Talk:Libertarianism

Template:Wikipedia CD selection Template:V0.5

Suggestion

So heres a crazy suggestion from me, and I've been a contributor for the anarchism pages for awhile and today was the first time I'd been here (I made a single add in the theorists section adding non american libertarians to the list, tut tut) and it didn't take me long to think; gee, how much better would this article be if it were all deleted? I'd certainly support it and I can see a lot of folks here hate the article, in fact it might be the only consensus; everyone hates it, mostly because it's either a whitewash of the first libertarians who were all socialists that gives greater space then necessary to the admitedly fringe worthy objectivism and anarcho-capitalism that have never been socially significant Or, alterniteivly, it's crime is in mentioning socialist anarchists at all in the same paragraph as the libertarian party, since everyone knows..that is, Americans know..that libertarianism might have meant anti statist socialism before the 70's but it doesn't anymore so Proudhon can suck it, lest we even begin on libertarian marxists.

See that's the problem with those two halfs, the less historically important one is also populated by rich people and leaders, the one that had revolutions was made up of poor people and the oppressed, so which one are we gonna give extra attention to?

So a new article, or at least a revised one, should be made that does not deal with whichever tendency has been more influential or larger, nor should it even note that there are even two halfs to the whole, but to be written in the style of a less pretentious and broad ideology article, or to atleast stop implying that libertarianism started with The Fountainhead. 78.16.225.236 (talk) 04:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Having worked on the article for a while I can tell you that a lot of such people/sources/ideas have been suggested on the talk page and WP:RS even linked here, but insufficient contributions to the page. Of course, they all really need WP:Reliable sources. If the info is in the person's article, than the ref should be there too. And if list gets long enough, you get debates about who is most notable. Also, they should be in chrono order by birth, since that order confusing. A brief intro on how they've influenced different and similar libertarian movements might be too much, unless down by eschewing excess verbiage. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that that the main problem with the article is that it is very confusing, and lacking "forest for the trees" type summaries. It has improved some, but has a long way to go. North8000 (talk) 13:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

(added later) Not that those summaries are easy to make on this difficult / hard to pin down topic.North8000 (talk) 12:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

(insert) I think they are easy to make but people keep nitpicking them. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Carol, you (and several other people here) know this topic 10 times better than I do. Yet, in 6 months the only person I saw write anything simple or as a summary here is me. Maybe it needs a dummy like me to see what this article needs.  :-) Please write!North8000 (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

That may or may not be true, but it has been discouraging editing here for reasons discussed ad nauseum. So it's easy to go off on other less frustrating or more challenging tangents, especially since the article is only annoying and not insidious or infuriating - or even interesting and in need of constructive work - like others I end up working on instead. Obviously not as annoying to me as to you. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

(added later) I'd call it promising, important and frustrating rather than annoying. The "promising" is because I don't think that there the underlying real-world POV differences here which doom other articles where such is the the case. The "frustrating" is that, despite that, a few people are still approaching this as a war-in-progress and blockading progress in important areas. A war with nothing to fight over. :-) North8000 (talk) 13:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

OP author here, I have a question that could certainly help at least in regard to the left libertarian questions; is An Anarchist FAQ considered a reputable and legit source? I ask because I've seen it used plenty on the anarchist articles, or at least as a tool for other refs since the FAQ heavily cites aswell, but I've also seen it get struck down, perhaps suggesting not that it isn't reputable, but that it is controversal given how harshly it states that there is no other libertarianism other then left libertarianism. I can think of a dozen statements in the article that it could be used as a ref if I wasn't in the mind that using it would have me crucified at the alter of Rand, the below section "small edit" dealing with a line from the intro is by me and the faq would be perfect as a source on the communal ownership claim, even if that's a given. Although, maybe it would be better if we forgot about refs for now and gave the article a more "summary" feel, wikipedia is a beginners guide to everything but not much beyond that, there are parts that go beyond "these are the basics of libertarianism".

So I'm going to start thinking about that and post what I have in mind and see..

Aeon135 (talk) 13:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Since this article is about libertarianism it's fine to use sources about anarchism if they also describe the philosophy as "libertarianism." Just using libertarian as an adjective can be debatable since, for example, it's also used to describe more limited goals like civil liberties or drug legalization.

Also, FYI, I think Bookchin is a significant intellectual as well as active influence, at least in American left libertarian/libertarian socialism, including on Green movements. In my 30 years of experience he was far more mentioned that Chomsky as far as being an influence. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I've brought back bookchin, you're correct and yes, Chomsky really has no place in anything politicaly theoretical since he's almost exclusively a critic, he seems to actually dislike talking about anarchism, or at least shys away from it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeon135 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

"Chomsky really has no place in anything politicaly theoretical since he's almost exclusively a critic" What? This is an absurd statement - as if criticism wasn't at the core of political theory... Regardless, it's my first visit to this page and this is looking like y'all might need a few more editors in here; frankly, the bickering between he left and right is unnecessary and counterproductive. An honest assessment is that libertarianism is self-applied by left anarchists, right anarchists, and minarchists - at least. I don't really think it's dependent upon where in the English speaking world one is (which, folks, besides areas outside the US, UK, NZ, and Aus... includes much of the Caribbean and Africa) - as a long time anarchist in the US, I frequently hear left anarchists self-label as libertarian, though less so in the past decade or so because of the right's pretty thorough appropriation of that term in the US (as others have noted)... Anyway, I'll come back in a couple days with more sources, and maybe a couple more editors so we can work this out. DigitalHoodoo (talk) 14:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The more WP:RS info, better organized, the better. One of these days I'll have to read that oft-referenced Chomsky article. More, updated, info on the current usage of "libertarianism" in - English speaking and worldwide - would help. Obviously word usage does evolve, especially in politics. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Small Edit explanation

originally the introduction states: Another difference among libertarians is in groups who are supportive of private property rights in the ownership of land and natural resources and those who are opposed to such rights

I've changed this to Another difference among libertarians is in groups who are supportive of private property rights in the ownership of land and natural resources and those who support communal ownership

The former implies that non private property libertarians "deny" certain rights or oppose these rights off the bat by stating that they are indeed "rights", hence I think mine is more balaned, it's small but telling —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.225.236 (talk) 04:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it is a good distinction - assuming you can find a WP:Reliable source that also describes it that way, since I don't think there are any currently doing so in the article. Let us avoid the naughtiness of WP:Original research. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a fair reading of the existing sources, or at least the SEP source. BigK HeX (talk) 14:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

OP here - is it that I need a source to show that left libertarians support communal ownership? That's somewhat excessive, you don't need a source to say the sky is blue. It's not original research and surely theres been a bunch of refs showing this distinction, I posted 5 just there in the theorists section that briefly mention it, heavily cited. Aeon135 (talk) 14:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

That's not a "sky is blue" statement. You need a reference for just about anything else, especially if you change it from something else that's been there a long time, whether or not that is referenced. Various left libertarians are against various and differing types of property as well as for communalism, so bringing up both issues is warranted. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Saying that left libertarians support communal ownership is one thing. But saying there are groups of libertarians who support communal ownership requires a source (English, written relatively recently) that identifies groups who support communal ownership as being (unqualified) libertarian. I've been asking for such a source (and by that I mean specific quoted material that clearly supports this) for over a week, to no avail. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that the wording makes the statement that you are saying needs sourcing. So, I think we read it two different ways. But I still support the clarification in that area which you proposed, which would be a one word change. North8000 (talk) 00:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that the discussed modification makes the statement much farther reaching and possibly wrong/unsour5cable. That essentially says that all left libertarians want "communal ownership" vs. just saying opposed to private ownership.North8000 (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

First, could we please observe usual formatting rules and not put in stars instead of indents except when listing? See Wikipedia:Talk_page#Layout Thanks.

Second, I changed the sentence to: "who are supportive of private property rights in the ownership of land and natural resources and those who reject some aspects of such private individual ownership." I'm sure those sources reflect the range of views that various left libs have on the topic and just saying they reject all is definitely not true. Slightly better wordAnd the article should too.

Thirdly, as I wrote in the edit summary, libertarians can have a pro-property view of how you define ownership of land and natural resources and still think that once that is defined people should be able to -- or even should be encouraged to - choose to own it communally. That's just part of the voluntary nature of libertarianism.

If I can ever get past having to deal with all the bad process and bad behavior issues on Wikipedia (that even occassionally drive me to my own bad behavior), maybe I can finally get around to .... well, I won't make any promises ;-( CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks / nice work. North8000 (talk) 00:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Reconsidering my earlier statements, your latest edit very well may be the more accurate reflection of the various sources available. Thanks, Carol. BigK HeX (talk) 00:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

"requires a source (English, written relatively recently) that identifies groups who support communal ownership as being (unqualified) libertarian "

No, it doesn't. As you were informed long-ago by a clear consensus of editors (User:Yworo, myself, User:Fifelfoo, User:John_K, User:Snowded, User:GRuban, User:Variable, User:Jrtayloriv, User:Carolmooredc, and User:Iota).

Keep blatantly ignoring every consensus to beat this dead horse. One day, it's sure to bear fruit, right? BigK HeX (talk) 00:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that reading what they wrote here makes it clear that Born2 is not doing what you are describing. While I'm not reading the text in question the same way Born2 is reading it, what they are saying is that the wording claims that unhyphenated "libertarian" specifies the strain of libertarianism that is left libertarian, and that such claim is unsourced.

You're entitled to your opinion of the situation. I'm confident about mine. In any case, I a bit confused about what you're referring to with "they" and whatever "they" are claiming "is unsourced". But, it's not really a huge deal. BigK HeX (talk) 00:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

BigK, that was rejection of my proposal to remove all references to left libertarianism and libertarianism socialism in this article. Please confirm you understand that that is not at all what I'm asking for here.

I'm not asking to remove references to LL or LS identified as such; I'm asking to remove claims of the existence of libertarian groups (and not qualified as being LL or LS) who "reject some aspects of such private individual ownership" (to use the latest wording), unless a source can be produced that identifies such groups and refers to them as being libertarian (without any LL or LS qualification). --Born2cycle (talk) 01:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

BigK, answering your question, sorry for the ambiguous "they"; it referred to Born2cycle.North8000 (talk) 01:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm a "he", if that helps. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Me too, if that helps. North8000 (talk) 01:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to try a tweak that might settle this so that we can move on. I'm sorry Born2, I can't find anything to fix. I'm going to work on a new section that might help a bit on the concerns that you are expressing. North8000 (talk) 01:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I've repeatedly asserted that there is nothing to "fix" because Born2cycle's tendentiously repeated claim is hardly shared by any editors. As such, I've suggested that we should ignore repetitions of the same basic objection and focus our energies on something that would be productive. BigK HeX (talk) 01:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

OP here, I've now added a smaller phrase saying that most left libertarians support communal ownership instead and added a well researched citation, now let it stick. Aeon135 (talk) 14:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Unhyphenated "libertarianism" - second meaning in the US as defining a strain

Trying to bring this discussion several days ago partially to fruition, the "partial" because we only sort of got though it for within the USA. The premise is that beside being the name for the big tent that covers all libertarianism, within the US unhyphenated "libertarian" has a second meaning which is a particular libertarian philosophy. This is just a work space, everybody feel free to modify North8000 (talk) 01:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

- - - Beginning of editable work space please feel free to modify. - - -

This would be a new subsection in the "Libertarian philosophies" section. Sufficient sourcing would be located and provided.

"Libertarian" as a particular philosophy in the United States

In the United States, besides being the umbrella term for all types of libertarianism, "libertarian" as a single word term has a second meaning which is the particular strain of libertarianism that is prevalent in the US. The definition by the US Libertarian Party (the third largest political party in the US, and the largest libertarian-named organization in the US) is representative and includes: :

• supporting maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters.
• advocating a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence.
• support the concept of private property
• embrace individual responsibility
• oppose government bureaucracy and taxes
• promote private charity (vs charity by the state)
• tolerate diverse lifestyles
• support the free market
• defend civil liberties

References

- - - End of editable work space - - - -

Sincerely North8000 (talk) 01:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

- - - - End of editable workspace - - - -

Workspace Comments

This is pointless without WP:RS to back even the basic/fundamental premise of this thread. RS have been requested on the significance of this idea about "unhyphenated libertarians" for weeks (or longer) now. BigK HeX (talk) 01:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Put workspaces on your personal talk page. This is soapbox. I didn't bother to read it.

Just suggest edits - with refs. (Or do something constructive like checking to see if all the things sourced to Carlos Peregrín Otero in a 37 page span without sufficiently specific page numbers are in fact verifiable.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

BigK, I think that sourcing is pervasive on this......the one word "libertarian" being used to refer to that particular philosophy in the US.

Carol, it is NOT a soapbox, and that is obvious. Time for AGF, especially when it is obvious.

Carol and all. I put the workspace here so that it could be a collaborative effort to develop this, and so that people can see where it's coming from. This method has worked well in lots of other articles. If a few people want it moved I will, but those were my reasons for putting it here. North8000 (talk) 02:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why you think this meaning is specific to the U.S. Every major English speaking country, including England, Australia and Canada, has groups, political parties and/or organizations identified in reliable sources as being "libertarian" (without qualification) that ascribe to the same fundamental philosophy as does the U.S. LP. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

First, if this is a proposal just about the U.S. in belongs in Libertarianism in the United States.

However, it's more like an educational discussion. WP:Soapbox says to avoid: Wikipedia:Soapbox#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought:... (3) Personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic (rather than the opinion of experts).... This is not a proposal for organization and sectioning (which can be more general) or for a paragraph (which should have refs) but for a discussion of personal opinions so you can have a better understanding of the topic. That's fine, but it belongs on your talk page and you can invite people to engage with you there.

By the way, check out the (only barely on some articles) exaggerated and very funny The Independent article Wikipedia: This is a man's world. Deja vu?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Born2 you could be right. I have to plead ignorance on that. And I didn't mean to imply that such was unique to the US. It's just that such is a sure thing and heavily sourced for the US so I thought I'd start there. Fiferloo seems very knowlegable. What she/he wrote was hard to understand but seemed to imply that there were more than one "second meaning" for unhyphenated libertarian in Australia/New Zealand/ England. North8000 (talk) 03:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Carol, I'll have to read that article. Amongst my Wikipedia email friends it's about 50/50. North8000 (talk) 03:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Refs not very good: LP is good about itself in paragraph about it but not to define encyclopedically; need quotes from second source; theadvocates is an advocacy site and good to mention it as one and its position, or relevance in history, but again not to define libertarianism encyclopedically. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree that it needs need more and better refs. As an aside, I was thinking that the significance of theadvocates is that a big box (the "are you a libertarian" box) in the prime real estate (upper left) of the USLP home page sends people there. North8000 (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I added one

Although Born2 and Darkstar would probably argue that the above is too narrow (just USA) and too timid, and Carol and BigK would probably at least argue that it needs work, I do believe that it is an important start / step forward on one of the main challenges of this article and plan to put it in. I'm committed to try to help to improve this article, and I see it's main problems as being too confusing and not explanatory enough. Most importantly,its challenge is that it has been a listing of even the rarest "trees", but no material on their prevalence in the forest or on the forest. (But still cover the individual trees) But there has been some progress in this area.

On the second topic, there are a lot of libertarian experts here, with sources to back up what they know. I won't start naming names because I'd forget someone, but basically all of the regular contributors here. I would encourage all of them to start writing stuff, whether it goes in by friendly B/ BRD, or drafts in talk, but keeping the reader in mind who needs summary, simplifying and and explanatory type content. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a draft of something to put in article??

You know, it helps a lot if you explain your "workspace" was actually something you want to put in the article and not just more personal exploration of what libertarianism means to you. "Workspace" is an ambiguous term. "Draft of something I want to put in the Libertarian philosophies section of the article" is not. Now that I understand that's what you wanted to do let me say, at best Redundant to material in Overview and in history. Plus it's inappropriate because it's not really a philosophical difference from things mentioned above. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

First, what else could this be a draft on the talk page of an article be for. Second, your removal of it is violating the RFC result that you and BigK kept bringin up. Third, this was discussed (meaning of unhyphenated libertarianism extensively.) Fourth it is not redundant. Nowhere is this discussed as a strain, which it is. This is important to the forward progress to the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• It's WP:edit warring to put something back in without more discussion, especially when serious concerns raised. Why not revert?
• After the article was closed in Sept someone (you or Born2Cycle?) started a separate page of such generalized discussions; given the history of extremely generalized discussions on this page and lack of clarity on what you were proposing, that's what it looked like you were doing and I would have made those comments and I'm sure others would have agreed, if you had made your intentions clear.
• I made the observation that you don't mean "un-hypenated libertarianism," you mean "libertarianism without an adjective" and your failure to understand that difference made the whole discussion confusing and easy to discount.
• "Strain"? That's just a synonym of variety, type, form. Creating you own "strain" called "Libertarian" as a particular philosophy in the United States is what is called WP:Original research. I'm sure someone will explain it to you here; if not there's the original research noticeboard. Meanwhile I'll tag it as Original Research for a starter. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Plus, at the very beginning of it and since day one it says "This would be a new subsection in the 'Libertarian philosophies' section." So this, plus being a draft (with references) on the talk page of the article. How could it be any clearer? Hire a sky writer?  :)

Having it out for review in the talk pages for 6 days puts it pretty far away from a surprised, undiscussed unilateral insertion. That's about as high as it gets in this article. Sometimes people try for a double standard...saying that a requirement is everybody unanimously explicitly say to put it in....such is non-existent in WP, doubly so here.

Back then when you said "I made the observation that you don't mean 'un-hypenated libertarianism,' you mean 'libertarianism without an adjective' " you were correct and it was a good clarification, but it was not new news. That was the meaning in the discussion all along.

This is such "Paris is the Capital of France" plus sourced material that I can't understand your position on it. Probably the one flaw in it is that it limits itself to the US....the same is probably true in some other places, but that is what is most sure-fire and sourced at this point. I have some concern that it might be because this strand excludes anarchist objectives and I believe that you said that you are an anarchist.

The material is clearly a condensation from the sources, not a synthesis, and probably doesn't even have the (OK) reach of summarization. I dispute the tag, but don't plan to take it off until this section and talk evolves to make it more explicitly clear that it is not OR/synthesis. It's not perfect.

I'm not hung up on the "strain" word....I change it to one of those words that you mentioned.

Most importantly I think that the new material is very important help (possibly even a middle-ground rosetta stone) to some of the ongoing issues and shortcomings of the article. Since this article is both important and has hope (because I don't see any huge underlying POV wars at work here) I have bee "sticking with" this article and feel that said addition, or something evolved from it is very important for the forward progress of the article, to the point where taking a little heat from you and proceeding with this is necessary sacrifice for forward progress. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

CarolMooreDC says, "at best Redundant to material in Overview and in history. Plus it's inappropriate because it's not really a philosophical difference from things mentioned above. "

This captures my feelings on the matter. I don't even see how anything in the draft differentiates from the material we already have covered in the article. BigK HeX (talk) 17:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry North8000. I really do feel the proposed material is inappropriate as encyclopedic content. The current draft really does seem like more your personal understanding of Libertarianism than actual RS viewpoints. You might have a topic with great potential, but currently it doesn't seem to have the sourcing that differentiates "Libertarianism a a particular philosophy in the United States" from material we already have on Libertarianism, namely the minarchist, right-libertarian aspects already covered. BigK HeX (talk) 17:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it needs work (in WP that means development, not immediate deletion) but it IS a particular strand, both self- and RS-identified as just single word "libertarian". And this is a very different meaning than libertarian/libertarianism the umbrella term which you are referring to as being the same/covered elsewhere. For example the umbrella term meaning includes anarchist, the strand term meaning does not. Also the umbrella term meaning includes those opposed to private property, the strand term meaning does not. I was going to say let's have a RFC, but we already did, the one that you and Carol have been referring to for months. The decided result was to cover all significant forms with coverage is RS's. North8000 (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I do get your point that there needs to be some differentiation earlier on in the article, like in the history section where there's far too much about development in US all of which has just been copied to Libertarianism in the United States. So I put the link there. Since I originally wrote most of it, I don't have a problem with appropriate cutting back of the material. At that point I'll make it a more obvious link to the "in the united states" article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like some good thoughts, but which do not address what I wrote. Also further removing the heading from the forms section moves this even further away from a resolution. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The most prevalent strands of libertarianism are called simply "libertarianism" or "libertarian" The deleted section had ample sources supporting the listed strand. Removing it violates both wp:npov / wp:undue and also the results of the specific RFC on this in the fall. The section needs to go back in. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The deleted material was WP:OR, that suggested that the Libertarian Party of the US was basically a strand of Libertarianism, and that it was somehow significant and different from the aspects already covered.BigK HeX (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

If that's how you interpreted it, and presuming that you are not being disingenuous, then I need reword it because that is not how it was intended. North8000 (talk) 14:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It needs far more than just a rewording. Being that even right-libertarian references to "libertarianism" even within the the United States is pretty non-specific (ranging from anarcho-capitalism to minarchism to fusionism), I don't see how your material can be NPOV, but I wish you the best in your research. BigK HeX (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I meant that it was not just a statement about the USLP. All of the sources indicate that the single word in the US defines a form as described. This is independent of the "umbrella" meaning of the term. It doesn't need more research (although more sources on this are pervasive....) it needs what happens here to be in accordance with the decision from RFC on this topic last fall. North8000 (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

As CarolMoore has already opined, I believe as well that "'Libertarianism' as a philosophy in the US" is already covered in the article. Not to diminish your efforts, but the current state of your recent attempt just looks like a lot of redundant aspects but presented in such a way that it serves to add a distinct POV spin and makes dubious (possibly WP:OR) conclusions. If you think the sourcing truly supports material along these lines, then I encourage you to keep working and to provide more of these "pervasive sources". BigK HeX (talk) 23:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

What POV do you think it has / promotes? North8000 (talk) 00:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

That the libertarianism of the LPUSA captures the essence of libertarianism in the US. Your material is pretty promotional about the views of the LPUSA. BigK HeX (talk) 01:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Well I do think that its platform and definition and do depict the common form of single word Libertarianism in the US. To argue against that you would need to essentially argue that that common form either advocates anarchism, or is against private property. But I am certainly am no shill for the USLP. I think that mis-directing libertarian energy towards the impossible task of trying to be a third party (as it has done) is the worst thing that has happened to libertarianism in the US. North8000 (talk) 03:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Before anyone has to argue against something, you need to establish it as something more than your personal viewpoint in the first place. Of course, this is the crux of the issue with the new material. Best wishes, as you continue to build on this proposal. BigK HeX (talk) 06:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Jesse Walker in Reason comments on Sheldon Richman's recent article on "left-libertarianism." Found in a news google search. As I've mentioned before various versions of "left libertarianism" that are more antiproperty also have shown up in news stories over last 10 years. Do a news archive search. I personally get annoyed about it sometimes since I'd like to cut out the left/right business, but it is a WP:RS fact and WP:RS facts are what Wikipedia is all about. Get that through your head and your life will be so much brighter!! :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, so now we have "left-libertarians" who are pro-property, who have no fundamental philosophical difference from "right-libertarians", just a higher emphasis on everyday people vs. big business/the bosses. But only to the extent of the sequence of steps (regarding big business) towards the same end. Where's my decoder ring ?!! North8000 (talk) 15:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The latter is what most of the Left-libertarianism article has turned into. Yes, it's complicated, but not impossible to comprehend and communicate. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

On the main topic, some of the most widely held forms of libertarianism are (not surprisingly when they are pervasive in their geographic area) called simply "libertarianism". They need to be covered in this article! We have the unusual forms covered, no way is it correct to stifle coverage of the more widespread forms. North8000 (talk) 12:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Still waiting on your sources about these other "pervasive" "forms" of libertarianism. BigK HeX (talk) 12:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The deleted insertion was already very well sourced on this. Right now I'm working on developing it to meet an even (incorrectly) higher standard. This business of "delete immediately (instead of developing) if not perfect and quintuple-sourced and much-more-explicitly-sourced-then-the-norm on day one" is not right. But there's no hurry as this overall situation progresses, which I think that it ever-so-slowly is. North8000 (talk) 13:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Merge Left Libertarianism and Libertarian Socialism

agree, disagree? I think it's a no brainer.

I think it would clean the article a bit, and maybe something about anarchism and anarcho capitalism, that "anarchism" has a section and "anarcho capitalism" has another section speaks volumes, good volumes maybe, but atleast we're acknowledging that implcitly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.89.223 (talk) 14:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Been there. Done and undone that. [Added later: by that I meant there already was significant discussion and that change made and undone. Please search archives. Here's a search for relevant terms from box above. Bringing up old issues again and again is really tiresome. Will have to make this comment a template on my talk page.] CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Why exactly did you undo it? Aeon135 (talk) 14:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

carol considers libertarian socialism a minority LL view, even though the most outspoken LL, Noam Chomsky, calls himself a LS. Since it is a minority view of LL, and LL is the lessor known version of Libertarian, should it really be mentioned at all? Darkstar1st (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Aeon13 - Look through archives for past discussions of this issue, per the template at talk of page. DarkStar1st please provide a diff if you are going to quote me since I don't know what you are talking about - or if it really matters. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Undid revision 412088323 by Darkstar1st (talk)mentioning that minority in other part of article fine; not in lead minority views should be minimized, tiny minorities should not be mentioned at all according to wp:weight. i suggest a minority group in a minorty branch of libertarianism qualifies as a tiny minority Darkstar1st (talk) 16:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose In order to suggest this you need a source that says they are the same thing, not just that you think they are the same thing. TFD (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Deal with it later Once we get the main libertarian article fixed up I think that we will be in a better position to deal with the more specialized articles. North8000 (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Support - Do we have separate sections for Right-Libertarianism and Libertarian conservatism? No. I see not reason why a minority tenet should be treated any differently. Toa Nidhiki05 21:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Their histories have significant differences. Doesn't seem to be enough overlap to merge them. BigK HeX (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose for now because we've done this before, as I mention above. Deal with larger issue of right and left and then see how to subsume things. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per reasons already cited. DigitalHoodoo (talk) 14:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems upon closer looks that left libertarianism doesn't really make an explicit elimination of the state as part and parcel of the thought, or at least that it includes "let's just avoid the state" anarchism into it's lot.

so forget it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.205.197 (talk) 21:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Not clear is these are two different 78's or the same one.

Can we close this as "no consensus for a merge at this time, and no consensus for ruling it out for the future"? North8000 (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

the only other option would be removing libertarian socialism as a sub type of LL, which I think is out of the question given the importance of LS, I don't think it's far reaching to say that most LL are probably LS, what other significant LL ideologies are there asides from LS? I don't think any have had the affect. So I think leave it as it is for now. --Aeon135 (talk) 11:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

carol would disagree, she considers ls a minority in ll, and removed my edit about ls wanting to grow the welfare state. Darkstar1st (talk) 11:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

First, finding refs that establish the relationship between LS and LL would help. So would other methods of organization which might not necessitate quite same sectioning, but I won't start now.

Second, Darkstar1st, it seems to me there was some WP:RS info in there about some LL or LS who want some level of statism (especially influenced by Chomsky). Is it still there? It's appropriate to which ever section ref'd to. But it seems to me that it is not the final state desired by most LL/lS, just an interim state. Just like some minarchists and anarco-capitalists who are more gradualist might put up with a little social welfare and a little national defense, as long as it is progressively and fairly quickly being dismantled. (Someones got to make sure ways of clean up the nuclear waste and other govt pollution are financed, after all. Not to mention my social security through the sale of govt assets and land.) I think these issues also and/or instead do belong in that new "tactics" section (better labeled "Strategy and tactics") and I feel inspired to beef that up momentarily (and removed redundant unsourced material).

Third, I could say some things to set Darkstar1st heart just a bit at ease but that would be WP:SOAPBOX so I'll control myself. ;-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

(added later) Go for it. It's a talk page and I don't think that that would be soapboxing. Plus we're been impaired here by acting on wrong assumptions about where people are coming from.  :-) North8000 (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

i dont believe anyone thinks you can grow away the government? ll want to accomplish basic services through communal giving, yet need to use the government to "re-educated" us until everyone starts volunteering. return the land to the rightful owners, the people, who will distributed it fairly and without corruption, in a frictionless volunteer society, where everyone does his exact fair share of the work and no more. carol, i know what you were gong to say, George Harrison was my favorite Beatle also. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

You aren't familiar with various pro-property (fast) gradualist strategies by notable libertarians. Will enter them in strategy/tactics section, but right now I'm cleaning up some existing messes. That could take a few days... (esp since just accidentally lost some and have to redo. dang - that's why you always save temp extra copy elsewhere CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Infoshop.org not WP:RS/ See alsos

While I don't have a problem with the content of the relevant edit at this diff, know that per this discussion (where compared to a Mises blog by an intern). (Unless it was some well known person and that was the only place it was published and we were sure it was an accurate copy of what they wrote.) Note I did defend actual anarchist publishers.

I also have a problem with removing the topics article. It's easy enough to add stuff and reorganize it, but it's not that bad a list. Also libertarianism related links should be next, as well as political ones. Why bother with socialism/capitalism and all the other economic views that might flourish in a libertarian society. How about we discuss?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Infoshop and the Anarchist FAQ contained within are not reliable sources. They're as reliable as the unreviewed material coming out of Mises. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

With Mises, it depends on who writes it - an intern or a professor. If a professor or well known writer puts something on those sites, fine.

Meanwhile, that list of theorists is totally confusing without time context. So do I have to put on birth-death dates and order them by birth date or does someone else want to? :-) Plus more refs, please. More refs. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

You made me chuckle Carol, I imagined Colin Ward publishing opinion on Infoshop :). An editor has apparently found that AK Press has published a reviewed book volume of the Anarchist FAQ. To my eyes the editorial review of AK indicates that the physical publication is an RS. Admittedly only an RS of opinion, and not quite as masterful as Ward's Anarchism but useful as a strong structured opinion available to readers. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's some links so we don't have to search them out ourselves, for starters. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

[1] It was a Valentine's Day gift from my wife. KLP (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

consequentialist libertarianism, deontological libertarianism, contractarian libertarianism, rights-theorist libertarianism, libertarian socialism

could any of these be considered tiny minorities? if so they should be removed according to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Darkstar1st (talk) 03:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

All look like significant groupings to me. BigK HeX (talk) 05:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

First, rights-theorist and deontological libertarianism are pretty much the same. Also, my guess is libertarian socialism is a variation on consequentialist libertarianism, even if they don't use that terminology. If they use any terminology to justify their ethics, it would be helpful to add it. In general I have a problem with dividing libertarians up by which ethical theory they embrace, especially since many are just as glad to take them all without parsing the differences. Also I not contractarianism is not listed as a theory under Ethics. A job for someone who actually does editing on articles. CarolMooreDC 14:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course, I think we've long-ago put to bed any notion that we're limited to labels that self-proclaimed libertarians embrace. The deontological/consequentialist groupings are pretty big concepts in the RS, IMO. Probably big enough for a significant block of text, and a blurb in the lede. BigK HeX (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

They all look fairly significant to me aswell, and the suggestion that libertarian socialism isn't significant is laughable, that's where libertarianism originates. 78.16.205.197 (talk) 21:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Libertarian socialism is the smallest of the 3 sub-groups of left-libertarian, which is the lessor known version of libertarianism, according to the sep. tiny minorities should not be covered at all, according to wp:undue. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Why were these citations removed?

Why were the citations for the various influential libertarian theorists removed? I added at least one to each theorist from various sites including Mutualistfaq.com, infoshop FAQ (which is very well sourced in itself) and various biographical sites. What gives? --Aeon135 (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

This is probably unrelated but a couple of things went awry when I put in the subsection for the talk page this AM. I think my insertion called upon two refs which were already in when I drafted it on the talk page but which somebody removed at some time between then and this AM. North8000 (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

==

Illegitimate Bifurcation?

The header states, "One significant variable between libertarian schools of thought is the degree to which the state should be reduced, with minarchists advocating reduction to just state protection from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and anarchists advocating complete elimination of the state."

The implication of this statement is that libertarians fall into two camps, minarchists (colloquially interpreted as "kind of anarchist") to anarchist (see "anarchist"). My concern is that this page is giving undue weight to the anarchist cause by explicitly devouring and encompassing libertarian ideology into two camps consistent with a common, unifying denominator (at least etymologically) of anarchism. It's not the anarchist LINKS that are concerning to me with regards to objectivity on this page---we all know they are there. It is the domination of anarchism [to a lesser (minarchist) and greater (anarchist) extent] on the header which concerns me. Colloquial interpretations are significant. After all, politics is 100% colloquial.Ddd1600 (talk) 14:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Carol and BigHex constantly monitor this site more than anyone. They censor posts, even on the discussion page. They believe not in freedom of the person, but in freedom of the people. An establishment which, of course, requires constant repression.Ddd1600 (talk) 14:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

My only "POV" s that this article is an incoherent, confusing mess, a hodge podge of tangents, lacking in any summarizaiotn type statements. Also completely lacking in coverage of the particular forms of libertarianism that are so predominent in particular areas that their title there is simply libertarian/libertarianism. I consider Carol and BigK to be friends (not sure if they would say the same), as experts in this field, major contributors here at the detailed level, as people who have been emerging from being dominated by a warrior mentality here, and as people who have been blockading forward progress of this article. I think that Carol said that she is an anarchist, and I'm not sure about BigK. I wrote the text in question, but it was only an attempt to summarize some things out of the disjointed mess of material that this article consists of. Including that all libertarianism consists of these specialized names that few people have ever heard of, including amongst libertarians. If you have a better idea that is still some type of summary, I'm all for it. North8000 (talk) 15:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with more info on the more popular types of libertarianism being put in the lead - if you can find some refs as to what is. In fact I put back back that info in the lead that had gotten hidden below. If you can find something that fits nice, go for it. If it's no good and not salvageable, it will be reverted. No one is stopping appropriate referenced editing here. And I must get back to doing some again myself. Life and other articles keep intervening. Also, hearing no objections, I'm going to archive a bunch of that old stuff. The bot needs to be 14 days. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Libertarianism originated from Anarchy.

Anarchy, from the greeks, without ruler. Libertarian, from the late enlightenment era free-thinkers several millennium later, freedom from determinism. Free-thinkers could have simply called themselves anarchist if they sought to live sans state. instead they created a term to describe life not already decided.

• Does life inside a state need follow a pre-determined route?
• How can anarchy be a school of libertarian, if all libertarians originated from anarchy?
• How are anarchist libertarian different from anarchist? Darkstar1st (talk) 14:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

There are people who place a very high priority on personal freedom and want to implement that to a great degree. Amongst them, there are a relatively few people who want to totally eliminate the state, and lots of people who want to massively reduce the state. And, within these folks, there are some splits on closely related issues (private property, whether big business is the enemy)

And then there is to total random walk of authors, philosophers trying to label them, name them, categorize them, etc. Whole transient naming and categorization systems that exist only only in the eye of the beholder. And a few folks here who figure that if it isn't this "random walk", it doesn't belong in the article. North8000 (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Most important question of all:

Why do you think this is a forum for answering your questions on libertarianism? You'll have to conduct your informal research somewhere other than article talk pages, per WP:NOT#FORUM. BigK HeX (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Did you mean anarcho-capitalists or anarchist?

the lead says anarchist, but the overview says anarcho-capitalists. are they the same thing, if not, what is the difference? i suggest we settle on one term, or remove the redundant passage in the overview section. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)