Template talk:Libertarianism sidebar

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconPolitics: Libertarianism Template‑class
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
TemplateThis template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This template is supported by WikiProject Libertarianism.


I can't think of a good argument opposing the inclusion of 'individualist anarchism' - occurred recently. Nevertheless, it got me thinking - what is our policy for inclusion/exclusion? I don't want the list to explode, and there are certainly many more schools which would 'fit', but not necessarily be a good idea to include.

Are there any suggestions? I have none at the present time.

I added 'social anarchism' for consistency. Byelf2007 (talk) 8 November 2012

Are we seriously listing US presidents as libertarian thinkers?[edit]

Before even touching Ron Paul and some of the newer additions to the 'people' section, is there a source somewhere on Calvin Coolidge, career politician, US vp, US president -- self-identifying as a libertarian? Did some of his contemporaries call him a libertarian or consider him part of the libertarian movement? If so, had any of them addressed the paradoxical nature of being an anti-state head of state? How about an anti-capitalist laissez faire capitalist -- considering the idea of calling 'free market capitalism' libertarian was about a century apart from his year of birth? Finx (talk) 16:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Format changes to template?[edit]

I reverted this change. I don't understand removing the color bars as "unnecessary style overrides". Please explain. CarolMooreDC 00:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nearly 30% of this template's code is for things like overriding the default width and colouring. The pale yellow currently used in the title bars is not particularly associated with the subject, and the width override means that this template doesn't stack in a flush manner with most other {{sidebar}}s and {{infobox}}es. In the absence of a practical reason to override the defaults, they should be used so as to not distract readers or cause potential colour clashes. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I find myself agreeing with elements of each of the above comments. I'd like comment in more detail later. I hope that any exchanges here will at least clarify. Consilience would be a bonus. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 13:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • You can have any styling you like, CarolM, so long as it's... CsDix (talk) 14:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Someone else on Libertarianism first brought this to my attention, FYI.
Anyway, do the following templates which have lines between sections and/or color also create the same problem? Template:Anarchism sidebar, Template:Liberalism sidebar, Template:Judaism, Template:Feminism sidebar and do you intend to change all those too? (Also, does adding a graphic like statue of liberty cause a problem?) Thanks. CarolMooreDC 14:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The capacity to override something does not imply the obligation to override it. There should always be a well-rationalised argument for doing so. Looking at the examples you've provided, while they all override the default styling in one way or another, it's instructive to note that they've converged on the default styling over time. That's a process which will inevitably continue. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Perhaps I'm looking at the wrong versions, but the examples you give still seem some distance from the current default settings (despite some efforts to default them). This process, if there is (or should be) one, will only continue so long as enough people don't mind it doing so. CsDix (talk) 15:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • So if I wanted to spruce it up a little I could use one of those as a template and put in the relevant info and then the tech problems would be solved? Or could such changes be suggested here and someone better at tech make them? I can ask for suggestions at the Wikiproject or article and see if someone there knows how to do it. CarolMooreDC 15:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's trivial to re-add small amounts of customisation after the fact. Feel free to drop by my talk if you ever need help with it. In general, the less overrides there are, the easier it is to see exactly what each does. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Logically, Captain, that doesn't follow" (as I suspect you know). CsDix (talk) 15:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm not really knowledgeable enough to fully participate here, but to me it seems that driving a design based on an "avoid overrides" consideration is the tail wagging the dog. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've put up a suggested compromise at Template:Libertarianism sidebar/sandbox. This uses a bolder yellow which is easier to distinguish from the background and uses the more compact format (see the test cases page for a side-by-side comparison; when fully expanded, the new version is nearly 50% shorter). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Definitely better. Thanks. CarolMooreDC 14:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, the background after the gold Libertarianism link in the sidebar is pale gold, not pale yellow.
Per well-made earlier points, any sidebar formatting that at least preserves the current look of the sidebar but simplifies formatting would be a net improvement. Most might agree with such a "remove unnecessary style overrides" Edit.
The WP:SIDEBAR guideline lists under "Advantages" (of a sidebar):
1. Provides a consistent look and navigation system for related articles (though not between different topics — there is no single format across all navigation templates). (Italics added.)
So, the guideline itself should be where discussion begins, not avoiding override of the default option. Otherwise, the "compromise" may compromise or vastly complicate even preserving advantages of any non-default sidebar, much less improving it.
For another recent example of how well (or not) the "remove unnecessary style overrides" rationale works, see here, before and after. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 16:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm happy to alter the colour of the headers if there's a better alternative. It's not obvious that there is one particular hue that we would agree represents libertarianism. My interpretation of the "no single format" remark is that it pertains to the parts of the sidebar system that can't be standardised, such as the number and positioning of links and the way that information is presented within the {{sidebar}} framework, rather than referring to arbitrary styling of the content within that framework. It's also worth noting that the text in question is very nearly eight years old, and thus predates the meta-template system entirely (this is back when we created templates by hand-writing HTML, and there was no standardisation whatsoever). It's maybe worth revising the text itself to reflect current best practice. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reverted the color scheme[edit]

Let's build more of a consensus before we start screwing with sidebar stylizations. Until somebody comes up with something better, just leave the color scheme the way it is instead of dispensing with it altogether. --Adam9389 (talk) 16:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

from Help:Link color,

links should clearly be identifiable as links to readers.
Refrain from implementing colored links that may impede user ability to distinguish links from regular text, or color links for purely aesthetic reasons. See the guides to editing articles for accessibility at contrast and navbox colors.

I will go ahead and switch it back for you. Frietjes (talk) 00:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In what way does the color scheme impede users from distinguishing links from regular text? It's no different than what they do (and have been doing) with the sidebars for Liberalism, Socialism, Green politics, etc. (But something tells me you're not going to nail those ones, though.) Have there been affected users raising concerns about this? --Adam9389 (talk) 18:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
unnecessarily colouring links impedes the ability of a user to distinguish between linked and plain text. let me know if you see any other politics sidebars that are violating this policy. Frietjes (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ayn Rand should probably be removed, given that she denounced all self-described libertarianism[edit]

Direct quote from Ayn Rand:

All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies who are anarchists instead of leftist collectivists (sic); but anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet libertarians combine capitalism and anarchism. That’s worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. Anarchists are the scum of the intellectual world of the Left, which has given them up. So the Right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the libertarian movement.

I would disagree on three levels, I oversimplify/overstate just to make the point:

  • She was probably speaking of the common meaning of the time, not the major new meaning / strand which she was influential in creating
  • She helped create a major current meaning/strand, and thus is relevant
  • If a movement considers her influential to it, she is relevant to it, regardless.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair enough. I don't know much about her, just throwing it out there. Finx (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disagree. We can argue in circles forever on the semantics, but the fact is Ayn Rand has had an indisputable influence on the libertarian movement, including being one of the primary fountainheads (no pun intended) of the free-market, individualist faction of libertarianism. Countless sources (both Objectivist and not) refer to her and her political philosophy as libertarian. She herself may have disavowed the term, but then again, half the people on our list of influentials either predated or simply did not use the word "libertarian." --Adam9389 (talk) 16:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see your point. Reading through it again, I guess she acknowledged the influence herself, even though she bitterly denounced the ideology. Finx (talk) 07:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks like she was talking about libertarians and the libertarian movement, not libertarianism. – S. Rich (talk) 14:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
She was denouncing neoliberal libertarianism as an ideology, because she saw it as co-opting the language and rhetoric of anarchism -- which it was, on the most superficial level. She thought that was disgraceful and unworthy of her ideas, because she despised leftists and anarchists particularly. Also, she was a hardcore 'statist' by her own description -- believed in a very strong and forceful 'big government' to maintain the capitalist order she wanted. There's more quotes on that page I linked to. Finx (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stephan Kinsella?[edit]

Stephan Kinsella seems a bit obscure to be included in a list of Libertarian people. Is there any evidence that he matters at all to the Libertarian school of thought? I am removing him per wp:BRD. Bonewah (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Correcting right wing US centric bias on this sidebar[edit]

As it stood before my edition this sidebar was mostly biased towards right wing libertarianism or as we outside of the US call it, towards economic liberalism or neoliberalism. The libertarianism sidebar has to go in agreement with the main wikipedia libertarianism article and not with the particular taste of a single user who onbly comes to edit here. That or else the users who want to keep out of this template things like libertarian socialism and libertarian marxism are free to propose instead a "right libertarianism" sidebar or a "Libertarianism according to the US libertarian Party" sidebar.--Eduen (talk) 06:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eduen, could you please be more specific about what's wrong? I ask because I see libertarian socialism and libertarian Marxism on the sidebar, as well as anti-statism, counter-economics, agorism, mutualism, Bakunin, Bookchin, Chomsky, de Cleyre, etc. Do you want something added to the sidebar? Or do you just not like right-libertarian ideas displayed at all? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Left or right, i think that Stephen Kinsella is too obscure to be included in the list, per my objection above. Bonewah (talk) 15:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe we should create a separate sidebar for American "Libertarianism", which has very little in common with the word "Libertarianism" as understood in Europe. It's entirely contradictory and incorrect to have, for example, Goldman and Hayek listed in the same category.

2607:FEA8:A6A0:1345:416:DA84:DC26:B0F2 (talk) 05:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adding Rand Paul?[edit]

Given father Ron Paul is on the list, I believe adding Rand would be good.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 06:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Use of Torch.svg in sidebar[edit]

I see not reason for the removal of the file:Torch.svg from the sidebar as it is a common symbol of identification for Libertarianism. The majority of political sidebars have an identifying graphic. Strangely enough, if I remember correctly, the image was added to the "Liberalism" page at the same time as it was removed from the Libertarianism sidebar. If the inclusion of this logo in the Libertarianism sidebar is contested, please discuss here. --St.HocusPocus (talk) 02:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi St.HocusPocus, the only way for the torch to be used is if someone provides sources proving that it is representative of both left and right Libertarianism, otherwise it needs to go. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 08:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In searching Google images for "libertarianism" I did not find the torch. As it is connected with the Statue of Liberty, it has American connotations. Unless we can come up with some RS that connects the particular torch to libertarianism in general, I suggest leaving off of the sidebar. – S. Rich (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You realize the Statue of Liberty is a copy of an identical statue in France, and was given to America by the French? And that the anthropomorphic personification of Liberty predates both of them, and is not exclusively or even originally American (e.g. Liberty Leading the People, Liberty (goddess)). This crusade to abolish the torch from this page (without any suggestion that another image would be better; just the abolition of this image for its own sake because it's sooo terrible) smacks misinformed anti-Americanism. The Human Rights sidebar had a similar fight earlier, but at least that editor was pushing an alternative, albeit a terrible one (the "International Human Rights logo", the winner of some proprietary contest to come up with such a logo). --Pfhorrest (talk) 00:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pfhorrest, unless you produce a reliable source clearly stating that a random picture of a torch is representative of all variants of Libertarianism (not just the U.S. Libertarian Party), then this is a clear violation of WP:OR and will be removed. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 02:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I, anti-American? Hardly. The Statue_of_Liberty#Construction_in_France is not a copy, but is real and only McCoy. That said, we do not have any RS which links the torch image to libertarianism, let alone to the American Libertarian Party. – S. Rich (talk) 02:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with S. Rich: "we do not have any RS which links the torch image to libertarianism" --- See: WP:Verify --- I've gone ahead and removed the image per this discussion. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The term "Libertarianism" has a very specific meaning in the United States and, to some extent, Canada, which is sharply distinct from how the term is understood in Europe and much of the rest of the world. In the United States (and Canada), it's almost universally associated with concepts like free market economics, free trade, anarcho-capitalism, etc. By contrast, in the rest of the world, especially Europe, "Libertarianism" is closely associated with far-left anti-statist ideologies, communal anarchism, anti-Stalinist socialism, etc. Therefore, I have made a separate sidebar to distinguish the term as it's understood in the US. It really makes no sense to have Ron Paul, Ayn Rand, Friedrich Hayek, and David Friedman in the same category as Communist and Far-Left Anarchist thinkers like Emma Goldman, Mikhail Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, etc, and is extremely confusing for people who don't understand the nuances of the term's distinct usages (exactly the type of person who would be consulting an encyclopedia in the first place). In addition to being confusing and misleading, I am also told that it's frustrating and irritating for proponents of one brand to be associated with the other. I argue for qualifying the American sidebar with the phrase "In the United States" and leaving the rest of world sidebar as simply "Libertarianism" for four reasons: 1) the rest of world understanding of the term Libertarianism was already in widespread usage centuries before the American (and Canadian) understanding of the term; 2) to maintain Wikipedia's neutrality, given that the rest of world understanding of the term is much more widespread and global than the American understanding of the term; 3) there is already a specific article on Libertarianism in the United States distinguishing it from the rest of world understanding of Libertarianism; and 4) the only other articles on country-specific "Libertarianism" (Libertarianism in the United Kingdom and Libertarianism in South Africa) both refer to the exportation of American Libertarianism within the past 30 years. Does this seem reasonable? Erhik (talk) 14:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The so-called "rest of the world" can call an apple an orange, but that doesn't make it so. And the term "christian" was in widespread use for 1,000 years as only referring to what we call now call catholics. Now then, if the sidebar is used on solely US-centric people, I don't really have a problem with that per se. Ideas, though, have no country. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 14:22, 15 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, if the rest of the world refers to pome fruits as "oranges", it does make it so on Wikipedia. Please see WP:DIVIDEDUSE. As for Christian/Catholic, it's a poor analogy because Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox Christians are all collectively referred to as "Christians", and their respective canons are all closely related, and mostly overlap; and this is certainly not the case with the term "Libertarianism". While I agree that ideas have no country, this particular usage of the term at this particular point in time is restricted almost entirely to one country and only occurs in relatively recent history. In any case, what specific name to give to it is secondary -- the main point I am trying to advance here is that this sidebar should be split into two separate sidebars. I'm sure everyone can agree that the current form makes no sense and is self-contradicting. Erhik (talk) 16:00, 15 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I assume you've somehow never heard of "apples to oranges" comparison. Strange. Nor does "divided use" have any relevance here. The catholic/christian is a perfect analogy, since "traditional use" (in your words: "widespread usage centuries before") is code for "argument from antiquity fallacy", where we'd have to not call protestants "christians", since catholics were there first, and as such they would be the One True Christian Faith where we couldn't call any others "christians". Yeah: I have a REAL problem with people using fallacious nonsense.
And I suppose that there is a problem with the current form, i.e. the very notion that libertarian has anything to do with any form of socialism. However: I'm not a dick and won't be disruptive about editing. But, as I said, ideas have no country. If something isn't US-centric, then it shouldn't be shoehorned in to your template. I don't see anything controversial about that. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 16:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please don't descend into a tantrum of name-calling and toilet language, it's unproductive and unnecessary, and violates Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I'm trying to make the encyclopedia better, not offend your personal beliefs. I could understand your disagreement with the argument against "traditional use" if, for example, we were talking about the word "gay": the word in its traditional meaning -- happy -- has eroded and been surpassed by the meaning homosexual. However, in the case of Libertarianism, the traditional meaning is still far more popular and widespread than the recent American invention.
Please address the fact that this form of "Libertarianism" is only understood as such in the United States, and perhaps marginally so in Canada, but nowhere else on the planet. Erhik (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's neither name-calling nor "toilet language" in what I posted. Please refrain from falsely accusing people of such things. And I have addressed your point. Please read what I wrote in my first response to your suggestion. Also, I don't think we should then remove what you "believe" as "non-traditional" from the template; we should simply have the new template as a subset of this one. Is this in any way controversial? I don't think so. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 18:15, 15 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reading this from outside the US in my country it would be called "liberalism in the US". In most of the world so called "left liberals" in the late to early 20th century started to call themselves "radicals" and later many of them just embraced socialdemocracy, democratic socialism. So that is why liberalism in most of the world is associated with a combination of economic neoliberalism and civil libertarianism.--Eduen (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you describe how people in your country understand the word "Libertarianism" without adjectives? Erhik (talk) 23:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm not understanding the logic behind the split. The templates are virtually identical besides their "people" section (which tend to be a honeypot for edit warring some choice inclusion in sidebars like these, for what it's worth). If there was enough difference in scope to warrant the split, and I don't think there is, it would make more sense as an addendum to the main template than a remake of the basic one. The sidebar is supposed to be more tightly focused than a navbox, as an overview to the main concepts of a large subject, but even the basic Libertarian sidebar here needs focusing. If the intent is to make a sidebar specific to concepts in Free-market libertarianism, you'd have more of a case, but I still don't see the navigational need. Also worth reminding of recentism—a term's long history needs to have proportional weight to its more recently changed connotation. The US Libertarian party might be more free-market focused, but the term has a long history in the US without that focus. Of course, this is brushed over in the Libertarianism in the United States main article, but that's a discussion for its talk page—doesn't mean, though, that the sidebar should reflect the inaccuracy. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 16:38, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Czar:The argument for separation, if you ask me, is that in most countries, indeed in my original country, Libertarianism is understood as an argument in favour of socialism, or as a form of anti-Soviet socialism. Classical Libertarians and modern American Libertarians have virtually nothing in common, they both make each other want to vomit, yet they're forced together into the same category. Also, the US sidebar varies greatly from the sidebar proper not just in its list of people, but also in its lists of schools, concepts, and aspects. Erhik (talk) 19:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The split template is almost entirely duplicative, as is. If the point is to distinguish American figures, that's not the sole function of the navbox. The navbox isn't meant to be a backdoor for creating a canon of luminary libertarians in the U.S., if such a grouping even were to exist.

Classical Libertarians and modern American Libertarians have virtually nothing in common

"American Libertarians" only connotes what you imply (primary free market focus) in very recent history. If you're looking to split based on discrete concept, the term isn't "American Libertarianism" but some variant on free market ideology. czar 15:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not just political variants, it's a language difference where the common meanings of the political terms differ between the US and Europe. "liberal", "libertarian" and "conservative" being amongst these. Also, the lens of defining based on view on free markets is a European lens and not a good overview. Nevertheless, all have some common tenets. I think that it would be quite a mess to define 2 camps and structure sidebars based on them. IPerhaps we could find a image that shows a bit about the common tenets, even if vague, would be good. North8000 (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Without going down that rabbit hole, as long as the two vertical navboxes have nearly complete overlap, there remains no reason to keep them separate. Rename the combined navbox if need be, or make the two navboxes sufficiently different. Right now, the split distinction has no basis in content. czar 19:05, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How about splitting them into "Left-libertarianism" and "Right-libertarianism"? Based on the divisions described here, so-called "American" libertarians want absolutely nothing to do with the "left," and so-called "Classical" libertarians want absolutely nothing to do with the "right;" and the terms "left-" and "right-"libertarianism already exist, so it seems like the fairest solution. Brownsc (talk) 14:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that that would be unworkable. The problems with variable meanings of terms like libertarian get ten times worse with the terms "Left-libertarianism" and "Right-libertarianism". The latter have so many different meanings and which vary so much with the eye of the beholder that they really don't have a meaning. North8000 (talk) 15:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, agreed, unworkable. The problem is that, while Left Libertarians use that term for themselves, Right Libertarianism is a term used almost exclusively by Left Libertarians as a pejorative term. The term "Right Libertarianism" is POV. In fact, there is a dispute right now going on regarding whether to change the name of the Right Libertarianism article to Libertarian Capitalism. This template is part of that.PhilLiberty (talk) 16:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Right" is pejorative?[edit]

In this edit that I've since reverted User:PhilLiberty wrote "Right libertarianism is a pejorative term used by opponents" as a reason why the link should be to the redirect "Libertarian capitalism" instead. I'd like to see a source that that is pejorative. And regardless, the article that link goes to is titled "Right libertarianism" (modulo PhilLiberty's ongoing edit war at Libertarian capitalism / Right-libertarianism), so that should be the title of the link. PhilLiberty, please respect WP:BRD; I'd suggest the discussion should be over at Talk:Right-libertarianism, and once that is settled then changes can be made here if necessary. --Pfhorrest (talk) 20:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am following the BRD cycle. Next step is back to B. You asked for a source that libertarian capitalists do not normally self-label as "right libertarian." Here's a quote from Murray Rothbard, calling the term "bewildering" and repeatedly using scare quotes around it:


Recently, a bewildering and seemingly new phenomenon has burst upon the public consciousness, "right-wing libertarianism." While earlier forms of the movement received brief and scornful attention by professional "extremist"-baiting liberals, present attention is, almost miraculously for veterans of the movement, serious and respectful. The current implication is "maybe they've got something here. What, then, have they got?"
Whatever their numerous differences, all "right-wing libertarians" agree on the central core of their thought, briefly, that every individual has the absolute moral right to "self-ownership," ... - https://mises.org/library/left-and-right-within-libertarianism


PhilLiberty (talk) 16:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More Right-libertarians?[edit]

Looking at the template's "People" tab, there are around 27 out of 41 names (slightly more than 2.5/4 names) who are explicitly Left-libertarians/socialists/anarcho-communist. Without knowing or reading about the individuals who are concerned, one can clearly see their political affiliation or ideology just by looking after a Template for anarcho-communism or Left-libertarianism. Prominent Libertarians such as Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises, Ayn Rand John Hospers, Henry Hazlitt, followers of the Austrian or Chicago school of economics are not mentioned despite being very influential in the field of economics. This is not to mention other anarcho-capitalists that could be mentioned but shouldn't, just as the anarcho-communists and communists also probably shouldn't be mentioned in the "People" tab (such as Nestor Makhno). Since this is about libertarianism not anarchism. I'm going to be adding the names I mentioned above. --Los Perros pueden Cocinar (talk) 21:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no official color to represent both libertarians against capitalism and those for it[edit]

There is a strong risk of non-neutral POV in the recent change. So no offense @Wow, a discussion is necessary.

The historical color of socialist libertarians is the red and black flag, certainly not the golden yellow representing capitalism. (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See also: "Yellow is the colour most strongly associated with liberalism and right-libertarianism." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_colour#Yellow
Yellow is not the appropriate color for a generic template on libertarianism. (talk) 22:29, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You have a point. Per your explanations, I got another editor to replace the Gold Eagle (that appeared at the bottom of this template, next to "Libertarianism portal") with a Libertarianism groups diagram to further reduce risk of non-neutral POV. Wow (talk) 12:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]