Talk:Libertarianism

Template:Wikipedia CD selection Template:V0.5

Benefit principle

I recently created an entry for the benefit principle. If you're interested in the topic of libertarianism...then you might be interested in working to help improve that entry. Basically, the definitive theoretical justification for our tax system can be found in this paper by the Neo Keynesian economist Paul Samuelson...The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure. It's been cited over 5,000 times. Samuelson's argument was that the benefit principle had a very limited scope because of the preference revelation problem...a problem which tax choice would effectively solve. That's our tax system in a nutshell. So in order to better understand the current balance between autonomy and authority...I highly recommend looking over the references that I shared in the benefit principle's entry. --Xerographica (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Changes made to the comparison between anarchism and libertarianism

I changed the wording for the comparison between libertarianism and anarchism. I feel like it is 100% complete propaganda against libertarianism to associate them with anarchists... There is a clear distinction between where the two stand. Anarchists prefer NO government, while libertarians insist on a small government. These two are no interchangeable. Period.

--Jim Flager 76.21.51.72 (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Jim, multiple sources in the article explain that the word libertarian has been used as a synonym for anarchism or "left anarchism." I think you'll need to find some good sources to support your claim. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Here are those good sources to support my claim...

1)List of Synonyms from http://thesaurus.com/browse/libertarian regarding libertarians...

autonomous, common, communal, constitutional, egalitarian, equal, free, friendly, individualistic, informal, just, libertarian , orderly, populist, self-ruling

- it says in the actual list of synonyms that constituional is a synonym, well a constitution is a government system.

2)List of Synonyms from http://thesaurus.com/browse/anarchist

agitator, insurgent, insurrectionist, malcontent, mutineer, nihilist, rebel, revolter, revolutionary, terrorist

- terrorist? so if they are one in the same, then you could say supporting the constitution is a synonym for terrorist...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

-------------------------------------------

According to the U.S. Libertarian Party, libertarianism is the advocacy of a government that is funded voluntarily and limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence.

- wikipedia and libertarian party defining the libertarian party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

--------------------------------------

Anarchism is generally defined as a political philosophy which holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful,[1][2][3] or, alternatively, as opposing authority or hierarchical organization in the conduct of human relations.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10] Proponents of anarchism, known as "anarchists", advocate stateless societies based on voluntary associations.

wikipedia own definition of anarchism..

Here's some google definitions real quick that can clearly spell out the differences between the two political beliefs.

an·ar·chism

/ˈanərˌkizəm/

Noun

Belief in the abolition of ALL government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or...

Anarchists as a political force or movement.

lib·er·tar·i·an·ism

/ˌlibərˈte(ə)rēəˌnizəm/

Noun

An extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens.

- how can you have minimal state intervention if you are the same as anarchism, which is for the abolition of ALL government...

I think you will have to try really hard to prove the two are interchangeable... and this topic is definitely disputed.

76.21.51.72 (talk) 22:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

-Jim Flager

Nobody said interchangeable. Anarchism is considered a strand of libertarianism. There is immense sourcing for this. And such and inclusion was decided in an immense RFC. Please see talk history. North8000 (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

oh ive been reading the talk history, dont try to rule me out by default. i just got done reading a line from the wikipedia article that says libertarianism is a synonym for anarchism... not "left anarchism" or "right libertarianism" it was flat out libertarianism and anarchism... i believe the line is gone but there are more scattered throughout im sure... the reason im disputing is because it is misleading to someone who comes to the website to learn about libertarianism because they will be instantly turned off with the anarchism propaganda riddled throughout... the point of wikipedia is to clear up confusion as to the specifics, not to create confusion based on technicallity and word placement...

take for example this line...

"Libertarians differ on whether government is desirable. Some favor the existence of states and see them as necessary while others favor stateless societies and view the state as being undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful.[34][35]"

both of the sources listed have absolutely nothing to do with libertarianism, they are simply definitions of anarchism... on top of that, the second part of this said sentence is a 100% copy paste definition from the definition of ANARCHISM but yet its being used to define libertarianism... watch...

"while others favor stateless societies and view the state as being undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful." compare this half of the sentence with the definition of anarchy i posted earlier and you can see that someone simply copied and pasted it from the wiki page for anarchism as if it was a definition for libertarianism. its not. and if you are talking about branches of libertarianism, or if they are "closely or loosely related" then that needs to be clarified which parts are similar and which are different. the deception of this page is off the charts?

-Jim Flager

76.21.51.72 (talk) 22:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

BTW, I am a libertarian of the common USA type (wanting just less government, consider the existence of government to be essential) so I have no anarchist POV. I was speaking more as someone who has been a 1/2-way pseudo-moderator here for a long time. North8000 (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

{ec}Jim, nothing in those sources has disputed the claims made by the reliable sources in the article. It does appear you are taking disparate sources and composing original research to get your desired outcome, especially when it comes to the thesaurus entries. You've also apparently cherry-picked sentences from both the Libertarianism and Anarchism Wiki articles, as both articles show that libertarianism is associated with anarchism. Please bring reliable sources to support your claim; you may also like to read WP:DICTS for the proper way to use dictionaries as sources. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

71.202.13.20 (talk) 07:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC) heres an excerp from Murray Rothbard from the 1950's this is the last paragraph of the essay (on "are libertarians anarchists?") that can be found here. http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard167.html

[We must conclude that the question "are libertarians anarchists?" simply cannot be answered on etymological grounds. The vagueness of the term itself is such that the libertarian system would be considered anarchist by some people and archist by others. We must therefore turn to history for enlightenment; here we find that none of the proclaimed anarchist groups correspond to the libertarian position, that even the best of them have unrealistic and socialistic elements in their doctrines. Furthermore, we find that all of the current anarchists are irrational collectivists, and therefore at opposite poles from our position. We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical. On the other hand, it is clear that we are not archists either: we do not believe in establishing a tyrannical central authority that will coerce the noninvasive as well as the invasive. Perhaps, then, we could call ourselves by a new name: nonarchist. Then, when, in the jousting of debate, the inevitable challenge "are you an anarchist?" is heard, we can, for perhaps the first and last time, find ourselves in the luxury of the "middle of the road" and say, "Sir, I am neither an anarchist nor an archist, but am squarely down the nonarchic middle of the road."]

Jim, it may be that the article needs improvement, and it may be that it too much anarchism stuff in it, but if you are trying to exclude inclusion of anarchism from this article it ain't gonna happen....that would be going against sourcing, reality, and an immense RFC. We HAVE agreed to minimize coverage of anarchism because the primary coverage of it is elsewhere. Maybe there's too much on anarchism in it now.

If you live in the USA, you may not understand that the common meaning of libertarianism (and also of liberal/liberalism) is different in the US than in Europe, which could lead one to believe that this article misses the point. Those explanatory sentences in this area aren't just little thoughts, they are a a rosetta stone for understanding. Very vaguely, in the current USA, (where we have corrupted the term "liberal" to mean bigger government) the mainstream meaning for libertarianism is folks who want and prioritize less government and more freedom. And vica versa. In Europe, those folks are called liberals, and the word libertarianism is more associated with more "extreme" folks like anarchists. That's my flawed-but-hopefully-useful thought. North8000 (talk) 12:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I cannot find the specific reference you have made where i claimed to want every trace of anarchism removed from the page. This is what i was after from the start.

[someone simply copied and pasted it from the wiki page for anarchism as if it was a definition for libertarianism. its not. and if you are talking about branches of libertarianism, or if they are "closely or loosely related" then that needs to be clarified which parts are similar and which are different. the deception of this page is off the charts]

saying there are two types of libertarians and then to copy paste a definition of anarchism, is not actually defining libertarianism... all thats happening here is that youre adding the definition of anarchism to the end of another word and calling it the "new definition"

someone mentioned that you had 30 or more people in a discussion to reach a conclusion... seems like a kinda half-assed effort to capture the true definition and meaning/beliefs behind libertarianism. and its most definitely misleading to anyone who doesnt have a clue what libertarianism is... i never asked one single time for anarchy to be removed from the page entirely, however its clear to me that this page needs some serious revision because you guys that decided to include anarchism have set this page up to look like they are directly related or even worse, one in the same. and they are not! there needs to be more to differentiate the two from each other, or possibly a different page where a certain/specific off-branch of libertarianism gets linked to (where that specific branch is more directly related to anarchy than the tradition libertarianism)... libertarianism is clearly regarding small state to carry out police services, etc. and to uphold the constitution and anarchism is CLOSE but NOT CLOSE at the same time whereas they believe that there should be absolutely NO government whatsoever. i don't see this difference pointed at one time, in fact you guys did the opposite blending both definitions into one definition for libertarianism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.51.72 (talk) 02:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Depending on who you talk to, they are one and the same, as sources illustrate (see Chomsky, Ward, Fernandez, and Nettlau's citations in this article). For most of the history of the term, libertarian meant anarchist: the term was coined in 1857 to describe anarchism and only recently became associated with capitalist and minarchist ideas (since approximately the 1950s). Even today, despite the increasing popularity of US propertarian libertarianism worldwide (where this "right libertarianism" originated and gained popularity), most people in countries outside of the USA use libertarian as a synonym for anarchist. This appears to be well-documented in the article, so I don't understand why you are insisting that libertarianism is fundamentally different from anarchism.

In an effort to progress this discussion, what change do you propose? You don't want anarchism removed from the article, so... what do you want changed? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes Jim / 71..., yes, why not start with a specific proposed change to discuss. North8000 (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, but what do your feelings have to do with reality? The word 'libertarian' comes from 'Le Libertaire' a 1861 periodical by a communist anarchist. That's the meaning it's had everywhere in the world since -- until up popped the Charles Koch Foundation in the 70s and the neoliberals decided their ideas should also be called 'libertarian' for some reason, despite being almost entirely contrary to what was called libertarian everywhere in the world. Practically everywhere except the US, it still just means anarchist.

So long as we're throwing out Rothbard quotes:

“One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, ‘our side,’ had captured a crucial word from the enemy . . . ‘Libertarians’ . . . had long been simply a polite word for left-wing [sic!] anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over . . .” (The Betrayal of the American Right, p. 83)

That's about as clear as an issue can get. Your edit was based on a misunderstanding. Finx (talk) 15:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

In this thread I think that there have been overstatements in opposite directions. The consensus has been to cover anarchism here but to limit the coverage due to, amongst other reasons, that there is a separate anarchism article. On the reverse side, USA libertarianism is the gorilla in the living room in terms of present usage of the term simply because in the USA (unlike elsewhere) it is the name for classical liberalism and such is not the case elsewhere. So in the USA we have millions of people who self-identify as libertarians, and maybe 50 million people who have libertarian politics, by the US meaning of the term. And outside of the USA (where the term "liberal" hasn't been corrupted) the term is more associated with anarchists than it is in the USA. So I think that taking this article to either extreme isn't gonna fly here. While 76.21.51.72 overstated the case, it's possible that we need to shift a half of a notch in that their direction. That is one of the reasons why I agree that they should make a specific proposal. North8000 (talk) 16:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what notches you want to shift or why, but I think an encyclopedic article should just cover what history has provided us and tell the truth -- about well over a century of anarchism, organized labor struggles, anti-state socialism, left-Marxism, and other related movements concerned with maximizing liberty and autonomy, and then a few decades of neoliberal minarchism. The term for classical liberalism is classical liberalism. I don't agree at all that this recent strain of US libertarianism is classical liberalism reborn. This is a contentious claim, that's been ruthlessly criticized and disputed by more than a few prominent people with some authority on the subject -- easily enough to warrant a mention. If anything is already overstated, it's that -- just mentioned in passing like it's a fact. But whatever you consider 'corrupted' or 'not corrupted' liberalism -- there is no shortage of other words to describe the ideology advocating rights of owners and investors above government: neoliberalism, laissez faire, thatcherism, etc. It's not our duty to capture more words for Murray Rothbard and company. This one is still in use and I don't see why CATO should get to push living libertarians, in the traditional sense, into obscurity. Finx (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Well I disagree with many many things that you just said. But rather than start 10 new threads debating them, let's just stick to the open question. I think that there is just one specific one. Jim Flager / 76...... sort of feels that we should leave anarchism out of this article. I think that everybody else (You, me, MisterDub) who has expressed an opinion disagrees. North8000 (talk) 17:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's a clear violation of the not a dictionary policy. Rather than bundling readers to death with every meaning of the word "libertarianism"...this entry should be turned into a disambiguation page. Then the readers could choose which meaning of the word that they were actually interested in learning about. There are far more reliable sources which cover individual meanings than reliable sources that cover every meaning of the word. Don't mind me though, I'm just an advocate of choice...reader choice, consumer choice, taxpayer choice. --Xerographica (talk) 07:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree about the NAD violaiton....it's quite common for an article to cover closely related meanings of the term. The disambig idea was unsuccessfully raised at the big RFC and I was sort of an advocate of it then, but not now. The change of heart is that this article can do the important (and bigger-than-disambig) job of explaining the relationship between the meanings, now and through history. And I think that it works. The main problem is that people want to pull it to one or the other end of the spectrum, as can be seen right here in talk over the last couple weeks. North8000 (talk) 13:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

i like nonarchist. A valid point as anarchist oppose contract law, libertarians require such. Imho, outside the USA the distinction twix the two terms is blurred and most often derogatory, like neanderthal or hooligan. Libertarian is not used much outside the USA and almost nonexistant in politcol parties or races, unlike the USA which has a large group. I think article is incorrectly weighted to the non-US understanding of the term, which is far-less sought by the average english speaking WP user. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you're right, but think we should still cover both. North8000 (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that there is too much information about anarchism in this article. As part of my proposal in the section below, I suggest removing a great deal of the anarchist information, as little of it has to do with the history of libertarianism (especially individualist and egoist anarchism, which were primarily literary phenomena). I think we ought to summarize the history of anarchism here and leave the details to its appropriate article. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

THANK YOU. I agree with MisterDub on this point. My God, it's painful just to look at this article now... --Adam9389 (talk 13:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Restructure "History" section

Hi, all! I've been working on restructuring this article to present a more coherent history, and believe this restructuring will clear up the confusion of how the term libertarian relates to both anarchist and propertarian philosophies. I have a rough draft in my sandbox in which I've divided the history section by prominent theme, instead of arbitrary half-century. For example, the history section now begins with Libertarianism's "Philosophical foundations" within the Enlightenment, then goes on to describe the origin of the term and its anarchist affiliation ("Origins"), and finally summarizes the histories of left-libertarianism ("Anarchism" and "Libertarian Marxism") and "Right-Libertarianism" (primarily covering US propertarian libertarianism, but also mentioning "Georgism", "Anarcho-Capitalism", and Ayn Rand's "Objectivism"). I think this new structure will accomplish a couple of things: first, it will clear up the confusion associated with the term libertarian by explaining its distinct associations with anarchism and liberalism, and second, it will summarize much of anarchism's history, allowing us to remove information that is better suited for, or repeated within, the anarchism article.

A couple of notes on the content in my sandbox version: the "Philosophical foundations" section needs to be expanded. Right now, this section throws the reader into a description of Hobbes and Locke's state of nature without explaining how this relates to libertarianism. I'd like it to explain how Enlightenment thought (i.e. Liberalism) promoted liberty, democracy and private property, and end with Proudhon's view of property (which sets up Déjacque's introduction of the term). I also want to expand the anarchism section beyond one paragraph, but keep it under five or so. I've incorporated the previous "Etymology" section into the lead, so that has been removed along with the "See also" section, but other sections remain intact. Thanks for your consideration! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

This article is the result of an immense amount of work (and an immense amount of discussion, RFC's and compromise) by an immense amount of people. Any changes are going to have to come about in the normal manner, (generally proposed reviewed individually as changes to this article) not substituting the entire article with one that you developed. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand... creating a revision in a sandbox is a "normal manner" of improving articles; there's no Wikipedia policy stating that changes must be made sentence by sentence. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't implying that a total substitution is against policy. This was my strongly held opinion for this case, and I think likely the opinion of others. At first glance I saw lots of good stuff and lots of big problems. I'm not willing to use a whole new substitute article as a starting point for content, review and discussions, especially considering this article is the result of an immense amount of work (and an immense amount of discussion, RFC's and compromise) by an immense amount of people. And what's there is a whole new article, not a new history section. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

It's only a whole new article in that the "History" section comprises the bulk of the article's content; other sections are left intact. What problems do you see with this proposed revision? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

(Sorry to write fast and blunt...I'm in a hurry today.) Just the history section? Huh? First thing I spotted was a major re-write of the lead.North8000 (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

It would take hours and hours to do a "compare and contrast" to review what changes you are implicitly proposing. But the coverage of US libertarianism seems to have omitted the main concepts and much of what's there shows a general misunderstanding of it. Also use of the highly problematic (chaotic and thus worthless) term "right libertarian". Overemphasis on esoteric historical/philosophical definitions and thus failure to explain the modern meanings. And the like "where did that material that we've been evolving for years disappear to?" That's my impressions / things noted on the minus side from the first 2 minutes.North8000 (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the lead is a summary of the article, so as the article is changed, so does the lead. I wouldn't characterize this change as a "major rewrite" however: I think it presents roughly the same information as the previous lead, except more coherently (instead of saying "some schools do this" all the time, it actually describes the differences in the common meanings of the term). The US libertarianism section can certainly be amended to include/exclude information, but do you have specific examples of material that is missing?

I'm not quite following the other problems you've identified. Why is right-libertarianism highly problematic? This right-left distinction is the most prominent means of organizing libertarianism, and it's used in multiple citations (e.g. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Peter Marshall's Demanding the Impossible, and Encyclopedia of Ethics). -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 23:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the term "right libertarianism" it is so inconsistently used and ill-defined that it is meaningless. It's basically a word that authors use on an ad hoc basis to organize books (like "pretty landscapes" or "big cars") not as a term with any consistent meaning. Further nobody self-identifies by that term. "Left-libertarian" has fewer such problems, and so conflating those two confuses the matter. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The left-right distinction seems well-defined to me:

"The different schools of anarchism have also engaged in sectarian disputes, the most sustained being that between the individualists and the communists. Social anarchists, who wish to abolish the State and Capital, have nothing but contempt for the right-wing libertarians who wish to get rid of the State in order to achieve an unfettered laissez-faire in the economy." (Peter Marshall's Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism p. 650)

"Both endorse full self-ownership, but they differ with respect to the powers agents have to appropriate unappropriated natural resources (land, air, water, etc.). Right-libertarianism holds that typically such resources may be appropriated by the first person who discovers them, mixes her labor with them, or merely claims them—without the consent of others, and with little or no payment to them. Left-libertarianism, by contrast, holds that unappropriated natural resources belong to everyone in some egalitarian manner. It can, for example, require those who claim rights over natural resources to make a payment to others for the value of those rights. This can provide the basis for a kind of egalitarian redistribution." (Peter Vallentyne's Libertarianism)

"Libertarianism is sometimes (and increasingly) understood as the thesis of full self-ownership. So understood, a distinction can be made between right-libertarianism and left-libertarianism, depending on the stance taken on how natural resources are owned. Right-libertarianism (the traditional form of LIBERTARIANISM) holds that natural resources are initially unowned and typically may be appropriated without the consent of, or significant payment to, others. It holds, for example, that whoever first discovers, or first mixes her labor with, a natural resource owns that resource as long as certain minimal conditions hold (e.g., Locke's "enough and as good for others"). Left-libertarianism, by contrast, holds that natural resources are owned by the members of society in some egalitarian sense, so that appropriation is legitimate only with their consent or with a significant payment to them." (Becker and Becker's Encyclopedia of Ethics p. 1562)

Do you have an example where these terms are used in a different sense? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed total rewrite of the article

Your question addresses only the faults in the term, not the even bigger flaws in opining that libertarianism divides into "right" and "left" based on property views. But a quick perusal of Right libertarianism gives about 6 more meanings of the term. North8000 (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

And all those meanings are in agreement with each other: right-libertarianism is a propertarian ideology, whereas left-libertarianism seeks an egalitarian distribution of natural resources. I'm not understanding where your confusion lies. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

rewrite, dividing libertarian into left and right is a combination of "me too" and an attempt to debase/confuse the commonly understood english langauge meaning of the term. on history, Laozi was the first libertarian according to Rothbard, Murray (2005). Excerpt from "'Concepts of the Role of Intellectuals in Social Change Toward Laissez Faire,' The Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol IX No. 2 (Fall 1990)" Darkstar1st (talk) 15:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite - agreed with Darkstar1st on all points. Plus, I've already voiced my numerous objections to this current article in the past. However, there are still a couple points I want to reiterate: 1) That the Right-libertarianism and Left-libertarianism articles be merged into the new Libertarianism article. As North8000 points out, they are purely academic and not terms that anyone really uses. Of course make the distinction between the different libertarian factions on the new article, but these two arbitrary terms do not warrant separate articles. Those two articles are just attempts at appeasing ideological factions that have entrenched themselves on Wikipedia. 2) How can I say this... Libertarianism has certain anarchist roots in its history -- yes, okay, we get it. But it's now branched into a separate ideology and it's not an excuse to transform this page into some messy combination of Anarchism and Libertarian socialism. Last I checked, the anarchists, the libertarian socialists, the social anarchists, the "left-anarchists", the collectivist anarchists, etc., already had their own articles. They don't need to re-appropriate this one and they sure don't need some "left-libertarianism" article. I mean, what can I say? How redundant and biased can people get? 3) I really think we need to re-assess this whole notion that individualist, capitalist libertarianism is only the "American definition of the term." A quick look at the ideologies of other groups and parties around the world that identify as libertarian would show you that that definition is becoming quite widespread -- almost universal. The idea that everyone outside the U.S. equates libertarianism with anarchism has become exaggerated and overblown on here. Not saying it's not still true in many places; but I'd say the free-market definition has become just as widespread. --Adam9389 (talk) 08:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

There may be a bit of confusion here. I added the subheading "proposed total rewrite" not to propose a total rewrite, but to provide a more honest title for the top level title.....the "Restructure "History" section" proposal was actually a proposal to totally rewrite the article. Other folks supporting a total rewrite which is exactly opposite to the total rewrite which misterdub proposed. I'm sort of in the middle. North8000 (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Darkstar1st and Adam9389, thanks for your input. Adam9389, I agree whole-heartedly with your first point. Much of what I was attempting in this draft is to get a comprehensive history of Libertarianism that includes both right- and left-libertarianism, allowing us to dispose of those separate articles. I also want to make mention that I'm not wedded to those terms; I used right-libertarianism because it is supported by sources and avoids the pitfalls of saying "In the United States" (as Adam9389 noted, this particular brand of libertarianism has become popular outside the USA as well). Any suggestions on better terminology is much appreciated, though I must admit I have no problem with the right-left distinction. What I'm trying to do here is get rid of the disjointedness of the current History section and remove unnecessary information regarding anarchism by summarizing it here, thereby preserving the historical connection without making this another anarchism article. We need this article to regain its FA status. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I care far more about accurate and informative than FA. Misterdub, most of what you just said sounds pretty good, but IMHO but what you worked up is miles away from that, and also I think that an en masse change to an article rewritten by you is not a realistic way to pursue this. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

It appears that I'm not the only person who thinks this article needs a change of this magnitude, and I have brought the draft here so we could all work together to improve this article. I'm looking for constructive criticism here, not a blanket rejection because you personally don't like it. If there is inaccurate information in this draft, please note it here so we can fix it; your vagueness is not helping and, frankly, is giving the impression that you are simply unwilling to work with me. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal is unsourced twaddle. And worthy of ignoring. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

For example, this OR, "In a natural state, Locke viewed all people as equal and independent, and everyone had a natural right to defend his "Life, health, Liberty, or Possessions".[18]" If the aim is FA this proposal would be rejected, and doesn't make B criteria. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Misterdub, you have misread my position and intentions; if I may throw out a few points to clarify.

• This article has a history (and a participant list) of people who want to to it to one extreme or the other. One one end folks like yourself who want it to be more about anarchism and related strands and to downplay and cover the US strand from that "lens" and the folks that want to do the opposite, including getting anarchism totally out of this article. For the last couple years I've been one most actively working to strike a balance.
• As an intelligent editor from one end of the described spectrum (and who I think has good knowledge of that end) I think that you could be a valuable contributor here.
• When you said "I'm not the only person who thinks this article needs a change of this magnitude" the other folks want the exact opposite article than you do.
• The process that you are proposing (creating your own totally reworded version of the article for total replacement of this one, which your would be then new starting point for "proposed changes") is extraordinary and rarely accepted in Wikipedia. Opposing that process is the norm, not "simply being unwilling to work with you"

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

North8000, thanks for your comments. I must not be presenting my intentions clearly, however, as I've stated repeatedly that I do not want to make this an article about anarchism; I, too, want a balance. In fact, I lean more toward this article primarily covering right-libertarianism, as anarchism already has an article. This article has too much information about anarchism, and I'd like to see less of it, though it should not disappear entirely. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

What are your sources for your proposed WEIGHTing? Generally they'd be required to be magisterial field reviews. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not quite following. I'm going by the WP:CFORK and WP:SUMMARIZE policies to ensure we don't repeat information unnecessarily (there's already an anarchism article, so this article ought not to have the same information). Hopefully that answers your question. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, I somehow overlooked your comment about the OR, but would like to point out that this information is in the article now; it's not something I've added. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality

Please remove the neutrality warning. It is misleading. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 15:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree. There is no real neutrality discussion going on. North8000 (talk) 17:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

If not a neutrality warning (I'm assuming it was placed in reference to the confusing mess caused by anarchist/minarchist war), I feel like there should at least be something at the top clarifying that the confusing and redundant nature of the article (especially the intro) is due to it being fought over. You can decide what would be most appropriate, but it's too poor of an article and this fight has gone on too long for there not to be some kind of warning. A sound article should clearly and concisely communicate a concept to any lay-Internet-user that clicks into it. This article does not do that. Instead it's little more than a jumbled-up, gridlocked hodge-podge of vague technicalities trying to appease two internal factions. Also, just as an aside, is it really necessary to link the word 'state' in the lead not even to 'State (polity)' but to the 'Definitional issues' sub-section? That sub-section is right below the intro; there's no need to re-direct it straight there. Let's not confuse people even more by continuing to throw in their faces how devoid of concepts we've become. Minarchist and anarchist alike, we're all anti-statist types -- It's an insult to all of us and degrading of our ideals if we can't even put forth what the state is anymore. Also, I've added a Citation Needed at the end of the last sentence of the intro as it's a disputed statement and, in my view, an overblown exaggeration. I've already made my case for that above. I know he's pretty much a god in certain circles, but regardless of what Noam Chomsky said, the perusal of many libertarian party/organization platforms from around the world will reveal the so-called "American" definition of libertarianism is more widespread than many would like to believe. I'm sorry but you can't just ignore that, and pretending capitalist libertarianism doesn't exist outside the U.S. doesn't magically make it true.

Anyway, to sum up my main point: it doesn't have to be a neutrality warning (thought I don't think it's far off the mark), but there should be something. --Adam9389 (talk) 10:56, 08 February 2013 (UTC)

The reality is is that are very different meanings, but with enough in common (both in concept, in terminology, and in the common meaning of the term) to be a single article. So we need to cover the various meanings, and one meaning should not be covered through the lens of the other. And, (only) one of the meanings has a real cohesive word (anarchism) which covers it to the point where it has it's own, cohesive article, which would tend to make coverage of that here a bit less. I think that this article is somewhere near to striking that balance. Invariably folks from both extreme ends of the spectrum come along who think that "bias" means "not pulled to their end of the POV spectrum" or "not as viewed through the lens of their strand of libertarianism". North8000 (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

i think it is time we reexamine the whole euro vs usa definition of the term. i have lived in the EU for years and recently met an Italian who called himself a libertarian and believes the exact same as the LPUSA. I suggest much of what is submitted as RS supporting the euro def. of the term was written by Americans with little or no experience in the EU. ex: others reject such private ownership and often support common ownership instead (libertarian socialism) written by Peter Vallentyne, born in Connecticut, lives in Missouri. his POV on this topic is in a tiny minority and should not be included here, perhaps the comment would be better placed at the term which it references, libertarian socialism, something quite different than libertarianism the Europeans describe to me. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I feel it's important for the lead to note that right-libertarianism has become popular outside of the USA, which is why the USA-Europe dichotomy isn't so cut-and-dry. In my sandbox version, I've included the following in the lead: "In the 1950s, many with classical liberal beliefs in the United States began to describe themselves as libertarian, and this right-libertarianism has since propagated beyond the US via think tanks and political parties. Libertarianism is increasingly viewed worldwide as a free market position." I think an edit along these lines will more accurately represent how the use of the term libertarian has changed over time.

I would also like to point out that there are multiple sources claiming this connection between libertarianism and anarchism outside the US; it's not just Chomsky. Max Nettlau, Frank Fernandez, and Colin Ward (just from sources in this article) also make this connection. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree, other than we need a better name than "right". North8000 (talk) 21:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know of a better descriptor, but I'm open to suggestions. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Lead

I am trying to structure the lead to provide a more accurate analysis which is not shaped by the US definition of libertarianism (many of the sources in the lead, such as stanford encyclopedia, are US based). Therefore it is not written in proper context and violats NPOV. North800, I see from your talk page that you identify as a propertarian libertarian, which could affect judgement. The intro is all over the place. Please let me continue and voice in any concerns, thanks.--JTBX (talk) 12:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The lead is a careful balance worked out by many people over many years. I'm not amenable to your approach of a massive unilateral re-write. Please propose individual changes here. Or else small BRD edits spread over time. North8000 (talk) 13:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

PS your assuming bad faith imagination about my my efforts here is totally wrong. If you will look at the history here you will see that in my 2 1/2 active years here I have been the middle of the road stabilizer here. And that has included resisting efforts to pull the article to either extreme. North8000 (talk) 13:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Please don't assume bad faith, just because someone has propertarian leanings. What problems do you have with the lead more specifically? Finx (talk) 21:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

BTW, adding "proprietarian" to US libertarianism, indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of the bulk of US libertarianism which can be FULLY described by four words: "less government, more freedom" END OF DEFINITION. Most of them tacitly accept the existence of automobiles, rights to own property, the existence of some amount of government under any scenario, and cute puppies, but those four things are not a part of their libertarian definition and agenda. North8000 (talk)

I don't really feel like repeating the last discussion we had on the malapropism of 'less government,' how those two words don't make any sense together, how privatizing power systems and transferring state authority to unaccountable private bureaucracies was rarely considered reducing them by anybody, or how the history doesn't really stand up to that assertion. I didn't mean to offend with the term. I was agreeing with your previous post. Finx (talk) 07:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Just as clarification, North8000, left-libertarians view right-libertarianism as propertarian; it's not a misunderstanding, but an important distinction between the two, whether or not it's explicitly included in the right-libertarian's platform.

JTBX, I agree that this article needs work, but since anarchism/non-US libertarianism already has an article, most of the information herein should pertain to the US definition (although I think we could do better distinguishing the two in the lead). Do you have any particular changes in mind? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

IMHO "right libertarian" has so many and so ad hoc meanings that it is a useless term so I can't make much out of that first sentence. Other than saying that a strand is not defined by the view/lens of another strand. North8000 (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Folks have said that there's much that doesn't fall under either of those (US style and anarchism) and that is hopefully covered and to-be-covered here. North8000 (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree: there are plenty of accounts distinguishing between right- and left-libertarianism that clearly agree on the differences, as I've illustrated previously. The point I was trying to make, however, is that calling US libertarianism propertarian isn't a misunderstanding; it's an assessment made by many and doesn't need to be chastised on a Talk page. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if anything I said sounded like chastising. I intended it for two purposes (to try to provide useful info, and with respect to article content) and neither of them was intended to be within even 100 miles of being chastising. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but some of the language you use (e.g. "fundamental misunderstanding," "corrupted the term 'liberal'") does come across in that regard. Not a big deal; probably just a personal peeve. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Just reiterating, I said that we Americans have corrupted the word "liberal". I don't think I ever said or hinted that any editors have done so. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Le Grand Solution

Let me kill a couple birds with one stone here. First I'll share a couple great books and then I'll, yet again, offer my super simple solution. Here are the entries that I just created for two books by the UK economist Julian Le Grand...

• Motivation, Agency, and Public Policy (2003)
• The Other Invisible Hand (2007)

The first book was criticized by a Harvard professor because "Le Grand’s argument does not speak to libertarians; rejecting the welfare state, they part from him long before he calls on them to cheer for transforming service users into queens. Nor does his argument entice liberal egalitarians." In the conclusion of his second book, Le Grand acknowledged that his ideas "have not, as yet, been embraced either by the social democratic left, or by the conservative or liberal right."

"Liberal right"? Does he mean what we here in the US think of as "libertarian"? Probably... right?

For those of you who weren't around for the first libertarian article war...which is pretty much everybody except for North and Darkstar...my super simple solution is to organize the relevant articles by tenets...rather than labels. Then turn this page into a disambiguation page...and look over the page view statistics for the various "libertarian" articles. If one of the articles receives substantially more views than the rest...then that article should be placed here. The question is...how much more popular would one of the articles have to be in order to achieve consensus that it was popular enough to be placed here? Anyways, I have other articles that are higher priorities for me...but just wanted to take a few seconds to share a couple great books and again share my solution to this problem. --Xerographica (talk) 22:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Whew, there's a lot there. I'll just comment on a few points.

I had thought about the "make this a disambig" idea before. Then I thought that there are no terms or even short phrases for the various strands for the disambig page, plus these are confusing. So then a substantial explanation / clarification for each would be required. Once you have that, voila, you basically have (90%) THIS article!. North8000 (talk) 02:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

No, I think what he means by "liberal right" is what in the U.S. would be called conservative, like Bush, McCain or Romney, although possibly including Clinton and Obama as well. (See pp. 156 ff.) We already have an article, neoliberalism. TFD (talk) 02:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Those books are not "libertarian" in nature, nor do they discuss libertarianism. Why are they relevant? The reviews you quote might be relevant, I suppose, to show what libertarianism is not.

The idea of organizing by tenets, rather than by labels, seems good. But why use books, neither by, nor about, libertarians and libertarianism to describe the tenets? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

i like Xeno's idea of a disambiguation page as it is clear most english speaking searches are looking for something like the LPUSA definition of the term. In the past i proposed a similar bargain, The capital "L" Libertarian is a person who identifies with the Libertarian party. Lowercase "l" is about the philosophy. A similar distribution could be made by simply removing the redirect from LibertarIAN, and allow that article to be about people identifying as such and allow libertarianism to be this page. the reality is few outside the usa belong to a libertrian party or identify themselves as such, rather is it mostly used as a synonym for anarchy and often derogatory. "welcome to libertarian paradise, Somalia" [1] Darkstar1st (talk) 08:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Freedom of choice - proposed for deletion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freedom of choice. Does this count as canvassing or appropriate notification? --Xerographica (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)