Talk:Libertarianism/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

State (polity)/Sovereign state merge

If people have thoughts about this discussion that came up a couple weeks ago on these articles, perhaps they should opine. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Poll: Common ground

I would like to use a poll to help us establish where we have common ground, from which we hopefully can make some progress. I will list some points on which I believe we do have consensus, and ask everyone involved in the discussion whether you agree with all of them, or point out the ones you do not agree with. Thanks.

1. There are many uses of the term "libertarianism" in reliable sources with different meanings.
2. All uses of the term "libertarianism" in reliable sources that are relevant to this article refer to some sort of political philosophy or theory based on some conception of liberty.
3. One of the uses of the term "libertarianism" in reliable sources is a broad and loose meaning that encompasses all relevant uses of the term.
4. The topic of this article, in its current state, is "libertarianism" defined in this broad and loose manner.
5. More specific uses of the term, with various frequency in reliable sources, refer to political theories or philosophies also known as minarchism, classical liberalism, anarcho-capitalism, Left libertarianism, etc.
6. Well-written articles consistently use the same meaning of a term throughout the article (they do not use one meaning for the term in one part of the article, and another meaning in another part).
7. What is ultimately at issue in much of the debate on this talk page for many years has been and continues to be about whether the article at Libertarianism should be about this particular use of the term, with the broad and loose meaning, or whether the article would be improved if this topic scope was more limited to a more specific use of libertarianism, or maybe if it was a dab page.

Please indicate whether you agree with all of these points or only some (and if some, which ones you agree with, which you don't agree with, and why). Thanks! --Born2cycle (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Poll

Agree with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 (all) --Born2cycle (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 (all) Darkstar1st (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 --Xerographica (talk) 00:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• I can agree with: 2, 3, 4, and 6, at a minimum. If others detail their opinions (especially the policy-basis where relevant), I may find it worthwhile to do likewise. BigK HeX (talk) 01:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree all. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Seems pointless here due to the willingness of editors on this page to avoid discussing RS's but instead to relay their own WP:OR. However, per WP:POLL, make sure that everyone notes that "Policies, such as NPOV and article sourcing, can obviously not be overridden by straw polls." I think it'd be far more productive to limit the discussion here to the views in reliable sources, rather than to encourage more soapboxing editors to pontificate on their on preconceived personal opinions. But, best wishes to ya. Maybe this will help with progress. BigK HeX (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

One of the reasons for this poll is to hopefully help us get past some of these holdups.

Thanks for the reminder about polls not overriding policy.

Your cooperation by answering the poll would be appreciated. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm particularly interested in finding out if you agree with (6) and (7), an issue about which RS have little if anything to say, and must be determined solely by policy, guidelines and consensus. But knowing whether we have consensus on all 7 points is what I'm really after. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

not pointless, no one is arguing your sources, what could be purged has. rather, including chocolate ice cream with the same article as vanilla, both taste good, both are cold, both are ice cream, yet taste much different. wouldn't you be disappointed ordering ice cream as a child, only to receive vanilla? Darkstar1st (talk) 22:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Well would ya look at that ... the Ice cream article discusses both vanilla AND chocolate. Your example here is illogical, as usual. But, thanks for -- yet again -- putting your foot in your mouth and managing to help support my point. BigK HeX (talk) 22:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

ah, i see your point, ice cream has yet to receive the scrutiny it deserves. However, the disambiguation page is exactly what i meant.

• Ice Cream, a clothing brand from Billionaire Boys Club
• Ice Cream (film), 1986 Malayalam
• Ice Cream (mango), named mango cultivar originating in Trinidad and Tobago

• #7: Broad meaning (not a specific version of libertarianism, nor a disambiguation page). I think WP:NPOV easily applies here. We describe all prominent viewpoints of the political philosophy of libertarianism, because we should be "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable". We have numerous sources discussing broad viewpoints of libertarianism. Alternatively, even if this article were somehow written to solely discuss a single variant of libertarianism: 1) exactly which variant would that be, and 2) by what criteria is that determined, and 3) what reliable sources would back the limitation to this single viewpoint? Personally, I find the notion that we should censor from the Libertarianism article the viewpoints of libertarianism found in reliable sources, because there might be one viewpoint that has a larger prominence to be an absurd disregard for WP:NPOV. As for disambiguation, I find that notion nearly as unjustifiable, since there are clearly sources which discuss the philosophies such as minarchism, anarcho-capitalism, and left-libertarianism as variants of libertarianism. This type of discussion in RS's is wholly unlike the nonsensical example of disambiguation given regarding Orange (fruit) and Orange (color), where there are certainly no prominent reliable sources to describe those two things as being "two variations of a single concept." BigK HeX (talk) 20:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Libertarianism is a set of beliefs and various followers interpret it differently. This article should be about libertarianism and not promote a specific interpretation. Note also that classical liberalism is not libertarianism, although libertarians take inspiration from it. It is no different from other ideologies: socialism ranges from Tony Blair to Pol Pot and conservatism ranges from Ted Heath to Adolf Hitler. TFD (talk) 20:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Guys, when you use the term "libertarianism" in a statement, it would be very helpful if you were clear on which meaning of the various used (see points 4 and 5 in the poll) in reliable sources you are using in your statement. Frankly, I'm not sure which meaning to use to interpret your statements above.

And again, I wonder why you won't say clearly, one way or other, which of the 7 points in the poll you agree with, and if not all seven, explain which ones you disagree with and why. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to me? I don't see how there's any doubt as to what idea of "libertarianism" is suggested in my comment. Though I clearly posted my reference to "Broad libertarianism," to repeat: I find reliable sources to discuss "libertarianism" as being a broad set of philosophies that includes a fair number of variants that may conflict with each other on some details. BigK HeX (talk) 22:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, you refer to libertarianism as "the (implying one) political philosophy", but Four Deuces' intended meaning was even less clear. Anyway, with regard to the bulk of your previous comment, this section of the talk page is not intended for debating the pros and cons of changing the scope of this article; it's about trying to establish some common ground. Can you please cooperate and give a sign of good faith by participating in the poll? Thank you, again. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Ice cream and bicycles

To continue the ice cream tangent discussion above... The Ice cream article treats sherbet as something distinct from the ice cream that is the topic of that article (mentioned only in the history and other frozen desserts sections), but consider the following quote from a reliable source about ice cream:

"The distinction between sherbet, ice milk and ice cream blurs when they are homemade. The smoothest and riches sherbets are made with light cream, half and half, or whipping cream instead of milk."

It seems to me that a similar argument to the one being made here about why this article should be about the most general/broad meaning of libertarianism found in reliable sources is that the scope of the ice cream article must be about the most general/broad meaning of ice cream found in reliable sources, which means sherbet must be included.

A similar example is Bicycle. The editors of that article have chosen to limit the scope to pedal-driven, human-powered, single-track vehicles, even though there are reliable sources, including legal definitions, which use broader definitions that include (adult) tricycles (which are not single-track), for example. According to the argument made above, the editors of Bicycle are violating policy.

I'm sure there are other examples, these are right off the top of my head, but I suggest that the argument that the scope of any article named X needs to be about the broadest and most general meaning of X used in reliable sources is on very thin ice here. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

What other articles may or may not be doing wrong doesn't really seem relevant here. For this Libertarianism article, I think it'd be more useful to focus on what reliable sources have to say about libertarianism. If there is an RS viewpoint about libertarianism that editors would like removed from the article, then let's hear what policy-basis they have for their proposal. BigK HeX (talk) 02:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not several unrelated topics with a shared name, but a single concept with different strains. That is how it is treated in reliable sources, e. g. , The encyclopedia of libertarianism[1] and that is how we should treat it here. TFD (talk) 02:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

@tfd agree, Maximum freedom plus minimum government equals libertarianism: an oversimplification, but not by much. so not anarchy, not redistribution, not anti-property, not welfare state, but simple libertarian, or not by much. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Obviously logic alone shows anarchy, "anti-property", etc to be mutually exclusive from "maximum freedom and minimum government". Obviously. /sarcasm BigK HeX (talk) 05:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

carol has many wp:rs saying some libertarians are anarchist, and anti-property was in the lede when i started editing in april. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

While Darkstar1st is correct that maximum freedom plus minimum government equals libertarianism, this may mean different things to different libertarians. There are disputes over what property may be converted from common to private ownership. The welfare state was justified by liberals on the basis of personal freedom, not equality. As for anarchism, libertarians support minimal government and would not keep any government if it were found that none of its functions were required. Also, some libertarians consider the military and the criminal justice system to be part of big government, while others see it as vital. TFD (talk) 06:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

BigK, with regard to what the scope of this article should be, you can't be seriously relying on policy (OR, NPOV, RS), which is supposed to apply to all articles, on the one hand, and arguing that what other articles do is not relevant here.

Your interpretation of policy as guidance with regard to article scope is novel, and, so far as I know, has no precedence. You must either stop citing policy as a reason to include anything and everything any reliable source says about "libertarianism", or start explaining why, despite the fact that, for example, the state of California defines a bicycle as "a device upon which any person may ride, propelled exclusively by human power through a belt, chain, or gears, and having one or more wheels" [*] (which includes tricycles), the bicycle article is limited in scope to those that are pedal-driven, human-powered, single-track vehicles (which excludes tricycles). I suggest you're better off with the former.

In any case, if you continue to try to have it both ways, you will only lose credibility (which is considerable right now, at least with me). --Born2cycle (talk) 15:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Errr ... wait. You've stated that somehow I want to "have it both ways" because I refer to policy, yet have disregarded the Bicycle example. So, let me clarify your comment a bit. Are you saying that there is no reservation for applying the standards of the Bicycle article to this page, based on the following logic:

A) policies are supposed to apply to all pages, so

B) policy "must have" been applied to the Bicycle article, and thus

C) the Bicycle article represents an acceptable policy-based approach, which leads us to the conclusion that

D) the approach used on the Bicycle article is an acceptable approach to use on this Libertarianism article.

Is that your logic here? BigK HeX (talk) 15:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Born2cycle, we must follow what is in reliable sources not our own personal definitions. TFD (talk) 16:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Four Deuces, there is no precedent for following what is in reliable sources when it comes to deciding what the subject of a given article is. You're getting it backwards. First we decide what the subject is, then we see what reliable sources say about that subject. What reliable sources say about a subject that is out of scope for the chosen subject of the article are irrelevant. We don't decide what the subject is based on what reliable sources say. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with that, as detailed above in my explanation of "#7 Broad". BigK HeX (talk) 16:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

BigK, you got the logic about right, except B) should be: "either policy was applied to the Bicycle article, or the Bicycle article is in violation of policy" and so C is: IF the Bicycle article represents an acceptable policy-based approach, THEN that leads us to the conclusion that...

Thus the logic hinges on whether the Bicycle article (and countless others like it) are in compliance with, or in violation of, policy. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Which is precisely my point. We do not automatically know if Bicycle is correct, so, I don't see how there's any objection to my comment that "What other articles may or may not be doing wrong doesn't really seem relevant here." Why worry about is happening in another article when we can't even assume that it's a good model to follow? That brings me right back to the point I made earlier, which is that "For this Libertarianism article, I think it'd be more useful to focus on what reliable sources have to say about libertarianism." BigK HeX (talk) 16:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Article scope

Born2cycle, we decide what to write about and then choose the most appropriate name. (See Wikipedia:Article titles.) This article for example is about libertarianism and the name "Libertarianism" was chosen. If you want to write about another topic, such as what you consider to be libertarianism, then you need to chose a different title, for example Right-libertarianism. Let us stop talking about ice cream and bicycles. TFD (talk) 16:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

BigK, I suggest everyone involved here agrees that we should "focus on what reliable sources have to say about libertarianism". The issue is about what "libertarianism" means in that sentence. The way you mean it, you are presupposing the most general/broad possible meaning of the term, and so you are suggesting that we focus on what RS say about that most general/broad possible meaning. That's putting the cart before the horse, and not what many others would mean when they agree that we should focus on what RS say about libertarianism.

If we don't automatically know if Bicycle is in compliance or in violation for limiting its scope to something narrower than what reliable sources say about what bicycle means, then can't automatically know if this article would be in compliance or in violation for limiting scope to something narrower than what reliable sources say about what "libertarianism" means. Yet you argue that we must follow RS in deciding article scope in order to be in compliance with policy. As far as I know, no other subject/scope for any other article in WP has every been decided like that. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I do argue that we follow RS is deciding the article scope in order to comply with policy, because I don't see how WP:NPOV can be understood any differently; it states we should be "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable". As you know, I personally supplied significant evidence that one viewpoint of "libertarianism" is that it is a broad concept -- not just "anything and everything any reliable source says about 'libertarianism'", but rather a prominent theme shared among numerous sources of high reliability. So, regardless of the concept of libertarianism held by any editor here, to censor this significant viewpoint on the concept of "Libertarianism" from the article on Libertarianism would clearly violate WP:NPOV. In the end, I do not find any efforts to censor this significant viewpoint of the concept to be legitimate, which is likely why there has been zero policies cited to justify the removal of the sourced material. BigK HeX (talk) 17:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Four Deuces, we decide what to write about and then choose the most appropriate name.. And, we can also change our minds about what to write about. For example, if the subject seems to have gotten too broad, we can choose to limit the scope. Once the subject is decided (or re-decided), then we see what RS say about that subject. The title of the article is supposed to simply reflect the most commonly used name for the decided-upon subject.

All I'm saying is all of that is legitimate stuff for editors to decide about. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

BigK, when NPOV says "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources", it's referring to those that are relevant to the subject of the article, which presupposes deciding what that subject (and its scope) is. That's why no view, significant or not, about tricycles is mentioned in the Bicycle article, despite the fact that there are reliable sources that include tricycle in the definition of a bicycle. Tricycles are never-the-less out of scope (and censored by your perspective) for the subject of that article, given the single-track vehicle definition of "bicycle" that the editors of that article decided to go with.

If you don't like Bicycle, consider Las Vegas. Did you know that the famous Las Vegas Strip with all of the casinos is out of scope for Las Vegas? That's because the editors of U.S. city articles decided to limit the scope of all U.S. city articles to anything within the legal city limits of a given city subject, and the strip is technically outside of the city of Las Vegas city limits. Yet there are countless reliable sources that define Las Vegas in a way that includes the strip. So per your argument all that is censorship too?

Do you know of any other article in Wikipedia in which the subject including scope was determined by reliable sources? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that "tricycle" bit is censorship (assuming that the "tricycle" idea is actually prominent). You are more than welcome to argue the "tricycle" point as being a prominent viewpoint at the Bicycle page. I'm vaguely interested in that discussion, but still find it irrelevant to this article (so if that discussion has already taken place, I wouldn't mind a link to it on my personal talk page). Also, I see no problem with the scope of the Las Vegas metropolitan area. Even if I grant these to be valid examples of "scope issues" just for the sake of argument, there is hardly any evidence that these are little more than exceptions (or possible violations) of policy. If that were the case, then citing exceptions to the rule doesn't do much for us here. It would be entirely different, if the editors requesting censorship started citing policies and sources to justify that proposal, but so far, all we have gotten is an intransigence that has not escaped your notice; some editors refuse to even face facts here. *IF* there were a decent discussion from (what I'll call) the "limited scope" crowd based on reliable sources and/or WP policies, I would infinitely more sympathetic to the idea that it may be legitimate. Without such a discussion from that "camp", I find WP:NPOV to be overriding and clear in mandating that the scope of the article extends to include "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". Given the sources provided to support inclusion, and the total lack of RS to support a limited scope, it can be left for the "limited scope" camp of editors to argue at one of the noticeboards that these sources are not actually about "libertarianism" of any form. With nothing of use (policy-wise or RS-wise or noticeboard-wise) coming from the "limited scope", I have difficulty seeing how any desires for censorship have a leg to stand on. When those who disagree with the "broad viewpoint" refuse to have a usable substantive discussion on the matter, I really don't know what more to say, so I guess I'll shut up now. BigK HeX (talk) 19:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, liberalism, conservatism and socialism, which incidentally come closer to this topic than bicycles, icecream and Las Vegas. TFD (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Even if all those articles used the broadest and most general meaning of the respective term supported in RS, that would not mean they did so because policy required it. But the socialism article, for example, restricts its scope to specifically excludes "a specific stage of socioeconomic development in Marxist theory", which is referred to as socialism in countless RS. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The Socialism does not restrict Marxism from its scope. There's are rather prominent section on Marxism -- Socialism#Marxism. Pretty much the same convention as describing minarchism in the Libertarianism article, and having a main Minarchism article. BigK HeX (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The socialism article does not exclude "a specific stage of socioeconomic development in Marxist theory". In fact it says, "The Marxist conception of socialism is that of a specific historical phase that will displace capitalism and precede communism". What is it about libertarianism that means it should be treated differently from these three other ideologies, all of which have great diversity among adherents? TFD (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I was just quoting from the About tag at the top of the Socialism article, which states: "This article is about socialism as an economic system and political philosophy. For socialism as a specific stage of socioeconomic development in Marxist theory, see Socialism (Marxism)".

Anyway, now that you mention it, these three articles all suffer from the same lack of coherency problem as does this article. You can't identify what the subject is of any of these articles, because in each case it's anything and everything that happens to be associated with the name of the article in reliable sources. That is, each of these articles is about the term that is its titles and all of its meanings, rather than about any one specific topic.

But, my point in this section is not that the scope of this article should be limited, but that usage in reliable sources of the term that happens to be the title of an article is not what determines the scope of an article.

Articles should be about specific subjects, not about several related subjects, unless there is one unifying subject. That is not the case in any of these four articles. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Holy cow! Have you looked at the archives of these articles? All of these articles, and you can throw Atheism on there too, suffer not only from lack of coherency, but from years of endless debate about what the topics are, and how they should be defined, and what should or shouldn't be in the article. And they all read like the incoherent hodgepodges that they must necessarily be since their scopes are not defined to any one coherent subject. All five articles are an embarrassment to Wikipedia, in my view.

Trying to be everything to everyone is being nothing to anyone. God help any student coming to Wikipedia hoping to learn something about any of these topics. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as the Libertarianism article, I don't really see anything "incoherent". There do seem to be a few editors who expect a narrow definition and refuse to accept anything else, but I find the coverage of the topic to be pretty coherent, personally. BigK HeX (talk) 22:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

<backdent> Let me give a hear hear to: WP:NPOV All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors. This exclusionary WP:Soapbox is a big waste of time. What's happening with the request for informal mediation?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Someone had already gotten the ball rolling, but, sadly, it has yet to gather steam: Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-08-02/Libertarianism. BigK HeX (talk) 22:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for link. And I agree article is not incoherent. Needs work, definitely. But months of disruptive WP:SOAPBOX about how bad the article is has made it difficult for some of us to concentrate on improving it according to the few valid criticisms that have been made. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, NPOV only applies once the subject of a given article is decided upon (or re-decided). There is no obligation to include points of view outside of the scope of a given article.

I am not going to point out all the reasons this article is incoherent in this section, that's for another section. The point of this section is to discuss the issue of whether article scope is determined by consensus of editors, or by reliable sources. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Born2cyle wrote: The point of this section is to discuss the issue of whether article scope is determined by consensus of editors, or by reliable sources. THen it would be good to give it a title that makes it clear that's what it is about and not a cutsey one that just makes one barely skim the entries. Obviously, reliable sources come first, especially in an article where the balance of left-right editors shifts over time and the article could kick out the leftist libertarians and anarchist out one month and the minarchist capitalists the next, depending on "editor consensus." CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-08-02/Libertarianism I just put in this talk page entry which hopefully will get some action. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Carol, when you write, "especially in an article where the balance of left-right editors shifts over time and the article could kick out the leftist libertarians and anarchist out one month and the minarchist capitalists the next", you are presupposing that the subject of the article is the broad/general meaning of the term "libertarianism", for which support in reliable sources is obscure relative to other uses of the term. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Possible solution to debate over article scope

I have been passively observing the debate over this article for the past few weeks. Sorry if this has already been suggested, but it seems to me that the solution is very simple. Keep this article as a broad overview of libertarianism in all of its forms, common or not, and then have more specific articles focusing on specialized areas and regional variations. This is the strategy used by other political ideologies, e.g. conservatism as a broad overview, and more specific articles like social conservatism and conservatism in the United States. -Cwenger (talk) 20:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

we have been trying to achieve such, the disambiguation page is a broad overview of all terms co-opting "libertarian". but having a term defined as left/right, pro-property/anti-property, stateist,/anti-stateist is just confusing. most people think of the drink when you say tea-bag, others think of a sex act. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be a shame and quite frankly, pathetic, if libertarianism was merely a disambiguation page. Conservatism and liberalism are broad political ideologies as well, even meaning opposite things in different countries, but they still have a full page. –CWenger (talk) 21:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

but it has a disambiguation page now? everyone agrees there are many wp:rs which include the term libertarian, the question here is how many understand the term as such. example, a "lift" means elevator to most of the world, but in the usa, it means give someone a ride in your car. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You are inferring that libertarian is a homonym, "one of a group of words that share the same spelling and the same pronunciation but have different meanings...." For example "social conservatism" can mean either conservatism that has socialist aspects or conservatism that enforces social norms. "Social liberalism" can mean either liberalism that has socialist aspects or liberalism that opposes social norms. In those cases we have separate articles. TFD (talk) 22:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I really don't think anybody would contend that libertarian is a homonym--correct me if I'm wrong Darkstar1st. It is just like most other common political ideologies which have a ton of interpretations. –CWenger (talk) 00:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

There are a bunch of articles on various views and aspects of libertarianism and I'm sure Darkstar1st and friends could write Libertarian minarchism in the United States and not be out of line. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Cwenger. Actually, I believe what you suggest is currently the situation we have (in keeping with what I, also, see as the common treatment of the political topics). Unfortunately, some editors would like to co-opt this main "Libertarianism" page to use in some other manner, justified only by their personal POV and WP:OR. BigK HeX (talk) 20:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

That may be true for some here, but it is misleading to suggest that everyone dissatisfied with the status quo is motivated by this. Again, my major objection is practical. The years of never-ending discussion and expressions of dissatisfaction for the status quo is what has convinced me Wikipedia would be improved if the scope of the article at Libertarianism would be narrower than what it is now.

As to Carol's suggestion about Libertarian minarchism in the United States, imagine that that article did exist. Or even better, consider the existence of Classical liberalism, or Minarchism for that matter (no imagination is needed for that). Now, note that it's possible and legitimate for someone to propose the following move:

Libertarianism → Libertarianism (broad)

Minarchism → Libertarianism

The grounds might be that per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC the term Libertarianism is more often used to refer to the topic of the article currently at Minarchism (or Classical liberalism or Libertarian minarchism in the United States, or maybe all three merged into one article) that it is used to refer to the topic of this article. Evidence in favor of the merge could be a plethora of reliable sources using the term to refer that specific political philosophy, and pointing out that uses of the term in the very general way which is the subject of this article are relatively obscure.

Similarly, one might suggest moving this article to something like Libertarianism overview, and moving Libertarianism (disambiguation) to Libertarianism.

My point here is not to suggest such moves, but to point out the distinction between article title and article subject/scope, because many of you seem to conflate the two.

There is no debate about whether all of the uses of Libertarianism deserve to have their own articles. The debate is about which of those articles, including this one and perhaps some article not yet written, if any, should be at Libertarianism. Of all the uses of Libertarianism, the one which is the subject of this article, the broad/general use, is relatively obscure, based on usage in reliable sources. So this article's claim to Libertarianism, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, seems weak to me. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not that difficult to explain the differences. But some people - as admitted earlier on this talk page - don't want Ron Paul's credibility hurt by being in an article that includes left and right wing anarchists (however they may define that term). Their POV discredits their goals. Please do not be sucked into trying to placate these people. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

ron paul describes himself as a constitutional conservative, and serves as a republican in the house. i missed the part about his credibility, are you sure it is on this page? Darkstar1st (talk) 06:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Carol, no one is saying it is difficult to explain the differences. What does that have to do with anything I wrote? And I'm not going to take a position opposite someone else simply because my motivations for taking that position are different from theirs.

My point stands. The broad/general meaning of "libertarianism" that is currently the subject of this article is a relatively obscure use of the term, and so either a meaning used more prevalently in reliable sources should be at Libertarianism, or Libertarianism should be a dab page. See WP:PRIMARYTOPIC:

Although a term may potentially refer to more than one topic, it is often the case that one of these topics is highly likely – much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined – to be the subject being sought when a reader clicks the "Go" button for that term. If there is such a topic, then it is called the primary topic for that term. If a primary topic exists, the term should be the title of (or redirect to) the article on that topic. If there is no primary topic, the term should be the title of a disambiguation page (or redirect to a different disambiguation page, if more than one term is combined on one page).

--Born2cycle (talk) 18:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

From what I have seen, after a significant run through a lot of sources is that there is no "primary topic" -- I've seen absolutely no evidence that any single strain of libertarianism is "more likely than all the others combined to be the subject being sought when a reader clicks the 'Go' button for that term". BigK HeX (talk) 17:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

<backdent> To Darkstar - Going into archives found this from User:Ddd1600 We want Ron Paul to sound more credible, and possibly for him to tone down his extremism. which I admit is different than my memory since he calls Paul an extremist too! ROLF To Born2cycle: I disagree that, as you write, broad/general meaning of "libertarianism" that is currently the subject of this article is a relatively obscure use of the term. The references you provided are just a start. More to come. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

according to the wp:primarytopic, all we need to do, is count which two links get the most traffic on the disambiguation page. the 1st will be libertarianism, the second will be the primary topic that should be the libertarian page exclusively. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

So do it and tell us the results, which we might recheck. Meanwhile What on Wikipedia Links to It doesn't even include the Minarchism article, but lots of lefty and anarcho-capitalist stuff. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Christianity as a Template

Seventh-day Adventists, as the 12th largest religious group in the world, make up a good portion of Christians. However, when you look on the article on Christianity there is no mention of 7th day Adventists in the lead/intro. The intro does not say that some Christians worship on Saturday while others worship on Sunday. However, in the section on Worship it does say that "Seventh-day Adventists meet on Saturday".

If you look at this article it says in the lead that "Libertarians may embrace a variety of beliefs about political structures ranging from minimization of the state to complete abolition of the state." How many Libertarians actually want to abolish the state? Mentioning in the lead that some Libertarians want to abolish the state gives undue weight to the POV of a very small group. It's blatant POV pushing stemming from an intentional failure to identify where one political ideology ends and another political ideology begins. It's obvious goal is to advertise other political ideologies...much in the same way Mormons now want to be considered Christians.

Here's a two step compromise. First, in the lead let's only mention "beliefs" (goals/methods) that all Libertarians have in common. If we can't agree on any "beliefs" then the scope of this article is obviously too broad. Christians, like Libertarians, all have some core beliefs in common. Second, let's restructure this page so that before we talk about "Forms of Libertarianism" we create individual sections for the State, Private Property, and Capitalism. In the section on The State we can indicate that most Libertarians want to downsize the government while certain extremists called Anarcho-capitalists want to abolish the government. In the section on Private Property we can indicate that most Libertarians want to protect private property while certain extremists called Left-libertarians want to get rid of it. In the section on Capitalism we can indicate that most Libertarians support economic freedoms while certain extremists called Left-libertarians do not.

How is this a compromise? Because even though 7th Day Adventists are the 12th largest religious body in the world, they only warranted 3 brief mentions in the entire article on Christianity. Also, in the article on 7th Day Adventists, the Branch Davidians are only mentioned at the very end of the article in a section called "Offshoots and schisms". Branch Davidians have more in common with 7th Day Adventists than Anarcho-capitalists and Left-Libertarians have in common with Libertarians. Nobody would call Branch Davidians a "Form of 7th Day Adventism" yet this article calls Anarcho-capitalism and Left-Libertarianism "Forms of Libertarianism". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xerographica (talk • contribs) 00:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Just FYI: You accidentally posted your objections to the content of the Christianity article on this talk page for the Libertarianism article. I'm sure they'll be happy to hear about your issue with the article over there. Thanks! BigK HeX (talk) 01:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It's great when you make comments like that because it makes it abundantly clear that you have no desire to resolve this conflict and/or improve this article. Thanks! --Xerographica (talk) 02:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was nicer than pointing out the fact that -- yet again -- your claims about libertarianism have such a striking resemblance to blatant unsourced WP:OR. BigK HeX (talk) 02:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

First, most WP:RS books on libertarianism are going to mention all the varieties, because there aren't many. However, a short article on Christianity doesn't have room to mention the dozens or even hundreds of varieties of Christianity. So the analogy holds no water. Also, remind me to put in a couple WP:RS for the statement "Most/almost all libertarians support the right to secession." CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The very first Google Books search result for Libertarianism is Libertarianism: A Primer. How many varieties does it talk about? A few books on Libertarianism do talk about Left/Right and some talk about Anarcho-capitalism but few, if any, talk about the varieties in their introduction. Also, this article isn't a book on Libertarianism. It's one chapter and the disambiguation page should function as the table of contents. --Xerographica (talk) 18:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Let me understand this. The twelth largest branch of Christianity gets little mention and a fringe offshoot that had several dozen members gets even less and your point is that only one of the major branches of libertarianism should be mentioned? A better example would be if the Christianity article omitted two out of three of Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant churches because they are heretics. TFD (talk) 05:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

12th largest religious body in the world...not 12th largest branch of Christianity. My point was for us to compromise and only mention what all the "varieties" of Libertarianism agree on in the lead. Then the article could discuss specifics in the body of the article. --Xerographica (talk) 18:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

ENOUGH about Oranges, Chocolate ice cream, and Christianity

Anything gleaned from those examples is of little use here. If there's ANY class of article that might serve as a helpful guide, it would be one of the political ideology articles. Obviously though, those articles do not support the point for a narrowing of the Libertarianism article, so I'm not surprised they are not brought up by the "limited scope" crowd. I have little idea why editors are discussing "templates" instead of the RELIABLE SOURCES. Editors pushing for a "limited scope" should consider actually trying to make a point based on RELIABLE SOURCES presented right here on the talk page for us first, and only THEN is it possible that your proposal may have enough credibility to merit consideration. BigK HeX (talk) 01:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

"Although there is much disagreement about the details, libertarians are generally united by a rough agreement on a cluster of normative principles, empirical generalizations, and policy recommendations." The reliable source offers...

* robust property rights

* limited government

* economic liberty (aka capitalism)

...as examples as what Libertarians agree on. That was from a source that you yourself offered as so very reliable. The lead should definitely not mention extreme points of view. --Xerographica (talk) 02:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

So .. are you saying that your only example so far is one that even concedes that "there is much disagreement about the details", and certainly does NOT declare "minarchism" to be the bestest and only "True" form of libertarianism and has nothing to disqualify the "extreme" points of view, and -- quite the contrary actually INCLUDES for discussion viewpoints like anarcho-capitalism and left-libertarianism??? BigK HeX (talk) 02:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX is correct. Also note that more left and more right libertarians (like source discussed above) tend to ignore the varieties of the other tendencies, which is why third party WP:RS are most reliable on all the varieties that exist. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Roderick Long's definition

Xerographica's points above describe only one of the political positions that are reliably called "libertarian". Specifically, they describe the right-libertarian minarchist position, and exclude the entire left-libertarian movement -- the agorists, mutualists, and other free-market anti-capitalists; the geolibertarians; and so on. They also arguably exclude the more radical anarcho-capitalists. But the left-libertarians disagree on all three of Xerographica's points: they support a free market, but not capitalism; they are mostly anarchists, not minarchists; and their concepts of property are generally less "robust" than most right-libertarians would be comfortable with.

What all the libertarian factions have in common is that they advocate a reduction in the power of coercive government. As Roderick Long puts it in "Toward a Libertarian Theory of Class":

[...] I propose to define as libertarian any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals. This definition [...] includes under the libertarian aegis a number of conflicting positions. For example, my definition [...] allows both anarchists and nonanarchists to count as libertarians; it also does not specify whether the criteria for "voluntary association" can be met by communal cooperatives, or market exchanges, or both, and so grants the libertarian label indifferently to socialists (of the anti-statist variety) and capitalists (of the anti-statist variety).

[...] Today, for the most part, libertarian capitalists begrudge socialists, and libertarian socialists likewise begrudge capitalists, the title "libertarian"; yet there seems to me sufficient commonality of ideological concern and intellectual heritage between the two camps to justify using the term in a broad but univocal sense to cover them both.

(Long, Roderick, "Toward a Libertarian Theory of Class". Originally published in Social Philosophy & Policy 15.1 (Summer 1998). Found on praxeology.net, http://praxeology.net/libclass-theory-part-1.pdf and -part-2.pdf.) Long's definition is found in a reliable source; he is a well-known published philosopher on the subject, whose work combines themes from right and left. As much as anyone, he makes the effort to be neutral and inclusive; treating left, right, and populist libertarians as all having something to contribute. --FOo (talk) 07:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Something like...Libertarianism is a political ideology that focuses on maximizing individual liberty by reducing the power of the state... is sufficient for the lead of this article. Long's definition implies that the entire government should be outsourced to voluntary associations...which clearly most Libertarians do not agree with. This article should focus primarily on the Center because there's already an article on Left-libertarianism and there is already an article on Right-libertarianism. I'd be surprised if Left/Right combined equaled more than 5% of Libertarians. --Xerographica (talk) 18:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at Long's article. He makes it clear that he's including both anarchists and nonanarchists (e.g. minarchists, and others who want to reduce but not eliminate the state). I elided a bit from the quote for brevity; here's the expansion:

For example, my definition does not specify whether this redistribution of power is to be total or merely substantial, and so allows both anarchists and nonanarchists to count as libertarians; [...].

(Emphasis mine.) I hoped that you and others would actually take a look at the source, since it's freely available and actually quite entertainingly written. In any event, Long's definition has a significant Wikipedia-advantage over your personal definition; namely that it is drawn from a reliable source: a professor publishing in a scholarly journal.

We should entertain many reliably-sourced definitions, and summarize them (without synthesizing them) as needs be. But we should prefer any reliably sourced definition over one that a Wikipedian made up by themselves. Leaning on a broad and non-sectarian definition such as Long's allows us to avoid all manner of narrow factionalism, all manner of "You're not a real libertarian unless you agree with me!" silliness. And right now, that is a huge advantage. --FOo (talk) 01:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here is denying (any more) the existence of uses of the term "libertarianism" in reliable sources that means a broad/general definition, such as Long's.

My point is that such uses are relatively rare, arguably even obscure, compared to the prevalent uses, particularly the use that essentially means minarchism.

In other words, there are some number of uses of the term libertarianism among reliable sources, including:

1. right-libertarianism/minarchism
2. left-libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism
3. any political position that advocates radical power transfer from coercive state to individual (broad/general)

I also don't think anyone is arguing that any of these uses don't deserve an article devote to that topic. Articles for each(among other uses of "libertarianism") already exist.

The only issue is what to name each article, and, in particular, whether any of them should be at Libertarianism (and, if so, which one), or whether the Libertarianism (disambiguation) should be moved to Libertarianism. That's the issue, so a lot of this discussion is beside the point. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

should we merge libertarianism and disambiguation?

if both mention every flavor, are both necessary? Darkstar1st (talk) 06:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is like a huge set of books. The disambiguation page on Libertarianism should function as the table of contents for all the chapters on Libertarianism. --Xerographica (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

This idea deserves consideration if the scope of this article remains the relatively obscure (as used in reliable source) general/broad meaning of libertarianism. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose for reasons explain Ad nauseam in reply to dozens of WP:SOAPBOX (and a number of personal attack) posts, including by AnonIps and at least two sock puppets. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

though this broad understanding is not universal

Could editors please refrain from inserting weasal words. This type of wording could be used to provide a slant to all kinds of articles.

• Obama was born in the U. S., but this understanding is not universal.
• 9/11 was not planned by the U.S. government, but this understanding is not universal.

TFD (talk) 14:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. A broad concept is saying that Libertarianism is anti-authoritarianism. Most sources on Libertarianism discuss a specific ideology, some compare two distinct ideologies and only a few discuss more than two ideologies. None, that I know of, try and mix them all together in a single article. --Xerographica (talk) 20:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You have never provided us with your personal definition of libertarianism or provided any source that explains it. Your continual comments are therefore disruptive editing because they continue argumentation without providing any suggestions for editing the article. TFD (talk) 20:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

My primary suggestion for editing this article has been to narrow the focus of this article to a single political ideology/philosophy. This article is trying to accomplish what no article has ever accomplished. Rather than trying to stuff every single ideology into one article...there should be articles dedicated to each ideology. The left already has an article...Left-libertarianism and the right already has an article...Anarcho-capitalism. Therefore, this article should not focus on extreme ideologies...but instead should describe the mainstream ideology that most people are interested in learning about. --Xerographica (talk) 20:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you please provide us with your personal definition of libertarianism and provide a source that explains it. TFD (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

See the section entitled "Reliable Sources" --Xerographica (talk) 01:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I inserted that text when I rewrote the lead. Admittedly, it was to mollify certain editors here. BigK HeX (talk)

Where's that "swat you with a dead fish" wiki-graphic when you need it? In any case it is WP:OR and needs ref. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

lol .... message received BigK HeX (talk) 17:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Gutting of the lead

With a rationale of "Should only describe what all varieties believe"

Are these guys serious? Are editors on-board with this? I find it ridiculous that an editor is suggesting that describe varying strains within an ideology within the lead is forbidden. How is this not a gross disregard for the MoS where a lead describes the significant points covered in the article body? BigK HeX (talk) 19:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I reverted. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. Please provide reliable sources that mention the left/right view in the INTRODUCTION of the article/book. --Xerographica (talk) 19:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

See Roderick Long's definition above. And really, folks interested in this question should read that article too! He makes a big point of the existence of multiple tendencies of libertarianism and how they have both significant common ground and significant differences. Seriously, folks ... if you're interested in writing a reliably sourced encyclopedia, you really need to start going to some actual sources instead of just squabbling amongst editors. --FOo (talk) 01:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no denying the existence of a "common ground" use of the term libertarianism, and that this subject deserves its own article.

The issue here is how prevalent that use is in reliable sources, compared to other uses of "libertarianism". My point is that given the relative obscurity of the use of the "common ground" libertarianism subject in reliable sources, this subject should not even be a candidate for being the primary topic for Libertarianism, and so the article about that subject (this one) should not be at Libertarianism.

The debate should be about whether right-libertarianism is the primary topic, or there is no primary topic for Libertarianism and the dab page should be at Libertarianism.

So, yes, please, look at the reliable sources... to determine which use (if any) is the primary topic. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Most of these sources support the definition provided in the article. (BTW you should link to the specific pages where you found these definitions.) Even those that appear not to do not seem to be helpful. In Problems of market liberalism, for example, John R. Macey is using his own definition ("By the term "libertarian" I mean" (p. 372)).[2] He cites David Boaz of the Cato Institute, Libertarianism: a primer.[3] Despite the introduction, the Encyclopedia of Political Theory identifies three forms of libertarianism: consequentialist, right and left.[4] TFD (talk) 02:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't really seen any evidence that "common ground" usage is obscure. BigK HeX (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I gutted it some more to remove most blatant WP:OR. But you only have til end of week to ref that some libs don't like being called anarchists. Since pages of WP:Soapbox have been devoted to this claim, it would be nice to see at least one actual reference. That "right" libertarianism is more mainstream can be ref'd from references further down in article and probably should be since naysayers who don't read that far will come along and start disputing that fact. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Note: Now that it's been ungutted, for as long as that lasts, I'd like to reiterate that people should run major changes by here and seek consensus. I nitpicked most obvious WP:OR cause it was short, but now that's its gotten longer will go back to organizing my WP:RS which a flooded basement and the call of fixing up drainage problems in the back yard have distracted me from, since physically shoveling dirt is almost as much fun as mentally doing it. Tomorrow... tomorrow... CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Which WP:OR is less obvious? Would you tag it for me, please? BigK HeX (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to WP:OR in "gutted lead." In this version I have a problem with redundant/unnecessary/unsourced "and libertarians all support a concept of liberty." and of course "Others reject being described as "anarchists".[citation needed]" which still needs ref'ing and I'm itching to remove til it gets it. I just find current lead a bit redundant and therefore confusing for most readers, but until have some stuff worked up, don't want to criticize/explain or play with it more than that. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

To continue, because of unrelenting soapbox I'll just repeat what I wrote above:

Comments not just on what BigKHex wrote in the lead but in general, which I think is supported by WP:RS I've already found, many have not gotten around to sharing as I will show again in lead which will be improved from last one which was quickly gutted and I didn't correct/add to for various reasons:

• Lead should start with more of a definition from wp:rs, especially liberty of thought and action should be in there.
• WP:RS that say there are a wide variety of forms of libertarianism and what they are should come next.
• Minimal state vs. anarchist should logically be next because the main issue in most peoples's mind is the power and the existence of a state as being against liberty.
• Then teased out can be the difference between left anarchism and anarcho-capitalism/market anarchism.
• Issues there should, but may not always have, WP:RS are: is libertarian municipalism really bottom up local statism? would libertarian socialists actually operate a free market, whatever the status of property was? can anarcho-capitalists have voluntary socialist/communal enterprises? how do libertarian socialists get rid of all property without using organized violence known as criminal gangs or the state? libertarian decentralism as alternative to minarchism/anarchism, since it allows both in different communities.

So something like that is what I'll propose at some point. Heads up! :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I've re-gutted the lead, and will see how that goes. BigK HeX (talk) 19:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Now people can fight over the overview. :-) Will check it out another time (I assume when people kept saying "Libertarian overview" above they meant article and not section, by the way.) . CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

the lede will change on august 23rd

this debate is only concerning the lede. this forum understands there are rs for all views. the intent is to coalesce the different meanings of the term into the most broadly understood version as of today. Please only comment under the title which you support, submit objections under the critique only, misplaced comments will be moved. New sub-sections are encouraged, should your view not be represented. Please sign your post with 1-7 of Poll: Common groundshould you support any of the statements.

exclude left/right, anacho-capitalist, libertarian socialist

A short description including the most widely read/accepted dictionaries and encyclopedias. 1234567 Darkstar1st (talk) 05:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

They already have their own dedicated articles. It's not censorship if we exclude those topics from this article. It's called good organization. --Xerographica (talk) 01:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Definitely exclude the left-right distinction of Libertarianism, (because the identification of Libertarianism as incorporating left-wing ideologies is farcical doublespeak), and definitely exclude the Libertarian Socialism, (because it has absolutely nothing to do with Libertarianism whatsoever (except for the absurdly inappropriate use of the word "Libertarian" in its label)). While I see that Anarcho-Capitalism has some obvious relevance in the Libertarian Article itself, the lede is not the place for a reference to it. BlueRobe (talk) 07:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

critique of this section

it was created by darkstar1st, and everyone knows he is a loon. stop pushing you're pov, soapbox and quit being a sock/meat puppet. you are ignorant, go educate yourself. if you do not, you will be banned from wp as well as every one on your ip block. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

This talk page section is moronic.^* BigK HeX (talk) 05:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

wp:idontlikeit, please read and modify your comment Darkstar1st (talk) 06:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you even know how to properly invoke WP:IDONTLIKEIT?? BigK HeX (talk) 06:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st, can you please provide a reliable source that indicates what should be included. TFD (talk) 06:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

i doubt either one of these are considered "reliable" to wp, but when i Googled it, lp.org, and www.libertarianism.com were at the top. my pov/or tells me the broadest understood definition lies here. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You missed the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.[5] Anyway party websites are only sources for what they say about themselves. TFD (talk) 06:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st: What did you Google...? BigK HeX (talk) 07:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

ice cream, but i am in vienna at the moment so everything is in viennese, just logging into mcd wlan was a struggle. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

<backdent> Darkstar1st's initial edit is just disruptive - to show good faith, dark star should collapse it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Carolmooredc, please learn to format properly with colons. BlueRobe (talk) 07:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

When there are too many colons in a row (or sometimes when topic greatly changes), one can back dent. Common practice. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st, please be specific

RE: "Not everything mentioned in the intro is even discussed in the article"

Please quote parts of the lead that are not representing text from the article body. BigK HeX (talk) 16:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I personally like a shorter lead myself and think this is already too long. So being very specific about problems is helpful. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about Darkstar1st, but Xero wrote above, "the left/right issue is mentioned in the intro but there's no section dedicated to the issue. Disagreements regarding the size/role of the government are mentioned in the intro but there's no section dedicated to the issue." --Born2cycle (talk) 18:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Left-right seems pretty well-covered in at Libertarianism#Principles, and as a summarization of the Forms of Libertarianism listed. BigK HeX (talk) 18:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

More on Bookchin and his fans would be good. Plus, again, search News.Google archives mentioned above. There's a bunch of stuff there on lib socialism. I didn't even search left libertarianism. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

A section on Libertarian socialism, which currently does not exist, would be useful. Libertarianism tranhumanism strikes me as an odd thing to include on the same tier as libertarian conservatism and left-libertarianism. Zazaban (talk) 06:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Libertarian socialism was merged into the Left libertarianism section. It was very briefly discussed here in another talk page, see: Talk:Libertarian_socialism#Remove_Libertarian_Socialism_from_Libertarianism_article.3F. BigK HeX (talk) 06:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Could probably be expanded and returned. Zazaban (talk) 07:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

Here are some key Libertarian concepts from reliable sources...

Encyclopedia of Libertarianism

It is a basic principle of libertarian politics that no one should be forcibly prevented from acting in any way he chooses provided his acts are not invasive of the free acts of others.

Encyclopædia Britannica

Libertarians believe that individuals should have complete freedom of action, provided their actions do not infringe on the freedom of others.

Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy...

(1) it provides significant moral liberty of action, (2) it provides significant moral protection against interference from others, and (3) it is sensitive to what the past was like (e.g., what agreements were made and what rights violations took place).

Problems of market liberalism: Social philosophy and policy...

By the term "libertarian" I mean a belief in and commitment to a set of methods and policies that have as their common aim greater freedom under law for individuals. The term "freedom" in this context means not only a commitment to civil liberties, such as freedom of expression, but also to economic liberties, including a commitment to a laissez-faire policy of free entreprise and free trade between countries. Libertarians, therefore, are committed to the absolute minimum state intervention in the economy as well as in people's private lives. In a world constrained by these libertarian principles, people should be permitted to do as they please, constrained only by rules that prevent them from encroaching on the liberty of others.

Encyclopedia of Political Theory...

These theories are animated by a set of distinctive and common concerns. Among them are a deep suspicion of central government and coercion; a favorable view of the market, which may go as far as regarding its outcome as beyond the scope or conceptual concern of distributive justice; and a view of private property rights as either exhaustive of all individual rights or at least the most significant right of them all.

The Challenge of Democracy: Government in America...

Libertarianism opposes all government action except that which is necessary to protect life and property.

Economic analysis and moral philosophy...

Libertarians are defenders of political liberty, property rights, and economic freedoms.

Libertarianism: for and against...

Now, of course, there is general agreement that the state has the obligation to protect national security and to protect all citizens from force and fraud; to maintain systems of contract and property rights; to ensure; in general, that the rule of law prevails over anarchy. Anyone who ponders these areas of life will see that personal freedom does not mean the absence of state action.

If you compare these key concepts to what is currently mentioned in the intro of this article then it should be abundantly clear that these essential tenets have been cast aside as a result of certain editors pushing/advertising their extreme ideologies. And it's been going on for a really long time. Any ideologies that run contrary to any of these tenets should not be mentioned in the introduction. This article is not an entire book...if anything it's single chapter dedicated to a single topic that people are most likely to want to read about (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC}. Listing the extreme ideologies either on the disambiguation page or the See Also section is not censorship...it's the equivalent of creating a table of contents. --Xerographica (talk) 01:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

What is clear is that NONE of the stuff in the lead "casts aside" any of the key concepts. What is abundantly clear is that you've been imputing your own POV onto what is actually there and it consistently blinds you from that fact. BigK HeX (talk) 02:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, since I've got a few minutes, I'll illustrate how your invocation of these generalizations about libertarianism have done little other than to highlight your willful blindness. To make your narrow thinking on this matter blindingly apparent, I'll take the first few of the sources that YOU have decided to cherry-pick from, and show how they discuss that anarchist ideals are a significant part of the broader libertarian philosophy, even though you have endeavored to have anarchism stripped from the article.

1. Encyclopedia of Libertarianism: page 10. Libertarianism puts sever limits on morally permissible government actions. If one takes these strictures seriously, does libertarianism require the abolition of government, logically reducing the position to anarchism? ... the question [is raised] of what, if anything, the state and its officials may do... Libertarian political philosophers have extensively debated the question and many conclude the answer is 'Nothing.'
2. Encyclopædia Britannica Some American libertarians, such as Lysander Spooner and Murray Rothbard, have opposed all forms of government.
3. Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Libertarianism, then, is not only critical of the modern welfare state, but of states in general.
4. Problems of market liberalism: Social philosophy and policy page 379: There are, of course, two wings of libertarian thought, one anarchist, the other minimalist.

I hope this makes my point. What you wish libertarianism to be is irrelevant to the way sources prompt us to describe it. BigK HeX (talk) 03:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, no one has indicated which of these numerous definitions he believes the article should use. Could he please tell us. TFD (talk) 07:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Any of the ones I listed would be better than this article's current intro/lead. None of them contradict any of the others...so you can mix and match key concepts from each one. --Xerographica (talk) 08:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The point of the first group of sources was to emphasize the importance of the Harm principle. The point of the second group of sources was to focus on the importance of private property. Yeah, ouch, your "counter arguments" really shot down those key concepts. Next time just ask me first if you have any doubt what to argue against. LOL

But since you did bring up Anarchy here's a relevant passage from Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy...

This explicit rejection of anarchism is evidence of the basic liberalist ideology that Libertarians hold dear. But more specifically, within the movement itself there exist factional interests.[27] 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.

[...]

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.

We could go back and forth...there's lots of evidence both ways. However, the most appropriate article for that debate is the article on Anarcho-capitalism and minarchism. This article should focus on the perspective of the majority. --Xerographica (talk) 07:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

A) What policy is it that says articles "focus only on the perspective of the majority"?

B) Pray tell ... what evidence do you even have about "the perspective of the majority"? Quote a highly reliable source or two, if you would. BigK HeX (talk) 08:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

A) Undue weight / Primary topic

B) "Rothbard represents a minority perspective". --Xerographica (talk) 08:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

A) Undue weight says absolutely NOTHING about "only focusing on the perspective of the majority".

B) I asked for whatever evidence you have of your so-called "majority perspective" and you give me an unsourced assertion, and, moreover, that assertion isn't about the majority at all, but is only telling me about Rothbard being in the minority??? Ummm.... BigK HeX (talk) 09:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Because of your recent edits the lead is unintelligible/contradictory and still says nothing about the Harm principle which figures significantly in the definitions that I offered. The assertion on what the majority believes was found in the quote from "Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy"...."Although both groups despise the state intensely, neither wants to completely do away with it." --Xerographica (talk) 09:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Please do point out precisely what you find to be "unintelligible" in the lead. Quote from the lead and then explain your opinion of the text for us here. Thanks. BigK HeX (talk) 09:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

1. The most important thing to point out is that you're trying to accomplish the same thing as the disambiguation page...but the bullet point format of the disambiguation page is considerably more readable than your paragraph format.

2. Your paragraphs are too large and they are not logically organized. You're going to need four or more paragraphs...and I really have no idea how you can effectively organize such disparate information.

3. Not everything mentioned in the intro is even discussed in the article. For example...the left/right issue is mentioned in the intro but there's no section dedicated to the issue. Disagreements regarding the size/role of the government are mentioned in the intro but there's no section dedicated to the issue. You're running a ton of different topics together tricking the reader into thinking that the article will clarify the connections between the topics but no connections are clarified. Instead, there are two sections that are so poorly written that I haven't been able to read them.

4. Until the scope of this article is narrowed the intro is always going to be a mess. This article should focus primarily on the variety of Libertarianism that most closely follows Classical Liberalism. Offshoots should be mentioned where appropriate...but certainly not in the intro. --Xerographica (talk) 11:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

You still have not said what you think libertarianism is. Do you think for example that the Cato Institute is libertarian and everyone who disagrees with them is something else? TFD (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Xerographica states: "This article should focus primarily on the variety of Libertarianism that most closely follows Classical Liberalism."

A) What variety of libertarianism most closely follows classical liberalism?

B) How is it that you justify this being the variety of libertarianism that the article should "focus" on? Present reliable sources, if you have them.

C) What does "focus" mean in your comments here? What do we do about material for the other varieties. Approximately how many paragraphs of text should each variety of Libertarianism, such as anarchist and left-lib, receive in this Libertarianism article?

BigK HeX (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Classical liberals were divided on many issues: slavery, universal suffrage, regulation, and universal education, to name a few. TFD (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The Cato Institute and the Libertarian Party are the most well known and politically relevant Libertarian organizations. Chances are really good that when somebody does a Google Search for Libertarianism that's the variety of Libertarianism that they are looking for. The other varieties of Libertarianism are not well known outside a relatively small circle of academics. On the off-chance an academic does a Google search and utilizes Wikipedia they will search using the specific name of the variety that they are looking for.

The challenge here is making the concept of Libertarianism accessible yet informative. Personally, what initially helped me to understand Libertarianism was the following simple analogy...the freedom to swing your fist ends where somebody else's nose begins. That's the Harm principle. Honestly, if we replaced this entire article with that one analogy we would be helping more people understand the basic concept of Libertarianism.

That the intro still does not include the Harm principle is proof positive that some of you still do not grasp what Libertarianism is. It's not unlimited liberty. It's understanding where your liberty ends and somebody else's liberty begins. The first group of definitions that I shared makes this point very very clear. Of course, some of you are so focused on highlighting the disagreements in the intro that the point just flew over your heads. The disagreements are inevitable given how broad the scope is of this article...which is exactly why the scope needs to be narrowed. --Xerographica (talk) 21:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

So... to sum up your lengthy comment, basically: "The Cato Institute and the Libertarian Party ... WP:ORx40". Is that about right? BigK HeX (talk) 22:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

RE: "Personally, what initially helped me to understand Libertarianism was the following simple analogy...the freedom to swing your fist ends where somebody else's nose begins."

Maybe your self-education is part of the problem with why your understanding runs counter to the article that has been built from informed experts in reliable sources. Just a thought.... BigK HeX (talk) 23:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia policy..."in encyclopedias it is perfectly proper to have separate articles for each different definition of a term". The Cato Institute is the 5th most influential think tank in the world and the Libertarian Party has nearly 100,000 fans on facebook. Chances are pretty good that when somebody runs across a reference to "Libertarianism" it will be in association with one of those two organizations. Therefore, this article should be dedicated to the most relevant definition of the term. --Xerographica (talk) 00:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Well ... you're on the talk page for Libertarianism defined as "advocacy for liberty". Feel free to start a new page, if you find a different definition.

As for your facebook WP:OR ... lol. By the way, libertarian socialist Noam Chomsky has well over 100,000 fans. I guess his idea of libertarianism must be the "most relevant definition", amirite? Can you help me start rewriting the Wiki article to "dedicate" it to libertarian socialism. kthx! BigK HeX (talk) 00:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

We actually already have articles on the Cato Institute and the Libertarian Party of the United States. TFD (talk) 01:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

In that situation the word "Libertarian" is an adjective meant to modify the noun "socialist". Therefore, "Libertarian socialism" is a variety of socialism. Maybe if the word was "Socialist libertarian" I might be inclined to agree. In any case it's a pretty good example of why the scope of this article needs to be narrowed. --Xerographica (talk) 01:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you please provide a reliable source for that statement. TFD (talk) 01:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

If he had said that in the phrase "black umbrella" "black" is an adjective meant to modify the noun "umbrella", would you have asked for a reliable source for that statement? It's a fact of English grammar. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

When I visited Chomsky's fan page I noticed two of my facebook friends are fans of him... my uncle and my brother's ex-girlfriend. They are two of the most hardcore liberals I know. They would call me crazy if I called them Libertarians. A definition of Libertarianism that is so broad that it applies to both them and myself is completely useless and communicates nothing.

Reliable sources are not the answer. In fact, they are probably the biggest part of the problem. The only solution seems to be to provide a large dose of common sense. Sadly, unlike reliable sources, common sense seems to be in very short supply. --Xerographica (talk) 01:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

lol ... something told me that you'd backtrack pretty quickly from the facebook criteria that YOU invented for us here, when it turns out not to support your argument. In any case, if reliable sources are a problem for YOUR (self-taught?) understanding of libertarianism, then one of these days maybe you'll admit the possibility that it is not actually the sources that are the problem, but rather your understanding that is the problem. In any case, I'm done with this completely asanine "ignore the reliable sources" discussion. Really, it has no place here. BigK HeX (talk) 02:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

How can I backtrack from a non sequitur? We were discussing the definition of Libertarianism and you brought up Chomsky. See the disambiguation link at the top of the article? It's not there for decoration. Please click on it and see if you can't discern which article Chomsky might be most relevant to. You'll probably need a hint so feel free to refer to my simple cheat sheet... reliable vs relevant. --Xerographica (talk) 08:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It's rather amusing that you only recognize non sequiturs when someone uses your own "logic" against you. YOU are the one who suggested that the article should be "dedicated" to the libertarianism of the Libertarian Party of the US, because it has "almost 100,000 fans" on facebook. It's amazing how your own "logic" suddenly became invalid when I substituted Noam Chomsky and his 130,000+ facebook fans. Your self-serving fallacious arguments are excessively unproductive. As for your "reliable vs relevant" cheatsheet, please note that it is superceded by my "cheatsheet" here, and then see the only useful cheatsheet on this talk page: Talk:Libertarianism#Citation_for_broad_usage BigK HeX (talk) 09:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

How many of Chomsky's fans would identify themselves as Libertarians? Chomsky's fans are left of liberals and yet you think they are relevant to this article. This is a great discussion though because it clearly emphasizes the need to narrow the scope of this article.

Regarding broad usage...obviously nobody uses the word "Libertarianism" to simultaneously refer to both Left and Right...given that the two sides are mutually exclusive. But let's take a look at those "broad" sources...

• Encyclopedia of Ethics: states that right-libertarianism is the traditional form of Libertarianism.
• The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: states that right-libertarianism is the better known version.
• Encyclopedia of Political Theory: states regarding egalitarianism..."This contrasts with equality of opportunity or equality before the law - ideas more commonly associated with modern libertarianism and classical liberalism - where the freedom and rights of the individual are paramount and of utmost concern in matters of political affairs."
• Liberalism: old and new: indicates that the best known form is right-libertarianism and then just uses the word "libertarianism" to refer to right-libertarianism
• "Right and Left Wings in Libertarianism": "Today, interpretations of right-libertarian ideological complex are most popular in the scientific literature and in the popular imagination."
• Contemporary debates in political philosophy: it's an academic debate.

This article should only focus on right-libertarianism because generally that's what people mean when they use the word "Libertarianism". If they want to talk about left-libertarianism then they use the word "left-libertarianism" and if they want to read about left-libertarianism then they can read the article on left-libertarianism. If you think the debate has any relevance outside academic circles then feel free to create an article on the debate.--Xerographica (talk) 12:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Born2cycle, I asked for a reliable source and you provided me with a rule of English grammar which is original research. TFD (talk) 07:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Hear Hear. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

wp:idontlikeit. please reread and adjust your comment. Darkstar1st (talk) 12:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Xerographica, notice the wording used: "traditional form", "better known version", "best known form". It is not different schools of thought with the same name but the same school of thought with different "forms" or "versions". Conservatism, liberalism and socialism have different forms as well, but we have articles about them anyway. This may not appear to be obvious to you because poltical debate in the U.S. usually refers to libertarian principles. TFD (talk) 16:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

For example in the slavery debate, liberal defenders claimed that slaves had freely entered into a contract, based on their reading of Locke. Since they had been captured legally through war, the victors had contracted with the prisoners to spare their lives in return for service. Depriving owners of their slaves would be government intervention into a private contract. Liberal opponents however challenged the legality of the contract. (See for example The debate over slavery: antislavery and proslavery liberalism in antebellum America.) Conservatives and socialists were also divided on slavery, but they argued from different principles. TFD (talk) 16:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

In the show "Spartacus", Varro willingly becomes a slave/gladiator to pay off gambling debts. Right out of high school I willingly signed a contract to become Government Issue (G.I.). The keyword is "willingly". When somebody has a gun to your head the keyword is "unwillingly". The freedom to swing your fist ends where somebody else's nose begins. How can we tell where my fist ends and your nose begins? DNA. DNA does't work with land though. California back in the day was all about the gold rush. People were staking claims (defining their property) and striking it rich. That's why it was called a "gold rush". The book..."The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else" provides a ton of evidence that correlates strong property rights with developed countries. If people formally own their property they can use it as collateral for business loans. When Chairman Mao collectivized farms (removed property rights) he completely destroyed the incentive to produce. The end result was 20 million dead.

The difference between a gold rush/walk...between a country developing/languishing...and between 20 million people living/dying is exactly the same amount of difference between right-libertarianism and left-libertarianism. That's why "right-libertarianism" is the "traditional form", "better known version", "best known form"...and why "Libertarianism" is commonly understood to mean "right-libertarianism" ...and why "right-libertarianism" should be the sole topic of this article. --Xerographica (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

slavery is not libertarian, offering someone death or a yoke is not a rational bargain. ergo the trouble with this article, madness. Darkstar1st (talk) 03:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

(out) You may not agree, but that was the libertarian argument for slavery. The title of Americans to land is based on conquest, they alienated property rights from aboriginals through violence, which was in accordance with natural law. They also enslaved people based on the same principles. They argue among themselves based on the same principles. Can an individual alienate property from common ownership or alienate the freedom of an individual? These are all arguments among libertarians, all based on freedom of contract and freedom of the individual. Darkstar1st seems to take a middle road - one may deprive an individual of property rights through conquest but not their freedom. Darkstar1st apparently disagrees with the right-libertarian view that property rights is the only right that really matters. BTW Spartacus is a Communist movie. TFD (talk) 04:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

true, the overlords did use the communist phrase: enemies of the state are known, arrests are being made, the prisons begin to fill, said Marcus Licinius Crassus. Here is one they left out of the film: sooner the whole nation die of hunger than allow free trade in grain, Lenin. The title of Americans to land is based on conquest, "americans", which i think tfd meant the usa, actually fought imperialist england for the land, not "aboriginals". didn't aboriginals poke other aborigines with sharp sticks and "appropriate the land" mere hours before the Mayflower made landfalls? wasn't most of the usa was bought from France, Russia, and Spain? ironically, all now socialist, and all now and broke. they used the $ we gave them to conquest each other, and ended up just destroying everything over there a few different times. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Ultimately the original basis for all private property in the U.S. is conquest, regardless of whether the U.S. conquered the property or acquired it through treaty with another conquering power. A title deed issued by England, France or Spain is still valid. Xerographica was referring to a new show not the movie. However, Darkstar1st, I am surprised you could not see the obvious Communist ideology in the movie. It was in fact based on a novel by Howard Fast. TFD (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Which country has private property not obtained by conquest? I thought the moral of Spartacus, was for man to be free, not told which job he should have, where he could live, what books he could read. One of my favorites, "Dr. Zivago" was forbidden in Russia, as were several other authors. Did you know that only a small minority of people in the soviet union were "allowed" to join the sole political party? The rest were subjugated to the rule of the minority. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

You can read a review of the book in pro-Communist Masses & Mainstream, a magazine Fast wrote for and the successor of The New Masses and The Mainstream.[6] Fast left the CPUSA because as you point out the Soviet Union did not promote communist values, such as the ones expressed in Spartacus. Pitcairn Island and Bermuda were terra nulla at the time of settlement, and some aboriginal property in the U. S., particularly Eskimo land, was obtained by mixing labor with the soil. TFD (talk) 15:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

so if the rest of the world was settled by conquest, why not say the world, instead of saying america(specifically you meant the usa)? also, slavery was imported from asia, africa, and finally europe, so your use of the word "they" is a bit odd. anyway, the article is about libertarianism as understood by the most people today. the lpusa has more members than all the other "forms" mentioned combined and squared. on the 24th, the lede will be corrected. the undo weight given past, fringe, and disputed forms libertarianism will be purged from the lede, and later from the article entirely. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The article is about libertarianism, not the Libertarian Party (United States). In the same sense, the articles on republicanism, democracy, prohibition, natural law and socialism, etc. are not based on the U. S. parties that call themselves after those concepts. TFD (talk) 16:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

true, but those articles are all centered around the most widely held belief of the term currently. undo weight has been given to the libertarianism article incorporating terms the majority of libertarians do not believe. the sources are not at issue here, just the weight. so if the lpusa has the most members, then it should have the greatest weight. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Tendentiousness

Darkstar1st states, "the undo weight given past, fringe, and disputed forms libertarianism will be purged from the lede, and later from the article entirely."

Given that the weight has been supported by a multitude of reliable sources, I'd suggest drastic alteration as an unwise course of action. BigK HeX (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

the sources are not in question, rather the weight. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Please demonstrate which forms of libertarianism are "past, fringe, and disputed", and discuss specific improvements you'd like to make, backed by reliable sources. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

you comments and critique is welcome here. proof appears to be elusive on the page, so we are left to consensus. a pending mediation is in the works, so do not spend to much time here, it may all be for naught. for more info, please review the archieves here, too much material to bring you up to speed.

• http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Libertarianism#the_lede_will_change_on_august_23rd
• http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Libertarianism#Poll:_Common_ground Darkstar1st (talk) 18:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX, the reliable sources you refer to for your justification of the Orwellian doublespeak used to poison the Libertarianism article, with absurd notions that "Libertarianism" entails variations of Anarchism and Socialism, are little more than a club of self-important left-wing academics who have made careers out of their mutual endorsements for their obfuscation of the concept of "Libertarianism" in the minds of the ignorant.

Most of the advocates of left-Libertarianism are Anarchists or Socialists whose beliefs have nothing in common with Libertarianism. But, they purport that Anarchism and/or Socialism embody Libertarianism, using their revisionist concept of "freedom", usually by referencing Isaiah Berlin's Positive Liberty (see Two Concepts of Liberty). This is doublespeak at its worst.

There are countless ideologies and labels owned by the left. Why do you feel the need to poison the definition of "Libertarianism", a central term for individualists and freedom-lovers of the right, if not as part of an exercise to render the term moot for the purpose of intelligent philosophical discussion? BlueRobe (talk) 02:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

If you disagree with reliable sources presented, please present alternatives. TFD (talk) 02:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

TFD, some extremely reliable sources have been presented by Xerographica (see above). BlueRobe (talk) 03:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Good ... present them in the article. They do not "cancel out" the prominent views of the WP:RS that you don't like, though. If you don't like the way Wikipedia gives ALL prominent views of a concept coverage within the same Wiki article, then you are free to start a different project. BigK HeX (talk) 05:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Left-Libertarianism is not a prominent view. Left-Libertarianism is an exercise in doublespeak designed to sabotage the Libertarianism article with pointless tangents about Anarchism and Socialism. Shame on you. BlueRobe (talk) 06:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

what is obvious to me is self-described non-libertarians are bent on editing this page to reflect undo weight. this means the core ideas are spreading, otherwise, why would they even bother. i welcome each disruption as a sign we are nearing perfection of this article. Tomorrow i will set about purging the lede of the undo material as described in talk exactly 1 week to the day. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

<backdent>Libertarian socialism and left libertarianism have been in and left in this article for more than three years, so it is dozens of editors who have accepted them during that time, not a few lately. Also, your comments of last week didn't make sense and looked like just an insult section. It would be nice to present them here first so we can discuss. If your edits are really bad, obviously they will be quickly reverted. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

no insult intended, rather a search for truth. the disambiguation page and the libertarianism page all include the same topics. what is being disambiguated there? if geo libertarianism is a form of libertarianism, rather than a totally different topic, isn't it redundant to list them in both places? Darkstar1st (talk) 10:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

If that was the point you were making, it did not come through at all. If redundancy is a policy problem, then we should scrap the disambiguation page. Otherwise it is a useful short cut. Please cite relevant policy. CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

carol there already is support for scraping the disambiguation page, you opposed it here Oppose for reasons explain Ad nauseam in reply to dozens of WP:SOAPBOX (and a number of personal attack) posts, including by AnonIps and at least two sock puppets. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC). on redundancy and policy, you are right, there is not a policy against redundancy, what a shame if we needed such a policy. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

If I opposed it in the past, that was because no clear case was made for getting rid of it. I don't particularly support getting rid of it, but at least I understand the argument now. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

No consensus on purging some forms of libertarianism so please stop disrupting editing with demands

<backdent>Darkstar's comment above what is obvious to me is self-described non-libertarians are bent on editing this page to reflect undo weight assumes non-libertarians are out to sabotage the page. First, nonlibertarians can edit and one should not automatically assume their edits are sabotage. Second, self-styled libertarians who disagree with you about what WP:RS say also should not be assumed to be sabotaging page. But most importantly, after 6 months of constant harping on your desire to change this article, supported by all sorts of insulting Anon IPs and first time editors (plus two sock puppets) with the exact same POV, enough long-time editors have objected to foil any such consensus. Therefore your demands should be dropped so we can deal constructively with the couple legitimate issues you have raised. I really think it's time for some sort of intervention to stop the disruption. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

It is patently obvious that a handful of left-wing ideologues have banded together to sabotage the Libertarianism article. The claims that Libertarianism entails any kind of Socialism are utterly absurd and can only lead to innocent readers being tragically misinformed about the true nature of Libertarianism. And, while there is some overlap between Libertarianism and Anarchism (especially Anarcho-Capitalism), it is absurd to claim that "Libertarianism" is a synonym for "Anarchism", as some of the saboteurs have suggested. And who is the utter moron who thought Libertarian Socialism had a place in the Libertarian article?

There are countless Wikipaedia Articles about Socialism and Anarchism, so why do you (and a few others) feel so compelled to poison the Libertarian page with nonsense? Frankly, it appears to me that you're simply trying to censor Libertarianism out of Wikipaedia. BlueRobe (talk) 02:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

And by "censor", you're referring to editors who have added even MORE reliably-sourced material to the Libertarianism article, giving it a larger and more prominent footprint nd making it a bit easier to find among the pages of Wikipedia. And you are the one who keeps soapboxing about Orweillian doublespeak. How amusingly ironic. BigK HeX (talk) 03:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI, BlueRobe, I'm waiting to hear you discuss actual sources and references and not just your personal opinion. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems like you're in for a long wait, if you think Reliable Sources are a concern for someone who says he could care less if he was arguing against the "Patron Saint of Definitions". IMO, it's pretty pointless to humor this editor's rants. BigK HeX (talk) 03:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Bluerobe, censoring means removing information, which is what you suggest doing. "Orwellianism", which you mentioned, refers to the socialist writer George Orwell and describes rewriting history to remove facts that one finds inconvenient. Please stop using emotive words such as "poisoning" and explain what you mean. TFD (talk) 02:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX, on the contrary, the Libertarian article has become bloated with tangential references (Anarchism), irrelevant references (Libertarian Socialism) and wholly incompatible references (Socialism) that can only detract from the true nature of Libertarianism and mislead the reader.

Carolmooredc, to repeat, Xerographica has provided plenty of superior reliable sources in the Reliable Sources section (see above).

TDF, censorship through the use of misleading information is just as effect as through the removal of information. Indeed, that is often a more efficient form of censorship (and, ironically, fools people into believing the censor is providing information instead of removing it). The misinformation that has been deliberately embedded into the Libertarian article, with dubious references to works written by a handful of revisionist academics who have made careers out of doublespeak, is an unfortunate example of this. And please L2 colon.

Btw, TFD. George Orwell was not a "Socialist writer". If anything, his work (especially Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm) are highly respected examples of anti-Socialist and anti-Communist fiction. BlueRobe (talk) 04:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Did you ever read anything by Orwell other than those two books? Do you know that his publisher was the Left Book Club or that he fought in the Spanish Civil War with the Workers' Party of Marxist Unification? Did you ever read his book review of Hayek's Road to Serfdom? He wrote, "I worked out an anarchistic theory that all government is evil.... Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it." You might call him a left libertarian. TFD (talk) 04:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

TFD, when we say "Orwellian", we are referring to Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm. Those books are anti-Socialist books. This is beyond dispute. Or, are you going to throw-up some very poetic revisionist doublespeak and claim that Socialism (the centralised control of the factors of production and the distribution of good and services) does not entail totalitarian big government? Now that would be ironic. BlueRobe (talk) 04:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

That is a bizarre interpretation of the two books. In Animal Farm for example, the moral is not that the animals were better off under Mr. Jones, the farmer who slaughtered them for market. The book praises Old Major and Snowball, who were modelled on Marx, Lenin and Trotsky. At time of publication it was seen to support a Trotskyist view similar to the view in Trotsky's The Revolution Betrayed. TFD (talk) 05:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Animal Farm is a direct attack on Communism and Socialism. In particular, it is a metaphor for the USSR's Communist Revolution, (indeed, for any Communist-style revolution - see Communist Manifesto). The character of Napoleon is clearly based on Stalin. Napoleon, along with various other metaphoric characters in the novel, illustrates the failings and gross hypocrisy of the Communist revolution. Interestingly, the Communist revolution (which describes a political process more than a stable political regime per se) results in Animal Farm becoming a totalitarian Socialist government which systematically murders the heroes of the revolution and enslaves the proletariat. BlueRobe (talk) 06:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The definition of libertarian socialist is someone who wants socialism without a coercive state apparatus. Therefore it is quite consistent for Orwell to mock State socialism and support non-state socialism. How viable voluntary socialism is for everyone is another issue, but it does work for certain personality and ideological types. CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Carolmooredc, Libertarian Socialism has even less in common with Socialism than it does with Libertarianism. The core to the definition of Socialism is, "the centalised control of the factors of production and the distribution of goods and services." Socialism necessarily entails a "coercive state apparatus". That is entirely incompatible with any version of the absurdly named Libertarian Socialism. BlueRobe (talk) 23:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course Napoleon is based on Stalin. In the narration Stalin betrays the socialism of Marx, Lenin and Trotsky, and restores capitalism. Hence the name of the book that inspired Orwell: The Revolution betrayed. TFD (talk) 14:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Napolean doesn't restore Capitalism. Napolean installs Socialism, with all the failings of Socialism - murder, attack dogs, hypocrisy, etc. BlueRobe (talk) 23:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Napoleon installs communism in one country, also known by socialists as state capitalism. 1984 illustrates the opposite end of the political spectrum - which turns out to be remarkably similar. Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

or land of the blind http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0433405/plotsummary

Bluerobe, please read the book instead of the summary from the John Birch Society. The pigs start to look, act and dress like humans, i.e., capitalists, and Napoleon becomes an equal of the other farmers. It is the Trotskyist view of the Russian Revolution. Of course there is nothing wrong with being a Trotskyist. TFD (talk) 03:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I feel that it needs to be pointed out that what the message of Animal Farm is or is not does not have a remarkable bearing on what should be the scope of this article, only on what George Orwell's personal opinion is. He was, in fact, a democratic socialist. This is starting to veer into WP:FORUM territory. Zazaban (talk) 23:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Zazaban, when we refer to "Orwellian", we are referring primarily to Nineteen Eighty-Four, and secondly to Animal Farm. As with any other political philosopher, I couldn't care less about him or his private life.

Btw, I love the way the "Wikipaedia is not a forum" posters always add their own $0.02 on the topic being discussed, lol. BlueRobe (talk) 00:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It was actually an attempt to settle the matter, which, as I've said, is irrelevant. You earlier called him an 'anti-socialist writer' which is patently untrue. Zazaban (talk) 05:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

@Zazaban ... this is THE hottest forum on WP, from what I've seen. BigK HeX (talk) 00:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX indeed! I only respond to your posts because I've been told you're Cameron Diaz in real life ;-) BlueRobe (talk) 01:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

American libertarians always refer to Spartacus, George Orwell and Emma Goldman. Libertarianism, as Murray Rothbard pointed out is leftist. TFD (talk) 03:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

What part of Libertarianism's rampant Individualism, Capitalism and adherence to John Stuart Mill's Harm Principle gives you the idea that it is a left-wing ideology? Here's a newsflash for TFD, the left wing is all about Collectivism, Socialism and Coercion (disguised as the "common good" - see Utilitarianism). BlueRobe (talk) 05:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not him who has the idea, it's Murray Rothbard, whom nobody would dispute is a Libertarian. The term was coined by an anarchist, so to try to completely throw out leftist forms is a bit hasty, regardless of your personal opinion on the subject (which I can gather is strongly negative.) Zazaban (talk) 05:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we can safely assume that Rothbard's view of the political spectrum was skewed by the American view that Right-wing=Christian Conservatism (aka. the Christian Right). BlueRobe (talk) 06:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Not really, he probably recognized that classical liberalism was seen as left-wing in the 19th century. To begin with, I highly doubt that Rothbard was ignorant of politics enough to make such a huge error. Though if you could provide a source that his view of the political spectrum was skewed, then that's entirely different. Zazaban (talk) 06:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

actually the term was coined by William Belsham in opposition to determinism, meaning he is against other influences determining his life, aka anti-authoritarianism. dejaques was a communist. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, you're right, first used in a political sense by an anarchist. (Dejaque was an anarchist communist, so technically both.) Zazaban (talk) 07:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Zazaban, I was not saying that Rothbard's view of the political spectrum was wrong. I was saying that it was skewed by the American context within which he viewed it. The political spectrum, when viewed within it's American context, is more akin to a battle between the politically correctness and Socialism of the left versus the Christian Right. Given this context, American Libertarians frequently don't know where they sit and often reject the relevance of the political spectrum entirely. Rothbard's attempt to contrive a political spectrum where Libertarianism sits on the left was more of a reactionary backlash to the dominance of the Christian Right during the time he was active in America's party politics (1970s-1980s). BlueRobe (talk) 09:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Rothbard saw left-wing collectivism, whether by Stalin or Fabians as a betrayal of the Left and a return to conservatism: "...there were... two different strands within socialism: one was the right-wing, authoritarian strand, from Saint-Simon down, which glorified statism, hierarchy, and collectivism and which was thus a projection of conservatism trying to accept and dominate the new industrial civilization. The other was the left-wing, relatively libertarian strand, exemplified in their different ways by Marx and Bakunin, revolutionary and far more interested in achieving the libertarian goals of liberalism and socialism; but especially the smashing of the state apparatus to achieve the “withering away of the State” and the “end of the exploitation of man by man.” (See Left and Right (1965).) TFD (talk) 14:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this page about the philosophy Libertarian, or the political use of the term Libertaire?

The term libertarian in a philosophical sense was first used by late-Enlightenment free-thinkers to refer to those who believed in free will, as opposed to determinism. In 1789, William Belsham coined the term in a discussion of free will and in opposition to "necessitarian" (or determinist) views. liberty: a free individual being most free within the context of a state which provides stability of the laws. the anarchist communist, "from each according to ability, to each according to need", Joseph Déjacque, later said "liberal but not libertaire" in a discussion on the rights of women. the whole basis of all left, socialist, anarcho, geo, philosophy comes from the French term, which is obviously different from the original english term. the whole argument of left/right rest on the translated "liberal but not libertaire" which was assumed to mean the same as Belsham's term, yet in practice is very different. therefore i suggest we divide these 2 philosophy into the english philosophical freedom from necessitation, and the french political use of libertaire by the anarchist communist in response to the outlawed use of the term anarchy. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

As you rightly point out, the label of "Libertarian" is used to represent the belief that humans have Free Will in metaphysical philosophy. However, that use of the term "Libertarian" is incommensurable with the use of the term in political philosophy.

Further more, I think people are placing entirely too much importance on the historical etymology of some words. Especially ineffable terms like "left-wing", "right-wing", "liberal" and "conservative". Ronald Reagan once noted (in 1980) that the Liberal-Conservative dichotomy has limited relevance in a changing world, and that an American liberal at the time of the American Revolution was more akin to a conservative in 1980s America. Similarly, the political conservatives in Russia in the 1990s were, ironically, the hard-line Communists, while the Liberals were the new advocates of free-market economics.

Thus, while the historical etymology of political terms can be useful, its relevance needs to be entertained with a cautionary grain of salt. BlueRobe (talk) 09:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

good point, however, instead of different uses of the same word, i am suggesting the term libertarian, and libertaire are entirely different terms from 2 very different languages. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You're probably onto something there. BlueRobe (talk) 10:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Uhhh...both...? BigK HeX (talk) 12:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

We cannot rely on original research and must use reliable sources for articles. The paradox of American conservatives btw has been addressed in many reliable sources. When the New Dealers began calling themselves liberals, their opponents began calling themselves conservatives. Then to add to the semantic confusion, they adopted the terms left and right as well. TFD (talk) 13:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Libertarianism was supposed to clear up that problem by establishing a statist - antistatist spectrum with statists ranked by the number/cost/impact of state programs they support. Obviously, that concept was not made sufficiently clear by enough libertarians, and the old left right language is back again, confusing everything. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

the man who coined the term, belsham, was statist. Darkstar1st (talk) 04:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The logic of the statist-antistatist spectrum is that Jim Crow and anti-discrimination laws, being both statist solutions, would be placed in the same part of the political spectrum. But the advocates of the different laws do not normally cooperate and are seen as occupying different parts of the political spectrum. TFD (talk) 02:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

the logic is rather clear to me, Dejacques, an anarchist communist, was anti-statist, and coined the french term: "libertaire" Belsham, a freethinker being most free within the context of a state which provides stability of the laws, was statist. He coined the term "libertarian" in opposition to determinism. your above jim crow analogy demonstrates the absurdity of trying to describe opposite ideas by least common denominator, as is being attempted on this page. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I was replying to CarolMooreDC's comment, not your reference to Belsham. TFD (talk) 06:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

so does that mean you are for removing the anti-statist ref on this page? Darkstar1st (talk) 06:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not appear to have been successful in explaining my comments to you. TFD (talk) 07:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

well as long as your in this section, why not comment on the question posed by the title? Darkstar1st (talk) 07:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I did. Can you please provide a reliable source for your theory. TFD (talk) 07:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

so which is it, or both? My theory of what?

Well if you do not know what this discussion thread is about, then perhaps it is best to go on to something else. TFD (talk) 08:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

i think you meant to say "both". Darkstar1st (talk) 10:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

CNN and NPR

I've already used "your" reliable academic sources to prove that right-libertarianism is the most common definition of Libertarianism. But how do reliable and relevant sources use the word? If you search for the word "Libertarian" in the CNN site and the NPR site...within the first 100 results how many results use some form of the word "Libertarian" to refer to right-libertarianism? Here are the first 100 results for CNN and here are the first 100 results for NPR.

As I've said before...we will never be able to achieve consensus because we are talking about completely different and mutually exclusive definitions of the word "Libertarianism". This article should discuss the most common and relevant definition...because that's the definition that people are interested in learning about. If they are not interested in the common definition then that's what the disambiguation page is for.

Unlike all other sources...Wikipedia is unique in its ability to be dynamic and reflect up-to-date definitions, uses and relevance. If you constrain Wikipedia solely to out-of-date purely academic sources then the value of Wikipedia is completely negated. --Xerographica (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, we've got it covered in the article with, "Right-libertarianism is thought to be better known than left-libertarianism"

But, here's a hint! "Most common form" =/= "ONLY definition of".

/thread BigK HeX (talk) 21:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Try the same search for the term "liberal" and you will find that they usually use the term to refer to a subset of liberalism, just as they use the term "libertarian" to refer to a subset of libertarianism. The two Wikipedia articles use the meaning of the word the one would find in a textbook and the subsets are also described separately in their own articles. TFD (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

TFD, there is no clearly primary definition for the term "liberal". Its definition changes with context and time. There is, however, a clearly primary definition for the term "libertarianism", (despite the constant sabotage by a handful of trolls on this page). BlueRobe (talk) 00:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

agree everyday more evidence is presented here of how the mainstream definition of libertarian does not include most of the disambiguation page. each time new evidence is brought, instead of debating the data, the editor is attacked, or some vague wp:soundlikeyoujustmadethatup is employed to discount the evidence. the faster we get to mediation the better. Darkstar1st (talk) 00:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

lol ..... "evidence". Just FYI, "Hey guys! I can post links to Google searches onto the talk page!" is NOT "evidence." BigK HeX (talk) 00:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX, who said that there is only one definition? According to Wikipedia policy..."in encyclopedias it is perfectly proper to have separate articles for each different definition of a term". If nearly all the results for CNN and NPR discuss one definition then that is sufficient evidence for this article to be dedicated to that single definition.

According to Primary Topic policy it's also sufficient evidence for this article to be the default page rather than the disambiguation page..."Although a term may potentially refer to more than one topic, it is often the case that one of these topics is highly likely – much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined – to be the subject being sought when a reader clicks the "Go" button for that term." The other topics/definitions have little relevance outside of a few small academic circles. --Xerographica (talk) 01:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

By my best estimate, you're going to change all of zero minds by just repeating the same assertion ad naseum [although the "New! Now with random Google links" bit was at least a tiny change for the better]. It is up to YOU to make a (convincing!!!) argument that these different forms are -- in actuality -- not just different forms, but actually "different definitions of libertarianism". Good luck with that. BigK HeX (talk) 01:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

since the other forms already have there own articles, doesn't that mean they are different definitions, example: left-libertarian, a commitment to expansion of the welfare state. minarchism, the state protects the life, liberty, and property of each individual. Darkstar1st (talk) 03:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX, Deng Xiaoping said that he didn't care if a cat was black or white as long as it caught mice. Basically...it didn't matter if an approach was capitalist or communist...what mattered was if it worked. He was trying to justify his capitalist approach by saying that capitalism and communism were just different colored cats. A cat that killed 20 million people is not pretty much the same thing as a cat that led to rapid development.

In conservatism, liberalism and libertarianism...the means of production are privately owned. When an ideology messes around with private ownership of the means of production...then it's not a cat...it's a different beast altogether. Just like if an animal doesn't have a spine/backbone then it's not a vertebrate. Same exact thing with the existence of the government. Conservatives, liberals and libertarians all agree that the government is necessary. Any ideology that wants to abolish government is a different beast altogether. --Xerographica (talk) 03:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems that both Darkstar1st and BlueRobe have belief systems that they call libertarianism and believe that their definition should be used for this article. But their belief system is more normally called right-wing populism or right-wing extremism and differs from libertarianism in that it does not include civil rights. TFD (talk) 04:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

what did i say that makes you think i am against civil rights? do you consider legalizing drugs and bringing home our troops right wing extremist? Darkstar1st (talk) 04:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Did any one here do the new edits on Right-libertarianism, as an Anon IP? Some look suspect, some look ok, but many show familiarity with this page and its edits. But don't have time now to check out further. Just wondering. (Or could it be the infamous User:Karmaisking? CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Karmaisking is from NSW Australia while the IP at Right Libertarianism is from California. TFD (talk) 05:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

An aussie kangaroo. I should have known :-) Anyway, hopefully others will take a look at Right-libertarianism. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I only took the merest of glances at it earlier in the day. Didn't see anything overly nonsensical. BigK HeX (talk) 05:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

TFD, "right-wing extremism and differs from libertarianism in that it does not include civil rights"? Libertarianism entails individual rights, qua Isaiah Berlin's Negative Liberty. Civil Rights, as the term is generally used, are sometimes more akin to Isaiah Berlin's Positive Liberty, which is ultimately inconsistent with the freedoms endorsed by Libertarianism. I guess it all comes down to the regrettably ineffable definition of "civil rights" that you are using.

Btw, that is the first time I've ever been accused of being a populist. As is the case with the vast majority of Libertarians, I'm very experienced in holding unpopular dissenting political opinions. Seriously, WTF is "popular" about the Libertarian views endorsed by Darkstar1st and myself? BlueRobe (talk) 05:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

This is collapsing into partisan bickering, from both sides. Arbitration would be very nice, arbitration should have been done ages ago. Zazaban (talk) 05:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Group hug :-) BlueRobe (talk) 06:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Populism does not mean popular, although they are cognate words. While the defense of freedom is libertarian, the villianization of belief systems that disagree with one's own and grouping them together as a threat to liberty is populism. TFD (talk) 13:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

User: Zazaban - as you can see there is a request under mediation cabal. If nothing comes of that, there could be a request under formal mediation. See WP:dispute. Arbitration is a [[Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Last_resort:_Arbitration}last resort]]. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

TFD, no. Generically speaking, Populism is the conscious contrivance of one's expressions for the purpose of gaining additional popular support for oneself. BlueRobe (talk) 02:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"Populism... is a type of political-social thought that juxtaposes "the people" against "the elites"...." That's another article you may wish to change to match your ideosyncratic definitions. TFD (talk) 02:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

perhaps we are at the last resort. many here are determined to remove several of the disambiguation terms from this page. i am in favor of moving on to arbitration. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

There should be a Request for comments posted before moving to arbitration, which is a long and often fruitless process. As someone relatively uninvolved in this debate, I'll do the post for RFC below and try to word it neutrally. Hopefully, a consensus will appear during the RFC process. LK (talk) 07:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)