terms in their language isn't "confusing" the terms. My own opinion is that many of the hyphenated libertarianism articles should be reduced to short articles about the usage of those terms. IMO they are just two word sequences that are used in differing ways by different people rather than distinct topics. For the right-libertarian one specifically, I think that it is just a classification scheme used by some authors rather than a distinct topic. Sort of like making a "Little countries" article because some authors have used that term to organize a country discussion, and then duplicating all of the coverage of smaller countries in that article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

In the Rothbard article cited above, Rothbard calls the term right libertarian "bewildering," and repeatedly uses scare quotes. Why? Because virtually no one self-refers as "right libertarian." Since all anarchism, including anarcho-capitalism, is left-wing by that one-dimensional model, "right libertarianism" is just a misnomer used by detractors. PhilLiberty (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but that's not how Wikipedia works; it's not how one self-characterize himself, it's how reliable sources characterize him and you didn't add any. You just changed right-libertarianism with libertarian capitalism even if when the source doesn't support such claim. There're better ways and solutions than just changing the term. The lead now says it refers to libertarian capitalist philosophies and I think that's enough.--213.45.51.118 (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
On your last sentence, that's even worse. Whenever the term is used, it's referring to forms of libertarianism which don't object to capitalism, not to a form of capitalism. On the earlier parts of your post, self-identification is indeed important, and sources are what cover that. Doubly so here, where the usage in sources are various categorization attempts and I've not seen any source that purports to cover the meaning of the term or says that it is the common name for US style libertarian ism. I think that this article should be reduced to a short description of usage of and meanings of the subject term. Or maybe delete it and add a short note in the US libertarianism article. North8000 (talk) 22:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, you're right about that and I agree with your last edit to the lead. I think the page is fine now and I just wish more knowlegable users than me would also state their opinion. I also didn't mean to say that self-identification isn't important, but that realiable sources need to confirm that. After all, Nazis "self-characterized" themselves as "socialists" yet the consensus and realiable sources state that they were far-right, fascists. I simply disagree with renaming the page libertarian capitalism because as you said " it's referring to forms of libertarianism which don't object to capitalism, not to a form of capitalism". One issue is that socialism is both a philosophy and an economic system whereas capitalism is mainly an economic system and its philosophy is liberalism. However, as you stated above, "liberalism" has different meaning in the "US-English language vs. elsewhere", so there's this issue. I'm not a political scientist, but if there was a word to describe right-libertarianism in European terms, it would be neo-classical liberalism; in the sense that it has been inspired by old-style liberalism, but it also have several differences which set it apart. However, this wouldn't make sense in the United States due to its terminology difference, but then again this is the English Wikipedia and not the American Wikipedia. And yes, I actually thought right-libertarianism was a term specifically used to refer to this specific propertarian form of libertarianism in the United States. I don't think the article should be deleted, but perhaps an article describing libertarian capitalism could be created much like democratic capitalism rather than redirect it here.--213.45.51.118 (talk) 23:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for that thorough and thoughtful post. Here's sort of my argument on the structural side. So we have lots of philosophical strands of libertarianism that accept capitalism. There are articles on all of them. If we go by actual current practice / identification by people who self-identify as libertarian, almost all of those are in the US mostly because the US is the only place where "libertarian" has such a meaning. In Europe the translation of the US term "libertarianism" is "liberalism". So those trying to organize and name libertarianism or liberalism articles are beset by a tower of Babel problem. So a few authors try to organized a discussion by inventing, inventing "for the day" definitions of and using terms like "right and left" to organize their book or article. And in some places, those temporary terms that they are are offensive and opposite to the views of the people that they espouse to cover. For example, in the US, "right" refers to the political OPPONENT of libertarianism on about 1/2 of all topics. Like a US person (where fanny means butt) calling a pack over butt as a "fanny pack" when, to a British person, "fanny" means vagina. So, IMO, my first choice is not to delete the article (we still should cover the term) , it is to make it very short covering the usage of the term. Trying to duplicate coverage of the forms of libertarianism that some authors classify as "right libertarianism" is IMO a bad idea that makes no sense at all. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
US libertarians may want to frame themselves as neither left nor right in the context of US political alignments, but in pretty much any context capitalism is seen as more to the right than socialism, so within the context of libertarianism generally the branch of it that favors capitalism is clearly on the right compared to the branch that favors socialism, even if there are also other positions in the broader spectrum that are even further to the right of any kind of libertarianism. --Pfhorrest (talk) 06:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
That is a variable division in the eye of the beholder. BTW that is only addressing my secondary reason for writing this. My main reason that this is the equivalent of starting a Small breed dogs article and then duplicating coverage of half of all of the dog breed articles in the new article. North8000 (talk) 13:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
We had this discussion several years ago. Libertarianism in the U.S, has three meanings: its historic meaning, which may or may not include the movement founded by Rothbard, Nolan and Hess, which drew on the 19th century earlier tradition; the movement founded by Rothbard et al; and as a synonym for neo-classical liberalism, which is a strand of liberalism that arose in reaction to welfare liberalism and claims to be truer to original liberal roots and now dominates all major parties in the U.S. and Europe. The French by the way use the term "libertaire" to refer to the original doctrine of libertarianism and "libertarianisme" to refer to the U.S. modification by Rothbard et al. They use the term "Libéralisme" in the same way as English-speakers, to refer to the broad tradition. Colloquially however, liberalism in the U.S. refers to modern American liberalism, while in French it refers to 19th century liberalism and is used as an epithet.
Going forward, we need to consider two rules: each article must have a main topic and each article must be named according to common name. We can't delete an article because we don't like its name.
TFD (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

PhilLiberty, while I agree that the Right Libertarianism article is problematic as-is, and agree with some of your arguments, you must stop doing what you are doing. Massive changes not only without consensus but without even one other editor supporting them.North8000 (talk) 14:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Some asshole locked both articles. After changing everything to the shitty version, of course. My new idea is to have a disambiguation at the top of the Right Libertarian article, with a link to Libertarian Capitalism. Something like:
This is a disputed POV title. For the NPOV version of this article, see Libertarian capitalism.
PhilLiberty (talk) 00:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
See below North8000 (talk) 01:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
That would make the articles POV forks, which is against policy. --Pfhorrest (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
It looks like the choice is between a POV title or a POV fork. A POV fork is less censorious. But perhaps they are two different articles. The Right Libertarian article is basically criticism of Libertarian Capitalism. PhilLiberty (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Plan and direction for this article[edit]

@The Four Deuces: What would you suggest here? IMO the only "distinct topic" here is the term, not what is covered by the term. North8000 (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems that way. Is there a topic of right-libertarianism distinct from any other article? If yes, then we need to identify it, provide the literature and write the article to reflect it. Or does it mean different things depending on context? Then it should be deleted or used as a disambiguation page. Maybe we could have an RfC asking editors what the primary topic is and to provide sources. TFD (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Sounds good. Except that a discussion amongst people involved on libertarian articles might be better than an advertised RFC. This is a pretty confusing / tower of Babel area. North8000 (talk) 17:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
There hasn't been much discussion lately and most of the discussion in the past was unproductive. TFD (talk) 00:52, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
I brought this up at Project Libertarianism ("Reviving this semi-active WikiProject") about two years ago. I said that I was going to start slowy paring the righ and left libertarian article to articles about those terms. No objection stated, discussion was sparse. But I never did it. Maybe I'll start slowly doing that and see what happens. North8000 (talk) 11:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
I'll try that. North8000 (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

There is an article for Libertarian socialism, so if that is worthy of an article, then so is Libertarian capitalism. But then, maybe North8000 wants to make Libertarian socialism only about the term, too. PhilLiberty (talk) 00:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, the longstanding version of Libertarian Capitalism said that Libertarian Capitalism is also a pejorative term. :-) . Yes, my thought would be to reduce the Libertarian socialism to a shorter article just about the term. And also have a short similar article for Libertarian Capitalism. North8000 (talk) 01:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 22 July 2019[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Strong opposition for a variety of reasons. (non-admin closure) В²C 20:37, 30 July 2019 (UTC)


Right-libertarianismLibertarian capitalism – violates the NPOV title rule, since mainly only opponents use "right libertarian", as a pejorative term PhilLiberty (talk) 20:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). PhilLiberty (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Actually, I'd rather delete this article and use the existing Libertarian capitalism article, since I have done some work on it. PhilLiberty (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm not convinced that "right-libertarian(ism)" is mainly used by opponents. I hear the terms "right-libertarian" and "left-libertarian" used together quite frequently, and never in any kind of pejorative way. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • If an input from uninvolved editors without a stake/bias is expected, perhaps make your arguments with sources to support your position? Without a list of sources that say(can be used as evidence that) it's used as a pejorative, nor one of those that say it's a neutral vocabulary that's used as a contrast to left-libertarianism in academia, it boils down to personal preference (WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT). Usedtobecool ✉️  04:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support move. I like the term as more descriptive of the nature, and more neutral. I also think the United States tends to frame things as dualism too much, and it is misguided to be stating it as if it fits to a linear left-right and that is the key aspect. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 11:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support move. Actually what I think should really be done is reduce this to a short article about the term and it's usage, but this is real action towards fulfilling that objective. This is not a distinct topic, and certainly not by the ill-concieved name which is not only pejorative but also an oxymoron in the US. It's just a two word sequence that has been used by different authors for different purposes. But the proposed move is some real action towards that end. We could include a few sentences on the R-L term at the target article. One more of the several problematic hyphenated libertarian articles taken care of. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose move - Right libertarianism is the WP:COMMONNAME for this political ideology. I have never heard of "Libertarian capitalism", and I've been around the block a time or two. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. (Don't count it if only registrated users can vote. It's always the same IP; I don't change the IP, it automatically change itself. I just want to state my opinion since I got involved.) While there may indeed be problems with the page, this discussion was based on the lie that "only opponents use "right libertarian", as a pejorative term". I'm happy to hear a smilar scepticism from Rreagan007 and Beyond My Ken about it, so I'm glad it wasn't just my impression and research. While I thank North8000 for his kindness and help in previous discussions, I have to disagree that "[it] is not only pejorative but also an oxymoron in the US". I thought this was supposed to be the international Wikipedia of the English language, not the American Wikipedia. The American-style libertarianism/neo-classical liberalism is just as an oxymoron elsewhere. While I don't deny it's use as a pejorative, it's also been used neutrally to highlight the difference between left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism. Libertarian capitalism sounds more neutral only if you see right-libertarianism as a non-neutral, but that's in itself a POV. I also disagree that it's "just a two word sequence that has been used by different authors for different purposes"; I mean, I don't deny this, but I also believe that both left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism are two different, although related in some ways, philosophies/schools of thought/whatever you want to call it. While I agree with TFD's discussion below, I would say that left and right liberalism are mainly used as synonymous for social liberalism and conservative liberalism, respectively. Rather, I see left- and right-libertarianism more like left- and right-populism and as a result I support their current naming. Either way, I agree with Usedtobecool calls to "perhaps make your arguments with sources to support your position". I'm willing to change my mind and support whatever decision will be taken only on what reliable sources say. I would have done this myself, but I'm not good in these kind of researches and I wouldn't know how to start, that's why I hope you can help in finding what realiable sources actually say and base the move on them. Furthermore, how the current article actually is? Are the sources reliable? Only PhilLiberty seemed not to think so, but he also didn't put any new sources in their place; as far as I can tell and I could be wrong, he simply changed the word right-libertarianism everytime to libertarian capitalism without adding any new source and even when the source specifically spoke of right-libertarianism; and to me that's unacceptable. While everyone has his own bias, I think PhilLiberty is POV pushing the same POV he's accusing and wants to remove. I would like to highlight that I have nothing personal against PhilLiberty or any other user. It's nothing personal to me, I just strive for the truth (by this I don't mean an objective truth, but what reliable sources say) and as I already stated above I'm willing to change my mind. However, there's been nothing that convinced me so far; they're all different personal opinions. There should be a discussion about left-libertarianism too, especially if this page is moved; and if it's moved, then the main libertarianism page should concern libertarianism as anarchism and libertarian socialism rather than what's called right-libertarianism, only highlighting that in the United States libertarianism means a different thing. I also don't see right-libertarianism as libertarianism in the United States, but rather as American-style libertarianism or neo-classical liberalism. While right-libertarianism seems to be the mainstream and more popular view of libertarianism in the United States, right-libertarianism also expanded globally since the 1970s due to globalisation and the rise of neoliberalism, among other things; that's why you see British people like Maproom, or more generally English-speaking people, understanding libertarianism as libertarianism in the United States; it's just a proof that this kind of libertarianism has indeed expanded globally, but globally it remains a minority and only in the United States is the mainstream view. I would also point out that the same French libertarian communist who first coined the word libertarian in the modern political way also first coined the word libertarian while he was in New York, so even in the United States for many years it was exactly like the rest of the world and indeed anarchists, including individualist anarchists like Tucker, used the word libertarian first. Likewise, the 20th century people who used libertarian to mean classical liberalism didn't create a new ideology, didn't create libertarianism; they simply renamed one, namely liberalism, libertarianism and even then that only happened in the 1970s. Either way, as a compromise with PhilLiberty, I propose that libertarian capitalism shouldn't direct here, but should have its own page, if possible. Not all right-libertarians would describe themselves as supporters of capitalism (as in it actually exists), but rather of the free market, although the two are often conflated and confused with each other. As I proposed above, libertarian capitalism should be similar to democratic capitalism and should describe it as an economic system. Unlike socialism, capitalism is mainly an economic system. As a result, the philosophy of so-called libertarian capitalism is what's called right-libertarianism. This way we could have left-libertarianism vis-à-vis right-libertarianism and libertarian socialism vis-à-vis libertarian capitalism; that is, if the page is kept as right-libertarianism, which as of now I still support. Finally, I'd have welcomed a discussion about the page to analize it, what improvements can and should be made, so as to fix the problems and only then start a discussion about this.--95.235.190.133 (talk) 13:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Because there's nothing pejorative, contradictory, or otherwise wrong about the title "right-libertarianism", that's a perfectly cromulent description of the position that is anti-state but pro-capitalist. --Pfhorrest (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose the premise for the move is objectively false as a quick search on Google Books shows. GScholar gives about 366 hits for the proposed change[1] and about 508 for the current title.[2] Where's the guideline/policy reason to support the move? Doug Weller talk 18:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Although for any ideology, it makes sense to speak of of left and right-wing versions, generally that does not mean that for each ideology these are discrete topics. For example, some sources use the terms left liberalism and right-wing liberalism, but what each of these terms means depends on context and there is no article for either one. The one exception I can think of is right wing populism. But that's a clearly defined topic with extensive literature. Before saving this article, I would like to see a reliably sourced definition of the topic and evidence that it is distinct from any other topic for which an article exists. TFD (talk) 05:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree. And I think that we both know that the rs'd definition and evidence of distinction don't exist. And I think that such is even a bigger reason for some type of change at this article.North8000 (talk) 13:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Beyond my Ken, I agree regarding Libertarian Capitalism, but my support was based on this still being as step in the right direction. But I have to disagree on your common name statement. Aside from the fact the subject really doesn't exist as an entity (just a two word sequence used differently by different authors and people) where would that be the most common name? This is an English term. By far the largest english-as-a-primary language country is the US, and most common practice of what the article is referring to is the US. Yet in the US the term doesn't exist, would be an oxymoron, and (in many ways) exactly contrary to the ideology of the people practicing what this article describes. North8000 (talk) 13:33, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Just looking at Ghits, "libertarian+capitalism" gets 23,800 hits [3], while "right+libertarianism" gets 56,000 [4]. And that doesn't even account for the fact that I'm not sure they're the same thing. It looks to me that the right is just as fragmented as is the left. I use to laugh at the Workers' Socialist Party versus the Socialist Party of the Workers versus the Worker's Socialist Party (Trotskyite) versus the Worker's Maoist Socialist Party of the Workers versus the Syndicalist-Socialist Workers' Party versus... It seemed that when 5 lefties got together they belonged to at least 8 different parties. It looks to me as if the ideologies of the right are something like that as well. I couldn't tell the Maoists from the Trotskyites without a program, and I doubt I could do the same thing here, so I'm going to leave my !vote above, because I still think it makes sense, but otherwise back off from this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:39, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Doug Weller, I notice that the search you provided shows a lot of articles about "left libertarianism," but none about right libertarianism. I don't think we can just assume that because there are articles about left liberterianism, that right libertarianism is a topic. Can you point to the literature that discusses it? By comparison, North American English is a topic, but that does not mean that South American English is. TFD (talk) 05:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

On my iPad so details too difficult but all those sources mention right-libertarianism and some say specifically or implicitly that right-libertarianism is the more familiar concept. But it's true that there are more articles on left than right. Doug Weller talk 19:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't see that. The first article, "Left-libertarianism: A Review Essay" uses the term left-libertarianism to refer to the Steiner–Vallentyne school. This school drew on the philosophy of Nozick and Rothbard, which they called right-libertarianism. But is that its common name? Why are there no books or articles about it if it is older and larger than left-libertarianism? TFD (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: I'm not arguing that. But there is at least one academic book on it, "Towards a Right-libertarian Welfare State: An Analysis of Right-libertarian Principles and Their Implications"[5] I can find a few articles on it but my point is that the articles that mention left-libertarianism in my search also mention right. The point is that it's a common name for a political philosophy and I see no evidence that it's simply an alternative name for right capitalism. If it were, wouldn't a search on both terms bring up more than 3 hits?[6] Doug Weller talk 18:05, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
We really need a 2nd RFC because IMO the involvement or potential substitution of the "right capitalism" term is sort of a red herring. IMO they are both just two word sequences used by different authors with different meanings. Like if a particular "dog" book author divided his book into "big dogs" and "small dogs".North8000 (talk) 18:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Doug Weller, here's a link to the intruction of the book. It uses the term left-libertarianism to refer to the Steiner–Vallentyne school. The key difference between the two schools is whether natural resources should be publicly or privately owned, according to the book and all other sources that mention right-libertarianism. There are however no books or articles about right-libertarianism that I could find. It's a bit like articles about British people referring to non-British people. British people is a topic, but non-British people is not. They're just people who happen not to be British.
North8000, if you have another RfC, perhaps you could ask editors to explain what the topic is and identify literature. It seems that it is a term used when writing about the Steiner-Vallentyne school, which is called left-libertarianism. But left-libertarianism is a part of the Nozick-Rothbard school, not to be confused with left-wing libertarianism, which is anti-capitalist. Also, I would avoid saying the term is pejorative, which is a distraction. It will turn some editors against your proposal.
TFD (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Last sentence of first paragraph.[edit]

There's several odd things about the last sentence of first paragraph, which I would correct if the article weren't protected.

  1. "the common meaning of libertarianism in the United States is different than elsewhere". That should be from elsewhere.
  2. "the common meaning of libertarianism in the United States is different than elsewhere, where it continues ...". Does "where" refer to the United States, or to elsewhere?
  3. "widely used to refer to anti-state socialists such as anarchists and more generally libertarian communists and libertarian socialists." Wtf? Socialists generally aren't anti-state; and "libertarian communists" sounds like a contradiction. (I'm British, and to me and people I know, "libertarian" means leaving things to the market, rather than having a control economy. It tends to be a right-wing view. Libertarians oppose nationalised industries and the (UK's) National Health Service.)
  4. Nine references for one statement? That's a giveaway that something fishy is going on. If your purpose is to establish the truth of something that's true, one or two references is enough. You only see more than four references for the same statement when someone is trying to mislead the reader.

Maproom (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Good thoughts. I think that most of those of those two-philosophy titled libertarian articles need to be reduced to short articles about the term and it's usage. North8000 (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Maproom, regarding your point #3, it sounds like you are unfamiliar with the broader history of either socialism or libertarianism. (That seems quite common in America, and I guess the English-speaking world more generally if as you say there's a similar common misconception in the UK). The wiki here has an article on libertarian socialism that might be a good starting point for learning more, but the one-point summary is that "socialism" is not synonymous with "command economy", it's just the opposite of "capitalism", which in turn is not synonymous with "free market". Libertarian socialists are market socialists: anti-capitalist, pro-market. (There are conversely also such things as state capitalists, who are both anti-libertarian and anti-socialist). --Pfhorrest (talk) 05:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Historically, socialism was anti-state, because the state is the tool of capitalists. Right-libertarians criticized modern socialists for abandoning their anti-statist roots. It was only in the post-war era that socialists came to believe that the capitalist state could be used to improve the lives of the working class. Hence socialists historically opposed the welfare state. Some on the far left today even chant, "Smash the state!" That's why oddly enough American right-libertarians found inspiration in socialist and anarchist writings, named their movement libertarianism and adopted their symbols, terminology and even part of their pantheon. TFD (talk) 06:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request[edit]

Brian Morris links to a DAB page with no relevant article. I suggest that he should either be unlinked or redlinked as Brian Morris (political theorist). Narky Blert (talk) 11:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@Narky Blert: -  Done 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

To crystallize a discussion[edit]

This is only To crystallize a discussion. It should not be a "voting" format because it is mathematically defective for such a use. It would probably take a restructured second phase to ask for a consensus. Some possibilities to discuss are:

  1. Leave it roughly as is.
  2. Reduce it to an article just about the term and the usage of the term.
  3. Rename the article
  4. Delete the article with no redirect
  5. Delete the article with a redirect (no significant move of content)
  6. Merge into another article (sort of like #5 except with a significant move of content)

May I suggest commenting on several or all of them?

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

This is a silly way to go about things. You want opinions, OK, #1 is fine, #2 is ridiculous, #3 has already been discussed and did not pass, #4 - take it to AfD, and good luck with that, #5 - redirect to what?, #6 - merge into what? Did that help "crystallize" anything?
How about instead of this exercise in futility, you explain what you think should be done about the article, and let us discuss that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
My idea was to leave it open to all possibilities without pushing it in any direction by immediately weighing in. No need to denigrate such an idea, whether or not it is optimal. And further, my idea is #2, the one that you felt the need to call "ridiculous" North8000 (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
There's no point in stirring up a probably contentious talk page discussion if one doesn't have a purpose in mind. We're not a debating society. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
The purpose is to decide what to do with this article. I already made my minor complaint regarding your posts. From here on out I just wish you the best and if nobody responds then I'll propose something and make a case for it as you are implying I should have done initially. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I've just reverted a move[edit]

I can't understand why anyone would move this page against considering that we've just had a discussion that was closed as no move. That sort of thing can get an editor blocked. Doug Weller talk 17:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

As much as I have some partial agreement with PhilLiberty's arguments, their approach has been very out of line, and I have asked them several times to quit it. I consider them to be a newbie on the Wiki learning curve, but IMO at least a short block or something should be done if they do it again. North8000 (talk) 00:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I have to agree that something must be done about @PhilLiberty: this was clearly not in WP:Good faith and was perhaps the worst kind of editing in that he literally just changed the words (despite sources not supporting his views; he didn't even add any sources to support his arguments, he just changed words) to fix his own POV. He also moved the page without any warning or discussion; and to top it all, despite the fact we just had a discussion about it.
P.S. I even put one of his suggested image and another to show off the categorisations and differences to try to appease, but apparently it didn't.--79.27.160.51 (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Plus, it left at least a dozen broken redirects. Liz Read! Talk! 16:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed NPOV title - "Modern Libertarianism"[edit]

I've just discovered this article, and in order for it to be accurate, either the title will need to be changed or the content will need to reflect the distinction between center-north libertarianism (which this article describes) and the view among living libertarians that distinguishes those who hold to right-of-center views such as pro-life, centralized military, immigration restrictions, trade restrictions, legislated morality, and other viewpoints that align to some extent with those on the right (i.e. Republicans).

The vast majority of modern libertarians describe themselves as north-of-center, and consistently employ the Nolan Chart to describe their ideology. As can be seen above, there is considerable resistance by today's libertarians to grouping it together with obsolete POVs regarding the nation state - who the current title more accurately describes. To reflect current realities, the bulk of libertarianism must also be distinguished from POVs now generally considered obsolete regarding property and the marketplace - which describe the left.

JLMadrigal @ 13:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the issue is that you're confusing libertarianism in the United States with right-libertarianism. Right-libertarianism is a term used to describe both mainstream libertarianism in the United States and the more social and cultural conservative variants, but which all agree in supporting capitalism and property rights, hence why they're put together and termed right-libertarian vis-à-vis the non-propertarian/anti-propertarian left-libertarianism. I repeat that the right/right-wing in libertarianism doesn't refer to the ideology's position on the political spectrum. Furthermore, while what these self-described libertarians think matter, ultimately it's what reliable sources and scholars say that matter. Beside, you can't just pick any name that comes off your mind; it must be corroborated by reliable sources. To me, this just seems your own POV issue in that you and PhilLiberty don't want libertarianism associated with the right despite it being explained many times why it's called like that and how it is NPOV.--79.27.160.51 (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
The lead of the article does not help. It describes the words "right-libertarianism" rather than what they refer to, inevitably inviting questions about the point of view behind the words. If it more clearly defined the political philosophy itself, then we might all end up talking about the same thing (or going to a different article to talk about what we thought this article was about!), and then it might become clearer what the best article title was. So long as the article starts "... has been used by some authors to refer to...", there is always going to be trouble. Lithopsian (talk) 15:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm actually opposed to that as well, it was @North8000: who added that. I, too, believe it should describe the political philosophy itself, which I believe it is and not just a term.--79.27.160.51 (talk) 21:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

(Edit conflict, written before Lithopsian's post) IMO this is not a distinct topic and the title is just a two word sequence with no consistent meaning. Most of the material in the article is duplication of material covered elsewhere, and it's inclusion is not supported by sourcing. Instead it's inclusion is mostly by synthesis. In essence, a wiki editor developing their personal meaning of the term and then deciding to include material based on that, even when the source didn't say it was right-libertarianism. If this was done based on there being a clear-cut distinct topic, IMO that would be fine but IMO such is not the case here. IMO we should reduce this article to a short one about the term and the usage of the term. And even if it were more of a distinct topic than it is, it would simply be a lens to what is already covered in other articles. It's sort of like if we had a dogs article, and hundreds of articles on specific dogs. And "Right-libertarianism" is the equivalent of starting a Big dogs article which just duplicates what is already in the other articles, selected by each source's viewpoint of what constitutes a big dog. So my idea is that we should reduce it to a short article about the term and the usage of the term. If this picks up a little steam I'll propose it more "formally". North8000 (talk) 15:49, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

"the right/right-wing in libertarianism doesn't refer to the ideology's position on the political spectrum."
This statement perfectly sums up the issue with the title. If "right" is not "right" and "left" is not "left" how can such an article not confuse the reader. And if it is true that the right/right-wing in libertarianism doesn't refer to the ideology's position on the political spectrum, this fact, more than anything else should be made abundantly clear in the lede (if this article is to be preserved in any form at all). JLMadrigal @ 16:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I think that comment you're responding to was poorly worded, and the intention behind it was probably that the "right" refers to this variation of libertarian's position within libertarianism, rather than within the broader political spectrum. Right-libertarianism is the right wing of libertarianism even if that still isn't near the right wing of politics generally. --Pfhorrest (talk) 17:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
For an analogy: "eastern Kansas" doesn't mean some part of Kansas (or one of several places called Kansas) that's on the east coast, it just means the part of Kansas that is more east than the rest of Kansas, even though all of Kansas generally is still in the middle of the continent. --Pfhorrest (talk) 17:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
On the Nolan Chart, Ron Paul would be found to the right among libertarians, and Bill Weld to the south (in the libertarian quadrant). JLMadrigal @ 17:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)You are right, and so much so that the term is an oxymoron in the US, the place where the majority of English-as-a-first language readers are. North8000 (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree with JLMadrigal. Either reduce this article to links to other articles, or at least make it plain that this is a viewpoint article about what lefties call "right libertarianism." Pfhorrest, libertarian capitalists do not see themselves as right/right-wing even within libertarianism. "Right" is being used by detractors as a term of disparagement. Libertarian capitalists, as mentioned, see themselves as pro-liberty and against authority, a dimension othogonal to the left-right spectrum. And we consider the outdated term "left" to mean against existing authority, which puts libertarian capitalists on the left and anarcho-capitalists extreme left. Anyway, I put in a note about the term being mainly used by oppositional authors, and cited that Rothbard article. PhilLiberty (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
It may be an oxymoron in the United States, but this isn't the United States Wikipedia. Beside, Rothbard himself ultimately became a right-wing popoulist, just like Rockwell and Hoppe, or what they call paleolibertarianism, which is American right-wing populism, so I don't see what's the problem with that. Once again, I reiterate that the issue is that you're thinking in terms of and referring to libertarianism in the United States. Right-libertarianism is used to refer to the propertarian/capitalist vis-à-vis the non-propertarian and anti-propertarian/socialist libertarian philosophy. I even added a diagram image that explained this. And yes, I was referring to the right-wing within libertarianism. Either way, we just had a discussion about this, so either you show sources or it's all worthless. Beside, PhilLiberty continues to perpetrate the lie that right-libertarianism is a disparaging/non-neutral term and that it's used only by opponents; it may be true in real life within libertarians, but it certainly isn't in political science. Baradat 2015 refers to it as a reactionary ideology as it wants to dismantle the welfare state. The problem is that this libertarianism (right- and in the United States) isn't a new ideology; it's just another name for 19th century liberalism. These libertarians may not see themselves as right-wingers and may consider themselves as above it and it's stated in the specific section, but there're also reputable sources that disagree with that. I reiterate that if the name is the problem, then create a Libertarian capitalist page that doesn't redirect here so that we can have left-libertarianism vis-à-vis right-libertarianism and libertarian socialism vis-à-vis libertarian capitalism, if you can find sources that support it. In the end, I have to agree with what @Beyond My Ken: stated above.--79.27.160.51 (talk) 21:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
"the issue is that you're thinking in terms of and referring to libertarianism in the United States."
If it were true that this contemporary strand of libertarianism is exclusive to the US (which, I believe, can be disproved empirically), then the solution to this dilemma would simply be to merge the article with the preexisting Libertarianism in the United States article. Nonetheless, I believe that "Modern Libertarianism" is the most accurate - since the Austrian school encompasses modern libertarianism internationally. JLMadrigal @ 23:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
JLMadrigal @ 23:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Here is just one example demonstrating the predominance of modern (center-north) libertarianism in a country other than the US:

JLMadrigal @ 00:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

"Modern libertarianism" is a radically biased title because there are still contemporary left-libertarians/libertarian socialists, for example Noam Chomsky. Honestly this whole dispute feels extremely biased, like right-libertarians are trying to claim that their flavor of libertarianism is the one true (current) variety that is completely neutral and centrist and unbiased, and that left-libertarianism is some historical deviation from "true" (right) libertarianism. You're aware that many left-libertarians see their variety of libertarianism as the kind that doesn't need a qualifier; see for example the common anarchist argument that anarcho-capitalism simply is not anarchism at all (where many such anarchists also consider "libertarianism" synonymous with "anarchism", if that connection was unclear). The "left" and "right" modifiers are used to a comparative context to avoid giving either side precedence, and demanding that they not be used for one side is unabashedly biased in favor of that side. --Pfhorrest (talk) 02:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I completely agree with @JLMadrigal: and I'm glad I'm not the only one to think this and that I have done my homework well. I would also like to thank him for explaining it better than I could. Either way, the majority of libertarians worldwide are anarchist/libertarian socialists. Ever since the 1970s, this American-flavor of neo-classical liberalism (a more appropriate name) has indeed expanded globally, but it remains a minority; it's only in countries like the United States that is the mainstream view, although even in the United States the term was first coined by Déjacque while he was in New York and was exactly like in the rest of the world until the 20th century when it was used to refer to so-called classical liberalism and then became used to refer to a new form of the latter, hence neo-classical liberalism.

Having an article about right-libertarianism is perfectly fine - as long as it is not used to describe the views of most contemporary libertarians which the article currently does (in which case the title would need to be changed as I stated above). The term "right-libertarianism" more accurately describes the views of someone like Ron Paul, who identifies as a Libertarian, but tends to favor policies that are right-of-center such as abortion and immigration restrictions. To keep its current title, the article requires considerable revision. JLMadrigal @ 03:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

You're missing the point that it's not the social views that makes right-libertarianism right relative to left-libertarianism, it's support of capitalism. Left-libertarianism is libertarianism that supports socialism; right-libertarianism is libertarianism that supports capitalism. What you're calling "modern libertarianism" is not centrist on a scale of socialism-to-capitalism, it's explicitly pro-capitalism, and so is right relative to left-libertarianism. --Pfhorrest (talk) 03:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Pfhorrest, the socialist v. capitalist view of reality is a simplistic and exclusively leftist POV. Modern libertarians have come to realize that economic liberty is just as important as personal liberty. Those are the two factors quantified. The term "capitalism" has been used by the left to describe vague, emotion-laden concepts such as "wage slavery". Libertarians - including those mistakenly described as "right libertarians" - do not support any type of slavery. They consistently support the freedom to decide - including decisions regarding employment (by both employer and employee). So they cannot be described as "right" - which would imply support for limitations on personal decisions.
JLMadrigal @ 12:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
@JLMadrigal: is right when he/she said "it's not the social views that makes right-libertarianism right relative to left-libertarianism, it's support of capitalism". I'm sorry, but I have just come to believe that you're simply this flavor of libertarians who are trying to push your own POV and that you don't want to be associated with the right-wing. We all have our own biases and POV, but I try to stay objectively and I have no problem to admit I'm wrong; however, this isn't the case. Just the way you said "the socialist v. capitalist view of reality is a simplistic and exclusively leftist POV" further validate my point. Go tell this to actual political scientists. You just have a very narrow view of liberty and freedom. Capitalism is freedom for the capitalist and slavery for the workers who have no access to capital and who have no choice but to sell their labour power and work for somebody else; whether you agree with it or not, or like it or not, that certainly sounds like slavery to certain people. It's also not true when you stated that "Libertarians [...] do not support any type of slavery"; there have been so-called libertarians who actually endorsed voluntary slavery and ultimately is perfectly compatible with capitalism, where everyone and everything is for sale and with the right-libertarian view of contract; it's the so-called left-libertarians who oppose it in any way. So-called economic freedom is the freedom for the capitalist; just because the worker may be better off, it doesn't mean they're truly free. Economic freedom could just as easily mean freedom for the workers to keep the value of their labour, why should your view be prioritarised? You know, there're actually many models that don't predict the employer-employee relationship. There's also the view that everyone should be self-employed and a producer; neither master not slave; and if workers want to associate themselves and work with others, they would be free to do so, but they would be paid according to their labour and not to capital which in many cases was actually created not by the owner, but by the workers he/she employed when the factory was first created; and that by your own labour theory of property, it should be the workers themselves to actually own the factory and not just the one who employed them since they were the ones to actually mix their labour with it. This was the socialist POV and just one example to show you what I believe to be your narrow view about freedom. There isn't one single view of what is freedom.--79.52.17.197 (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you and well put. To JLMagrigal I want to add: you realize that left-libertarians wouldn't characterize themselves as being "against economic liberty" in any way, right? You realize that left-libertarians are not in favor of state wealth distribution or anything that you probably think of when you hear "left" or "socialist", but actually want the state to do less than right-libertarians want it to do, namely they want it to not side with and protect capitalists? That they see capitalism as an institute supported by the state, and are against it as part and parcel of being against the state and for freedom? You realize left-libertarians support free markets, just not capitalism? It sounds like you're only capable of framing the difference between them from a right-libertarian point of view, which thus biases your perspective on what is neutral. --Pfhorrest (talk) 16:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I would like to add that there're also left-libertarians who support decentralised planning in which individuals themselves plan together and don't let the market become a form of state or authority; planning isn't in any way authtoritarian, it has been practiced under capitalism too and there have been arguments that corporations are an examples of this, although highly centralised annd hierarchical in themselves, which is what these left-libertarians oppose. Either way, many left-libertarians really support free-markets too and argue that a truly free-market cannot flourish under the private ownership of the means of the production under because in this case there must be both states and classes, with the higher classes conquering the state to sway power to their favour in markets ("the class differences and inequalities in income and power that result from private ownership enable the interests of the dominant class to skew the market to their favor, either in the form of monopoly and market power, or by utilizing their wealth and resources to legislate government policies that benefit their specific business interests") whch is exactly what happened; and that a truly free market would flourish under the social ownership of the means of production or usufruct property rights in which capitalists have no privileges.--79.52.17.197 (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I am reinserting the title POV-title tag as there is considerable dispute regarding its accuracy. The previous dispute was different in that it had to do with article placement. Do not remove this tag until either the title is revised satisfactorily or the article accurately reflects the current title. JLMadrigal @ 12:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Then please explain what changes you would propose. I'm all for improving the page, just not based on a supposed POV which to me and others too just seems a way not to be associated with the right.--79.52.17.197 (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

One sidebar comment. The relevance of the meaning of the term in the US is important, but not for the "straw man" reason that the US should dominate Wikipedia. When you want to know the meaning of a term in a particular language you need to look at what it is where it is spoken as a first language. And there are more of those by far in the US than in any other country. And so the fact that the term is an unused oxymoron in the US is very relevant for that reason.North8000 (talk) 16:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree, but I believe in this case the oxymoron is just a POV in that these users don't want to be associated with the right.--79.52.17.197 (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with JMadrigal and PhilLiberty that the article should not stay as-is. I agree with most of their other arguments, but think that there are even bigger reasons than the ones that they gave. I wrote those reasons above. But I don't agree that "Modern Libertarianism" is NPOV; it makes it sound as if some type of libertarianism is the modern type. I think we should reduce this article to a short one about the term and it's usage. My second choice would be to delete it. North8000 (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I think that right-libertarianism may merit an article of its own, and would like to keep the article, if possible. But this, as I stated, will require major changes. There is a faction within contemporary libertarianism that supports immigration and abortion restrictions, and that leans toward a strong military that engages in nation building, &c. The article, if it is to survive as a full article, would need to limit itself to describing this faction - and clarify the limited use of the term by outsiders to describe center-north libertarianism. The revised article will also need to clarify that the term is rejected by most of the latter when used in such a context.
JLMadrigal @ 17:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
The thing is that right-libertarianism doesn't refer to the right-wing of libertarianism in the United States, but it is used to refer to both centrist libertarians and right-wing libertarians due to their support for property rights and capitalism vis-à-vis left-libertarianism (non-propertarian/socialist libertarianism). Whether you agree with this, that's what the sources say, as far as I'm aware. Anyway, I'm glad you believe it merits an article of its own, which I agree with; and I'm willing to improve it. However, it's important to understand what the word actually means and what reliable sources say. I don't understand why we should reduce this article to a short one only about the term, or even how it would look like/be such an article, when right-libertarianism is also a specific philosophy (much like left- and right-populism) which include different variants; should we do the same with left-libertarianism too? Left-libertarians could be just as opposed to this since they reject this division as well, considering themselves the true libertarians and right-libertarians as another school of liberalism (neo-classical liberalism, if you will) rather than a full, new ideology. However, until now I have just seen personal opinions based on not wanting to be associated with the right.--79.52.17.197 (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
My main argument boils down to this analogy. Let's say there's already a dog article and many articles on dog types. And maybe some dog books use the term "large dogs" in varying ways. But we really shouldn't be starting a large dogs article. It would duplicate material, and it's not a distinct topic. North8000 (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Answering your question, I sort of think the same thing about left-libertarianism, but less so. First, it's not an oxymoron in the places that it is prevalent. Second, the terms seems to be used more in sources than right libertarian. Also, the term is not an anathema to those who practice it as the right libertarian term is. Finally, taking it further, some who practice it self-identify by that term. Which means not only is it not pejorative to them but that (unlike right libertarianism) it has a valid meaning in the English language in the places where it is practiced. North8000 (talk) 18:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I understand your arguments and reasons, but I don't think it makes sense in this case. To me, it's more like libertarianism is dog, left-libertarianism is Labrador Retriever and right-libertarianism is Golden Retriever, or literally any other dog's breed, really. Nazis also didn't used the term Nazism and called themselves National Socialists, but Nazism is the common name and it's what reliable sources and scholars use; likewise, right-libertarianism is used by reliable sources and scholars in a neutral way and not just in pejorative way. Sure, some left-libertarians may self-indentify as such and more left-libertarians may self-identify as such rather than right-libertarians as right-libertarians, but they're just as opposed to it; and to me it seems more that right-libertarians simply don't want to associate themselves with the right rather than a sourced argument. Rothbard himself ultimately went further to the right and became a so-called paleolibertarian in a right-wing populist way along with Rockwell and others; Hoppe himself seems to be on an anti-left tirade; and while they may reject the political spectrum, political scientists don't and so they're referred to as such even if they themselves may reject that (it's not like there's isn't even a Contention over placement on the political spectrum section which address this issue and state their views about it). Beside, I thought there was a consensus not just to move the page but also that the name wasn't a pejorative and that it was fine; at least, that's what several users said in explaining their opposition to the move, so I don't know what to say anymore and I have to agree with what Beyond My Ken told you.--79.52.17.197 (talk) 01:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Right-libertarianism is the term that a breakaway group of libertarians invented. They call themselves left libertarians. The term is only used in reliable sources in discussion about left libertarianism. The problem is that the term libertarian refers to three things: a movement that began in the nineteenth century, a movement created by Hess, Nolan and Rothbard that considers itself a successor to 19th century libertarianism and free market capitalism in the mainstream Republican and Democratic parties.
I think that the French Wikipedia could guide us in what articles to have. It has articles for Libertaire, Libertarianisme and Libéralisme économique. Left-libertarianism is called Libertarisme de gauche. There is no article about right-libertarianism. It is referred to as le courant libertarien classique (anarcho-capitalisme, minarchisme de droite, etc), but libertarien classique links to Libertarianisme.
TFD (talk) 02:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
It is historically inaccurate to call left-libertarians a "breakaway group". The original libertarianism was a synonym for anarchism, which was the remainder of socialism that did not take up Marxism; IOW, Marxism was a breakaway from early socialism, and what was left of early socialism was anarchism, which also called itself libertarian socialism, or simply libertarianism, to distinguish itself from Marxism. Libertarianism as a rebranding of "classical liberalism", meaning the branch of the original left/liberalism that adopted capitalism and did no go on to become early (libertarian) socialism, is the newer kind of "libertarianism", and what we call left-libertarianism to distinguish from that newer right-libertarianism is not a breakaway from it, but something that long predates it. (I recently doodled a little diagram to help illustrate this branching descent of different political ideologies.) --Pfhorrest (talk)
As I wrote above, left libertarianism is the term used to refer to the Steiner-Vallentyne group which broke away from the Hess-Nolan-Rothbard group (which they call right libertarians) on the issue of whether or not natural resources should be privately owned. Otherwise they share the same beliefs including being pro-capitalist. It does not refer to the libertarianism that developed in the 19th century. Libertarianism includes Hess-Nolan-Rothbard libertarianism which includes Steiner Vallentyne libertarianism. TFD (talk) 04:48, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
That may be one use of the term, but it's the newer and not the original or exclusive use of it. See for example the sourced sentence from the lede of our own left-libertarianism article, "In its classical usage, left-libertarianism is a synonym for anti-authoritarian varieties of left-wing politics such as libertarian socialism which includes anarchism and libertarian Marxism, among others." That sentence is followed by a sentence about the newer sense that you mean. Right-libertarianism arose in between those two varieties of left-libertarianism, and the term "right-libertarian" is used to distinguish it from both of them, not just from the kind that broke away from it, but from the kind that came well before it too. --Pfhorrest (talk) 04:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
The most common usage of the term left-libertarianism is to refer to the Steiner-Vallentyne group as is apparent from a google books search.[7] Since each article should have a separate topic, could you please provide a source that defines right-libertarianism so that we can determine what should be in this article. TFD (talk) 05:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I think that TFD's question is an important one. The source should describe the meaning of the term, not just use the term. North8000 (talk) 12:06, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed revisions[edit]

So, assuming we keep the current title, here is a proposed introduction to the lede that addresses the points made by the above editors:

"Right-libertarianism is a term used to describe both mainstream neo-classical liberalism and the more social and cultural conservative variants, but which all agree on supporting capitalism and property rights, hence are put together and termed right-libertarian vis-à-vis the non-propertarian/anti-propertarian left-libertarianism. The right/right-wing in libertarianism doesn't necessarily refer to the ideology's position on the political spectrum, but rather its position relative to traditional libertarian views regarding property and capital.
For this reason, such use of the term is generally rejected by libertarians of this camp, who view themselves as north of center and defer to the Nolan Chart for positioning on a multidimentional scale of political ideology. For them the term refers to the views of someone like Ron Paul, who identifies as a Libertarian, but tends to favor policies that are right-of-center such as abortion and immigration restrictions."

JLMadrigal @ 13:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@JLMadrigal: it just seems to be too convulsed; maybe we could add a Nolan chart image in which it's stated how these different libertarians see themselves, etc. Anyway, what's wrong with describing it as a political philosophy that advocate civil liberties,[1] natural law,[6] laissez-faire capitalism and a major reversal of the modern welfare state[7] [and that] strongly support private property rights and defend market distribution of natural resources and private property.[8] Isn't it true?
How about changing the sentence which follows from This position is contrasted with that of some versions of left-libertarianism, with which it is compared.[9] to This position is contrasted with that of some versions of left-libertarianism, with which it is compared to, hence the name.[9] Wouldn't it be better and simpler?--95.245.199.21 (talk) 21:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
@North8000: I'm not sure there's a consensus in using the phrase has been used by some authors. According to @Lithopsian: So long as the article starts "... has been used by some authors to refer to...", there is always going to be trouble.--95.245.199.21 (talk) 23:28, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Beginning the article with a Nolan chart would be an excellent choice, because it encompasses both definitions of right-libertarianism, and nicely describes a view of politics espoused by both. It also visually demonstrates that, when the term is used to differentiate "capitalist libertarianism" from "anticapitalist libertarianism", the former is not right of center, but is right of the latter.
JLMadrigal @ 00:20, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
You realize that the Nolan chart is not an unbiased representation of the political spectrum, right? It's an inherently right-libertarian way of framing the situation, which frames pro-capitalism as centrist, which left-libertarians vehemently object to, which is why they more often employ a square (rather than diamond) chart where there is a north edge, rather than a north point, and positions along the right of that north edge are right-libertarian/anarcho-capitalist and those along the left of that north edge are left-libertarian/anarcho-socialist. Left-libertarianism/libertarian-socialism cannot be placed on a Nolan chart, because it is not "libertarianism minus some economic freedom" as right-libertarians would try to frame it; it would rather be somewhere outside the chart beyond the northwest edge of it. --Pfhorrest (talk) 05:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
So the "anticapitalists" hold that they support personal liberties in excess of 100%? That defies all logic. No wonder they have difficulty reconciling the free flow of property and capital with free markets. This makes visualization and quantification of libertarianism, and, in our case, right-libertarianism, even more imperative.
JLMadrigal @ 12:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
No, you're missing the point that they deny that the Nolan chart's characterization of the axes is accurate, and they use a different kind of chart instead; someone posted one earlier on this same talk page, here. If you were to overlay a Nolan chart on that, the place that left-libertarians would characterize themselves would be in the top-left corner, outside the bounds of the Nolan chart, but not in the terms that the Nolan chart uses. Left-libertarians would say that they support 100% personal liberties and economic liberties, and that right-libertarians support less economic liberty (by having the state restrict who is allowed to access the means of production), but the Nolan chart would map that claim to right-libertarians being more "left", which is nonsense. --Pfhorrest (talk) 16:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Pfhorrest, you can't just "overlay" the Nolan hart over another chart with a different pair of vectors. Math doesn't work that way. And what's this "by having the state restrict who is allowed to access the means of production" all about? I have never encountered a libertarian who supports such a restriction. JLMadrigal @ 11:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
You're obviously completely unfamiliar with left-libertarian theory if you don't understand that bit you quoted. Right-libertarians support private ownership of the means of production, which means that if for example someone wants to graze their cattle on some land (a means of production), some other individual (the owner of that land) may have a right (enforceable by the state) to force that person not to graze there. Left-libertarians would say that the state should not do such things: it should not side with one party to exclude other parties from use of the means of production, it should allow everyone to make use of it (and of course it should continue defending individuals from each other, so the "owner" of the land doesn't get to use violence to exclude others from it himself). In other words, it should not recognize the right to private ownership of the means of production, in much the same way that it should not recognize the right for one person to own another person. Right-libetarians (and capitalists generally) do want states to enforce such rights, which left-libertarians see as a restriction on economic liberty. --Pfhorrest (talk) 18:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Left-libertarianism - which, fortunately, this article does not attempt to decipher - seeks to abolish property and dramatically restrict capital and markets. This ideal, as we have seen in the annals of history, requires a state (a totalitarian one at that). Even the plant and animal kingdoms respect property. On the Nolan chart, views favoring such economic restrictions clearly fall to the left. But they cannot be "off the chart" (i.e. 125% in favor of personal liberties - as you infer). Further, I would be delighted if you could produce a quote or reference supporting your claim that libertarians would like the state to enforce "the right for one person to own another person".
JLMadrigal @ 11:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, you're just flatly refusing to even try to understand the way that different theories view things now. I'm not arguing for left-libertarianism here, I'm trying to explain to you that the way you view the political spectrum and the way they view the political spectrum are different, and so it is not neutral to use your right-libertarian framing to declare what moderate/centrist on the spectrum is when a left-libertarian framing would disagree. I'm not saying the left-libertarian framing is right, just that the right-libertarian framing is not uncontroversial or neutral.
I would just be repeating myself to explain again that left-libertarians do not advocate for "restricting" capital or markets, and absolutely do not advocate for a totalitarian state (none of which have ever claimed to be any kind of libertarian-anything; the original "libertarians", libertarian socialists, called themselves that to distinguish themselves from the state-socialists you're thinking of, and were opposed to the formation of the USSR, PRC, etc). Read what I wrote above again: they advocate for states to do less than they do under capitalism, by not defending private property claims over the means of production. You can disagree about that as the right thing to do, but please just try to at least accurately understand the viewpoint you're disagreeing with.
But you're not going to do that, because you can't even accurately understand my comments here, viz: I never claimed that "libertarians would like the state to enforce the right for one person to own another person"; "such rights" in my preceding comment refers to "the right to private ownership of the means of production". I'm beginning to doubt that you're operating in good faith here. --Pfhorrest (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Maybe we should start another discussion at the Left Libertarianism article. Could it be that "Left Libertarianism" has the same problem that I'm saying that this article has.....that it's just a two word sequence with varying meanings, not a distinct topic? North8000 (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
I disagree that either left-libertarianism or right-libertarian are just two-word sequences without a clear topic, though there is of course variation within the scope of each topic. In any case, suggesting that we move discussion of this to the left-libertarianism article is like suggesting that a discussion at Talk:Christianity about not framing that article as though the Christian worldview is uncontroversially true should be moved to Talk:Atheism instead: the point of bringing up left-libertarianism here is that it's a viewpoint that would disagree with the way that Madrigal wants to frame this article, which makes such framing biased, non-neutral, and so inappropriate for the encyclopedia. We can say that right-libertarians think of themselves in such-and-such way, but we cannot just say that they are such way in the article's own voice when there is disagreement over that claim. --Pfhorrest (talk) 05:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
What I said was (caps added): "Maybe we should start ANOTHER discussion....." Starting ANOTHER discussion is not moving this one, that would be an outlandish suggestion which you implied I made but which I didn't.North8000 (talk) 10:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
You chose a natural resource as an example of "means of production". I think that that is a confusing non-typical example, as there is a whole different set of libertarian philosophies regarding natural resources. More typically it is something like a factory, machinery or business. Are you saying that there is a libertarian philosophy which advocates prohibiting ownership / control of such things ? North8000 (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, factories are another common example. Left-libertarians / libertarian socialists would have the state step aside and not protect a factory-owner's claim to ownership of the factory, allowing the workers to control it as they please. --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
OK, thanks for that information. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
The Nolan chart is useful inside of the US and useless outside of the US. It has uses too many words that have different meanings in the US vs. elsewhere. Regarding that linked-to chart, it's very specialized vs. a big picture, choosing Socialism/Capitalism as an axis. Also Socialism-in-practice introduces further complexities on these charts as, in practice, it always requires a powerful State. North8000 (talk) 18:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
North8000, "too many words that have different meanings" Which words in the Nolan Chart have different meanings elsewhere? I agree that Socialism-in-practice complicates matters. Fortunately this article is not about such fuzzy concepts. JLMadrigal @ 11:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Liberal, conservative. For example, in the US, liberal includes expansion of the state regarding social programs (and the taxes to pay for them). Conservative includes reduction or non-expansion in that area.North8000 (talk) 14:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Those terms are not integral to the chart. Rather they are superimposed over the chart in order to demonstrate the placement of their advocates - according to specific measures. Advocates for Self Government, for example provides a quiz with specific questions relating to the vectors in order to quantify the political views of individual testers.
JLMadrigal @ 11:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
A chart is just a chart / what it is. And I think that those terms are used in most variants of it. You are implying that there is some underlying architecture that transcends the terms. That would be cool, but I tend to doubt it. If there is any underlying structure, I think that it is simply dividing the US liberal's and conservative's views into two categories: "US libertarians agree" and "US libertarians disagree" leading to the resultant axises which best summarize those groups. And the result is generally a "size of government" and "government control of behavior, especially in social areas".. I think that Nolan's main goals were to change from the "one axis system" to a 2-axis system which creates a place for US libertarianism. North8000 (talk) 13:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Your right-libertarian bias is showing. In saying that socialism can't exist without a powerful state, you're essentially saying that left-libertarianism cannot possibly be a thing, which, obviously, left-libertarians would disagree with vehemently. --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I thought that the "in-practice" qualifier might keep me in the clear because left-libertarians that I've discussed this with seemed to acknowledge that socialism without a powerful state is only a hypothetical possibility rather than an in-practice one. Also my comment was in the limited context of the complexity of using it on an axis of a chart. My apologies if I blew it on that post or in this edit summary. :-) North8000 (talk) 14:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the proposed revision is correct. Libertarianism is a term used to refer to anarchism, the strand developed by Rothbard et al and as a synonym for economic liberalism in the U.S. Left liberalism is a strand that developed out of Rothbard's school.

I have a question. Are anarchism and libertarianism two separate topics, or are they two names for the same topic? If they are the same topic, then we could merge them, which would help with naming issues. TFD (talk) 00:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Are you referring the proposed revision by @JLMadrigal:? I that case, I agree. I also share your thoughts; libertarianism should either be merged with anarchism, or perhaps it could remain if there're sources that describe it as a specific form of socialism opposed to all authoritarian and statist forms of communism/socialism, since worldwide libertarian is synonym with anarchism, libertarian socialism and social anarchism. We could remove sections about left-libertarianism (which is actually used to refer to the Steiner–Vallentyne school) and right-libertarianism (the Hess–Nolan–Rothbard school) as you actually stated and move them to the left-libertarianism, right-libertarianism and libertarianism in the United States pages, respectively. I believe this would be the only way to solve this naming issue.--95.245.199.21 (talk) 01:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Libertarianism and anarchism are most definitely not the same thing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: They are in certain ways; libertarian is still used as synonym for anarchism/libertarian socialism/social anarchism and was first coined in that sense by Joseph Déjaque, an anarchist and libertarian communist. If by libertarianism you meant libertarianism in the United States, then I agree they are most definetely not the same thing.--95.245.199.21 (talk) 03:53, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
See "Anti-Captialism and Libertarian Political Economy" by Deric Shannon: "Sometimes I use the term 'anarchism' as a synonym, as it was intended by the term's creators." EVen in the U.S., the Rothbard-Nolan-Hess school use the terms interchangeably, but the criticism is that they are not real anarchists or libertarians. It's only in the use as a synonym for laissez-faire capitalism that it takes on a different meaning. TFD (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

We can't even resolve this little sidebar article and now you want to kick the giant hornet's nest and delete the top level libertarianism article? We had a gigantic range war over somewhat the same topic at that article about 10 years ago. We settled it by just saying to cover all of the strands and explain the situation. The fundamental issue is that the word has two fundamentally different meanings in the US vs elsewhere. Not just different strands of libertarianism practiced, but fundamentally different meanings of the term. It's a tower of babel situation. But the two have much in common. Let's just start with fixing this article. The the common meaning of the English word libertarian in the country which is the largest English-as-a-primary-language country (the US) is a vague term that prioritizes smaller and less intrusive government and individual freedom. The entire common meaning can be be fully defined in about two sentences. It doesn't have a lot of complex philosophical definitions, and any similarity to any named philosophical strand is merely a coincidence. BTW, it is also not the USLP platform. It tacitly accepts capitalism and private ownership of resources as the norm, , but it's ideology does NOT include any specific viewpoint on those things. This isn't about grand complex philosophical issues, it's about acknowledging a common meaning of an English word amongst the majority of people who speak English as a primary language. For our European friends, the closet word in your language for the US meaning of libertarian isn't libertarian, it's liberal. Which is another word that has a very different meaning in the US. :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:27, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Not to compound the vocabulary problem, but "liberalism" in Europe would be "classical liberalism". Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, does "libertarianism" actually have any meaning outside the U.S.? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Just clarifying, I think that you are saying that the US term for the European "liberal" is "classical liberalism". US libertarianism is often considered to be a renaming of classical liberalism. North8000 (talk) 02:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, sorry to have been obscure, that is what I was saying. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't be too sure to classify liberalism in Europe as classical liberalism; there're many social-liberal parties and a strong social-liberal tradition as well, so liberalism is used to refer to both, perhaps more to classical liberalism but not by much. Indeed, this American-style libertarianism has been exported in Europe and a few liberal parties critical of social liberalism call themselves Libertarian. Anyway, libertarianism has a totally different meaning (it goes back to Déjaque) outside the United States, where libertarian is a renaming for liberal in the classical sense. Anyway, @North8000: I agree with your concerns and I'm not opposed to keep things as they are now, but @The Four Deuces: raised important questions, as you yourself stated in the discussion above. Does libertarianism refer to anarchism? Does left-libertarianism refer to the Steiner–Vallentyne school? Does right-libertarianism refer to the Hess–Nolan–Rothbard school? I would also change has been used by some authors to simply refers to because the first phrasing makes it seem like it's not a neutral naming and that only some authors use it when I thought the consensus was that right-libertarianism is a neutral, correct name. @Beyond My Ken: himself stated that Right libertarianism is the WP:COMMONNAME for this political ideology, then surely there's some sources consensus and it's not just some authors; or did I misunderstand you?--95.245.199.21 (talk) 03:53, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree with your whole post, including the "refers to" change. With emphasis on the importance of answering TFD's question.North8000 (talk) 12:53, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
One update and one tweak. The update is to make the change that you suggested. Since it was basically removing some wording I put in in mid July, I figured that the change would not need a big discussion. Second I should have said I agree with 95% of your post. The other 5% is that so far we just decided to not make the move/redirect/name change, with no decision on the merits of the term itself. North8000 (talk) 16:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
The term libertarianism is used in describing U.S. politics as a synonym for economic liberalism, i.e., less spending on social programs, less regulation and lower taxes. But it also refers to the ideology and movement set up by Rothbard, Nolan and Hess, which drew on anarchist literature and adopted anarchist symbols. TFD (talk) 16:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm tending to go more on common meanings of the term. I think that you are also referring to the political science realm. Which I think is referring to small groups of people with more fully developed philosophies. I would also put the USLP in that category. BTW, in the US "anarchy" has a very negative common meaning.....more likely to be described as a breakdown of order with riots in the streets throwing firebombs. Maybe 1% of Americans would know of it's political science meaning. North8000 (talk) 16:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

New lede[edit]

Here's a compromise:

(Nolan chart here with right half of libertarian quadrant shaded)

"The term right-libertarianism is interpreted differently by different political camps. For libertarians in the US and other regions who include economic liberalization in their interpretation of libertarianism in general, right-libertarian refers specifically to those who hold to right-of-center views such as pro-life, centralized military, immigration restrictions, trade restrictions, legislated morality, and other viewpoints that align to some extent with those on the right (i.e. Republicans)."

(anticapitalism-capitalism chart here with right half shaded)

"For traditional libertarians who oppose capitalism, all libertarians who support both economic and social liberalization are included in the definition. In this case, the right/right-wing in libertarianism doesn't necessarily refer to the ideology's position on the political spectrum, but rather its position relative to traditional libertarian views regarding property and capital."

JLMadrigal @ 12:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

The phrasing "economic liberalization" still framing things from a right-libertarian (in that second sense) perspective. Left-libetarians would not say that they are against economic liberalization, they would say that they are more for it than right-libertarians, that capitalism is inherently un-libertarian and being against it is favoring more economic liberty. That is the big ideological difference that I keep trying to communicate to you.
Also, if anything the order of these two paragraphs should be reversed, both because the second sense is the more prominent one and because the first sense is a subset of the second sense.
And I'd like to see some sources that the first sense is even a thing in usage at all, because I've only ever heard the term used in the second sense, and that is what the entirety of this article is about right now. --Pfhorrest (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
The current article conflates neoliberalism with paleolibertarianism. In order to fix it, the distinction will first need to be clarified. The former support economic and personal liberation while the latter combine cultural conservativism. To be true to the title, the article will need to limit itself to a description of the latter along with an expansion of its variants and proponents, and include right-leaning individuals who associate with libertarianism such as Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Justin Amash, &c. As you stated, central libertarianism supports economic liberation. The fact that some writers make an unfounded distinction between free markets and the free exchange of property does not change this fact.
JLMadrigal @ 17:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
You can’t just keep ignoring the point that I keep reiterating to you. This article is about a broader topic than either neoliberalism or paleolibertarianism, both of which fall under the umbrella of right-libertarianism: anti-state, pro-capitalism. You want to make this article about something narrower than it is about: the right wing OF right-libertarianism. Because you refuse to acknowledge that there is any way besides the Nolan chart to characterize the political spectrum, and that different viewpoints see “economic liberty” to mean something different than your kind of libertarianism sees it, and see your kind of libertarianism as being less in favor of it just as much as you see them as being less in favor of it. This isn’t about the left and right wings of what you think of as libertarianism: this is about two kinds of libertarianism that both see each other as more libertarian than the other, and the other failing either to the left or the right of their “true” libertarianism. —Pfhorrest (talk) 21:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps JLMMadrigal's meaning of the term being totally different is further evidence that it's just a two word sequence with no consistent meaning? North8000 (talk) 21:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

IMO the proposal scrambles it up even worse. It defines "right" in the US conservative sense of the term, and lists attributes which most US libertarians oppose.North8000 (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Overall structure to resolve this[edit]

Step 1 Decide whether or not we are going to rename the article. I think that "No" is a near-certain answer. The previous RFC (which failed) was basically a "rename" one to the most viable possibility, and there are no other ideas that have gained even the tiniest bit of traction. But it's an important step in the process.

Step 2 Decide between remaining a full article which requires treating it as a distinctive topic or move on to step 3 to deprecate it.


Step 3 (only if chosen in step 2) Deprecate the article in one of these ways: A. Reduce it to short article just about the term. B. Make it a redirect to some established existing article. C. Delete the article.

Any objections? Should any be a full blown published RFC, or should it be just a discussion among st the current participants. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I think that is a good structure, and you’re right that renaming seems unlikely. I think step 2 should require at least an RFC as it’s suggesting deleting most of this article which I think definitely is on a notable topic in its own right and should not be deprecated. —Pfhorrest (talk) 21:41, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Do you think that the RFC should be one where the bot advertises it? Or an "in between" level of advertising (e.g. at project libertarianism and Libertarianism)? Or just for the people who are watching this page? North8000 (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
I think the more eyes the better for something like this. —Pfhorrest (talk) 21:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
OK then maybe an official one advertised by the bot (are there choices we have to make (that we should discuss) when doing that?) plus at project libertarianism plus at the Libertarianism article? North8000 (talk) 21:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)