Jump to content

Talk:Libertarianism/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18→Archive 20

Lead as of July 1

I can't keep track of who did what but here's lead as of this moment after I edited it (with comments) and part I just deleted (with comments).

  • Libertarianism describes a range of political beliefs that advocate the maximization of an individual's ability to think and act with few constraints from large social structures, such as government,[1][2][3] and the minimization or even abolition of the state.[4][5] Libertarians have a variety of views on natural resources and the size of the State, ranging from pro-property to anti-property (often phrased as "right" versus "left"), and from minimal state ("minarchist") to no state ("anarchist").[6][3][7][8][9]
    • Actually first sentence is WP:OR using existing refs. Natural resources doesn't equal property; but I do like this new variation I put in minimal state ("minarchist") to no state ("anarchist"). References could be improved. So over all, needs work.
  • Left-libertarianism is rooted in nineteenth century socialism. Left-libertarians believe in protecting the freedom of action of individuals from interference by state or other actors but are against unfettered individual ownership of natural resources and the means of production.[3] Right-libertarianism is rooted in nineteenth century classical liberalism and right-libertarians believe liberty and property ownership are inviolable natural rights.[3] However right-libertarians are difficult to place in the conventional left/right political spectrum as they also support traditionally left-wing issues, such as broad freedom from search and seizure, freedom of the press, and other civil liberties.[3] Consequently some libertarians reject being described as "left" or "right" or as "anarchists."[10]
    • This is too much to say without some discussion here. And will re-check those refs and see if they say what you say they say but from my memory of them I believe they are WP:Original research or WP:Synthesis. (Look up and read articles if you do not understand.) My doggis mistress insists on her walk so I must depart for now. Plus on a big deadline this week. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Libertarians have a variety of views on natural resources and the size of the State, ranging from pro-property to anti-property (often phrased as "right" versus "left"), and from minimal state ("minarchist") to no state ("anarchist").[6][3][7][8][9]

i would like to suggest a rewrite: Libertarians have a variety of views on natural resources and the size of the State[6], ranging from pro-property [3]to anti-property [7](often phrased as "right" versus "left")[8], and from minimal state ("minarchist") to no state ("anarchist").[9] this is an example, i hope a more skilled editor than me, or one with more time than BigK HeX will correct his edit. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Per your edit summary of last message, I think you meant that things be sourced where they are mentioned and that any info not properly sourced should be. I agree. Also, people should look for better refs. One of the reasons I've been held up is I don't want to mess with same old refs. When I get back to it maybe I'll list some of best ones not currently used here. At the very least people should take a look at: Ronald Hamowy, The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism, Sage, 2008. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
There is no original research or synthesis in the statement. Please read the stanford article on libertarianism. Then refer to the introduction written in March 2010. Both the paragraph written by myself above and the March 2010 say essentially the same thing and reference the same article. This is evidence of a fair summary of a source article, not synthesis of multiple sources. Synthesis and original research is to claim there are pro- and anti-property libertarians, a statement without evidence. Please name the source that identifies two classes of libertarians based on whether they believe in property rights or not. 137.132.250.7 (talk) 12:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
agree i am in favor of deleting the claim until clarity of sources can be achieved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkstar1st (talk • contribs) 13:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

<backdent>Put messages in chrono order as not to confuse things. I'm not sure who User talk:137.132.250.7 is. And of course Mrdthree has reverted to yet another version - or is it the version above? - without discussion, unless that was Mrdthree. Also not sure who Darkstar is agreeing with. But must go out and celebrate what little liberty is left so another day will figure it out. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Carol, i was agreeing anon the pro/anti dichotomy only confuse the article. example: some horses have stripes(zebras), others do not. synthesis and original research is to claim there are pro- and anti-property libertarians, a statement without evidence. Please name the source that identifies two classes of libertarians based on whether they believe in property rights or not. 137.132.250.7 (talk) 12:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
agree i am in favor of deleting the claim Darkstar1st (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
IMO, there's no reasonable way to read that sentence and conclude that it promotes any sort of "dichotomy". It quite clearly describes a political view has ended up acquiring many dimensions, with the article giving broad coverage and coverage of many of the specific, defined variants. BigK HeX (talk) 15:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Are any other political views like communist, socialist, capitalist, democrats, or republicans, pro and anti property? Darkstar1st (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
We're not discussing ANY of those things, and neither an answer of "yes" or "no" would have any relevance here whatsoever. Please stay on topic. BigK HeX (talk) 15:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
As you can see I've mentioned above I do agree that if the phrases are used they must have adequate WP:RS which they do not have now. In fact as I also say above current lead is WP:OR using existing refs. And I still don't know who did it. And still stuck on higher priority nonwiki projects so can't finish updating with better research. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I can see that you mentioned that you would "re-check those refs and see if they say what you say they say". If you find a claim that fails verification, it'd help to list it. BigK HeX (talk) 01:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

<backdent>Please note that ala Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article." And when there is no link to the source, as there is not for some of the relevant references, see Wikipedia:PROVEIT#cite_note-1 "When there is dispute about whether a piece of text is fully supported by a given source, direct quotes and other relevant details from the source should be provided to other editors as a courtesy." That said, I challenge these refs:

  • with few constraints from large social structures, such as government, that is not in the new WP:RS and you'll have to prove it was in the former ones or anywhere else in the text of the article. Looks like WP:OR.
  • Libertarians have a variety of views on natural resources and the size of the State, ranging from pro-property to anti-property (sometimes phrased as "right" versus "left"), and from minarchist to openly anarchist.[6][3][7][8][9] As others have said, need to integrate refs into the sentence and need refs for pro and anti-property usages.
  • Left-libertarianism is rooted in nineteenth century socialism.[10] No evidence that ref says that and looks like editor WP:OR.

That's a start. Tomorrow I'll look to see if the Stanford material is correctly reflected. Meanwhile there you only need one quote at the end of the sentences which come from that source. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

agree Darkstar1st (talk) 03:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
What are you?? Some kind of agreebot?? FYI, WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY. If you have don't actually have anything substantive to add to the discussion, there's no reason to enter the thread. BigK HeX (talk) 06:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
@CarolMooreDC: I've addressed your first complaint by elaborating on the varieties of libertarianism.
As to your second objection, I think the claims are easily verifiable, as I discussed above, and now even more so, with the additions I made to satisfy your first objection.
On your last issue, I don't think I edited anything around that passage about "nineteenth century socialism", so I'm not sure what's in the refs for that. I'm pretty sure it's attributable though to someone like Kropotkin. BigK HeX (talk) 06:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
apologies bigk, i stopped editing the page and limited myself to the talk page to avoid conflict. now i see it may produce less angst if i return to editing, and minimize my talk support. i will return to editing here now. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Lead as of July 19

The current lead is worse than one complained about July 1. Done by who knows who, it removes action ala Merriam Webster and makes Sam Konkin the second ref, when there isn't WP:RS in his whole bio, just Fan references. And of course it leaves in "social structures" when Libertarianism is about political structures. I'll revert to an earlier better ref'd version and clarify some of issues mentioned above. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Libertarians have a variety of views on natural resources (among other means of production) and the size of the State, ranging from pro-property to anti-property (sometimes phrased as "right" versus "left"), and from minarchist to openly anarchist, respectively. If that is so, then the term 'libertarianism' is meaningless, it means Everything!

Since 'liberty' has got a good name, all you have to do to promote your idea is to call it 'liberal'. Quoting from the Foreword to von Mises' Liberalism: In the Classical Tradition (Louis M. Spadaro, 1977):

The underlying issue is not merely terminological; nor can it be

brushed aside as just another instance of the more general degeneration of language—an entropy of words, so to say—in which earlier distinctions of meaning and tonalty have tended to be lost. There is more here than a devaluation of terms, important as that may be; involved are substantive matters of the greatest

practical as well as intellectual significance.

To begin with, the word "liberal" has clear and pertinent

etymological roots grounded in the ideal of individual liberty. It also has a valuable historical foundation in tradition and experience, as well as the patrimony of a rich and extensive literature in social

philosophy, political thought, belles-lettres, and elsewhere. ...

Yet, for all of this, the term Liberalism proved unable to go

beyond the nineteenth century or the Atlantic without changing its meaning—and not just slightly but virtually to that of its contrary! The resulting confusions and imprecision are such that one finds it hard to conceive of a deliberate plan that could have succeeded more

in obfuscating its content and meaning.

The other reason for regret is that the loss of term "liberal" made

it necessary to have recourse to any number of contrived surrogate terms or tortured circumlocutions (e.g. "libertarian," "nineteenth century liberalism," or "classical" liberalism.). ...By any reasonable standard, Liberalism belongs to us, I believe we are bound to try to take it back—as a matter of principle, if for no other reason.

The pity is that now libertarianism has to fight for itself. Perhaps there is a need to coin a new term now; I propose libertararianianism. I understand that this is not the forum to coin a new term, my point is that there is a semantic war going on, and thus the editors of Wikipedia have to take sides.

Returning to the lead, what is "anti-property"? I propose two changes in the lead, (i) The term libertarianism has come to encompass a range of beliefs about social structures with some libertarians striving for minimization of the state, -- "minimization" replaced by "minimization or abolition", where abolition can link to anarchism, (ii) Libertarians have a variety of views on natural resources (among other means of production) and the size of the State, ranging from pro-property to anti-property (sometimes phrased as "right" versus "left"), and from minarchist to openly anarchist, respectively., replaced by, simply, "Libertarians have a variety of views on unappropriated natural resources."

As for anarchism, "Priding himself on his radicalism, he [Rothbard] used to brag that if there were a button one could push that would sweep away all vestiges of government in an instant, he would break his thumb pushing it." http://www.libertariannation.org/a/f23l1.html I am willing to follow up, and provide references form von Mises and Rothbard whenever appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by N6n (talk • contribs) 15:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

agree anti-property is a fringe term Darkstar1st (talk) 16:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Glad N6N noticed that abolition was recently kicked out despite being there for a long time. I'll review the past refs and find better ones. Taking a wikipedia day. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Was John Locke Egalitarian?

Egalitarianism a social philosophy advocating the removal of economic inequalities among people. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_8_36/ai_n8580032/ Otsuka complains that "even many of Locke's more moderate or left-leaning interpreters have not yet provided a sufficiently egalitarian reconstruction of his political philosophy." In other words, Locke wouldn't agree with Otsuka, but once Otsuka has "cleansed" Locke's ideas and made them "sufficiently egalitarian," Otsuka can call himself a Lockean. If not, should we purge this article of the often used "peer reviewed" SEP article which relies heavily on peter valentyne and micheal otsuka who both reference john locke as an egalitarian. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Your "expertise" in judging Otsuka (or any other source) is not recognized here (or anywhere else on Wikipedia). The same applies to editors here whom you are soliciting for opinions. BigK HeX (talk) 23:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
i am flattered you think i am an expert, which i maintain not to be on this topic, but actually i am just a layman voting libertarianism. as you reread the above edit, notice the research was by Reason, Jan, 2005 by Tom G. Palmer Darkstar1st (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Apparently you believe you're expert enough to deem Palmer "correct" and suggest Otsuka as a source needing to be deleted. BigK HeX (talk) 05:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Bigk, ill put you down for "yes" john locke was egalitarian. i suggest you read John Locke, Second Treatise on Civil Government. "The reason why men enter into society is the preservation of their property." "As much land as a man tills, plants, improves, cultivates, and can use the product of, so much is his property" "His labor hath taken it out of the hands of nature, where it was common, and belonged equally to all her children, and hath hereby appropriated it to himself" Darkstar1st (talk) 12:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I suggest you put BigK in the argumentum ad hominem column. As to the topic at hand, I'm heartily sick of revisionist academics rewriting history and literature to contrive interpretations that support their pet theories. BlueRobe (talk) 17:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
it appears we are close to consensus. i suggest we remove the stanford encyclopedia as a source here given the author cited john locke as egalitarian, a view held by only fringe historians. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
"close to consensus" ... how amusing.
To be clear, we're supposedly "close to consensus" as a result of a nonsensical rant from User:BlueRobe which pretty much failed to address your supposed logic here.
We're "close to consensus" that John Locke certainly could not be deemed as egalitarian, and further that this logically means that the source related to such a claim should be censored from the article.
Clearly, people have jumped to support your logic here. /sarcasm BigK HeX (talk) 22:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
do you have any sources to support john was egalitarian? Darkstar1st (talk) 23:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Do you have to wander off-topic so much on article talk pages?? Locke IS NOT EVEN DISCUSSED in the wiki article. BigK HeX (talk) 23:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Darkstar1st, could you please explain the purpose of this discussion thread, otherwise i will archive it. TFD (talk) 04:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
actually john is incorporated incorrectly into the sep article on libertarianism which is over-sourced in the 1st paragraph. see peter valentyne's self sourced article/book. he list john as egalitarian, if not, are you in favor of excluding sep as a source? Darkstar1st (talk) 04:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure how I became embroiled in this debate. For my part, I suggest that there is a Libertarian element to the political philosophy of John Locke. Whether or not Locke counts as a Libertarian philosopher depends on the extent to which we insist upon adherence to the core Libertarian ideals, (such as the Harm Principle, individual political rights, private property rights and clear constitutional restraints upon the use of government coercion and intervention). The purists among us will limit the Libertarian label to less-compromising philosophers, such as Ayn Rand and Robert Nozick. Others will cast the net a little wider to include the likes of John Stuart Mill.
Egalitarianism emphasises the equality of economic wealth distribution as a primary political ideal. Egalitarianism is, by definition, incompatible with the ideals of Libertarianism. So, the question of whether Locke was an egalitarian is significant to the extent that, were the "egalitarian" label to apply to him, he could not fall within even the widest definition of "Libertarian".
Locke does indeed place some emphasis on the need to place limits on economic wealth accumulation. Locke places particular emphasis on the need to prohibit the accumulation of unused wealth (economic capital), arguing that unused wealth is inefficient and wasteful. Locke specifically excludes money from this definition of wealth. Indeed, Locke expresses little concern with an inequality in the distribution of money.
While Locke's philosophy is inconsistent with the purist forms of Libertarianism, (it breaches basic property rights regarding private property that remains unused), he justifies the imposition of government intervention regarding unused wealth because of the utilitarian reason of its inefficiency and not because of egalitarian reasons. Locke leaves open the question of the extent to which government may legitimately intervene in the economy to ensure equal wealth distribution. Thus, John Locke was not an egalitarian. BlueRobe (talk) 10:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

For those who haven't figured it out, there is no "debate". There's only some soapboxing about a wholly irrelevant topic here. Archival or deletion of this crap thread is the best response that could be hoped for. BigK HeX (talk) 15:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Left-libertarianism and its critics: the contemporary debate By Peter Vallentyne, page 6, "exponents of some form of self-ownership combined with egalitarian ownership of natural resources include: john locke." the majority of historians disagree. i suggest this fringe author and his source be removed from this article, if there be no objection. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Supporting the "egalitarian ownership of natural resources" is not the same as being egalitarian. Is the water in the river owned by the people or the personal property of the King? How do you think Locke would answer? TFD (talk) 23:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
our opinions are irrelevant. the point here is given peter's fringe theory of john. "The plowed field is worth more than the virgin prairie precisely because I have invested my labor in plowing it; so even if the prairie was held in common by all, the plowed field is mine. This personal appropriation of natural resources can continue indefinitely, Locke 2nd Treatise §33 Darkstar1st (talk) 23:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Well no it cannot continue indefinitely - it stops when land becomes scarce or when we run out of land. But notice that he says the prairie was held in common by all. That clearly contradicts the conservative view that the prairie was the personal property of the King. In fact even if the King granted the land to a yeoman, the natural resources on and under the land remained the property of the Crown. The yeoman only had the right to the property he added his labor to, and could forfeit that right for non-payment of property rates which were levied by the community not the Crown. TFD (talk) 00:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
you realize these are johns words, not mine? if so, you are arguing the point with one of the 100 most influential authors in history of man. he was referring to the field he plowed, not indefinitely plowing under all the land in the world, just the patch he plowed which was previously "common", not the kings private garden. Darkstar1st (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
No, I am actually stating what Locke said. Please read the complete book and get back to us. (Hint - there are no prairies in England.) TFD (talk) 00:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
we may be arguing different points here, i am saying you are incorrect by saying, "Well no it cannot continue indefinitely" johns words, not mine. please provide a source supporting john thought "egalitarian ownership of natural resource" Darkstar1st (talk) 00:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
See The Second Treatise of Civil Government, cap. 5. TFD (talk) 15:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
what page number? Darkstar1st (talk) 15:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
People do not generally use page numbers when quoting Locke. If you want to gain a better understanding of John Locke you should consider taking a course. What does any of this have to do with the article? TFD (talk) 15:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
i missed the quote, paste here please. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar, I think the Locke question is tangential to the article itself. I think we've already established that SEP is a valid WP:RS, and should remain as a source in the article. The primary question, in my mind, was whether it was being granted WP:UNDUE weight in the article, by being cited, I believe it was, two or three times as often as the Encyclopedia of Philosophy. A reliable source can have so-called "fringe" views on certain subjects and still be reliable, though I'm not sure that what you're arguing re: Locke is actually the case. That site has an extensive bibliography of references anyway. —Torchiest talk/contribs 17:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

agree, undue weight. locke being an egalitarian is beyond fringe. his own words are clear, i will await tfd's locke quote contradicting this fact. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Darkstar1st, this article is about libertarianism and Locke would be at most primary source. TFD (talk) 19:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
you were unable to locate the quote which locke says he is egalitarian? i found chapter five, but his words do not sound very egalitarian: "Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property." Darkstar1st (talk) 22:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
How is that not egalitarian? TFD (talk) 23:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
i thought it meant progressive redistribution of money? Darkstar1st (talk) 23:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
TFD, that quote does NOT capture the essence of egalitarianism. Egalitarianism is a consequentialist political philosophy, and that quote refers to the causal link between productive input and property rights. There is nothing in that quote to suggest that Lcoke believed equality of wealth distribution is likely or desirable. BlueRobe (talk) 03:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
That does not seem to be the definitions I have seen. TFD (talk) 03:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
i took it from the wp page. what is the definition you have seen? Darkstar1st (talk) 10:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Here is a definition from wiktionary: "A person who accepts or promotes social equality and equal rights for all people".[1] TFD (talk) 04:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Egalitarianism is the promotion of equal rights? One man's equal rights is another man's social engineering. Unfortunately, in this era of political correctness the phrase "equal rights" is given all manner of rhetorical spin to support the political agendas of those who want to engineer their own versions of utopia.
Egalitarianism has nothing to do with political rights. Egalitarianism is a political philosophy that emphasises the equal distribution of wealth among the population. The paradigm of an egalitarian society is one where every person receives identical income or has identical wealth. BlueRobe (talk) 23:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
So you and Darkstar1st do not believe that equality exists in the United States? TFD (talk) 00:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I cannot speak for Darkstar1s, but, I believe America has relative equality of rights (in theory, if not in practice), but America is clear not an egalitarian society. Indeed, the closest real world example of an egalitarian society would probably be North Korea (in theory, if not in practice). (I am not an egalitarian and I do not endorse the tyrannical regime of North Korea). BlueRobe (talk) 01:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
the usa is far from equal to most of the world. in india they say, "i want to live where even the poor people are fat". what confuses me about the socialist/liberals/progressives here, is they want to implement social programs to help those in need amongst us. supplying public health care, housing, food, etc. to those inside our border, when the same $ spent on the poorest in the world, would help 100, 1000 times as many people. these same people reject the term nationalist, especially when combined with socialist(nazi). what is public health care in the usa if not a national and social program? caring is not uniquely a left pov. the right think by allowing enterprise to flourish, the greater good will be served via advancements in technology. Darkstar1st (talk) 01:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Social welfare was never justified on the basis of equality. TFD (talk) 02:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Social Welfare is primarily motivated by calls for needs-based distributive justice, (and various other shades of Marxism). That said, calls for a "more equal society" are common during political discourse regarding social welfare policies, especially in the Western World. For example, some left-leaning political economists refer to the Gini coefficient or the Lorenz curve to support their calls for policies that will more effectively redistribute wealth (from the rich, to the poor). BlueRobe (talk) 03:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

(out) Actually the social welfare state was developed in Prussia. British liberals promoted a welfare state with the justification that it would lead to greater freedom, not equality. The national health service was considered necessary in order to ensure military readiness. The left opposed the welfare state from Bismarck to Roosevelt. Although this is fairly well-known, it is actually explained on the Von Mises and Lew Rockwell websites. TFD (talk) 04:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The "greater freedom" referred to is more akin to the Positive concept of liberty made famous by Isaiah Berlin in his seminal work, "Two Concepts of Liberty". Positive liberty, as distinct from Negative Liberty, focuses on empowering people by ensuring they have the resources necessary for their well-being. Thus, positive liberty has little in common with true liberty - the negative concept of liberty - as is evidenced by willingness of proponents of positive liberty (especially advocates of the welfare state) to sacrifice peoples' negative liberty for the well-being of those in need.BlueRobe (talk) 09:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Is the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy given undo weight in the lead?

is there support for using additional sources, such as th encyclopedia of philosophy, to create the lead? Darkstar1st (talk) 19:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

As well as Hamowy and lots of other good sources available on books.google. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Please mention vandalism in edit summaries

Catching up on changes and I note there was a lot of real vandalism (both stupid smut and absurd things like "a couple of people." It would be helpful if when you revert it you write in your edit summary Vandalism: with any explanation. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Comic Relief Update/Education

'Ever seen XXx the movie? Remember the "bad guy"? "Anarchy 99" right? OH YEAH. THANKS CAROL. Ddd1600 (talk) 21:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold_in_updating_pages —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.12.74.67 (talk) 21:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The first line looks like a WP:Personal attack. Not the first time USer:dd1600 engaged in it. I reported it last time as mentioned at User_talk:Ddd1600#Please_do_not_replase_WP:RS_info_with_WP:OR. In any case, ambiguous inscrutable statements not helpful. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

How does your garden grow?

The fundamental problem with this article is that it's an out-of-control ambiguation page. It's like somebody sprinkled a random mix of vegetable seeds into one small garden plot. Now all the different veggies are growing over each other and choking each other out. All the other veggies, except, say Eggplant (Libertarianism), already have their dedicated plots...those veggies need to be carefully transplanted into their respective plots so that the Eggplant can have some room to grow and bear fruit. --97.93.109.174 (talk) 00:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The Obvious / The Issue At Hand

  • Update: The new introduction is a strong improvement on the previous one, much more nuanced, at least. However, for some reason, I'm still interested in further minimizing the association of libertarianism and anarchism. This, however, is not up to me. I am not a statist, but I am also not a non-statist. The borderline issue here is between minimalization and destruction---at what point is the government too large? Is the government a constantly growing thing which must be continuously curtailed? Like a gardener cuts a hedge? I don't know. But I do know that we should come to a consensus here on the Wikipedia page, we as libertarians, we as huge fans of Thomas Jefferson, et al. We want to look good. We want to come as as not "extreme". We want Ron Paul to sound more credible, and possibly for him to tone down his extremism. Government's solution ultimate is this, in my opinion--social liberty, and fiscal conservatism. Does that make me a Democrat? No. Does that make me a Republican? No. That makes me a libertarian. Libertarians are not anarchists. Libertarians are not extremists. Libertarians are libertarians. They are conservative in some ways, and liberal in others. And we do not want to dismantle the government, specifically the government which Thomas Jefferson conceived.Ddd1600 (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Anarchists want to dismantle the government.

Libertarians do not want to dismantle the government.

Therefore the two subjects should not be analogously associated on the wikipedia "Libertarianism" page. Minarchism included.

RS requested. Add on to this section if you have anything credible to support this simple, straight-forward notion.68.59.4.188 (talk) 01:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC) agree Darkstar1st (talk) 19:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Strongly agree! "others striving for complete abolition of the state" Holy crap! Don't say "others" say..."one guy who wrote a book". It's completely ignorant to even mention it at all, especially in the first paragraph. Libertarianism is based on the simple concept that the freedom to swing your fist ends where somebody else's nose begins. If you punch somebody in the nose...then what? If you can get away with it then you have anarchism but if you're punished then you have libertarianism. Obviously you need some form of government in order to enforce that rule. The first paragraph was so completely off base and misleading that I replaced it with a quick substitute in the meantime. 97.93.109.174 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC).

For reference...see http://www.DownsizingGovernment.org/ Notice the website name? It's not called AbolishingGovernment.org --97.93.109.174 (talk) 23:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

the new paragraph reads much better, thx. the difference is rule of law, well said. if someone is a libertarian, and an anarchist, why not call them an anarchist? Darkstar1st (talk) 23:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Anarchism means absence of government. Libertarianism has solutions. Anarchism, then, is a part of libertarianism.N6n (talk) 16:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Wow. I just looked through some of the discussion on this page...you should be nominated for sainthood. Are you an elementary school teacher? Or do you work with the mentally challenged? Your patience is amazing. But at this point...isn't there some higher wikipedia power that can step in and kick the anarchists off our page? There's a disambiguation page so there's no logical reason that they should be allowed to continue to confuse the issue. The irony is that this kind of behavior is exactly why we don't want to be associated with the anarchists in the first place. --97.93.109.174 (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
aw thx. glad you are here, and look forward to more of your input. there is a higher power, it be us collectively. wikipedia is like driving a greyhound bus on a frozen lake, turns slow, and hard to stop. make a user name asap, other editors will chide you, wp:bite Darkstar1st (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
someone will undo your last edit. i support what you wrote, but they want you to make your point here 1st, get consensus, sacrifice a virgin with one blue eye, and one brown, recite a magic incantation, then edit the page. be careful not to edit this page twice in 24hr, i have already been banned here once. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
LOL...consensus! Sheesh...if we were any good at collective action the anarchists wouldn't be peeing all over our page. Uh, are Torch and Carol anarchists trying to promote their favorite authors? Or closet anarchists? Or just really really stubborn editors, who, despite your completely logical explanations...fail to acknowledge the simple distinction between anarchism and libertarianism? --97.93.109.174 (talk) 15:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
All this talk of "your" page is pretty inappropriate. The point is, we're trying to accurately describe the subject using sourced information. If you have a content dispute, bring some sources to the table. —Torchiest talk/contribs 16:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
easy, wp:bite we all on same team Darkstar1st (talk) 16:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Tell him that. I still don't understand this animosity towards the concept of anarchism, or why it seems so horrifying that there is a connection between it and libertarianism. Both are clearly anti-authoritarian, which is a significant relationship right off the bat. —Torchiest talk/contribs 16:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
i will. he is new and has good ideas. a connect, yes! just anarchist are more evolved, total government gone, like the communist utopia marx described, flowers, milk and honey. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I, too, completely fail to grasp why there are so many POV warriors on this page who are so hellbent on blatantly censoring all references to anarchism, when left-libertarianism quite clearly has a relationship which is covered in tons of WP:RS. BigK HeX (talk) 17:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You think I would be protesting this page if I wasn't a Libertarian? Of course it's "my" page. If you were a Libertarian you would realize that Libertarianism is based on John Stuart Mill's Harm Principle...which we need an authority to enforce. It's not even mentioned in the first couple paragraphs. All you do is murky up the issue with irrelevant and misleading "sources". If you want a good source take a look at the britannica entry... http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/339321/libertarianism --97.93.109.174 (talk) 16:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Torchiest, seriously? Libertarianism has the guiding principle that you can't harm other people. Take that away and you have Anarchism...murder, mayham, rape, pillage, plunder, etc. It's a very fundamental difference. Now do you understand why we don't want to be associated with them? --97.93.109.174 (talk) 17:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Your characterization of Anarchism is inaccurate. —Torchiest talk/contribs 17:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Are there any mechanisms that prevent Anarchists from engaging in said behavior? --97.93.109.174 (talk) 17:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
i christen they don Quixote until your user name is finished. don, a good place to start this edit would be the sources used by brittanica, which i suggest have all the evidence you will need. Darkstar1st (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC).

<---Enough silly WP:Soapbox, please! Time waster having to figure out if anyone's bothered to discuss any actual WP:RS. (Reliable sources, fyi). CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

You've got 141 sources talking about wildly different things. It's not about adding more sources it's about separating the different ideologies. That's why there's a disambiguation page. Given that every other minor form of Libertarianism has its own main page...this page should solely be dedicated to the most widely accepted form....the modern, American based form that recognizes that some type of government/state/authority is necessary to punish those that harm others. --97.93.109.174 (talk) 21:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
i realize this page has too many sources, and am trying to help. this page is monitored by so many peopel, we have to make the case by using more relevant sources to displace the undo weight here. now that we have alerted everyone to our secret plan, plz don, proceed cautiously. i can already see others circling you. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Wait...I thought our secret plan was to copy over the contents of this page to http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Libertarianism_overview and then remove everything from this page not relevant to modern, American Libertarianism? --97.93.109.174 (talk) 21:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
ok, but dont tell anyone as you will meet stiff resistance. maybe going back to the Britannica sources would be faster. wp is easy to change, just use the things others are using to stop you, to stop them, like published facts from more relevant sources. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

<backdent>Comments:

  • Ddd1600 wrote: We want to look good. We want to come as as not "extreme". We want Ron Paul to sound more credible, Sorry, the purpose of Wikipedia is NOT to make some political faction look good. Your POV and your personal attacks really make it questionable whether you should be editing this article at all and I will mull that over in next few days. Libertarianism means many things to many people and any one faction trying to enforce their view, especially with little discussion of WP:RS, really is working against wikipedia policies. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The State, then, is not simply a part of society. The brunt of this part of the present volume, in fact, is to demonstrate that the State is not, as most utilitarian free-market economists like to think, a legitimate social institution that tends to be bumbling and inefficient in most of its activities. On the contrary, the State is an inherently illegitimate institution of organized aggression, of organized and regularized crime against the persons and properties of its subjects. Rather than necessary to society, it is a profoundly antisocial institution which lives parasitically off of the productive activities of private citizens. Morally, it must be considered as illegitimate and outside of the ordinary libertarian legal system, which delimits and insures the rights and just properties of private citizens. Thus, from the point of view of justice and morality, the State can own no property, require no obedience, enforce no contracts made with it, and indeed, cannot exist at all. The Ethics of Liberty, Murray N. Rothbard, New York University Press, 1982, 1998; pp. 187

—Preceding unsigned comment added by N6n (talk • contribs) 16:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Note that any Libertarian Overview page would be a Wikipedia:POV_FORK created by those with a POV against certain viewpoints that go under name of Libertarianism. I'm sure it would be speedily deleted. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Anarchism is not the absence of government. Anarchism is the absence of non-consensual government. In theory, an Anarchist society would be made up of an array of geographically-determinate political entities, each with their own distinct political systems and laws, among which each person could find one to join by their explicit consent. While the ideology of Anarchism is not particularly practical, it's main use is as a philosophical counter-point from which one can challenge the legitimacy of those ideologies that would impose non-consensual authority upon unwilling citizens. I really wish people (especially people who call themselves "Anarchists") would stop misrepresenting Anarchism as some form of Socialism (the antithesis of Anarchism) or as the absence of government (which is more akin to Thomas Hobbes' State of Nature). BlueRobe (talk) 13:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

American Libertarianism

At the top of this article it says..."The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject." Yet, Noam Chomsky's perspective is included in the lead. According to Chomsky..."The American version of "libertarianism" is an aberration, though—nobody really takes it seriously. I mean, everybody knows that a society that worked by American libertarian principles would self-destruct in three seconds." http://www.distantocean.com/2008/04/chomsky-on-libe.html

I think we can all agree that Chomsky's perspective is clearly not from the perspective of the United States. The basic problem is that this article is a mishmash of two different articles...an article on American Libertarianism and an article on the world view of Libertarianism. Since the current article is mainly about American Libertarianism we just need to extricate the world view perspective and give it it's own page. We could call the new page either Libertarianism overview or Libertarianism world view.

Once the world view has been extricated...at the top of this article it could say..."This article is about American Libertarianism as a political and social philosophy. For other uses, see Libertarianism (disambiguation). Not that there's anything wrong with criticizing American Libertarianism...but it shouldn't be included in the lead. Rather, it should have its own section within the article. --97.93.109.174 (talk) 00:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

agree there is already a Classical Libertarianism article, but it redirects here??? most other political articles have separate articles for the "classical" interpretation of the term. "non-usa" libertarian's are less than 23% of the total libertarian philosophy.(source: myself) why then should the views of the minority, have more weight here than the majority? Darkstar1st (talk) 01:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Two comments:
  • The worldwide tag refers to mentions of other libertarian movements worldwide. There was such a section which was removed as being too long. As has been discussed previously in talk, this needs to be put back in in some form.
  • Chomsky is wrong as the article itself quotes several sources who say that market libertarianism is more popular worldwide.
  • Again, the new articles you contemplate writing would be a speedily deleted WP:POV forks because you clearly have stated your opposition to anarchism being in the article cause it allegedly hurts Ron Paul (who was closely related to anarchist Murray Rothbard until his death). Note that you'll have trouble finding refs for something called "classical libertarianism." And "American libertarianism" has the most free market anarchists and refs are rife, even if they aren't yet in this article. So you'd still end up with an article with lots of info on anarchists. Unfortunately, I spent most of my Wikipedia day on another article. But will see what I can do tomorrow with this one. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
The point is not whether Chomsky is wrong or right...the point is that his perspective should not be mentioned in the lead of an article on American Libertarianism. An article on American Libertarianism should not be rife with info on anarchists. How many references to Anarchism are in the Britannica article on Libertarianism? http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/339321/libertarianism That article should be the guideline/standard for an article on Libertarianism. However, since you feel that Anarchism and American Libertarianism are so closely related then the only solution is for you to create your own page for a worldwide perspective of Libertarianism. This page should be dedicated to American Libertarianism as defined by Britannica. --97.93.109.174 (talk) 03:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
This is not an article on American libertarianism. It's about libertarianism, as described worldwide, except some American libertarian pulled out all the worldwide stuff a few months back and no one has put it back. What you could do is an article on the "American libertarian minarchist movement" - assuming you could find refs describing it thusly. And knowing that there would be a criticism section from free market anarchists saying what's wrong with it, including various historical battles within the libertarian movement between anarchists and minarchists. It could be a lot of fun. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
On Noam Chomsky's page it says that he's an Anarchist. You know why it doesn't say that he's a Libertarian? Well...because we appropriated the term a long time ago. This page should reflect modern usage...Anarchism means no government and Libertarianism means limited government. Therefore, Chomsky should be referenced on the page for Anarchism...not Libertarianism. --97.93.109.174 (talk) 09:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Books google search on "Chomsky" and "Libertarian". Lots of returns. What, a WIKI article that is WRONG??? CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
And there are even more results when you do a search for "Chomsky" and "Anarchism". On your talk page (which you quickly archived) we established that you are incapable of specifying the difference between Tribalism and Libertarianism. Please face the music and acknowledge that you are an Anarchist...plain and simple. You don't want any form of government. Do us all a favor and focus your energies on editing the page on Anarchism. --97.93.109.174 (talk) 20:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

<backdent>You are harassing me (see WP:Harass) on my user page and personally attacking me (WP:NPA) here. All that matters is references. I'm busy checking them out. Have you ever bothered? CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I only see 97.93.109.174 on my talk page. Who is we who thought they established something? I see that two anonymous IPs have attacked me in the same way and for the same reasons that User:Ddd1600 did as I reported to Wikietiquette alerts. [ here. Since it's anonymous IPs attacking me now and the same person can jump around using them, Wikietiquette is not as good a solution. However note that this article can be protected so that Anonymous IPs can no longer edit at it and I will ask for that protection if AnonIps don't stop attacking me. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
You are an Anarchist vandalizing a page on modern Libertarianism. We refers to the fact that I asked you to describe the difference between Libertarianism and Tribalism and you were incapable of providing an answer. If somebody cannot reasonably differentiate between the two then they should not be editing or selecting references for an article on Libertarianism. --97.93.109.174 (talk) 22:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
reviewing sources=good Carol is busy vetting sources, a tedious process indeed. she has proved her dedication several times concerning this topic, i say lets wait 24-27 hours for her to finish. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
If person understands Tribalism <> Libertarianism Then
reviewing sources=good
Else
reviewing sources=bad
End If
Darkstar1st, it's one thing if this article were just a mess. Unfortunately though, it's terribly misleading and honestly does more harm than good. Given that this is the number one Google search result for Libertarianism...my vote would be to delete the page. Honestly I'm one step away from reporting CarolMooreDC for vandalizing this page. It's not obvious vandalizing like "libertarians suck"...it's insidious vandalizing that equates modern Libertarianism to Anarchism. It's insidious because it's well within the guidelines and evidently only obvious to people familiar with modern Libertarianism. You and others have been completely reasonable with her for a really really long time but the line has to be drawn somewhere. If you haven't had a chance take a look at her archived talk page for our discussion on Libertarianism vs Anarchism. It goes a long way towards explaining the current state of this page. --97.93.109.174 (talk) 00:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

<backdent>Changed my mind. Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Users:97.93.109.174_.26_71.12.74.67. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

i beg you, plz give us a day to review sources. ps, notice Carol and I are far from sharing the same pov. Darkstar1st (talk) 03:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you and Carolmooredc have different points of view yet this article is entirely a reflection of her point of view. Compare how many times some form of the word Anarchism is mentioned in this article (115) compared to the Britannica article (5). Is it a coincidence that she's an Anarchist? --97.93.109.174 (talk) 06:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

To refer to Carol's work here as vandalism is not supportable (nor reportable), but I do believe outside opinions should be requested to help determine whether it makes sense to cover all the disparate meanings of libertarianism in this one article, or whether coverage should be divided up into separate articles, making this article either a dab page or exclusively about one meaning. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Saying that Libertarianism is synonymous with Anarchism or that Libertarians want to abolish the state are clearly red herring fallacies. If you compare this article to the Britannica article it's readily apparent that this article has been completely distorted towards Anarchism. Personally, I would much prefer if a vandal wrote "Libertarians suck" on this article vs "Libertarians are anarchists". A reader not familiar with Libertarianism would easily recognize the first as vandalism but they probably wouldn't recognize the second as vandalism...making it all the more damaging.
The problem is that the editors who support the "Libertarians...Anarchists...same thing" perspective cite the billion books and articles that Rothbard wrote in order to validate their vandalism. If you look at Rothbard's wikipedia article it says he was an anarchist who helped define Libertarianism. Yet, as I provided evidence for in the section on removing Anarcho-Capitalism...true Anarchists point out that Rothbard's pro-capitalist position is completely contrary to Anarchism and they also recognize that his anti-state position is completely contrary to Libertarianism.
Rothbard developed a completely distinct and separate ideology...Anarcho-Capitalism. It borrows from both Classical Liberalism and Anarchism but is neither by any stretch a form of Anarchism or a form of Libertarianism. Whether I like his idea or think it's a viable approach is not relevant. Incidentally though, I do give him tons of credit for how fully he developed his idea...but think he failed to appreciate how necessary the state is in terms of preserving order. In any case, the main point though is that this is not an article on Anarchism or Anarcho-Capitalism or Criticisms of anarcho-capitalism...it's an article on Libertarianism. In my perspective the distinction between the different ideologies is clear.
Will an outside perspective appreciate the distinction between the different ideologies or will they be confused by all the Anarcho-Capitalist sources that Carolmooredc used to promote her "Libertarians...Anarchists...same thing" perspective? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.93.109.174 (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Searching for Reliable Sources

Anyone who spends an hour or so searching for WP:Reliable sources on this topic in order to create a WP:Neutral Point of View encyclopedic article will find a variety. Just a couple examples of things I thought looked useful, using books.google:

In Libertarianism a thousand flowers do bloom. Don't blame it on me :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Now that we have the sources, lets use them to find examples of why anarchist are not libertarian.
*Freedom and authority By William Russell McKercher p 67, "this is where libertarianism and anarchy parts company. anarchism insist first and foremost, the total abolition of government..."
*Mobilizing Resentment: Conservative Resurgence from the John Birch Society ... By Jean Hardisty, Wilma Pearl Mankiller p 165
"Libertarianism is often confused with anarchism because both are opposed to government control over the individual" Darkstar1st (talk) 14:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I Must Speak Out: The Best of the Voluntaryist 1982-1999 By Carl Watner p 56.
the destination of anarchism is different and antagonistic to the destination of minacrchism. Murray Rothbard captured the difference in his famous question, "do you hate the state". political anarchist are in the gray realm of agreeing heartily in words to principles which their actions contradict. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Non-academic Writings by libertarians and books that are about other subjects (e.g., the John Birch Society) are not reliable secondary sources for this article. TFD (talk) 19:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Books by libertarians are perfectly acceptable for reporting libertarian thought, by definition. —Torchiest talk/contribs 19:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Of course people say libertarian is not anarchism, and I can't think of anyone who says it is. What is said is some people interpret libertarianism as best being fulfilled through a minimal state (be in national or local) and others think it is best fulfilled through no state, or some voluntary association others might define as no state. This has been said in the article and on this page numerous times. How many dozens of times does one have to say it to make it clear? CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
What's the difference between a Libertarian that wants to get rid of the state and an Anarchist? --97.93.109.174 (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
@tfd, these are books gleaned from carols sources above.(i already knew any source i present will be challenged, thus i have resorted to commenting on others source). @carol, "people say libertarian is not anarchism", then i say we remove the "anarchist" from the opening. "others think it is best fulfilled through no state" as Murray's question "do you hate the state" proves, the "others" are simply confused anarchist, not libertarian. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
From New York Times Magazine, 1971: "If it were not for the fact that libertarianism freely concedes the right of men voluntarily to form communities or governments on the same ethical basis, libertarianism could be called anarchy." http://fare.tunes.org/liberty/library/new_right_credo.html Most people here would have heard about libertarianism through Rothbard. Rothbard defines libertarianism as absence of all coercion, and, because government is a coercive agency, abolition of government is (by definition) a goal. However, if you read libertarianism literature, this is just a small part. In For a New Liberty: A Libertarian Manifesto (1973, 1978) Rothbard presents a blueprint of a society based on 'natural law', of how to defend against criminals and foreign forces, how Courts for justice would be run, how dams would be built, etc. N6n (talk) 10:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
@Darkstar1st,97.93.109.174: For a libertarian, removal of the state is not the goal per se -- the goal is liberty. If ten (or one) people come together and try to coerce someone to do something, the philosophy of anarchism would be silent, but not that of libertarianism. N6n (talk) 11:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
My characterization of Anarchism is based on what I read of Bakunin. It seems that many who call themselves anarchists would not agree with what I said about Anarchism. All said, this is a hornet's nest. Getting one meaning of 'libertarianism', which all who call themselves 'libertarians' will agree to, is probably not possible. N6n (talk) 06:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Up above, CarolMooreDC wrote, "Of course people say libertarian is not anarchism, and I can't think of anyone who says it is. What is said is some people interpret libertarianism as best being fulfilled through a minimal state (be in national or local) and others think it is best fulfilled through no state, or some voluntary association others might define as no state.", and she was asked, "What's the difference between a Libertarian that wants to get rid of the state and an Anarchist?". I don't see an answer to that question, and sure am curious as to what the answer might be. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Common Ground

It's already been mentioned that the purpose of this article on Libertarianism is not to make the Libertarian Party look good. However, whether we are Libertarians who want a smaller central government or Libertarians who don't want any central government...hopefully we can both agree that we want the Libertarian Party to succeed. That would mean more freedom for everybody.

The thing is...the Libertarian Party (and by extension the ideology of Libertarianism) doesn't seem to be making much progress. One problem is that there is quite a bit of confusion regarding what Libertarianism actually is. Taking myself for example...I've considered myself a Libertarian for quite a few years now and thought it was pretty straightforward...the freedom to swing my fist ends where somebody else's nose begins. We have complete freedom as long as our actions do not harm others. In my mind, some form of government was absolutely necessary in order to enforce that very important non-aggression principle. If you take the government completely out of the picture then you have Anarchy...or do you?

When I read this article for the first time I didn't even make it past the first couple sentences because I was so pissed off that the article strongly connected Libertarianism and Anarchism. When the average person thinks of Anarchism they don't think of Rothbard...they think of chaos, violence and maybe that song by Sublime...talking about "participatin' in some anarchy". The average person wants nothing to do with anarchy. They might see it on TV but they sure as heck don't want to live in it.

Hearing some of you mention Rothbard so many times I decided to at least look at his Wikipedia article. Turns out that from his perspective, everything that the government provides...the private sector can provide cheaper and better...even security. Can the private sector really provide comparably good security? It definitely got me thinking.

The concession that I'm willing to make is that more thought has gone into the ideology of Anarchism than I'd initially appreciated. Maybe it isn't all raping, pillaging and plundering...at least assuming that security would be affordable to lower and middle class people.

The concession that I'm hoping for in return is the acknowledgment that Anarchism is a complete anathema to most people. The Libertarian ideals of freedom that we both support and agree on are hamstrung by people's instinctive rejection of Anarchism...which they automatically correlate to the absence of government. For some, the concept of Libertarianism in itself is difficult enough to digest even when it's just defined as smaller government. The challenge is to help clear up the confusion by presenting the modern, commonly accepted aspects of Libertarianism.

Let me stress that I agree that the goal of this article should not be to make Libertarianism or the Libertarian Party look good...in fact, it's surprising that this article does not include a section for the criticisms of Libertarianism. That being said, let's definitely not add to the confusion by blurring the lines between Anarchism and Libertarianism. Rather, this article should present the ideology of Libertarianism as defined by the CATO institute. David Boaz, the vice president of the CATO institute, wrote the Britannica article on Libertarianism and it really goes a long way towards making the concepts of Libertarianism accessible to the average reader. --97.93.109.174 (talk) 10:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:Soapbox. Long dissertations that don't concern specific sources or policy issues but just your views really don't count. And the questionable assertion made above somewhere in talk is that involving anarchism and libertarianism hurts the credibility of Ron Paul, who is not a Libertarian Party representative. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
(Interjection) : CAROL, GO AWAY. YOUR COMMENTS HAVE NO GROUND WHATSOEVER. YOUR DISCUSSIONS ARE MOOT AND YOUR ARE A TREMENDOUS ROADBLOCK TO PROGRESS. YOU ARE TESTING OUR PATIENCE. "SOAPBOX" MEANS THINKING AND SPEAKING FOR YOURSELF. LIBERTARIANISM MEANS THINKING, SPEAKING AND ACTION IN TOTAL ACCORDANCE WITH YOUR GOD-GIVEN FREEDOM. GO AWAY. FOR GOD SAKES, LEAVE US ALONE. YOU ARE THE PROBLEM HERE. YOU. SPECIFICALLY YOU. We are looking for good RS, but for the time being, stop to consider something you never realized: the teacher is the student and the student is the teacher. The best teachers are like the oldest kids at camp, and we are all ultimately children in some form or the other. Stop being such a cretinous pedant, you are totally in the dark. We are not. The etymologically root of libertarianism is LIBERTY. The etymological root of Anarchy is "leaderlessness". THINK FOR YOURSELF. THAT IS PART OF WHAT LIBERTARIANISM IS ALL ABOUT. Jesus, irregardless, we as libertarians are never going to "win" anyway, we're only going to be able to strike out compromises with socialists. The best we can hope for is compromise of mutual interests. The word "anarchist" is scary to the layman. This website is not for intellectuals only, as a matter of fact, intellectuals (I have a few buddies that go to Ivy League schools) are likely appalled by the notion that libertarianism is analogous to anarchism. That having been said, they don't particularly care about the petty scuffles that are going on here on wikipedia. I, for one, do. I care. And I want to see my kids waking up to a better world with less petty government intervention in our lives. Stop editing this page. That is the best way for you to help out here. Your attitude is helpful on non-evolving topics. But on evolving topics, you are, plainly, the devil. We're looking for good RS, I'm hoping somebody out there has the patience and diligence to do so. In fact, I know someone will. But stop repeating yourself, you sound like a parrot, and are continuously losing credibility. We're looking for RS, and we'll find it. Until then, keep quiet and busy yourself with other topics.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.12.74.67 (talk) 09:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
CarolMooreDC, if you look at the top of this page it says..."This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Libertarianism article." What I wrote was a recommendation on how this article should be improved. This article does not present a modern or mainstream perspective on Libertarianism. It presents a very marginal and outdated perspective. The CATO institute, which is the fifth most influential think tank in the world, holds more weight than you do on what modern Libertarianism is. Yet, this article is solely a reflection of your perspective...which you justify by citing dozens of sources that hold no weight in modern Libertarianism. When confronted with the fact you either say "Soapbox" or "Reliable Sources". --97.93.109.174 (talk) 20:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I have no idea what sort of personality politics are at work here. But, User:71.12.74.67 certainly loses a lot of credibility with their overuse of capitalisation (shouting), their use of argumentum ad hominem and their failure to identify themselves with a Wikipaedia nickname. User:71.12.74.67, please feel free to change the channel if you don't like what someone has to say.BlueRobe (talk) 10:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks BlueRobe! Note also that dozens of editors who have a great variety of views on libertarianism have worked on this article - even since I did a major revision last fall. A number also have taken the same position as I do that WP:RS show a wide variety of views on what libertarianism is. However, most of them have allowed themselves to be shouted down. Also, last fall when some leftists put in refs saying libertarianism means anti-capitalism worldwide I was the one who put in the existing references saying that free market libertarianism is better known. I'm looking for your contribution with such Reliable resources, as opposed to merely your opinions. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
What Libertarianism is and what Libertarianism was are two completely different things. Wikipedia, of all Encyclopedias, should reflect that modern Libertarianism only wants to minimize the state...not eliminate it. Rothbard was nuts for using Libertarianism and Anarchism interchangeably. "What anarchism proposes to do, then, is to abolish the state, that is, to abolish the regularized institution of aggressive coercion." The natural consequence would be tribalism...which you are unable to differentiate from Libertarianism. All because Rothbard thought it was a good idea to use Libertarianism and Anarchism interchangeably. His extremist way of thinking is now defined as Anarcho capitalism which falls under Anarchism...not Libertarianism. Please stop spamming this page with your references which have no weight or relevance to modern Libertarianism. Those references belong on the Anarcho capitalism page where Rothbard's name comes up 91 times. --97.93.109.174 (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
@97.93.109.174 "All because Rothbard thought it was a good idea to use Libertarianism and Anarchism interchangeably" i have read Rothbard, and found several examples of him saying the opposite. Rothbard's views on anarchist can be summed up here: "all of the current anarchists are irrational collectivists, and therefore at opposite poles from our position. We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical." Darkstar1st (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
He wrote your quote in the mid 50s but wrote my quote in the mid 70s. Incidentally, he never published the work that you're quoting. Whether he considered himself an anarchist or libertarian...the fact is he seemed pretty consistent in wanting to completely get rid of the state...which we now define as Anarcho capitalism. --97.93.109.174 (talk) 21:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
The libertarianism sources agree with CarolMooreDC: What is said is that some people interpret libertarianism as best being fulfilled through a minimal state (be it national or local) and others think it is best fulfilled through no state, or some voluntary association others might define as no state.N6n (talk) 07:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I find it difficult to conceive of a Libertarian community that has no State apparatus. While there is substantial debate over the form that a Libertarian community would take (see this talk page for many examples), there are some features that all Libertarian communities would enjoy: the enforcement of private property rights and obligations, and the enforcement of criminal laws that embody the Harm Principle. These features necessarily require, at the very least, a minimalist State apparatus.BlueRobe (talk) 12:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

"Left-libertarianism is rooted in nineteenth century socialism. Left-libertarians believe in protecting the freedom of action of individuals from interference by state or other actors but are against unfettered individual ownership of natural resources and the means of production. Right-libertarianism Right-libertarianism is rooted in nineteenth century classical liberalism and right-libertarians believe liberty and property ownership are inviolable natural rights." Does this belong in the "forms" section if at all? This page read like a collection of philosophy, rather than a single focused article. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Libertarianism just means being in favor of liberty. I think it is best to delete this article. Then use that "libertarianism(disambiguation)" page to make new articles for each philosophy that is a libertarian philosophy. It makes no sense to have "history" of libertarianism, and so on, when you're talking about many different kinds of libertarianism at once. It is not a single philosophy that can be talked about like that. Seven days seven nights (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Since there is a body of literature discussing libertarianism, there is justification for this article. I question though the statement that left-libertarianism developed from socialism, which seems to contradict the sources that both types developed from 19th century classical liberalism. This is explained in among other sources The encyclopedia of libertarianism.[2] TFD (talk) 21:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Seven days seven nights, I agree. Nearly everything said in this article is also said in the main pages of the other articles on Libertarianism. It's a major case of Department of Redundancy Department. Additionally, this article is completely biased towards Anarchism...which has no connection or relevance to modern Libertarianism. --97.93.109.174 (talk) 21:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Ideally the lead should be something like this: Libertarianism is the view that each man is the absolute owner of his life, to use and dispose of as he sees fit: that all man's social actions should be voluntary, and that respect for every other man's similar and equal ownership of life and, by extension, the property and fruits of that life, is the ethical basis of a humane and open society. In this view, the only — repeat, only — function of law or government is to provide the sort of self-defense against violence that an individual, if he were powerful enough, would provide for himself. (Karl Hess)[3] (I agree with this definition.) Please try to find the common idea between all the philosophies which call themselves 'libertarianism'. N6n (talk) 06:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Karl Hess's article is a primary source and not an academic article and therefore not acceptable as a source. TFD (talk) 13:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I personally don't like left-right terminology in the lead, but some terminology should be in the lead to explain the variety. After the Merriam definition, here is the kind of description that is needed, from an academic source A Companion to American Thought p. 401: It is Libertarianism defies tidy analysis...It remains in fact obscure where the boundaries lie that distinquish libertarian thought from its near competitors. Among contemporary libertarians we find both "anarcho-capitalists" and libertarian socialists, ardent secularists and Christian fundamentalists." Hess' quote is cherry picked and does not reflect fact he identified very much with libertarian socialists, a problem with primary sources unless supporting what third party has to say. Hess even commissioned me to write a topic on the links between green social libertarians and free market libertarians in the mid 1980s :-) And I wrote an intro to a later edition of Community Technology on that subject. (Gosh, does that make me WP:RS in that intro?) CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Evolution of the article

[note: the below comments were sparked by a rant that has been removed, per WP:RBI] BigK HeX (talk) 16:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Going back to the (poorly sourced) version where I first edited in 2007, I notice that there is a link to an article called Libertarian movement in the United States. Why don't those who complain about this one that deals (very imperfectly after many deletions of last 6 months) with the larger movement go rock out on that one? I'll let US libertarian socialists deal with it if they don't like it. Some historical info in here probably more appropriate there anyway.

Note that I'm one of few editors who have tried to balance constant re-editing from either "left" or "right" wing editors to try to keep it NPOV. Many of the major changes initiated by them over the last three years have been finessed by me until I did a major (imperfect) rewrite based on long discussions last fall that sat there happily for a couple months.

The offending sockpuppet hasn't figured out what my POV really is, which means my slips not really showing :-) A conflict of interest would be if I was representing some organization or person which I'm not. One can have a POV, as long as one attempts to edit in an NPOV fashion. Of course, I've barely edited at all the last few months. Going on vacation in a couple days so except for a little changes I may make in next couple days, still putting off doing some major cleanups with truly WP:RS balanced sources. 16:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC) Later Signing of my comments: CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

As I've said before, the article, like every article in Wikipedia, should be about a single concept (described in an NPOV manner), not about the word that happens to be the title and all the concepts associated with that word. As long as this article remains the latter, this article will be a mess.
Every form of libertarianism needs to be covered independently in separate articles, and this article either needs to be a dab page, or it needs to be about ONE of the topics referred to as "libertarianism". --Born2cycle (talk) 21:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
The trouble is that there is no single concept beyond "it is support for liberty". Check the discussion in the previous thread. Making this a dab page will reduce much headache for the editors (all over the spectrum), but since this is a word defined in dictionaries and encyclopedias, WP too ought to have an article on it. I think the article in the current state is fine. N6n (talk) 03:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. Other encyclopedias pick ONE meaning of libertarianism, and their article is about that meaning of libertarianism. They don't try to describe all meanings of libertarianism in the same article, no more than we try to cover both orange (fruit) and orange (colour) in the same article just because the two concepts share the same name (thus orange is a dab page). Dictionaries on the other hand do provide all meanings in one entry, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Like Orange, Libertarianism should be a dab page, for the same reasons, OR like Republic, the main article should be about the primary topic, and other meanings covered in separate articles, listed in a dab page like Republic (disambiguation). But this idea of having one article cover all the meanings of one term is not only non-encyclopedic and a violation of WP:NAD, it's a mess. The meanings, particularly between the popular American use of the term and the libertarian socialism use, are about as different as are the color and fruit orange. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
The comparison with orange is not valid. There is already a disambiguation page which differentiates between libertarianism (metaphysics) and libertarianism (political theory). This page is the latter. It is a mess all right, but because it can't be better (ideologically). Also, as TFD said: Hayek and Keynes were liberals, Tony Blair and Pol Pot were socialists and Lord North and the Tea Party were conservatives. (in section "Lets remove ...")
Difference between Anarchism and Libertarianism...? None, according to one source: "For a century, anarchists have used the word 'libertarian' as a synonym for 'anarchist', both as a noun and an adjective." Colin Ward, Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, 2004, p. 62. N6n (talk) 03:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's Remove Anarcho-capitalism

According to Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism, Rothbard came up with AnCap by combining the free market principles of Classical Liberalism with the anti-state principles embraced by Anarchism. When Rockwell was asked if he was an anarchist his response was...

The term anarchist is mostly used to mean someone who believes that if the state and law are gotten rid of, all property would become collectively owned. It was the great insight of Murray Rothbard that this is not the case: private ownership and the law that support it are natural, while the state is artificial. So he was an anarchist in this sense but to avoid confusion he used the term anarcho-capitalist. This doesn't mean that he favored somehow establishing a capitalist system in place of the state. What he said is that capitalism is the de facto result in a civilized society without a state. Has this position made advances? Yes, but not so many that we can use the term anarchism without causing confusion. If the purpose of words is to communicate, I'm not sure that the term does that well.

If the purpose of words is to communicate...given that there is a word that accurately communicates Rothbard's position...Anarcho Capitalism...why confuse the issue by calling it a form of Libertarianism?

A few of you might be under the impression that Libertarianism had its roots in Anarchism even before Rothbard came on the scene. Interestingly enough, the best evidence against that idea comes from the Anarchists themselves...Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy...

Libertarianism is not anarchism, but actually a form of liberalism. [...] This explicit rejection of anarchism is evidence of the basic liberalist ideology that Libertarians hold dear.

Of course by liberalism I hope we all realize that the author is referring to Classical Liberalism. Even though there are different Libertarian factions...what ties us all together?

There are Libertarians who emphasize lifestyle issues and civil liberties (an amplification of John Stuart Mill's On Liberty). They want the state out of their "private" lives, e.g., in drug use and sexual activity. Others are chiefly concerned with economics. They champion laissez-faire/``free-market/ neoclassical economics, and fault the state for corrupting ``natural capitalism. Although both groups despise the state intensely, neither wants to completely do away with it.

So how does Rothbard fit into the Libertarian picture?

Lastly to be addressed is the apparent anomaly of Murray Rothbard. Within Libertarianism, Rothbard represents a minority perspective that actually argues for the total elimination of the state.

Anarcho-Capitalism clearly does not fall under Libertarianism any more than modern Liberalism does. Libertarianism is the modern continuation of Classical Liberalism while modern Liberalism and Anarcho-Capitalism are side-shoots of Classical Liberalism. In order to maximize communication and minimize confusion...each branch has its own name and its own page. Therefore, Anarcho Capitalism should not be included on a page on Libertarianism. At most it should be listed as a bullet point in the See Also section. With that logic in mind it stands to reason that the section on Libertarianism and Anarchism should be removed as well. --97.93.109.174 (talk) 23:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism shows anarcho-capitalism and minarchism as a result of a division in libertarianism. Modern libertarianism btw is not "the modern continuation of Classical Liberalism", but part of a classical liberal revival. TFD (talk) 00:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
remove the article suffers from a lack of identity. lets define the term as it is understood by the most people today. Darkstar1st (talk) 01:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
TDF, just because Rothbard sometimes called himself a Libertarian does not mean that his hybrid concept necessarily constituted a division in libertarianism...any more than it constituted a division in Anarchism. No doubt some of his Anarcho-Capitalist ideas fall in line with Libertarian ideas but then again so do some modern Liberal ideas. Yet we certainly wouldn't call modern Liberalism a form of Libertarianism.
In either case though...given that every "form" already has its own dedicated article...this article should be dedicated to the aspects of Libertarianism that represent a "classical liberal revival". As far as I can tell...only you and CarolMooreDC continue to insist that this article present every topic even remotely connected to Libertarianism. The result is a total mess. When somebody searches for Libertarianism it should take them to the disambiguation page where they can decide for themselves whether they want to read about modern Libertarianism or read about the other "forms". --97.93.109.174 (talk) 01:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Libertarianism means many things. Check CarolMooreDC's comment on "Support for removing left/right libertarian ...". You can't just pick the ones you like.
I think (i)the article should stay, and it should (ii)mention everything that defines 'libertarianism'. And as Carol's comment, and the discussion on this page shows, it is not possible to do so without mentioning all the different ones. Hence there is no justification for removing Anarcho-capitalism. N6n (talk) 03:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
[Irrelevant comment:] "the modern continuation of Classical Liberalism" resulted into this: [F]ormer U.S. Senator Joseph S. Clark, Jr., when he was Mayor of Philadelphia, described the modern "liberal" position very frankly in these words: To lay a ghost at the outset and to dismiss semantics, a liberal is here defined as one who believes in utilizing the full force of government for the advancement of social, political, and economic justice at the municipal, state, national, and international levels.... A liberal believes government is a proper tool to use in the development of a society which attempts to carry Christian principles of conduct into practical effect. (Atlantic, July 1953, p. 27) From the Preface (written by Bettina Bien Greaves, 1985) in Liberalism: In the Classical Tradition by Ludwig von Mises. As TFD said, libertarianism is classical liberal revival.N6n (talk) 03:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for hanging in there, N6n and I support your comments of 03:13, 28 July 2010 CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Libertarianism means many things. So each of those things should be covered in a separate article, not all covered in the one same article. The one article entitled Libertarianism should be either about the one topic that is determined by consensus to be the primary topic for the term, OR it should be a dab page. Pick one - but having one article about all the many things that libertarianism means is as ridiculous as having one article about all the many things that orange means, or one article about the many meanings of republic. Although the meanings are related, they are much more different than have elements in common. So covering them in the same article is violation of WP:NAD, and is broken. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Libertarianism does not mean many things but has many interpretations. In that sense it is no different from liberalism, conservatism and socialism, all of which include a wide range of beliefs that at first sight seem totally different. But each branch is entitled to its own article. TFD (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay, it's one thing to interpret libertarianism differently with respect to the question of whether some minimal government is needed to define and preserve liberty, or whether even the minimal amount of government is contrary to liberty (those are variations of the same meaning). But the "interpretations" of libertarianism that differ on something so fundamental as whether private property is essential to liberty, or a hindrance to it, are actually fundamentally different meanings. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Upon further reflection I still think that libertarianism that allows for minimal government and that which is anarchistic are also such different interpretations that they too ultimately amount to fundamentally different meanings. Don't you think that when someone says, "I'm a libertarian", she means one or the other, not some generalized meaning that encompasses both minarchism and anarcho-capitalism (much less libertarian socialism as well)? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

<Backdent>When someone says they're a libertarian, the other person will intepret that to mean whatever THEY think a libertarian is until further discussion reveals there differences. As ser:The Four Deuces|TFD said there are many interpretations and all of those with WP:RS should be mentioned briefly here, directing to relevant articles where they exist. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It depends on the type of private property. Obviously depriving someone of property without due process is contrary to libertarian principles. Liberals for example have often attacked feudal property rights and abolished human slavery. I agree though that libertarianian socialism is a type of socialism, not libertarianism. However when someone says they are a conservative, liberal or socialist it is not always clear what they mean. Hayek and Keynes were liberals, Tony Blair and Pol Pot were socialists and Lord North and the Tea Party were conservatives. TFD (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Carol, while I agree with you that the other person will interpret libertarianism to mean whatever they think it is, that's no reason to discuss in any details each of those possible interpretations in one article, especially when they are so different. Doing so leads to the mess we have, and the endless complaints about the content. While I personally would like to see the minarchism article here at Libertarianism (because "minarchist" is exactly what I mean when I say I'm a "libertarian"), I suspect the only way to end all these debates is to make Libertarianism a dab page.
What I recommend in such a dab page is a structure similar to the following,

Libertarianism can refer to any one of several political philosophies in which some version of liberty is idealized:

...

That's about it, though longer summary descriptions of each might be appropriate. But all the rest of the detail in this article needs to be dispersed among the articles each devoted to one particular variation of libertarianism. 

--Born2cycle (talk) 23:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

This article really looks like it was written by a crazy person. I don't see any way to make a sane article when you have different views called "libertarian" that have no relation to each other. "Libertarianism" is just a word with no meaning other than being in favor of "liberty." We should treat it that way and just have a disambiguation page. Seven days seven nights (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, check out the Anarchism article. They seem to have managed to do it. There are widely divergent types of anarchism. Seven days seven nights (talk) 21:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The way to do it would be to have distinct sections for each view. Mixing them together in sections is what's making it look schizophrenic. Seven days seven nights (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC).

You are correct. When they were separated into anti and pro-property sections the article was far more coherent. See this January 1 version. Since people don't like that terminology, "left" and "right" could be used, with the caveat that a lot of "right" libertarians do NOT like to be labeled that way. (Including me!) I personally feel the free market views deserve about 2/3 of the content and that's why I spent a lot of time getting the refs that say it is the better known type of libertarianism. But the other has lots of refs too and enough to merit inclusion in this article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
The anti-property-rights view is so different to the pro-property-rights view that it really is a totally different topic. The two topics have virtually nothing in common and so both should not be covered on the same page. As to the anarchist/minarchist flavors of the pro-property-rights perspective, I can see how they are sufficiently related to be covered in the same article. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Can we make another article just for temporary purposes that is only for the purpose of making an outline? As in just headings, subheadings, etc? We need an overall organizational structure. Seven days seven nights (talk) 02:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Set up a subpage in your user space for that. If you try to do it in mainspace, it will probably be deleted.

Progress--The next step

Anarchism is still listed on the right side of the page. Anarch, from Greek meaning no leader right? OK, well, then that should be removed too. It seems that libertarians embrace the concept of "political leadership" like everybody else on the sane side of the mental fence. Anarchism, like communism simply does not work. Now, assuming the editors of this page are pro-libertarianism, what is the point in making ourselves look bad? The Republicans and the Democrats do it, hell, everybody does it. We define ourselves, don't we? Find some RS indicating this pro-libertarian position, and maybe we could really get a candidate in the White House---Libertarianism cannot evolve or take form unless it is represented by sane individuals. Anarchists are sophomoric and, frankly, insane. Just my opinion, but a consensus is, in essence, truth itself. By the way, could somebody find some RS indicating Thomas Jefferson as an (ideologically speaking) libertarian? We could throw that in the intro, and finding the RS shouldn't be too hard to do. I'd do it, but I'm working 9-5, and well, this is a collaborative effort.

Libertarians may or may not like to smoke pot, but we certainly don't want to shoot the president. We, also, follow the rules. We also make the rules. This is because we are libertarians. Find RS, find RS, find RS. You're going to find out that there is alot of spin on this subject. Its inevitably contentious. Socialism v. Libertarianism is the name of the game, and the struggle is endless. The best we can do it present our case in the most favorable light possible. Find RS. Use it. If you are not a libertarian, do not edit this page. John Galt, anyone? 74.223.28.94 (talk) 14:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

agree remove anarchism Darkstar1st (talk) 16:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
agree Leadership and rules (following and enforcing) are both useful in helping to distinguish Libertarianism from Anarchism.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
The one or two of you can agree with yourselves all you want but there are so many WP:RS showing libertarianism and anarchism related that the problem is sorting through them all. So fool around with article deleting stuff if you want, but not with my OK. In next couple weeks I'll throw in 15 hours and create one chock full of WP:RS it will take you months to disprove. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Certainly one of the variations of libertarianism is anarcho-capitalism. but the fact that both anarcho-capitalism and minarchism are both referred to as libertarianism is no reason to cover both topics in the same article. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
They aren't 'both referred to' as if it's coincidental. They are part of the same political movement and people organise and traverse between the two. For example, Ludwig von Mises Institute is predominantly anarchist, while the Reason Foundation is predominantly minarchist, but both contain both types of individuals, and are both described as 'libertarian' by reliable sources, as would all of their academics and associates.
As such, the article should address the two concepts both as integral parts of the libertarian philosophy or movement, as reliable sources will support. The content should be such that it describes the philosophical underpinning of both systems and their connections. It should, however, pay particular adherence to WP:UNDUE when describing where the two part (eg in describing history, major organisations and individuals, etc). The latter point is an important departure from the current practice, which relegates the overwhelmingly most prominent form of libertarianism (minarchism) to virtually a footnote in a long explanation of more obscure forms. Bastin 02:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Bastin's suggestion is quite sensible. I propose that Bastin write such a section. (Paraphrasing March Hare; I vote the young lady(Alice) tells us a story.)
However, do other long-timers agree? Only they would be here to defend the article when the next batch of anarchists/non-anarchists/anti-anarchists come. N6n (talk) 04:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Fred: So what's your political ideology?
Sally: I'm a Libertarian
Fred: Oh, so you support a smaller government
Sally: No, I support getting rid of government
Fred: Eh, isn't that Anarchism?
Sally: Not really, because I also support capitalism
Fred: Wait, isn't that called Anarcho-Capitalism?
Sally: Yes it is
Fred: Why didn't you just say that in the first place?
Sally: I dunno, guess I thought it would be fun to waste your time
Fred: *unfriends sally on facebook*
Bastin, right now the article on Anarcho-Capitalism very effectively communicates their ideology. Wouldn't it be reasonable for this article to effectively communicate the modern Libertarianism ideology? Then if you wanted you could create an article on Libertarianism and Anarcho-Capitalism much in the same way that there is an article on Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. --97.93.109.174 (talk) 10:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

un-friend all horses with stripes are zebras, all zebras are not horses. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought

(Please read carefully)

What are the legitimate functions of government? Libertarianism, a twentieth-century political movement with adherents principally, though not entirely, in the United States and Britain, answers this fundamental question of political theory in a radical way. More accurately, there are two main branches of libertarianism and each has a radical answer to the query. One group, the anarchists (see ANARCHISM), holds that all government is illegitimate. The other group, generally called minarchists, maintains that government may appropriately engage in police protection, enforcement of contracts, and national defence, but that is all. Included under the first two of these legitimate functions of government is a system of civil and criminal courts. Definitely not included, according to most minarchists, is the power to tax, even to secure money for the functions just mentioned. The anarchists think that this 'nightwatchman state' is too extensive; they believe that the government activities accepted by minarchists should be performed by private protection agencies. Few libertarian anarchists, however, take the further step of rejecting altogether the use of force, even in self-defence.

The question at once arises: why do libertarians endorse these views, so sharply at variance with most political theory? There are two principal reasons. First, libertarians hold an extremely strong doctrine of individual RIGHTS, particularly the right of individuals to acquire and hold PROPERTY. Their conception of property rights and freedom of contract excludes welfare rights, since claims to these rights require, in the libertarian view, compulsory labour of some on behalf of others. Second, libertarians believe that the operation of an unrestricted system of laissez-faire capitalism is the most desirable social system. People unfettered by state compulsion would be likely to establish this sort of economic system, and it is all for the best that they do so.

This view of economics has been urged in a large number of books and articles by the movement's most active intellectual advocate since the second world war, the American economist Murray N. Rothbard. A student and disciple of the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises, Rothbard combined the laissez-faire economics of his teacher with the absolutist views of human rights and rejection of the state he had absorbed from studying the individualist American anarchists of the nineteenth century such as Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker. (Rothbard himself is on the anarchist wing of the movement.) Both by his writings and by personal influence, Rothbard is the principal founder of modern libertarianism.
...
The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought [Entry: Libertarianism]
Edited by David Miller, Advisory Editors: Janet Coleman, William Connolly, Alan Ryan; Blackwell Publishers, Oxford(UK), Massachusetts(USA).
1987, Revised: 1991. Reprint: 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 2000; ISBN 0-631-14011-5 ISBN 0-631-17944-5 (pbk)

---

People who have nothing to add other than "I don't like this", "I want this" and "I can't see how it will work" should please shut up. N6n (talk) 11:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention various refs that explicitly talk about a variety of left and right views being varieties of libertarianism. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
collection of quotes highlighting User:N6n's point
"To conceptually overlap libertarianim and anarchism is an academic act of treason."; "Regardless of citations, Libertarianism as a subject should not be even remotely associated with anarchism."; "a heinous academic sin"; "Ever seen XXx the movie? Remember the "bad guy"? "Anarchy 99" right? OH YEAH. THANKS CAROL"; "We want to look good. We want to come as as not "extreme". We want Ron Paul to sound more credible"; etc. User:Ddd1600
"Great, so libertarian-anarchist is an oxymoron, i start the process for removing anarchist from this article"; "it appears we are close to consensus. i suggest we remove the stanford encyclopedia as a source"; "i suggest this fringe author and his source be removed from this article"; "in india they say, "i want to live where even the poor people are fat"; "Libertarian is a term employed mostly by people in the libertarian party usa"; etc. And "agree" (in bold) again and again. User:Darkstar1st
"Libertarianism does not equal — or even include — anarchism. The assertions otherwise [is] perhaps the greatest flaw I've seen on Wikipedia in years of regular reading" User:72.79.130.164 "I am suggesting that we push to get the individuals responsible for this barred from editing on Wikipedia.... There is no point in arguing with them about libertarianism not equally anarchy, because this is not a subject of reasonable debate. How do we get them barred?"; User:71.161.243.67 "It's a good idea (to win with persuasive ideas), but, unfortunately, it won't work here. Rather, they know crystal clear that what they are doing is totally bogus." User:71.161.243.67 "CAROL, GO AWAY.... YOUR ARE A TREMENDOUS ROADBLOCK TO PROGRESS.... GO AWAY. FOR GOD SAKES, LEAVE US ALONE. YOU ARE THE PROBLEM HERE. YOU. SPECIFICALLY YOU"; "you are, plainly, the devil.... We're looking for RS, and we'll find it. Until then, keep quiet and busy yourself with other topics"; User:71.12.74.67 "Anarchism, like communism simply does not work."; "Anarchists are sophomoric and, frankly, insane."; "Just my opinion, but a consensus is, in essence, truth itself."; etc. User:74.223.28.94
"Sheesh...if we were any good at collective action the anarchists wouldn't be peeing all over our page."; " Anarchism...murder, mayham, rape, pillage, plunder, etc."; "Please face the music and acknowledge that you are an Anarchist...plain and simple. Do us all a favor and focus your energies on editing the page on Anarchism."; "I'm one step away from reporting CarolMooreDC for vandalizing this page."; "I didn't even make it past the first couple sentences because I was so pissed off that the article strongly connected Libertarianism and Anarchism"; "this article is solely a reflection of your perspective"; "Let's Remove Anarcho-capitalism"; etc. User:97.93.109.174
All this is from this--unarchived-- page. (btw, I hope I will never have to read through such junk again.) N6n (talk) 03:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I thought these guys went crazy and just added all this junk AGAIN and almost did a WP:ANI. Probably needs a box around it just to make it perfectly clear to fast and sloppy readers that you are quoting their nonsense. Oi! CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I see that since my message directly above there has been a bunch more personal attacks, which others have reverted, including on my main user page. The problem is there is so much evidence to put forth of Personal Attacks (aggravated by excessive WP:Soapboxing) and so many warnings to one editor and two (or 3 or more?) Anon IPs that it's a lot of work to put together the WP:ANI. FYI, in general Admins don't like to block AnonIPs in case they are used by more than one editor. But they will do with enough nonsense, like that going on lately. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


Does Libertarianism have ANYTHING to do with Socialism, logically/ideologically? Seriously.

This lowly editor thinks not. There is a perennial dispute on the table here. Egoistic vs. Non-Egoistic concerns, viz. Self vs. Non-Self concerns. Individual v. Social concerns. Libertarianism is a celebration of the ego isn't it? And by "ego" I mean self. From the self comes liberty. From the ego comes identity, etcetera etcetera. Socialism? That seems to me to be all about the NON-EGO. Freedom itself is derived from man. I know we're just a lowly democratic encyclopedia, and are prohibited from doing Original Research, but seriously guys, WAKE UP. Are Libertarians socialists? Isn't that like, the diametric opposite of libertarianism? I, for one, am not a big fan of submitting to the needs of the state or "the people". From socialism, I see, comes anarchism, viz. the propagation of herding behavior amongst humans. Viz., the abdication of a centralized authority. If there is no centralized authority, who controls the state of things? A dictator, that's who. Take North Korea for example. Or the former USSR, or Nazi Germany. All of these states are self-proclaimed socialists. Are libertarians socialists? I think not (Thomas Jefferson). Again, guys/girls, I'm just making an appeal to LOGIC, not AUTHORITY. This particular Wikipedia article rides a fence. Thoughts? Please do not remove this writing. I will re-establish it. I am simply trying to create a dialogue. Does libertarianism have ANYTHING to do with socialism? Because socialism, it seems, begs for anarchy---and anarchy, as it were, is a pre-requisite for dictatorship. Libertarians are the opposite of dictators, we are individuals...socialists are non-individuals, ideologically speaking. There is a tremendous amount of confusion, and out of this confusion comes intrepid leaders. I am an "Anarch", but I do not believe in Anarchy. Does that make any sense? If the majority disagrees with me, so be it. But do not delete this post. I would like to hear some thoughts. Carol, don't even think about it. Are we advocates of logic/truth or opinion?Ddd1600 (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

RS RS RS RS RS 71.12.74.67 (talk) 21:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
libertarian is not socialist property rights and redistribution of property occupy opposite ends of the spectrum. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Libertarianism is based on Classical Liberalism...it has nothing to do with socialism. Classical Liberalism advocates capitalism, minimal government, private property and individual liberties. Therefore the section on Libertarian socialism should be removed.

--Xerographica (talk) 01:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Speak or forever hold your peace. If anyone wishes to DIFFERENTIATE socialism from libertarianism go forth and do so. Again, I do not want to change things because I don't want it to look like I am trying to control them. I am all for disambiguation, but aside from that, the mainstream view should be the sole propagated formula. Guys, if we want freedom to be rampant, sounding like EXTREMISTS is a terrible idea. Get Real. Think like a Harvard guy--you're being judged as such already. Libertarians are "Republican financialists" and "Democratic socialists"---we are truly the ideal solution---but so long as we associate ourselves with retards we are nothing better than retards. Anarchists are retarded. Come on, you all know the truth. There is no such thing as non-structure. Come on. Let's try to make a better world. Find RS. RS RS RS.

71.12.74.67 (talk) 02:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The issue is this : in the arena of opinion, "socialism" and "liberalism" are sublime topics. They inevitably result in fantastic opinions and sublime, unrealistic discussions. Can rational discussion overcome this? No, to some extent, no. But to some extent, "yes". The extent is this : Logic. The Republican dialectic process is restrained to its principles, however, it can be revised, indeed, it is designed to be revisable.71.12.74.67 (talk) 10:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The "libertarian" in "libertarian socialism" is a synonym for "anarchism." So, "libertarian socialism" means "anarchist socialism." People who prefer to use the original meaning of "libertarianism" (which meant "anarchism" originally) use the term, and append "socialist" to it to make sure you know they're not anarchist individualists. Noam Chomsky for example. So "libertarian socialism" is only a type of "libertarianism" when "libertarianism" is taken to mean "anarchism." Seven days seven nights (talk) 11:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I suppose the question on the table is this: do we want to be rational or irrational? My answer is obvious, but I'll carry the discussion a little further: Libertarians ARE interested in the social situation of their environments, but are they interested in the social situation of their environments AS A WHOLE? That would be, a subject under the purview of "socialism" wouldn't it? Shepherds of commerce and discourse, do your worst, please.Ddd1600 (talk) 15:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


Another WP:IDONTLIKEIT soapbox? You people who think your preferred brand of libertarianism is The One True Form really need to get over this crap. BigK HeX (talk) 17:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

If I were a dictator I would be very interested in talking to you good sir. X=X? It is what it is? Please refrain from talking. Permenantly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.4.188 (talk) 00:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Note that excessive soapboxing like this whole thread is a violation of Wikipedia:Soapbox#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Some writers believe

when do we need to clarify that a source is actually what the writer believed? Why do some sentences require this caveat, while others do not? Darkstar1st (talk) 19:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Ayn Rand vs Anarchism

Ayn Rand hated Libertarianism for being associated with Anarchism. However, the only tenuous connection that Libertarianism had with Anarchism was Rothbard. Rothbard sometimes considered himself a Libertarian but in actuality he was an Anarcho-Capitalist. In 1989 Rothbard ended his involvement with Libertarianism which completely severed the only existing and very slim connection between Libertarianism and Anarchism.

While reading Libertarianism and Objectivism I ran across this great short article by Nathaniel Branden...Objectivism and Libertarianism. One helpful quote in the article is... "today libertarianism is part of our language and is commonly understood to mean the advocacy of minimal government".

Another helpful quote in the article is from the Talmud..."A hero is one who knows how to make a friend out of an enemy". Obviously I'm not a hero. But in real life I get along with a wide variety of people with views very different than my own. I've lived and worked in China and Afghanistan and numerous other places and am respectful of different people's ideologies.

Honestly though I've never met any Anarchists and I apologize if I acted harshly when I first saw this page. Now I will ask nicely...if you want to abolish the state then please respect our views and leave this page alone. It's nothing personal...if it was then I would be working on the Criticisms of anarcho-capitalism page. Thanks. --97.93.109.174 (talk) 23:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

These views are not reliable sources and are therefore irrelevant to the article. TFD (talk) 07:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Whose views on Libertarianism are not reliable sources? --Xerographica (talk) 12:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
174, Xerographica: An RS: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Libertarianism/Archive_16#The_Blackwell_Encyclopaedia_of_Political_Thought Produce WP:RS, and nothing else. N6n (talk) 09:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

undo weight, most of the 10 top sources have the word anarchy and or left-libertarian.

I suggest we replace the lede source with more npov. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments like that are unproductive. You must explain what is wrong with the lead and point to a source that could guide us. TFD (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I think there are problems with the new lead but have been annoyed by dealing with all the aggressive soapboxing and personal attacks to detail issues or deal with them. I'd like to suggest that we archive most of the existing sections which are filled with soapbox, including by at least one SockPuppet and various anonIps who can no longer edit because the article is protected. Then we can focus on real issues which right now are very difficult to identify among all the blather. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
" liberty, understood as non-interference, is the only thing that can be legitimately demanded of others as a matter of legal or political right; that robust property rights and the economic liberty that follows from their consistent recognition are of central importance in respecting individual liberty; that social order is not at odds with but develops out of individual liberty; that the only proper use of coercion is defensive or to rectify an error; that governments are bound by essentially the same moral principles as individuals; and that most existing and historical governments have acted improperly insofar as they have utilized coercion for plunder, aggression, redistribution, and other purposes beyond the protection of individual liberty. States may legitimately provide police, courts, and a military, but nothing more. Any further activity on the part of the state—regulating or prohibiting the sale or use of drugs, conscripting individuals for military service, providing taxpayer-funded support to the poor, or even building public roads—is itself rights-violating and hence illegitimate. Libertarian advocates of a strictly minimal state are to be distinguished from two closely related groups, who favor a smaller or greater role for government, and who may or may not also label themselves “libertarian.” On one hand are so-called anarcho-capitalists who believe that even the minimal state is too large, and that a proper respect for individual rights requires the abolition of government altogether and the provision of protective services by private markets. On the other hand are those who generally identify themselves as classical liberals. Members of this group tend to share libertarians’ confidence in free markets and skepticism over government power, but are more willing to allow greater room for coercive activity on the part of the state so as to allow, say, state provision of public goods or even limited tax-funded welfare transfers." http://www.iep.utm.edu/libertar/
@tfd, apologies for the ill-worded unproductive 1st attempt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkstar1st (talk • contribs) 02:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Welp ... should I bother pointing out that your second attempt isn't much better? Put together a coherent objection, based on reliable sources, and only then can you expect your comments on this page to receive much consideration. BigK HeX (talk) 03:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
http://www.iep.utm.edu/libertar/ is not a wprs? my objection is the undo weight given anarchy and left-libertarian in the lede sources. Darkstar1st (talk) 03:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Telling us your opinion on the "undo" weight and then highlighting parts of a source in a way that is certainly not clear is not the way to make a (policy-based) point. You can't just make a complaint, post an a wall of text from a source that hardly corroborates the complaint, and expect that people will view it as a respectable objection. BigK HeX (talk) 03:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me to be good taxonomic practice to emphasize the similarities of right and left libertarianism (anti-statism/ self-government notions) and then discuss their differences. That said I guess I will offer an opinion-- these differences are primarily about conventions on property, which as far as I can tell does not involve a rejection of the morality of keeping what you mix your labor with (earn) but an argument of whether you believe the 'right of the first' supercedes 'squatters rights' ;) ). Historically, it seems more like the history of right-libertarianism is tied to classical liberal thinkers which opposed left-libertarianism. Perhaps modern politics makes both camps seem more similar than different? or more likely just historically coincidence. It would be useful if the OED could track down the first use of 'libertarian' as a pro-capitalist position. Mrdthree (talk) 04:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually classical liberals were critical of private property derived from feudalism and Locke's theory of real property delegitimizes most real property ownership. I own a condominium in Barbados, but the land is owned by the Crown and is leased for 1,000 years, and I am not allowed to buy it. Is that contrary to libertarian principles? TFD (talk) 05:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I am not an expert but if I were to search for a principled answer to the question of the 1000 year lease by the crown, I think both classical liberals and left-libertarians would say the French Revolution is instructive? Mrdthree (talk) 12:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
so unless anyone objects, i will begin adding parts of the wp:rs iep article into the lede. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
The French Revolution is not helpful. Anyway in the event the country becomes a republic, then the title will be held by the people, rather than by the Crown in trust for the people, so it is the same thing. How would a society where only leadhold property was available differ from a society where freehold property was available? TFD (talk)

Darkstar, I re-added your IEP bit about the libertarian government functions, but I'm not seeing it stated the way you stated it in the source. Can you quote the part you're using for that citation? —Torchiest talk/contribs 18:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Your edit is far better, though, in its present form, it seems a bit redundant. Your wording attributes an elaboration on "minarchism," however the basic idea of minarchism is already mentioned in the lead. Also, minarchism has it's own portion of the article under Libertarianism#Minarchism.
(Note: I do not believe Darkstar1st's edit to have been a faithful reflection of the source.) BigK HeX (talk) 19:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I tweaked it a little to address that problem. —Torchiest talk/contribs 19:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Heh... I actually think your first version was more readable. Adding the IEP stuff into that already-complex sentence seems to have made it a bit too unwieldy, IMHO. Anyways, the IEP statement you have written seems to cover the information in Libertarianism#Minarchism, so I'm not really sure that we need any of the additional text. We could just hold onto just the ref and tack it onto the existing text in the Minarchism subsection of the article. Just a thought... BigK HeX (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
That's fine with me. It was mainly trying to get the information into more context-appropriate location, but yes, it is a complicated sentence. I'm fine with more modifications. —Torchiest talk/contribs 19:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Another weight issue in the lead

I actually don't think it's appropriate to have the phrase "some writers believe most libertarians share an opposition to equality, solidarity, and social responsibility" in the second sentence of the article. It gives far too much weight to a negative and critical POV. It would be like the liberalism article saying "some writers believe most liberals are godless homosexuals" or the conservatism article saying "some writers believe most conservatives are ignorant hillbillies". The article should lead saying all the things that libertarianism IS, then later on mention some of the potentially negative opinions, along with possible libertarian thinkers' responses. —Torchiest talk/contribs 01:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Imagine if the liberalism article said some liberals are for same-sex marriage while others liberals are against it...or what if the conservatism article said that some conservatives are for abortion while others conservatives are against it. Now notice in the lead of this article where it says that some Libertarians are for capitalism while others are against it. You can't just say "libertarian" you need to specify which "libertarians" you are referring to. --Xerographica (talk) 02:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
How ironic. I think that phrase was originally inserted into the article as a point of "libertarian pride" to be viewed in a positive light. I'll move it, though it wasn't reading smoothly in it's original placement. BigK HeX (talk) 02:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
@BigK HeX I think the social responsibility part is probably correct. The solidarity part doesn't mean a whole lot. The really troubling part is equality. It's much too vague, and open to interpretation, since there are many forms of equality, and libertarians do support some forms of it, such as equality before the law. —Torchiest talk/contribs 12:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
@Xerographica You may be right, although I think the body of the article clears that all up. —Torchiest talk/contribs 12:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Why do we keep drifting to epistemology on this page? I can easily 'imagine' a person calling himself 'liberal' opposing same-sex marriage, for tens of reasons. But all this is besides the point. Do the Sources say so, or do they not, period. N6n (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
When somebody says that they are "liberal" or "conservative" I know exactly what they are talking about. On TV or on the radio when somebody uses the term "Libertarianism" I know exactly what they are talking about. On this page however, when somebody says just "Libertarianism" I have no idea if they are talking about "mainstream" Libertarianism, Left Libertarianism, Libertarian Socialism, Social Anarchism, Anarcho-Capitalism, or just plain Anarchism. Sources? Each "form" has its own supporting sources...we're all right and we're all wrong. Libertarianism is against capitalism...true AND false...depending on which sources you are citing. If we're all right and we're all wrong then we'll be stuck in endless conflict unless we give each version its own main page and let the disambiguation page help people decide which "version" that they want to read about. As it stands, each "version" already has its own main page except for "mainstream" Libertarianism. --Xerographica (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation, if all of the vatiants are covered here, why are they also covered in the "libertarianism" page?

  • Civil libertarianism, stance on civil liberties and civil rights.
  • Geolibertarianism, a libertarian political ideology that proposes exclusive taxation on "natural monopolies" like land and other natural resources.
  • Right libertarianism, a term sometimes used to describe non-collectivist and pro-private property political ideologies.
  • Left libertarianism, a term used by both libertarian socialists and a minority of free-market anarchists to describe their political philosophies.
  • Libertarian socialism is a group of political philosophies which aspire to create a non-hierarchical society without private ownership of the means of production or an authoritarian state.
  • Libertarianism (metaphysics), philosophical position supporting free will against determinism.

Related articles

  • Agorism, a free market anarchist political philosophy.
  • Anarchism, an anti-state philosophy for which some use the term "libertarianism" synonymously.
  • Minarchism, also known as limited-government libertarianism or minimal statism. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I guess it was added when some people were proposing deletion of the main article. However, let me propose that we tackle this page first. Also, it would have been helpful if you simply gave a summary of the disambiguation page, instead of reproducing it here. N6n (talk) 14:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
understood, please provide an example of an appropriate summary of the disambiguation page.(the whole page looked like a summary to me) Darkstar1st (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
"Libertarianism (disambiguation) mentions all that is mentioned on Libertarianism" N6n (talk) 03:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Libertarianism/Archive_16&oldid=789397859"