Talk:Libertarianism

Template:Wikipedia CD selection Template:V0.5

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)

Keep most of current structure and tweak: To bring in another voice, a few comments:

• the overall structure is best I've seen so far on this article, though certainly tweaks could be made throughout with better sourcing and slight structural changes, per below or as otherwise might become clear.
• I found a few new good sources when rewriting Right-libertarianism to make it clear that it is a phrase bandied about, not something that you'll find more than a couple people identifying themselves as being.
• I found MisterDub's version to be less organized; creating a whole section on "right libertarianism" is not supported by sources. (And Darkstar1st is well known from past editing here for wanting to knock any and all mentions of any kind of left-wingism or anarchism of any kind from the whole article. So he's not on your side MisterDub. See this talk page history and the various attempts to have him community and topic banned because of his severe disruptiveness.)
• I'd like to see the philosophers section integrated into history and organizations expanded
• I'd like to see a couple paragraphs on criticism. I haven't even read that article but hopefully it bears some relation to this one.
• From edit I just did I can see that a) there is still LONG UNSOURCED stuff just hanging around. And there is important information left out. I'm trying to focus more on libertarian articles lately and have three major related ones in the works. So hopefully I'll come over here in next month or so and tweak away :-) CarolMooreDC 18:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks CarolMooreDC for the constructive criticism. I have to admit that I'm surprised you found my version less organized than the disjointed mess that exists currently, but I will try to improve upon that when I get some free time. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Carol, if you are going to drag up the past, please tell the whole story and perhaps this isnt the forum. TFD, you really need to ease off on your efforts to drag Darkstar1st to ANI. It's giving the appearance that you're taking every opportunity to "catch" him in some technical violation or another. What you're doing is bordering on harassment at this point. is how they all end. [1] Darkstar1st (talk) 01:23, 13 February 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)

Put POV template back on top writing: filled with material about leftist views that barely mention the word libertarianism; crappy and too short section on modern libertarianism Sorry, tenuous connections, or an adjective just thrown in with a bunch of others does not justify overwhelming the article with the activities of those who do not first and foremost call their philosophy libertarian. I don't even see the groups that DO use the phrase represented much at all. Pretty sad. CarolMooreDC 05:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Have a read. In the actual collection, about thirty titular mentions, spanning a century and a half, under the umbrella of (still can't believe this actually has to be qualified, but... anti-capitalist) anarchism. Scan through some of the literature and you'll see hundreds of mentions by prominent authors. I really don't understand why this article has to be mutilated into some neoliberal shrine. Then again, I don't have the spare time on my hands try and prevent it, and I suspect all mentions of what libertarian actually means will be purged eventually. Pretty sad indeed. Finx (talk) 06:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The first sentence of above anarchistlibrary link reads: As is well known, anarchists use the terms “libertarian”, “libertarian socialist” and “libertarian communist” as equivalent to “anarchist” and, similarly, “libertarian socialism” or “libertarian communism” as an alternative for “anarchism.” This is perfectly understandable, as the anarchist goal is freedom, liberty, and the ending of all hierarchical and authoritarian institutions and social relations.

The only problems are a) it is not well known and b) it is mostly left anarchists who know all this. Most people think it means some sort of free living/free loving/pot smoking/free marketeering/gun toting hippy reality.

I feel like I'm fighting with Zionists who insist God gave them Israel 4000 years ago and everybody knows it so they can kick all the Arabs off, kill them if they resist and use the Samson Option and nuke the world if it dares to stop them from fulfilling God's will. Geezz.. CarolMooreDC 06:49, 13 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" [2] Darkstar1st (talk) 08:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that the points that you make are correct. Regarding disambig, my concerns above remain. As long as we can keep this article balanced and fend off the folks that want to pull it to one extreme or the other (or wanting to cover one strand as seen through the lens of another strand) what we have here now is sort of the best of both worlds.....sort of a disambig article on steroids. But there is one hitch. The "less-government-more-freedom-that's-it" strand only really has one name and that is single-word-identified "libertarianism" (probably because it is by far the largest) So there is no suitable title for that strand to disambiguate to. "Right" libertarian has so many different meanings that it has no meaning, much less be a name for that strand. And although it is big in the US (probably 30,000,000 self-identify that way and 60,000,000 vote that way) other strands exist in the US as well, (plus it exists outside of the US) so "US libertarianism" isn't a usable term. North8000 (talk) 14:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Libertarianism (disambiguation) exists. I know Darkstar1st wants to move EVERYTHING not in his personal view of libertarianism over to it, one of several ways he disrupted the article. I see he came back and got blocked from editing here at least once after I stopped editing it. I congratulate those of you who had the patience to deal with making this a good article! It's one of the few I have quit in frustration!! CarolMooreDC 18:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back Carol, you think anarco-capitalism is libertarian, i do not. the elimination of the state in favor of individual sovereignty, I think anarco-capitalism is the same as anarchy, you do not. anarcho-capitalism is a fringe term, libertarian is not. anarco-capitalist are a tiny minority, exposure here should be eliminated or minimized. anarcho-capitalism and anarchism have their own article, libertarian does not. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see an overly strong reason to remove this page and leave only the disambig. It seems to me that there are three subjects that use the name libertarianism: the metaphysical position that we have free will, the political philosophy of anarchism, and the political affiliation associated with the US Libertarian Party. Because anarchism already has an article and most people seeking information about libertarianism will be inquiring about the political affiliation, the latter should be the primary topic. In order to preserve the historical use of libertarian as a synonym for anarchist, I think we ought to summarize the anarchism article, but leave the bulk of this article for US Libertarianism/right-libertarianism/whatever you want to call it. I know at least North8000 objects to using the terms right- and left-libertarianism so I'm open to suggestions, but these terms are supported by reliable sources and really do explain well the differences between traditional, anarchist, "left" libertarianism and the relatively recent, propertarian, "right" libertarianism. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree overall, but I have several quibbles on the smaller points. In the US (my guess) only about 1% of people who say they are libertarian are in the US Libertarian party. Second, their definition doesn't include anything on being propertarian. You can't define a strand by something that is not on its list of tenets. Finally, my concern about the term "right" libertarian is not based on any claim that the term is not used in sources. It's that the term is used with so many different meanings, and with ad hoc meanings that it does not define any strand of libertarianism. Sort of like saying that since the term "nice looking tree" is widely used, then "nice looking" should be a term/ division in our coverage of trees. 19:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

This is essentially a topic and weight argument, and I'm not seeing sources of magisterial quality being deployed, such as Woodcock. Topic and weight really needs widely or universally respected third order sources: scholarly "field reviews," theory category and typology papers, history of ideas papers. And they need to be widely respected. Ideally we'd want someone like Woodcock publishing a total field review on the history of ideas of what is libertarianism in a journal like Philosophy. The two sources at the top of this section contribute little to an argument on weight and topic. This page isn't for discussing our own personal views on the typology of libertarianism. It is for discussing the views of the best sources we can possibly locate. Fifelfoo (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

North, addressing your earlier points...this page really shouldn't be a monstrously overgrown DAB page with various groups fighting for greater coverage. Instead, it should be a painfully simple DAB page with...

• Libertarianism (limited government or whatever), narrow scope of government and strong property rights
• Anarcho-capitalism, no scope of government and strong property rights
• Anarcho-socialism, no scope of government and collective ownership

That's it. It's really as simple as that. Then we watch the page views and see if one of the articles receives far more hits than the rest. If there is a clear "winner"...be it anarcho-capitalism or anarcho-socialism...then that article would be moved to this page. If there is no clear winner...then this page would continue to be a DAB page. --Xerographica (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Sections relevance to libertarianism needs to be proved

Only sources that directly discuss the term "libertarian" in the material being discussed can be used. Sources that generally talk about "anarchism" or "anarcho-capitalism" or "Market liberalism" without mentioning the word libertarian or libertarianism do not belong in the article. I have a strong feeling they are being used. Removing them is one thing I intend to do when I go through the article. This is how we find out what the uses are. Also, there are lots of high quality sources in there now, as well as some questionable ones. CarolMooreDC 04:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

While I do like the overall structure, once I actually started reading the article I couldn't believe how it had flipped back from being an overly propertarian/US oriented article to one that's more about European Marxism with barely a hint that "libertarian" is word/concept/etc. foremost in the minds of the activists/ideologies described. Pretty rediculous. Original research may be what is needed on top. I don't know who wrote it. Anyone want to tell me so I can go to their talk page and ask them to better source and remove. Thanks. CarolMooreDC 05:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Could you clarify what your question at the end of your post is? Thanks. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

There is a difference between libertarian thrown in as an adjective once in a whole book/chapter/section about anarchist communism and it being used in a source which describes a coherent libertarian philosophy. When I get a chance soon I will go through every one of those refs and if libertarianism as a philosophy isn't central to the summarized material, out it goes. Just that simple. CarolMooreDC 19:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Undue weight

I created a subpage to illustrate what this article would look like if all the anarchism was removed... User:Xerographica/Libertarianism. Here's the before and after...

• 14 to 4 pages
• 6,748 to 1,616 words
• 40,815 to 9,854 characters no spaces

Like I said, the long term solution is simply to turn this page into a DAB page with three links...

• Libertarianism (limited government or whatever), narrow scope of government and strong property rights
• Anarcho-capitalism, no scope of government and strong property rights
• Anarcho-socialism, no scope of government and collective ownership

...and then wait a few months and compare the page views. Here are the current page views..

• anarcho-socialism - 20,750 views in the last 30 days
• anarcho-capitalism - 19,117 views in the last 30 days
• Libertarianism (limited government) - ???

If one of the articles receives more than the other two combined...then that should be the article at this page. If not, then this page will continue to be a DAB page. --Xerographica (talk) 09:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that there are some weight problems. But this is a important top level article with over 1.5 million views per year. I'm not for converting it into such an experiment. North8000 (talk) 12:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

i agree with both of you. if this page gets 100k views a month, and Anarcho-capitalism, Anarcho-socialism each get about 1/5th the views, it appears most are searching for the limited gov version. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

This one gets about 130,000 views per month. North8000 (talk) 14:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Some weight problems? Here's what you wrote earlier...

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. [...] For the last couple years I've been one most actively working to strike a balance.

Given that the large majority of this article is about anarchism...clearly, whatever you are doing is not working. And given that you are not proposing doing anything significantly and fundamentally different...there's no reason to believe that you will be able to actually strike or maintain a balance that reflects each ideology's proper weight.

Converting it into such an experiment? I don't understand. The objective is to determine whether readers are interested in learning about libertarianism or anarchism. If the article on libertarianism receives far more views...then that's the article that would be moved here. If not, then this page will remain a DAB page

What I'm proposing aligns perfectly with the primary topic policy. Is there a primary topic for the word "libertarianism"? Who knows? It's hard to tell given that there is no article dedicated to limited government libertarianism. So in order to determine whether libertarianism or anarchism is the primary topic...we should convert this page to a DAB page.

If there is no primary topic, the term should be the title of a disambiguation page (or should redirect to a disambiguation page on which more than one term is disambiguated). The primary topic might be a broad-concept article, as mentioned above.

Step 1...let's find out if there's a primary topic for the word "libertarianism". That requires converting this page into a DAB page or redirecting it to the currently existing DAB page. If it turns out, based on views, that there is no primary topic...then no further changes will be made. --Xerographica (talk) 19:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

It's difficult to determine weight if most of the sources about anarchism only throw in "libertarian" here and there as an adjective in a whole book/chapter/section about anarchist communism and it being used in a source which describes a coherent libertarian philosophy. What we have to do is go through every one of those refs and if libertarianism as a philosophy isn't central to the summarized material, out it goes. IF that is done the amount on leftwing anarchism will be reduced to it's true proportion of importance. I'm going to do it soon, unless someone else wants to get busy. Maybe later today or tomorrow I'll start with the first relevant section and clean that up to show you what I mean. If it gets reverted, we go to WP:ORiginal research noticeboard cause that's what we are talking about. CarolMooreDC 19:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

[Insert]So you kick out the anarchism now...but please explain how you prevent it from being gradually re-added. What are you going to do differently? You let it happen this time...what are you going to do to ensure that it doesn't happen again? You can't guarantee that you'll be more "vigilant". The best long term solution is to disambiguate this page. We clearly delineate the articles based on tenets. If one of the articles receives more views than the rest combined...then that should be the primary topic. --Xerographica (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not talking about kicking out anarchism, I have nothing against it as long as it isn't forced on me. I am talking about removing WP:Original research. And I am about to remove a whole section of it as an example. CarolMooreDC 20:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not original research...the content is all based on reliable sources...but reliable sources on anarchism. I have nothing against anarchism either. My best friend is an anarchist (not really). But the basic fact is that the word "libertarianism" has vastly different meanings. Trying to make this page cover every meaning of the word "libertarianism" is a violation of WP:NAD. --Xerographica (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

{ec}But anarchism already has an article. WP:UCN would suggest anarchism be covered under "Anarchism," and therefore any anarchist information herein is a content fork that should be summarized. Maybe that's why I don't understand making this page a DAB. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Because for some, the word "libertarianism" is synonymous with "anarchism". That's why "libertarian socialism" is the same thing as "anarcho-socialism". The problem with this page is that it violates the not a dictionary policy...

Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc., whereas a dictionary entry is primarily about a word, an idiom, or a term and its meanings, usage and history.

The word "libertarian" has various meanings. Right now this article is simply a dictionary entry that tries to cover every single meaning of the word "libertarianism". When a word has different meanings...then the correct procedure is to create a DAB page. If one of the meanings is popular enough...then that is the primary topic and it should be placed on term's page. --Xerographica (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

There are forms of anarchism and individualist anarchists which also freely use the word libertarianism, and they belong here. What doesn't belong is long descriptions of events/trends/individualsgroups only marginally related to an explicit libertarian philosophy. In Wikipedia we go by what the sources say. Don't waste time discussing on the talk page. Go through the refs, section at a time, and cut out all the WP:Original research. If you don't know what that is, study policy. CarolMooreDC 20:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Again, it's a violation of Wikipedia policy for this page to be about the word "libertarianism". Clearly there are completely different meanings which is exactly why this page should be turned into a DAB page. If it turns out that one of the meanings is sufficiently popular to be considered the primary topic...then it should be moved to this page.

And in case you missed it, I already did go through the article with my scalpel... User:Xerographica/Libertarianism. Once you remove all the anarchism...there's barely anything left. But there are plenty of reliable sources that define libertarianism in terms of accepting and understanding that the government has a necessary but limited role. As I said, every single one of the Nobel Prize winning libertarians is an LGL. --Xerographica (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Freedom of choice - AfD

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

WP:CANVASSING. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

It's canvassing because...? Because the audience is, in theory, all pro-choice? If that's the case, then should I also post it on the socialism talk page...because they are, in theory, all anti-choice? --Xerographica (talk) 01:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

It is the epitome of canvassing. Why are you even asking? Capitalismojo (talk) 02:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

No canvassing has taken place! The article was nominated and I see that SPECIFICO has posted a neutral notification to editors who have worked on the article in the past. Posting a notice about the afd on this project page WT:ECON (as participants in the project are/should be non-partisan) would be appropriate as well. But posting on particular article talk pages, which have no connection to the freedom of choice article (such as socialism) or on various (unspecified) project talk pages, which may be partisan, may be inappropriate. – S. Rich (talk) 03:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Revised to reflect the fact that I was mistaken as to what talk page I was on! (Duh! The title is right above in bold print!!) Capitalismojo is right. Posting here is inappropriate is it for a partisan audience. 03:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

According to the canvassing policy....it's appropriate notification when it's posted to the "talk page of one or more WikiProjects (or other Wikipedia collaborations) directly related to the topic under discussion." Obviously the topic under discussion is directly related to libertarianism. And there's no real difference between posting it here or on the Wikiprojects for libertarianism or capitalism. --Xerographica (talk) 03:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Phica, if you wish to demonstrate respect for WP policy I suggest you strike your canvassing here. Consider the costs and benefits. SPECIFICO talk 04:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

So, post the notice on the Project page. This is an article talk page. (I know people can get confused as to what page they are talking on. I did it myself above.) By sticking to WikiProject pages, we avoid problems with "mass posting". E.g., the camel's nose does not get under the tent of particular articles. ("If it's okay to post on this article talk page, why not A, B, C, D, etc. talk pages.") Also, this talk page is about improving the Libertarianism article. Not about other articles. I think I'll collapse this discussion as off-topic. – S. Rich (talk) 04:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Anarchism is a branch of Libertarianism?

Anarchist is a derogatory term attached to libertarian in an effort to discredit those practicing such. Anarchy, anti-leader, from Greek, is the natural state of animals which long predates politics, therefore it can't possibly be a branch. To "acquire property rights" implies there be law to protect/grant such rights, otherwise how is it a right? If there be no state, how can there be law? rights structure the form of governments, the content of laws, so rights are necessary for government, should one be present, both are. In Anarchy a "right" is protected by the rightee or his allies, in Libertarianland, rights are protected by complete strangers, united in defense. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Umm... no. First, anarchy means without ruler, which is why anarchism is traditionally anti-statist, anti-religious, and anti-capitalist. Second, libertarianism is historically linked to anarchism because these terms were synonymous for ~100 years. Third, there are plenty of people who have overcome the negative connotation associated with anarchy and proudly use it to label themselves. I suppose viewing anarchism as a branch of libertarianism isn't blatantly wrong, but it is a bit of an anachronism. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

uhh...ya, first Archy: from Latin -archia, from Ancient Greek ἀρχός (archos, "leader"), ANarchy means anti or sans leader. second, just because some people confused the terms, doesnt mean their meanings changed. Third, who cares what anarchist call them selves. fourth, actually it is wrong since one cant have a branch before having a tree. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

That's closer to accurate, but still misses the mark. anti- means "against"; a or an means "without". Saying "anti-leader" is just a remarkably poor way to interpret that word. Aside from this, though... what is the point you're trying to make? I don't see a proposed change. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

please accept my apology, i was/am a remarkably poor student. I propose what others above are proposing, we remove the undue material about anarchist. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

While I'll agree that we have an overabundance of anarchism in this article, I don't support removing it all (not sure if that's what you're proposing). I think most of the information in the History section ought to be summarized as a content fork of the anarchism article and more right-libertarian information needs to be added. If this is what you're proposing, I support it. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Radical or as some would say consistent libertarianism is indeed anarchism. --MeUser42 (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so every part of that is provably false. Anarchism means 'without archons.' The first person to politically self-identify as a libertarian was an anarchist communist named Joseph Déjacque. For 150 years, everywhere in the world until a local, aberrational re-definition in the US in the late 20th century, libertarian has meant anti-capitalist anarchism, in opposition to private property. You can't just erase that history. That's the traditional definition of libertarianism, and very recently it's taken on right-wing connotations, basically in one country only. Concerning defamation, if anything, (that is if we care about chronology and commonly accepted usage) it's the other way around. Finx (talk) 05:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

you realize archons means ruler? if anarchism is a branch of libertarianism, and it predates politics, what was it a branch of before libertarianism was invented? Darkstar1st (talk) 05:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. Can you phrase it more coherently? The semantics of "anti-leader" (whatever that means) aside, what I'm trying to explain is that libertarianism etymologically comes from anarchism. They've been basically synonyms since the mid 19th century. Anarchism (a movement against industrial capitalism, to dismantle the capitalist system and the state) was described as "libertarian communism" or "libertarian socialism." That's the origin of the word libertarian, whether you like it or not. Later some people in the US started using it to describe laissez faire capitalist ideologies. Alongside it, anarchism was also re-branded along neoliberal lines (with 'anarcho-capitalism'). Neoliberalism, however, is not traditional definition of libertarianism. So if there's any 'defamation' going on, reverse the order please. Finx (talk) 05:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Anarchism (a movement against industrial capitalism... no, humans have lived for millenium as anarchist, long before industry or capitalism, other animals even longer. wolves voluntarily associate to hunt, this is anarchy, no government or elected leader, rather free individuals agreeing to live/die by a code, those who dont, simply walk away to form new packs. Libertarians want government to protect the rights of every individual including property, anarchist do not. similar yes, synonymous, no. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The widely accepted meaning of words change. Liberal meant something a lot different in 1800 than it meant in 2000. Libertarianism actually has changed less. It meant free will in 1789 when it was first used. It mean liberty when Dejacque first used it in 1857, cobbled to a socialist view point, which it still does to many. But if obviously wasn't that suffused with socialist meaning by the 1930s or people like Albert Jay Nock and H.L. Mencken would not have started calling themselves libertarians! Today more people see it as meaning the right to be free in every way and to own property (though there are all sorts of divisions on the definition of rightly held property even among strong supporters of property rights). Get used to it. Do you really think you'll change history by hijacking the meaning for this article? Or threatening sneaky edit warring and aggravating NPOV editors so they stop editing? I don't think so. But you might eventually get topic banned for disruptiveness. CarolMooreDC 06:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

A small step forward....what NOT to cover

Without tackling the bigger question, I think that one thing that we should put to bed is that we don't need to cover misconceptions from places that aren't familiar with it. This includes:

• The common meaning of anarchist in the US is someone who riots, throws firebombs and motorcycle gangs who take over towns. It is not "Eurocentric bias" to leave this definition out of our anarchism description.
• Persons who don't understand the common meaning of "libertarian" in the US (which is basically just two items: prioritizing less government and more freedom) and who keep trying to describe it in irrelevant terms (proprietarian, minarchist, "right" etc) It is not US-centric bias to leave these errors out of the description of common US libertarianism.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The first point isn't exactly correct: we anarchists have earned our association with terrorism because of incidents of propaganda of the deed, and this is not unique to the USA. There is no Eurocentric bias here because there's no Eurocentricity. This association is explained in the anarchism article, as it should be. I'm fairly certain the second point is directed at me, but I want to make clear that I refer to US libertarianism in these ways only on this Talk page. I have proposed using the terms left- and right-libertarianism to better organize this article because they are supported by sources (and yes, with congruent definitions), but consensus is against this. I have requested better terminology, but received no response; therefore, I will continue to refer to it as I have until a suitable replacement is found. The association of libertarianism with property rights, too, is relevant and worth inclusion, though not as a definitional statement. This information would work well in a "Criticism" section, as most of these are attributed to left-libertarians (i.e. anarchists).

In short, I disagree with omitting relevant information in both cases. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you find a scholarly source discussing how this "common sense" definition differs from say, Robert Long's scholarly and clear indication that the US movement centred around the USLP has very clear views on bourgeois property? Compare as a distinction the scholarly study of Labourism as opposed to Socialism in the labour movement context, even though Labourism isn't a clearly evoked singular ideology, it was a populist conception of the world, it has been subject to appropriate scholarly study (Browns' From Labourism to Socialism for example). Fifelfoo (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't argue that because I don't disagree with that regarding the portion of US libertarians (maybe 2%) centered around the USLP The USLP has a full platform, and so ascribing things (beyond my short list of two items) to that philosophy (e.g. views on property) is not in error. There IS sourcing that says that about 10% of the US self-identifies as libertarian, and about 20% votes libertarian (selected Democrat and Republican candidates) which means that USLP folks are about 1/2% - 2% of US libertarians. North8000 (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:OR section removed

As an example of the problems with the Content of this article, at this diff I removed section Propaganda of the deed and illegalism per edit summary: sources do NOT mention libertarianism; Table of Contents not a ref for that sentence; only relevant material is Alain Pengam on DeJacque's person[al] views which should be put elsewhere if not WP:Undue) Any excuses for irrelevant material and WP:Original research?? Feel free to add a sentence or two of interest to mention(s) of Dejacque.

NOTE: if a book doesn't have a link it usually can be found at books.google or scholar.google or a general search. If it's in a Foreign Language one can request a translation, or link to one through google translate. If neither works, request a translation that shows the actual context of statement and relation to libertarianism. If there is no link to the original material anywhere, you can request a quote of relevant material and make sure you get page numbers. After all libertarianism might be mentioned once on page 2 and all the material may be from page 456, long after "libertarianism" has been forgotten by readers or the author. CarolMooreDC 20:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

A source does not have to use the word "libertarianism". You know why? It's simply because Wikipedia is not a dictonary. The focus of this article should not be the word "libertarianism"...it should be on one specific meaning of the word. Assuming of course that there is a primary topic. So which meaning of the word "libertarianism" are you using to determine whether or not a reliable source is relevant to this article?

For example, are you using the meaning that has been embraced by all the Nobel Prize winning libertarians?

The anarchist utopia must be acknowledged to hold a lingering if ultimately spurious attractiveness. Little more than casual reflection is required, however, to suggest that the whole idea is a conceptual mirage. - James Buchanan, The Limits of Liberty

--Xerographica (talk) 21:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Xerographica, I agree with you for the most part, but we must also include the history of the term, yes? It seems misleading to talk about libertarianism as only the US, propertarian version without mentioning that the word libertarian was coined to describe anarchism or that these terms were synonymous for ~100 years. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Have you guys NOT read WP:Original research?? (emphasis from the policy page)

Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented...

As for the Buchanan quote, where's the source that it exists and that anyone says it is a definition of libertarianism and that it is embraced by all Libertarians. WP:OR in talk pages also can be annoying.

Mr. Dub, I don't think anyone wants to remove properly sourced material (except where excessive verbiage/WP:Undue),including DeJacque's definition. I was referring to this Alain Pengam source which has a lot of Dejaque but did not really explicitly refer to libertarianism and the material it allegedly was sourcing. I think the definition does need some better/more varied sources and will supply them, thus the temporary tag I put on the relevant paragraph. CarolMooreDC 22:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Carolmooredc, the majority of this article discusses anarchism...so clearly the topic of this article is anarchism. There are plenty of reliable sources that say that "libertarianism" is "anarchism". Yet, here you are removing content that is reliably sourced...claiming that it is "original" research.

Here's how it should work. First you establish the tenets of an ideology and then you use those tenets to identify which sources are relevant to the article. Is Buchanan's quote relevant to this article? Sure, but only in the criticism section. But then you have an absurd situation where there's a Nobel Prize winning "libertarian" critiquing "libertarianism". All because you violated the policy that states that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Xerographica (talk) 23:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

MisterDub, each article should be about a well delineated concept...and it should mention any "words" that have been used to refer to that specific concept. The tap root of limited government libertarianism (LGL) is "classical liberalism". An article on LGL should cover the history of notable people who have understood the importance of keeping the Leviathan on a very tight leash (Smith, Bastiat, Spencer, Mises, etc). It should not cover the people who have advocated that the Leviathan be destroyed (Proudhon, Bookchin, Godwin, Rothbard, etc.). These are two completely different and distinct concepts. Combining them is the epitome of misleading...and a clear violation of Wikipedia policy. So we turn this into a DAB page and see if one of the articles receives enough views to be considered the primary topic. It's really that simple. --Xerographica (talk) 22:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Xerographica: Where in policy does it say "each article should be about a well delineated concept...and it should mention any "words" that have been used to refer to that specific concept" You are using your imagination. What part of the sentence below from WP:OR do you NOT understand?

To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.

Once again you are talking WP:OR. Who says all pro-property libertarians think in terms of "classical liberalism"? Who says your distinctions above are anything but your own WP:OR? Some of us actually can write an article that gives the different perspectives their due. CarolMooreDC 22:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

CarolMooreDC, thanks, but I think the problem is that we have reliable sources equating libertarianism with anarchism, so anything related to anarchism is pertinent whether or not sources explicitly use the term libertarian (WP:MNA). The reason we ought not to repeat the information here is that we would be duplicating information from its commonly named article.

Xerographica, there is no reason to make this a DAB: Anarchism has an article, as does the metaphysical concept of libertarianism. This article should be about LGL, which still uses the term libertarian (meriting its mention, as you suggested). I agree with you as far as people, but we should note that the term traditionally referred to anarchism and not Liberalism. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 23:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The point of turning this page into DAB page is to recognize that the word "libertarianism" has completely different meanings. Once it's converted into a DAB page...then we can see if any of the meanings receive enough views to be considered the primary topic. If, and only if, one of the meanings receives enough views...then will that meaning be moved to this page.

You're basically skipping a step and saying that LGL is the primary topic. I supported your approach in the past but there was no consensus. It doesn't seem very likely that it will receive enough support now either. So that's why the DAB approach is a completely neutral, fair and evidenced based method of determining whether any meaning is sufficiently popular to be considered the primary topic.

The only real reason for somebody to oppose this method is if they are pro-anarchism but they believe that LGL truly is the primary topic. The existence of the supporting evidence would prevent them from using this high exposure page to promote anarchism. --Xerographica (talk) 23:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

LGL is obviously the primary topic for this article per WP:UCN, as I explained earlier. Anarchism's common name is anarchism, so the only competition for primary topic comes from the metaphysical concept of libertarian free will, which is already disambiguated to "libertarianism (metaphysics)". I don't support the DAB approach because it's unnecessary; it has nothing to do with my personal feelings. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 23:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I had to look back for what LGL means (limited government libertarianism) though I don't see any WP:RS making your distinctions. Guess what, a lot of libertarians think that individual liberty and civil liberties and non-interventionism and limited OR no government (or decentralism where you decide in your own community how much to have) are the big things that make people libertarians and minor differences over who should own what factory or what river or what pair of underpants can be decided in a nonviolent fashion. This (sick patriarchal, IMHO) obsession some have with dividing libertarians by economics should not be used as an excuse to violate wikipedia policies which is what this is about. CarolMooreDC 23:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

MisterDub, I completely agree that it is obviously the primary topic...but "obviously" others disagree. They've disagreed in the past and they'll certainly disagree in the future. That's why I'd like to solve it once and for all by having some actual concrete evidence in the form of page views. Even with that concrete evidence...proponents of anarchism will still continue to sneak in content related to other uses of the word "libertarianism"...but at least we'll have concrete evidence to support the clear delineation of this article. Don't get me wrong...I love opposing viewpoints...but that's exactly what the criticism section is for. --Xerographica (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

You are proposing to take things even farther into the area of WP:OR. This will only lead to a frustrating detour that is not going to help improve the article. SPECIFICO talk 00:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

RE: WP:MNA claim

Wikipedia:MNA#Making_necessary_assumptions does not mean libertarianism equals anarchism.

• Loading up on left wing sources that barely mention libertarianism and then claiming that means that libertarianism = anarchism is totally specious, especially if you’ve deleted ones that do not support your definition

• Let’s look at what was removed from the article last year:

"Right libertarianism" has been described as better-known.

• Johnathan Wolff (1998). "Libertarianism". Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Vol. 4. Taylor & Francis. p. 617. More typically it is associated with a view which champions particularly pure forms of capitalism.
• Stanford Encyclopedia. the better-known version of libertarianism—right-libertarianism.
• Peter Vallentyne (2007). "Liberalism and the State". In Jeffrey Paul and Fred D. Miller (ed.). Liberalism: Old and New. Cambridge University Press. p. 187. The best known form of libertarianism - right-libertarianism...

• Search books.google for “Best known forms of libertarianism” and see what you get.
• Do a google search of “libertarianism equals anarchism” 7 returns, mostly people denying it; and a search of “libertarianism does not equal anarchism” 27 returns, people agreeing it does not.

That’s just a tiny start on the evidence that can be provided to contest your bogus claims that there is a left wing form of libertarianism so well known that it should own this article and shunt any other version off to some other article. I've written up my WP:ORN notice. Will hold back on sending for now as more rational voices enter the discussion. CarolMooreDC 00:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Where do you think the term "libertarian socialism" comes from? For many who follow Chomsky...the word "libertarian" is synonymous with "anarchism". That's why "libertarian socialism" is the same exact thing as "anarcho-socialism". But that only establishes that the word "libertarianism" has widely divergent meanings...which is exactly why this article should be turned into a DAB page until we can establish whether one of the meanings is sufficiently popular to be considered the primary topic. --Xerographica (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

{ec}CarolMooreDC, I think you may be under the impression that I want this article to be about anarchism; I do not. Yes, right-libertarianism (LGL) has become "the better-known version" and we should be covering that primarily, but libertarianism was synonymous with anarchism for a long time and that should be noted. This blog post has several citations detailing this history, if you'd like. Just to reiterate, though, I think this article needs to be about right-libertarianism, but with a few paragraphs explaining the term's origin and history, including its association with anarchism. If the reader wants more information about anarchism, he or she can click to a SeeAlso template under the section heading. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 03:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Have you looked through previous versions of this article? If you look back far enough you'll find articles that almost perfectly match your description. So please explain what will be done differently to prevent this article from again giving far too much weight to anarchism. --Xerographica (talk) 03:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with most things that most people have said except one quibble with Xerographica. Wikipedia articles by policy and merit often cover a set of related concepts as defined by a term. North8000 (talk) 02:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Right, unless the "term" has completely different meanings in which case a DAB page is created for the "term". --Xerographica (talk) 03:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Re:Term and disambiguation. Now what WP:OR term was it that Xerographica wants to use? This whole conversation is so deja vu...

User:Xerographica: As long as we are WP:SoapBoxing without refs, if you want the most popular kind of libertarianism it's about individual liberty and civil liberties and non-interventionism and limited OR no government (or decentralism where you decide in your own community how much to have) - differences over ownership of resources or how much private property you are "allowed" to own are not obsessed upon by the majority of people. Finding processes to deal with conflicts over property without aggression and violence is the main issue in that regard. (After all the average male ape will always want the most territory and goodies so he can get the best females - or prevent more macho males from getting it if he's a socialist?? ha ha - so he will obsess on economics.)

MrDub, I did get impression you wanted a balanced article. Again, I'm not for booting any kind of anarchism, just for removing WP:OR - and WP:Undue - material and adding new (or adding back old unnecessarily deleted) material so that the article better reflects reality. CarolMooreDC 04:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)