Template talk:Libertarianism

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

Ayn Rand[edit]

Ayn Rand was a critic of libertarianism. While she was a tremendous influence on them, she rejected the label. She also influenced conservatives, but was no conservative. Oolyons (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Subdivisions needed[edit]

  1. Instead of a single list of names, how about dividing into 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th century names?
  2. Instead of a single list of concepts (along with a schools section), can we parse out the "isms" and more general concepts?
  3. Technically I don't know how to do this. Anybody knowledgeable/willing?

Thanks. --S. Rich (talk) 03:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stephan Kinsella?[edit]

Stephan Kinsella seems a bit obscure to include in a list of Libertarians. I would think that some level of importance is needed to be included. I am removing him on that basis per wp:BRD Bonewah (talk) 19:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Split Into Two Categories?[edit]

Putting 'anarcho-capitalism' and 'libertarian socialism' together, or 'Noam Chomsky' and 'Murray Rothbard' together, feels like apples and oranges to me. Just because they're both 'libertarian' in some sense of the word, it doesn't mean they fit in the same category at all. I believe that Libertarianism and Right-Libertarianism should be separated into two categories. --Irockz (talk) 09:40, 8 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removal of custom colors[edit]

I've removed the use of custom colors from this template, as I have also done with the navboxes for other ideologies such as Nazism, Neo-Nazism, Anarchism, Liberalism, Communism, and Green politics, because they are purely decorative and serve no encyclopedic purpose. -- The Anome (talk) 10:46, 31 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move 25 May 2020[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 (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 18:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:LibertarianismTemplate:Classical liberalism – Scope concern. Doesn't much of the contents cover as much if arguably not more classical liberalism than libertarianism? The more historical the entries, the more that seems to be true, isn't it? There are conflicting accounts, but doesn't it seem that most partisans as well as observers would agree that: if classical liberalism and libertarianism are to be regarded as two distinguishable things, then since classical liberalism predated libertarianism at minimum nominally, to that extent libertarianism developed out of classical liberalism rather than other way around? One could argue for having two different templates. However, until that is offered, what about simply renaming this template, with some minor tweaks in the sections to go with it? PPEMES (talk) 20:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC) Relisting. Natg 19 (talk) 00:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support Classic liberalism is the root, and most of the content here including Liberaltarianism stems from it. However on long run templates to be separated.--Ab207 (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - This template doesn't even appear on classical liberalism, so this seems like a wild scope change which would greatly limit the content within. Its designed to follow the Category:Libertarianism tree - the modern, active political movement and related topics like its historical roots of which classical liberalism is just one. -- Netoholic @ 17:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per Netoholic. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 00:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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