Talk:Libertarianism/Archive 31

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

→

Property rights again

Anyone care to voice an opinion on whether this opening statement:

"Libertarianism is a term describing philosophies which emphasize [a] respect of property rights."

adequately conveys the idea that

"some schools are supportive of private property rights in the ownership of unappropriated land and natural resources while others reject such private ownership..."

The lede as written would not give the impression that certain property ownership ideas are rejected, IMO. BigK HeX(talk) 23:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Editors should not distort sources and push ideosyncratic viewpoints. Other ideologies also support property rights, note that most countries have established civil courts in order to support property rights, international treaties on copyright laws, etc. Also, property rights are secondary in libertarian ideology - those who support property rights do so because it is in their view the only effective way of protecting individual rights. TFD (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree with BigK and TFD. Maybe we should just remove "property rights" from the lead because, as TFD said, "property rights are secondary in libertarian ideology". North8000 (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

True. But that's the problem, we should either distinguish clearly that there is a part of the libertarian current that does not regard property rights as being their main focus. But there is a large one that defines libertarianism as being the respect of property rights. So we either make the distinction in the lead and we explain in a few words what the difference is, or we just say libertarianism supports both liberty and property rights as it does now and let the reader see the distinction later during the article. Fsol (talk) 05:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I could be wrong with what I'm about to say, if so , please correct me. But in an attempt to sort this out let me throw out the following statement for your comments. The main article-worthy information with respect to property rights is that that strains of libertarians differ on the subject of property rights for ownership of unappropriated land and natural resources. Other than that, property right for other items are just assumed by most or all strands of libertarianism. (I.E. if you build or buy a car, by some mechanism you "own" it.) But such is assumed by libertarians, (in a whimsical but useful analogy, just like the right to breathe air) but it is not on the list of what they are pushing, and thus is not a defining element of libertarianism. North8000 (talk) 09:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind that some libertarians limit property rights to possession, use, and occupation. For example, such libertarians hold that one does not have the freedom to rent his property to others because doing so qualifies as exploitation and therefore does not qualify as an actual freedom. KLP (talk) 17:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, better to keep it simple in the lead. It suffices to say that across the spectrum of libertarianism, there are different interpretations of property rights. aprock (talk) 17:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Fsol, I think that there is a consensus to leave it out of the lead; I noticed that you just put it back in. North8000 (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Fsol, the concensus is to leave "property rights" out of the lead. KLP (talk) 12:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I didn't even have a strong opinion on it, but we'll never get even a slightly stable article if we have individuals acting directly against even clear consensus on the talk page. North8000 (talk) 13:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

1) The consensus was to mention them.

2) The referenced source says, I quote: "Libertarianism, in the strict sense, is the moral view that agents initially fully own themselves and have certain moral powers to acquire property rights in external things. In a looser sense, libertarianism is any view that approximates the strict view. This entry will focus on libertarianism in the strict sense."

3) If you want to represent another view, it's all right as long as you add it with a proper reference and source. We can't use a source that blatently says something different. Fsol (talk) 14:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Those sound like legit arguments for putting that material somewhere in the article, not for imposing your preferred version of the lead contrary to consensus. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

North8000, I am not the one who put that reference there. However it is a peer-reviewed unbiased source, so I deem as being of good quality. If anybody wants to add other aspects to the lead, they should do so as long as the info is sourced properly. But adding does not entail deleting previously sourced information.Fsol (talk) 17:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to be a summary of the important stuff in the article. And one person's somewhat unique definition of libertarianism certainly doesn't qualify as that. And again, again the arguments you are making are more relevant for inclusion into the article than inclusion into the lead. North8000 (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Do we even need a reference in the lead if the lead adequately represents the properly sourced content of the article? KLP (talk) 19:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The common practice is to leave them out of the lead for just that reason, but that someone could still ask for them to be in the lead. North8000 (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Any information is expected to be backed up by reliable sources, even more so for Lead information. It's not one person's definition it's a peer-reviewed encyclopaedic definition (quite high on the reliability scale). The vast majority of wiki articles have properly referenced leads.Fsol (talk) 06:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it's time to buck that trend. If the facts are properly sourced in the body of the article, reapplying those sources to the lead seems like a wasted effort. I mean, if the article's body doesn't uphold a statement in the lead, remove or adjust that statement accordingly. If the body contains one or more substantial explanations that receive no mention in the lead, the lead is running a little lean. Furthermore, opening up an article with all those blue, super-scripted numbers looks ugly. KLP (talk) 05:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, here we are opening up an encyclopedia article by citing another encyclopedia article. Seems very unencyclopedic. KLP (talk) 05:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Fsol, we're talking about three different things at once here. Since the lead is to be a summary of what's in the article, the main and normal place for the material to be sourced (or challenged for sourcing) is in the body of the article. Someone can also source it in the lead, or challenge it for sourcing in the lead, but such would typically be a duplication of the sourcing which is in the article and is not the normal practice. But that's not what we're really talking about here. Second, guidelines do back up what KLP says; an encyclopedia is a tertiary source, and such are generally not used for Wikipedia. But what we're really talking about here is that you are in essence saying that that fact that it is sourced is a force for inclusion in the lead. This is triply without basis. First, it is sourcability, not sourcing that is required. Sourcing (vs. sourcabiity) is required once it is challenged. Second, sourcability is a requirement for inclusion of material, not a force for inclusion of material. Finally, none of that relates to being a force for inclusion in the lead, which I believe is what you are asserting. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyright violations

A particular addition to the lede of Libertarianism are a copyright violation by close paraphrase of Peter Vallentyne's work, specifically:

Vallentyne, "is the moral view that agents initially fully own themselves and have certain moral powers to acquire property rights in external things"
Your addition, "is the political philosophy that holds individuals initially own themselves and have property rights in external things"
In particular, "own themselves and have ... property rights in external things"

This should not be in the article, as it is a copyright violation. (It also over weights one particular view on property rights, doesn't reflect the article, and is very POINTy). Fifelfoo (talk) 07:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

1. The solution to avoid a paraphrase is not to blatently misquote the source.

2. We cannot speak about "paraphrase" on so few words. Otherwise you would get in the ridiculous situation that any re-use of a word would be a paraphrase.Fsol (talk) 08:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Your persistence in copyright violation has lead me to note this to WP:AN/I. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It's at WP:AN, not WP:AN/I. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Fsol.27s_copyright_violations_on_Libertarianism North8000 (talk) 12:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks North8000, I must have made a human error or typo. I have apologised to Fsol for misdirecting them in this way. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Lead war

Being a proprietarian libertarian, it seems ironic that I'm one of the main ones bucking fsol who has been trying to war that into the lead. But when we're here we check all of that at the door and our job is a good article. Plus maintaining civilization at this article is very-important, particularly in view of it's history, and edit warring against consensus certainly isn't that.

There are discussions on this in at least two other places, one is the wp:an as noted a few lines up the other is at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Libertarianism. But I think that the main discussion should be here. North8000 (talk) 12:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Do editors remember this? I certainly do. It may be time to consider general sanctions over Libertarianism and the continuous revisitation against consensus and reliable sources the issue of the centrality of private property. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

With complete re-writes every hour, I'm having trouble keeping up with what is in the lead. But a few overall thoughts.

Everybody stop warring! Lets develop it on the talk page.
I've seen several arguments for inclusion in the lead that are really mixed up. One seems to be mis-reading wp:ver. Verifiabiliity is a requirement for inclusion, not a force for inclusion, and definitely not a force for inclusion in the lead. The others seem to show no clue as to what the lead should be about.
The lead should summarize the article
Proprietarianism is certainly not a central tenet of libertarianism. It is a variable amongst libertarians. And this is a propriertarian libertarian (me) that is saying this. North8000 (talk) 15:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: I have reverted edits by User:Fsol twice now simply to keep redlinks out of the lead until some consensus is reached. --Andrew (User:90) (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Heaven forfend you actually find the article that link is meant to redirect to? Fifelfoo (talk) 20:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Attempts to integrate the desire for a strong statement that many libertarians favour private property, while acknowledging that other libertarians do not—in the first sentence of the lede with a Vallentyne cite—failed for some reason. I'm not sure why it failed. Those attempts to integrate a strong statement about some libertarians seeking the perfection of private property certainly fulfilled the desire of some editors to strongly indicate the role of private property in some libertarianisms. I am about to suggest the application of a general sanction to this article, probably 1RR, and IDHT over the broad weight-scope consensus. Possibly with another six months of protecting the wrong version. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but how is it helpful to say "Libertarianism is one of a variety of political ideologies that holds that the modernist project is fulfilled by individual dominance over the state formation"? Note what modernist project redirects to (an article with no mention of the modernist project). And note that state formation does not exist. And note that there is not one mention of private property in this sentence. We may be talking about two different edits here. --Andrew (User:90) (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Lest my previous comment upset anyone, I really do understand what you're saying with regard to private property. I am just trying to keep the article in decent until a better lead can be written and discussed on the talk page. --Andrew (User:90) (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

So you'd favour full protection to stop the edit-warring?
I wrote the lede you're discussing there, and that was an attempt to form a compromise with recently interested editors. I wrote it as a summary out of Ward, whose magisterial status in the field isn't in dispute; and based on Long's summary. It could well be better worded, and the fact that downstream redirects aren't sufficient. I meant of course what we have at Modernity, and what we have at Government. I really don't think we should limit our writing based on the poor quality of humanities theory articles in the rest of the encyclopaedia.
Vallentyne's article is limited to the philosophically interesting portions of libertarianism, and he attempts to conflate these very strongly with his personal political views. I'm not saying we shouldn't use him, he provides an excellent constrained definition of US pro-market libertarian theory in the present day. It is just that other contexts, such as Long's comparative attempts, and Ward's works provide superior head pieces. Vallentyne is being badly misused to mis-weight and mis-characterise the property discussion in our article (which is quite good) and to falsely claim libertarianism is a moral system—some libertarianisms are, others are entirely normative or materialistic.
Editors interested in the development of the current weight and scope consensus may wish to read the archives from 2009-2010. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that we have made progress on what was the main battle topic back then. Right now the issue to me looks like there are folks who are just not following a good process with the lead, probably not POV-driven. Who think it is BBBBBBBBBB instead of BRD. Let's just slow down and work it out on the talk page and have some fun here making this article. North8000 (talk) 21:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

First let's decide which version should sit in there while we work on it. I propose / what do y'all think about using the mid-January (e.g. 1/16/12) version just before this frenzy started? North8000 (talk) 21:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The version you mention is certainly not informative enough to be the final result everyone is looking for, but it also does not contain the controversial material either. Seems to me like we might as well put that version of the lead in place for now while a better version is crafted on the talk page. --Andrew (User:90) (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Fsol (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, here goes. North8000 (talk) 12:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I did it. To make it easy to find, I'm noting here that the version just before my change is the newest Feb 6th version. North8000 (talk) 12:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on expansion on / changes to lead

Comment. The lead should be a summary on what's in the article. Everything in the article must be sourcable. Usually the first place to put sourcing is in the body of the article and so sourcing in the lead is usually duplicate sourcing. It is fine to ask for or do that, but that does not per se set it apart from the other sourcable material regarding being a reason for going into the lead. North8000 (talk) 12:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Byelf2007 (talk) 07 February 2011

The current wrong version is manifestly wrong on property; and wrong in relation to the evidence on property in the body. All libertarians consider economic freedom as central to the project of human freedom, but with diverse theoretical and policy perspectives differ over private property; particularly private property in the means of production. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This has gotten so fast moving that I got lost. Also a lot of the overview section material got moved to the lead. Here's where I've been at / thinking in the chaos.

In my limited time I'm working on a little section for the body of the article that I think might be the start of a rosetta stone.in the old quandary. Basically, as discussed previously....about the 10's of millions of Americans that are "vague libertarians". Found sources etc.
We look and see if the body of the article looks sort of / 80% OK. If so, we decide that changes from there to be evolutionary rather than these repetitive total re-writes.
Knock the lead and the overview sections back to the Jan 16th, 2012 versions. (or many we should do that right now?) Agree that changes / development of those two from there to be evolutionary and discussed, no more rapid total re-writes. Have the lead summarize the article. Maybe the overview section would go, or maybe it would continue as overview stuff that didn't make it to the lead.

North8000 (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about truth, being wrong or being right. The only question that should be answered is does this definition respect the guideline for inclusion in Wikipedia? The guidelines request: Verifiability, No original research and Neutral point of view. All other discussions are interesting but irrelevant. According to the same established Wikipeida guidelines, these elements are not negociable by us (not by my standards, but by those enounced in Wikipedia's guidelines). That is why elements of the description of a concept, that can be verified using the established Wikipeida guidelines, should be included in the description of that concept in its Wikipedia article.

I agreed with Fiflefoo's consensus lede (eventhough may have been found lacking by other users) as long as it used proper sources (by Wikipedia standards).

According to the same criteria, unsourced material should not be used, or if it is being used it should not be so at the expense of properly sourced material. Which unfortunately was the case in several versions.

Again according to the same criteria, references should not be used to say something blatently different than what they say. Which even more unfortunately was the case in several other versions. -- Fsol (talk) 16:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Disagree with your paraphrasing/interpretation of policies/guidelines in several places, but that's all sidebar. Back to the main topic, what would you suggest that we do? North8000 (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll be on the web only briefly for the next 5 days. Fsol, property rights is certainly not a central tenet of Libertarianism. Please stop trying to war that into the lead. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I would just like to state that I find the lead, in its current form, rather well written and balanced. Good job, folks. KLP (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. We're trying, imperfect as the process is. North8000 (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm also happy with the lead as it currently is (not that I don't think it could be improved). Byelf2007 (talk) 23 February 2012

Why is this article in the socialism portal?

I can't think of many socialist libertarians. Capitalism is closely related to the notion of economic freedom. 213.109.230.96 (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, we generally rely on actual facts, rather than anecdotal evidence. And I guess you've never heard of Noam Chomsky. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 21:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Right, but why put it into the socialism portal rather than putting it in the capitalism portal, both portals or neither of them? I see a lack of impartiality here. 213.109.230.96 (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Another thing, I didn't say that I wasn't aware of any socialist libertarians at all, but I do assume that most libertarians gravitate toward capitalism rather than the former. 213.109.230.96 (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Your assumption is not what we write articles upon. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

For over 150 years, libertarian and socialist has meant almost the same thing. It wasn't until the public relations industry got around to contranymizing that word in the 1970s that libertarian became seriously associated with laissez faire capitalism -- and even then only in the United States. The libertarian tradition has never thought capitalism to be synonymous with any kind of liberty, but just the opposite. They believed that economic liberty is working without being subjugated under coercive employer-employee relationships and owning/controlling the means of production. More information here. I think this article comes off as a little dishonest, actually, because it doesn't state this clearly enough. Finx (talk) 01:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that all significant meanings of the term need to be covered. I think that the linked article is sort of a rant and completely misunderstands the main forms of US libertarianism (which is basically "less government" and everything that arises from that) by mistakenly defining what arises from "less government" as being core tenets. But that is a sidebar; I think that all significant meanings of the term should be covered. The article has been somewhat chaotic lately but most folks here are either committed to or OK with the latter. North8000 (talk) 11:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree, but I also think they should be covered in context. It's relevant that for centuries anarchists have rather logically believed that employer-employee labor relations are hierarchical and coercive and sought to eliminate them. Excluding capital from the language of anarchism (and libertarianism) is very new phenomenon, and it's very US-centric to this day. I wish I had some better sources on this transformation of meaning. I think it's worth looking into. Finx (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Please do, making sure that it is in regards to libertarianism. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Friedrich Hayek Notability

When I added Friedrich Hayek to the list of influential libertarians I'm pretty sure I mentioned something about partial knowledge. Yet somebody decided to remove partial knowledge from his entry. From his Nobel Prize press release...

His guiding principle when comparing various systems is to study how efficiently all the knowledge and all the information dispersed among individuals and enterprises is utilized. His conclusion is that only by far-reaching decentralization in a market system with competition and free price-fixing is it possible to make full use of knowledge and information. - Nobel Prize Press Release

The founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, cites Hayek's Essay on the Use of Knowledge In Society as the conceptual foundation for Wikipedia...so it shouldn't take much effort to understand and appreciate the value of the concept. Partial knowledge is of course contained within the economic calculation problem but the economic calculation problem is more commonly associated with Mises. Mises didn't say much/anything about the knowledge problem and was instead more focused on the private ownership of property. Therefore, Hayek's blurb should include mention of partial knowledge and Mises blurb should include mention of the economic calculation problem. --Xerographica (talk) 11:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

If there is a supported difference of opinion on this (as appears to be the case) I would suggest leaving it in. North8000 (talk) 11:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify...are you suggesting that we leave partial knowledge in Hayek's blurb? --Xerographica (talk) 12:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, based only on the above, not expertise on my part. North8000 (talk) 13:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Ayn Rand

Self-identification is important, and Ayn Rand said that she was not a libertarian. (See the Talk at the Ayn Rand article.) Indeed, she and her Objectivist students have been sharp critics of it. Sure, she has been a tremendous, perhaps the biggest, single influence on libertarianism. But she has also dramatically influenced some conservatives, and this was another label she rejected. She should not be called either. Oolyons (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

So this article should be organized by labels rather than tenets? Xerographica (talk) 09:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The tenets of libertarianism as defined by the CATO institute are almost polar opposites of the tenets of libertarianism as defined by everyone else for a century and a half. Finx (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

If the tenets are almost polar opposites then are we talking about different political philosophies? --Xerographica (talk) 21:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

It might be worth you rereading Long here, who indicates rather clearly that as a scholar he believes them to be related. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Why reread Long when all I have to do is look at this simple diagram? Do you think Long would disagree with that diagram? --Xerographica (talk) 22:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know exactly how to say this without sounding inflammatory, but that diagram is one of the most idiotic things I have ever seen. First of all, libertarianism used to be synonymous with libertarian socialism (and still is, outside the US), which is anarchism. Secondly, all anarchists (with the exception of Rothbard's very recent contribution) have historically been socialists. Lastly, conservatism in US history has been almost synonymous with classical liberalism. What is the basis for turning it into this kind of bizarre venn diagram? Finx (talk) 22:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

What's bizarre about the venn diagram? It reflects exactly what you are saying...it puts libertarian socialism...aka anarcho-socialism...right in between socialism and anarchism. Then it puts anarcho-capitalism right in between anarchism and libertarianism...aka classical liberalism. Then it puts libertarianism right in between liberalism and conservatism. Nobody cares about semantics...they just care about tenets. The diagram reflects exactly what you said..."The tenets of libertarianism as defined by the CATO institute are almost polar opposites of the tenets of libertarianism as defined by everyone else for a century and a half". My diagram clearly portrays libertarianism...aka classic liberalism...as being the polar opposite of anarcho-socialism. --Xerographica (talk) 02:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, he does, at length, by actually publishing scholarly opinion rather than uncited diagrams. I suggest you look at the Reliable Sources policy, the Weighting policy, and the concept of "I don't hear that" amounting to disruption. This article has had repeated attempts at disruption through attempting to reargue the topic and weight; and, the material you are using to try to reopen that debate is so far short of the quality of previous debates that it is not worth doing. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

"that diagram is one of the most idiotic things I have ever seen." I agree.

"libertarianism used to be synonymous with libertarian socialism (and still is, outside the US), which is anarchism" That's irrelevant to what the definition of anarchism is generally considered today. "all anarchists (with the exception of Rothbard's very recent contribution) have historically been socialists". Again, same thing.

Here's why I think it makes no sense: ONE- How can you both support socialism and economic liberalism at the same time? These are both referring to opinions regarding economic liberties (they're mutually exclusive). TWO- Same thing with 'capitalism' and 'economic conservatism' if we're saying 'capitalism' is free market (like the An-Caps want), which it doesn't necessarily mean. THREE-Any of those groups could be 'socially liberal' or 'socially conservative'. There are anti-abortion rights people who are generally considered to be liberal, and pro-abortion-rights people who are generally considered to be conservative. Byelf2007 (talk) 1 March 2012

When you say things like "generally considered today" I have to ask "by whom?" To many people 'economic liberty' does not mean 'laissez faire capitalism' but rather *no* capitalism, and voluntary cooperation without ownership of production and coercive labor relations. If you're talking about 'neoliberalism' your description is accurate. Otherwise, there is nothing mutually exclusive. Socialism has been associated with liberty for a long time. I don't understand why you're bringing up abortion at all. I have opinions on this too, but the only thing I'm pointing out is that none of this matches the historic record. Finx (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Check the "anarchism" article. Citations 1 and 2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism#cite_note-definition-0 Byelf2007 (talk) 1 March 2012

Those just confirm my point that anarchism has ~200 years of history as an anti-capitalist (ie: socialist) movement. Finx (talk) 14:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you substantiate your claim that Long would disagree with that diagram? --Xerographica (talk) 00:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

For one Long in the work cited in the lede, posits socialisation as one of the goals present within libertarianism in relation to property, and is aware of the genealogy of contemporary US libertarianism. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

So one of the goals present within libertarianism is to both violate and protect property rights? --Xerographica (talk) 08:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

There's no widely agreed upon definition, and even if there were, it might still refer to a group of philosophies with a definition that doesn't address the notion of property rights. Byelf2007 (talk) 1 March 2012

Yes, Ward writes about libertarianisms that seek to overturn the central role of privately owned means and tools of production in the social organisation of the economy; some of Ward's libertarians oppose private property in production, some consider it less efficient, some revel in private property in production. Some of Ward's libertarians oppose personal possession in general. Some of Long's libertarians advocate private property in the means and tools of production, some believe that it can be corrupted and requires regulation or deregulation to achieve the full potential of liberty of private property, others believe that private property in certain or all means and tools of production is undesirable. As a complex social phenomena, the scholars actually describe the social complexity of that phenomena. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

So then all anarchists are libertarians? --Xerographica (talk) 10:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Correct. Byelf2007 (talk) 1 March 2012

Are all conservatives libertarians? --Xerographica (talk) 12:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Clearly no. North8000 (talk) 12:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Why is it clear to you that not all conservatives are libertarians? --Xerographica (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a definitional issue. Some conservatives value individual liberty, but some don't. Some are quite explicit about having a collectivist view about people (albeit while supporting relatively high economic freedom). They'd say "We want to maximize productivity and we have economic liberties to accomplish that" instead of "We allow X liberties because it's moral regardless of whether it maximizes productivity. Another common thing is "because God says so and/or we must sacrifice liberties for the 'greater good' when 'it becomes necessary'. Of course, it's very arguable that the vast majority of conservatives are also libertarians. Byelf2007 (talk) 1 March 2012

First you said that all anarchists are libertarians...yet as far as I can tell neither David Friedman nor Peter Boettke have made moral arguments for anarcho-capitalism. Now you're telling me that a conservative is not a libertarian if they do not support liberty for moral reasons. Or they aren't a libertarian if they support a collectivist view...yet anarcho-socialists also support a collectivist view. Can you please try again to clarify why exactly it is that you don't believe that all conservatives are libertarians? --Xerographica (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

"neither David Friedman nor Peter Boettke have made moral arguments for anarcho-capitalism" Those aren't the only two anarcho-capitalists. "yet anarcho-socialists also support a collectivist view" They definitely say they do, but I don't regard any anarchist as a collectivist. I believe being a consistent collectivist necessarily requires that you support the existence of the state (among other things). In simple terms, if you're opposing the state, then you're opposing any mechanism to ensure a collectivist vision of society. Byelf2007 (talk) 1 March 2012

Where did I say that David Friedman and Peter Boettke are the only two anarcho-capitalists? Are you saying that they aren't libertarians because they don't make any moral arguments for anarcho-capitalism? Anarcho-socialists would have no mechanisms to ensure collective ownership of the means of production? Again, what exactly and specifically is it that allows you to consider all anarchists to be libertarians but prevents you from considering all conservatives to be libertarians? It can't just be that conservatives support the continued existence of the state...unless you don't consider minarchists to be libertarians. It can't be that conservatives have religious views...I'm sure plenty of voluntaryists have religious views as well. So what exactly is it? --Xerographica (talk) 08:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

You only mentioned Friedman and Boettke (not having moral arguments) to [I think?] imply that there must be none/few that do. It's not like you said 'I have read every single major anarcho-capitalist work, and none of them...' "Anarcho-socialists would have no mechanisms to ensure collective ownership of the means of production?" I think that's different from 'collectivism'. Minarchists want collective law, for example, yet no one (except maybe some anarcho-capitalists) accuse them of being collectivist. The basic idea of 'collectivism' is sacrificing all for all. In my opinion, if this idea were applied consistently, it would involve the use of force to ensure it took place. "what prevents you from considering all conservatives to be libertarians?" Many conservatives want to use guns to force people to accept their way of living against those persons' will, which unlike 'collectivist anarchism' is explicitly collectivist (in policy terms). Anarchists (definitionally) cannot do this, because they don't want a single organization (in terms of laws enforced) to enforce laws. Byelf2007 (talk) 2 March 2012

You're unfortunately correct that the vast majority of anarcho-capitalists do solely rely on the moral "taxes are theft" argument...so Friedman, Boettke and a few others are exceptional in this regard. My point in mentioning them was to question why you would exclude any conservatives from your definition of libertarianism on the basis of them solely making consequentialist arguments. Regarding imposing views onto others...Rothbard was extremely willing to push a button that would instantly abolish the state in one fell swoop. He is definitely not exceptional among anarchists in this regard. How's that any different from any conservatives that want to impose their views onto others? At least they try and do so through popular elections. Again, what exactly and specifically is it that allows you to consider all anarchists to be libertarians but prevents you from considering all conservatives to be libertarians? --Xerographica (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

All anarchists either make their arguments concerning political policy in terms of individual liberty, or they don't, but their position of being anti-state is inconsistent with their collectivist justifications; some conservatives both don't argue for political policies in terms of individual liberty and support the state. Byelf2007 (talk) 7 March 2012

Our policies are pretty clear, articles should be organised based on the weight in the highest quality sources available. Long, Vallentyne and Ward are some of the best in their respective fields of sociology, philosophy and history of libertarianism. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It is similar to saying that Catholics and Protestants are polar opposites on such issues as transubstantiation and the apostolic succession that we should not have a Christianity article. TFD (talk) 23:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm writing this in a whimsical way but do believe that it is useful. One of the challenges of this article is that it is mostly about what thirty philosophers through the ages think. They might actually BE the topic instead of being sources on the topic. Possibly it should all be moved into a section title "terminology and classifications used by philosophers". Meanwhile for like 20,000,000 libertarians, libertarianism is simply about less government, greater personal freedom, and prioritizing those objectives. Most of those would say they have those libertarian values, and about half would flatly identify as libertarians. Whether one wants to call this common tenets, vagueness, or just the fact that the categorization systems of the philosophers are not very useful or relevant (like trying to herd cats) when it comes to these millions. For example, it could be that Ayn Rand could be identified by knowledgeable persons as being one of these, but was rejecting being "libertarian" as defined by the philosophers which may have also been the common meaning at the time. North8000 (talk) 11:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The current article also submerges the massive past libertarian movements, organisations and political parties. One of the problems is that as a "vague" sentiment, the US movement and disorganised libertarians don't actually publish reliable retrospective analyses. Another is that organisations that are notable are well covered elsewhere. Do we really want a string of Main Article links out to (for example) the CNT? Fifelfoo (talk) 23:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, anything that was massive I think that we should cover. I'm hoping to get one of our best experts on that here (Fifelfoo) to start writing stuff. :-) :-). My comment was not a complaint about the article, nor really proposing any big changes. It was more just a little towards our multi-year effort at figuring out how to cover this topic that deals with the main issues that have ben raised. I do plan to develop a few sentence paragraph on the 20 million "vague libertarians", which I have found sources for. I've been slow in doing that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm seeing alot of OR here. Do WP:RS call Ayn Rand a libertarian? Do WP:RS say Ayn Rand was not a Libertarian? Citations could clear up this issue.Gsonnenf (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

According to WP:RS that indicate that "libertarianism" is anarcho-socialism/capitalism then no...they would not say that she was a libertarian. According to WP:RS that indicate that libertarianism means limited government...aka classical liberalism...then yes...they would say that she was one of the most influential libertarians. According to WP:RS that indicate that "libertarianism" is everything except for conservatism...then yes...errr...no...they do...don't say that she was a libertarian. If you're seeing OR it means that you haven't read enough WP:RS. Stick around for a year or two and you'll be qualified to write your own WP:RS. --Xerographica (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

What is of more interest is the quality of the RS that makes a claim. I'd suggest that a review article from the peer reviewed Journal of Ayn Rand Studies (Ulrich's lists this as peer reviewed), would be the best. Lacking that, the preponderance of opinion from JARS regarding her relationship with libertarianism should be used when considering whether to mention her, and what to say. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

For example, Block W (2011) "AYN RAND, RELIGION, AND LIBERTARIANISM" JARS 21 notes she wasn't. Nobody else mentions in the title or abstract whether Rand herself was "libertarian". Fifelfoo (talk) 02:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

How is that of any interest? I have no idea what your conclusion is regarding how much coverage Ayn Rand should receive on an article on libertarianism. Maybe you should try and read some more RS so that you can come to a conclusion. --Xerographica (talk) 13:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't go around proving null hypotheses. JARS is very interested in libertarianism's interface with objectivism. Block is the only author in 22 volumes that bothers to discuss Rand being libertarian herself, where he notes she wasn't. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

This ridiculous discussion only highlights the absurdity of trying to pretend that we're talking about the same thing here. You can't even make up your mind whether Ayn Rand should or shouldn't be discussed in this article. --Xerographica (talk) 07:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Xerographica—we don't edit articles based on making up our minds, we edit them based on secondary sources. I looked into one place, the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies where I had a reasonable expectation of finding a discussion of Rand and libertarianism. I found one paper directly discussing it in its abstract, where Walter Block—a practicioner in the US pro-capitalist mould—notes that Ayn Rand was not libertarian, despite the deep links between her thought and pro-capitalist US libertarianism. On the basis of reading Block, who through past extensive discussions here, and reading his works, I have some reason to believe is an expert in relation to US style pro-capitalist libertarianism, I would draw the conclusion that Ayn Rand should be in a "See Also" section of this article, but not noted in the body. That's the process of reading reliable sources and drawing conclusions based solely on what reliable sources say. I am of course open to this changing—Block's paper in a peer reviewed scholarly journal is only one contribution, other papers may weight the discussion of Rand differently. Then we'd need to look at the preponderance of scholarly opinion, ideally in the form of a review article. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

If you reread this discussion you'll read that I wrote this..."According to WP:RS that indicate that "libertarianism" is anarcho-socialism/capitalism then no...they would not say that she was a libertarian." What was your response? Blah blah blah blah...one anarcho-capitalist says that Ayn Rand was not a libertarian. Great! The thing is..."we" do not need to look at the preponderance of scholarly opinions...given that "I" have already done so. So "you" go ahead and make the effort to learn what limited government libertarians have to say on the subject. --Xerographica (talk) 03:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Rand is a libertarian (in a variety of its popular definitions). This has been established by multiple reliable sources. Block alone ain't enough. Byelf2007 (talk) 15 March 2012

Go order someone else to work for you. If you feel confident regarding the preponderance of scholarly interpretation, edit the article and cite. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised that you'll only do enough work to support your anti-government bias. Why don't I edit the article? Because I'm boycotting it. I'm just sticking around on the talk page to make it clear that you are using this article to promote your anti-government beliefs. Feel free to report me again for calling you out on this. --Xerographica (talk) 03:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Please do not edit wikipedia to make a point. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I just said that I'm boycotting this article. What part of that sentence did you not understand? --Xerographica (talk) 04:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

There may be an end-run route around this available. Not try to classify her. But, take the approach / stance that whether she was or wasn't a libertarian, she's still relevant to libertarianism and germane to the article. (?) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

My entire argument is that we should organize political philosophy articles by tenets rather than labels. So I could care less what you call her...but if you're writing an article on limited government libertarianism then she merits coverage in proportion to her influence. Given that this article is both for and against property...both for and against capitalism...both for and against anarchism...then you might as well both include and exclude her from this article. --Xerographica (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

My "gut feeling" is the same as yours, but IMHO once you started trying to implement that you'd get mired down in issues and difficulties. Would yo prefer separate articles, and, if so, what would their names be? Keeping in mind that the names have to come from the real world, not something that we make up here. And then what specifically would you put in there? I belieeve that after about a year of thinking about it you would come to the conclusion that you should start building the material that you feel is missing in THIS article. I think that there is a lot missing from this article, but that there is no deliberate omission of anything from this article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Xero I will comment on your following post. If you're seeing OR it means that you haven't read enough WP:RS. Stick around for a year or two and you'll be qualified to write your own WP:RS. I am already qualified to write WP:RS, I publish these in peer reviewed journals. Though, your assertion that I'm not qualified is advised against by WP:OWNER. It would be best not to make such arguments.

Back to the point, if you establish a criteria of libertarian and then look for wp:rs that describe these criteria, then conclude they are a libertarian because they match the criteria, it is WP:OR and should not be done. Gsonnenf (talk) 05:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

You're qualified to write RS on libertarianism? If so, then why did you have to ask if RS consider Ayn Rand to be a libertarian? --Xerographica (talk) 11:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I said WP:RS, not your strawman WP:RS on ayn rand. You entirely miss the point which is YOU DO NOT WRITE WP:RS IN WIKIPEDIA.Gsonnenf (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't understand your point at all. Let's try again. You accused us of OR. But it wasn't OR...it was critical thinking based on the gazillion RS that we've discussed at one time or another in the past year or so. We already know what the RS say. That you thought that there was a disparity between what we were saying and what the RS say...clearly indicates that you have no idea what the RS have to say about the subject. If you did know what the RS had to say about the subject then you would have just shared your own critical thinking on the subject which would of course reflected all the gazillion RS that you had previously read. So far, you haven't had a single thing to say...referenced or otherwise...about whether Ayn Rand was...or wasn't a libertarian. --Xerographica (talk) 12:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure by "we" you mean "you", and by critical thinking you mean OR. Gsonnenf (talk) 17:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Are All Conservatives Libertarians?

WP:SOAPBOX; please ask reference questions at a reference desk. Talk pages are for article improvement, not generic questions and discussion regarding the article's subject.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

In the section on whether Ayn Rand was a libertarian...several of you argued...

A) all anarchists are libertarians B) all conservatives are not libertarians

The problem is that none of you could come up with any objective criteria that would allow you to simultaneously hold both views. If you have no objective standards for determining what libertarianism is...or isn't...then how can you possibly argue either A) that all anarchists are libertarians or B) that all conservatives are not libertarians? --Xerographica (talk) 12:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

As a preface, "B) all conservatives are not libertarians" is ambiguous. An unambiguous way to say the presumed meaning would be "not all Conservatives are libertarians". To me the latter is "sky is blue" obvious, so my question would be "what specifically is the question?"

"Anarchist" as a political philosophy has a different meaning that the common meaning of "anarchist" (at least here in the US). In this page we are talking the former. And, with that clarification, my thought is that it is "sky is blue" obvious, and I'd ask "what specifically is the question?"

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

"Conservatism" is an ideology opposed to Libertarianism. While some US Conservatives claim to be "Libertarian," the opposition to Libertarian social issues (As Social conservatism is about the most authoritarian, anti-Liberty concept on the planet...) makes such a person simply "Conservative." Calling one's self a "Conservative Libertarian" is like calling one's self a "Communist Monarchist," or a "Libertarian Stalinist" or something. While their may be some overlap in regards to issues...by combining the terms, you make one of them completely meaningless...which in this case, is usually the "Libertarian" part. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 14:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

This is sort of chaotic. "Conservatism" has a different meaning in the US vs. elsewhere, and then there are variants and context sensitive meanings even within each of those. But, very roughly speaking, in the US context, and using the US-everyday meanings of "conservatism" and "libertarianism", conservationism agrees with libertarianism on half of everything and disagrees on the other half. I'm from the US; my understanding is that per the meanings outside of the US, the two are more in conflict with each other. If there is any point that is clear from this, it's that the idea of making such sweeping generalizations is fatally flawed. North8000 (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

You're saying that, given that conservatives are socially conservative...they cannot be considered to be libertarians. Do you also say that, given that anarcho-capitalists want to abolish the state...they cannot be considered libertarians? Or do you believe that, as far as defining tenets go, advocating for the abolition of the state does not have as much weight as social conservatism does? If it's ok for some "libertarians" to support the continued existence of the state...and it's ok for some "libertarians" to support the abolition of the state...then why isn't it ok for some "libertarians" to support social liberalism and some "libertarians" to support social conservatism? The same thing goes for anarcho-socialism. If it's ok for some "libertarians" to support socialism and some "libertarians" to support capitalism then why isn't ok for some "libertarians" to support social liberalism and some "libertarians" to support social conservatism? --Xerographica (talk) 23:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Whew, about 10 statements and questions with posited linkages between, that would take a book to sort out and answer. Your first question has a false premise...I didn't say that. I said that regarding conservatives per the common US meaning can't be considered libertarians. On your second question, no I don't say that. Your third sentence seems to be missing something (i.e. with respect to what?) and seems like apples and oranges, so I'm sorry that I am unable to understand it to answer it. On your 4th sentence, IMHO the second half is not related to and does not follow from the first half, but it is a matter of definition that someone who supports social conservatism is not a libertarian, at least by the common US meaninings of those terms. On your 6th sentence, the common US meanign of Socialism includes larger government, by definition the opposite of the common US meaning of libertarianism. The last part of that sentence is a repeat of a previous quesiotn, same answer as before. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Amount of anarchism material

We had decided (over strong objections) to include coverage of anarchism terminology and philosophy here because one of the meanings of the term (BTW, not the common US meaning) anarchism is intellectually subset of libertarianism. Also, it seems that anarchism has significant components that are not within libertarianism. So, on both levels, they are not synonymous nor is it fully within libertarianism. Additions have started to treat this as the Anarchism article and I think that it is starting to get too heavy in that area. There IS an Anarchism article. I stopped sort of reverting but IMO this should be pared and condensed. North8000 (talk) 11:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The complaint from you and others seems to be "this article is heavily weighted towards anarchism". That's true.

My suggestion is that this problem gets solved. Just because there's a lot of anarchism material doesn't mean it shouldn't be there. Anarchists ARE libertarians and most of the early anarchists were libertarians, so it shouldn't be surprising that there's so much anarchism material here compared to non-anarchist material, as this will likely be the case for some time.

If the objection is that much of the anarchism material shouldn't be there (in terms of what we want our ideal article to be), that's one thing, but the complaint at this point just seems to be that the implication of its inclusion within the context of what else there is is that the article is implying that anarchism within libertarianism has a greater presence that it really does. That's true. But are we supposed to take it out (even though it makes sense to include, or at least no one is saying it doesn't) just because we haven't included the rest of the material we should in order to eliminate the bad implication about anarchism within libertarianism?

That strikes me as very odd. I personally would rather the article have this implication and more info that should (in principle) be in there, and therefore be more complete, than to deliberately not have relevant info in the article until we include all the other stuff we want to. I also think it's relevant to point out here that most articles are going to have some skew at any given time, so the solution seems to me to be including the material we need to to improve the article that removing material that's relevant.

But let's say it's true that this skew is a worse problem than incompleteness (perhaps because of the large size of the skew itself). This brings me to technically separate issue, but I think I'll just put it here.

Why are the people objecting to this skew not doing much about it (I'm not talking about you, but the others who are complaining about all the terrible 'bias')? I'm not saying this to be mean-spirited. Pointing out what a person sees as a legitimate problem is always good. But I don't understand why (multiple) users will go on this page and type several sentences about the bias without adding a single sentence to the article (perhaps one so uncontroversial that getting a citation isn't that pressing of a matter, like "Rand is very influential among capitalists" or whatever). That would take less time than some of what I've read (not including the pointing out of the anarchism skew).

There are people on talk who are basically saying "This reads like an anarchist page, so I'm gonna complain about this 'bias' and then not actually do anything to fix it". Perhaps they're assuming I'll just edit out what they put it? On what grounds? That I eliminate material that I don't think belongs there? How is this different that any other wikipedia user? Like I'm really going to object to "Rand is very influential to capitalists"? If someone says "There's an anarchism bias", then I'm more likely to go "Oh, hey, they're right, I better fix that". So I did. I put more non-anarchist material in here (the guy who apparently just wants this to be an anarchism page). I admit I probably wouldn't have done this as soon as I had were it not for multiple people pointing out the issue, but the personal attacks are unnecessary.

Just because I put a lot of anarchism info in the article doesn't mean I'm against including other stuff. If I'd put in a corresponding amount of info in the article about non-anarchists, then maybe these complaints wouldn't have happened. Maybe people would have said "Wow, a lot more info on this page. It doesn't appear to have produced a skew in the article. All the info seems relevant. I am therefore happy with this change because the article is more complete now". If that's the case, then it seems that the real issue is including more info to (a) just include more needed info to improve the article (because I think it would be better if there was a skew towards non-anarchism than to not include any additional relevant info) and (b) provide needed balance. Instead, multiple users have attacked me personally because I added material to this article without complaining that the info in question shouldn't (in principle) be in the article (because it wasn't relevant), then proceeded to do nothing about fixing the error. That makes me sad. I don't pretend to be omniscient with respect to my editing. Byelf2007 (talk) 19 March 2012.

One of the several reasons that I didn't revert (and I was thinking more about Ahahaha373's most recent additions than yours) that I think that the new material is a step FORWARD on this article's biggest problem which is (overly roughly speaking) the "missing half" of the article. We have the half regarding what philosophers have said, and (overly roughly speaking) we're missing the "libertarianism in practice" half.
One of my angles on this is that I've tried to be a steadying force/ mediator here (this article was in open warfare 1 1/2 years ago) and so I try to reflect the sum-total of feedback.
One common objection (which I don't agree with, but which says we need to explain more) is from the common meaning of anarchism in the US. Ask 100 Americans, and 1 will say it's a political philosophy. 99% will say it's about rioting, throwing firebombs or motorcycle gangs taking over towns.
Another common objection is sort of "due weight by prevalence". If you asked all self-declared American libertarians (maybe 10,000,000) about 95% would say it's simply about a priority on reduction of government and increasing personal freedom. Nothing about the esoteric stuff that's in this article. So the 9,500,000 come to this article and just read about what a small minority (libertarian philosophers and true anarchists) think it is and little or nothing about what the vast majority think it is.
My own objection might be that since the relevance is not as direct that possibly anarchy should not be too huge in the article. Many of the recent additions do not seem to be related to non-statists.
Overall, I think that you are right. The solution is more good material in this article. North8000 (talk) 19:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

A basic survey of the available literature indicates that parliamentary statist movements in the US are not adequately described to the extent they need to be. One problem is the poor quality of the sources in this area, in comparison to the scholarly study of, for example, anti-capitalist anarchism, philosophical anarchist capitalism, etc. The other problem is that non-scholarly sources discussing the predominantly US parliamentary statist movement is that these sources overwhelmingly discuss political parties, instead of the common sentiment held amongst workers in favour of a reduction of total government power. (A similar problem occurs with Labourite Fabianism as a sentiment amongst workers in the UK, or Australia, in terms of libertarianism, but it will need a George Woodcock of Fabianism before we'll be able to cite appropriate literature there). The solution is to find the best sources on the US parliamentary party, and the US parliamentary oriented movements, and write from these. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

No. For some reason, some editors are under the impression that these Anarchist ideologies are versions of the Libertarian ideology. But, those Anarchist ideologies only have the word "Libertarian" in them as a result of historical etymology: the word "Libertarian" (and "Liberty", and many other language variants) was used as a synonym for Anarchism in the 19th century. This is no longer the case, and has not been the case for many years, at least since the Second World War. Anarchism and Libertarianism are distinct ideologies (with their own variants) that happen to share a few ideological commonalities (such as distrust of government) and a mutual embrace of slogans that include the word "liberty". About the only philosophers who continue to use the word "Libertarian" in the Anarchist context are a few hippies (such as Murray Bookchin) in America's academic circles who have staked out their own claims to fame by throwing "libertarian" labels at their commune-based Anarchist ideologies. 122.60.93.162 (talk) 21:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

You may be right. This is a very difficult term to define for various reasons (mainly because there's never been a general consensus about it, which is probably a good indication that there won't be for some time). The article (as it stands) says it's "the group of political philosophies which emphasize freedom, individual liberty, and voluntary association." That would appear to include anarchists. Do you think there is a better way to define "libertarianism"? Byelf2007 (talk) 19 March 2012.

There are many similarities between Libertarianism and Anarchism, but, a few of differences are clear. First and foremost, Libertarianism necessarily includes individualistic private property rights. Anarchism usually (not always) involves communal property and economic collectivism. Second, Libertarianism necessarily includes fundamental inalienable individual rights and freedoms that are enforced by a minimalist government. The various forms of Anarchism include a variety of specific rights and freedoms - no one of them inalienable - that are determined by the collective, and may entail no formal government whatsoever. And thirdly, Libertarianism embraces the "negative liberty" form of freedom, (see "Two Concepts of Liberty" by Isaiah Berlin), whereas Anarchism usually (not always) places heavy emphasis upon "positive liberties" (such as needs-based distributive justice, egalitarianism, etc.) 122.60.93.162 (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not conduct original typological analyses. In contested areas, like the definition or typology of ideologies, we rely on the scholarly literature. As noted repeatedly on this page, scholars analyse anarchism, anarcho-capitalism, libertarian socialisms and small state parliamentary movements and parties in the United States in related manners. Historians in the area point out the genealogical connection to 19th century thinkers. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

You, Fifelfoo, have been informed over and over and over again that Libertarianism is not a form of Anarchism. An endless array of reliable sources have been presented to you (as if they need to be presented to anyone who has any understanding of Libertarianism!) distinguishing Libertarianism from Anarchism. How do you respond? As usual, you grab your favourite Anarchist tomes and start listing every obscure reference in the bibliographies that includes a word (usually in a foreign language) that resembles the word "liberty" and claim this to be reliably sourced justification for all the Anarchist content in the Libertarianism article. Your CONSTANT misuse of the "Libertarian" term out of the archaic context, where "Libertarianism" and "Anarchism" were used as synonyms back in the 19th century, is especially disturbing, as you know perfectly well that the Anarchistic meaning of the term no longer applies. Your dishonorable sabotage of the Libertarianism article with misleading Anarchist content is appalling to those of us who maintain a high standard of academic integrity. 122.60.93.162 (talk) 05:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I refer you yet again to the high quality reliable sources cited in the article. These sources are scholarly reviews of the field. Your opinion is not substantiated by reference to sources. You appear to have an IDHT problem. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

IDHT? Coming from you?! hahahahahahahahahahahahaha 122.60.93.162 (talk) 22:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

122.60, the one thing that I specifically disagree with is your "no" because your points do not refute (or event directly address) what Fifelfoo said. North8000 (talk) 23:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

North8000, that is quite possibly because I wasn't responding to Fifelfoo. I don't even read his posts any more. 122.60.93.162 (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I have a relevant question for the persons more expert on real-world anarchism than I. It seems to me that a lot of anarchism is a sort of "aggressively attack any handy authority when you are against what they are doing" rather than being driven by a stateless philosophy. Am I correct in saying this? If so, it would seem that there is a significant component that is not specifically libertarian. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

You should read the libertarian writers whose views you claim to support - Karl Hess, Murray Rothbard. TFD (talk) 00:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I haven't claimed to support the views of any writers. But my question was about the practice, not the philosophy. More specifically, are the protests against WTO, Group of 8, World economic forum and also of the late 60's (all listed in this article as anarchist efforts) really driven by a philosophy of abolition of the state? North8000 (talk) 01:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Most WTO protestors are not anarchists. Civil disobedience in Seattle was led by the Direct Action Network, which was anarchist, but dispersed after 9/11. Violence at these demonstrations is led by fringe anarchist groups, called "Black bloc". All these groups see government as illegitimate. There are also "National Anarchists", who are actually neo-fascists, and of course some of the violence is caused by police agents provocateur. The article American Left lists the main left-wing anarchist groups and provides links to their articles if you want to find out more about them.[1] TFD (talk) 01:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with TDF. The variety of the political agendas at those protests are as varied as the plant life in the Amazon rain forest - there are representatives of all manner of political movement. Some want to abolish the state and others (most?) merely want to reform the state away from certain power structures. Obviously, many of them will be Anarchist movements. Some of them may even be Libertarian movements, but I am not aware of any. 122.60.93.162 (talk) 05:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

TFD, thanks for that info and that link. I think that it shows that anarchism has different meanings and only one of them is libertarian. So, anarchism as a whole has overlap with libertarianism, but is not a subset of it. So IMHO we should make sure that anarchist additions here relate to folks who advocate a stateless society. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Libertarianism is a political philosophy that advocates a minimalist state, not a stateless society. You're suggesting that the Libertarian content be removed from the Libertarian article and we focus exclusively on Anarchist content, which is absurd. Anarchiskm is not a subset of Libertarianism, and Libertarianism is not a subset of Anarchism. They are two distinct political philosophies that have some over-lap, such as a mutual embrace of liberty. 122.60.93.162 (talk) 21:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

???? I was proposing a limitation on which anarchist material goes into this article. North8000 (talk) 11:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

"Libertarianism is a political philosophy that advocates a minimalist state, not a stateless society." That depends on the definition of libertarianism. We need reliable sources to act as though this were true. Byelf2007 (talk) 21 March 2012.

No, it doesn't. And anyone who thinks this point is debatable needs to do a lot more reading and a lot less typing. 122.60.93.162 (talk) 20:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Can most agree with this: At least some of the meanings of "anarchism", including the philosophy advocating a stateless society fall under libertarianism. Others do not. In consideration of this, and the fact that there IS an Anarchism article, anarchism should be covered in this article, but on a limited basis. (?) North8000 (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I cannot agree. "Stateless society" versus minimalist government is one of the few main differences between Libertarianism and Anarchism. All forms of Anarchism entail the absence of coercive government (usually allowing for a system of political decision making by consensus through discussion), but all forms of Libertarianism advocate a minimalist coercive government (usually limited to the protection of a Capitalist system with private property rights, a coercive judiciary designed to protect individuals from harm, and a military). Few, if any, of these core Libertarian roles for a coercive government would be tolerated by advocates of Anarchism. 122.60.93.162 (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

But some libertarians advocate a stateless society. KLP (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

No, they don't. Anyone who is advocating a stateless society is NOT a Libertarian. Period. 122.60.93.162 (talk) 22:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

"Anyone who is advocating a stateless society is NOT a Libertarian. Period." I'm not convinced by your unsubstantiated assertion. Byelf2007 (talk) 23 March 2012

I don't care. Libertarianism entails minimalist state. It never entails "stateless society". Ever. If we can't even get the most fundamental differences between Anarchism and Libertarianism right, what are we all doing here? 122.60.93.162 (talk) 03:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, just to nail down a few things, I don't think that anybody could establish that any of these far-reaching statements are categorically true:

All anarchists are libertarians (i.e. anarchism is a subset of libertarianism)
No anarchists are libertarians
All Libertarians are anarchists (i.e. libertarianism is a subset of anarchism)
No libertarians are anarchists

North8000 (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

What that leads to for the article:

To some extent, anarchism should be covered in this article.
Just because some material says "anarchism" in it doesn't mean it belongs in or is a good idea to put into this article.

North8000 (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be less confusing if we focus on Libertarianism and Anarchism rather than Libertarians and Anarchists. I'm an Anarchist and a Libertarian, (in the same way that some people are Environmentalists and Socialists; or are Environmentalists and Capitalists), but that does not mean that there is an especially intimate relationship between Libertarianism and Anarchism. Let's all recognise that Libertarianism and Anarchism are two distinct ideologies and stop trying to shove Anarchist content all over the Libertarianism article. There are more than anough Wikipedia articles on Anarchism and the various forms of Anarchism. Aside from a section on the etymology of the word "Libertarianism", because of the archaic use of the word in the Anarchist context in the 19th century, there is NO place for Anarchist content in this article. 122.60.93.162 (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

A lot of the informatin about anarchism is historical and is essential because - whether one is left or right libertarian - it is part of the history and literature. Leaving anarchism out is like leaving Jesus out of an article about Protestantism, because Jesus was not a Protestant. TFD (talk) 04:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually there is an underlying consistency with what just about everybody has been saying, when they are specific. I plan to create and propose a summary relevant to the article. But before that, there is one area that is not covered. My question there is, TODAY (not historically, TODAY) is there some part of anarchism which is truly, inherently a part of libertarianism?

"is there some part of anarchism which is truly, inherently a part of libertarianism?" Yes. The political philosophies of both Anarchism and Libertarianism embrace (negative) liberty in the face of a coercive government. Accordingly, Anarchism rejects coercive government entirely (in favour of collective decision-making through consensus) and Libertarianism minimises coercive government (usually to the roles of law enforcement, a military and a judiciary that protects individual autonomy and private property rights) and binds that minimalist role of the State with inalienable individual rights. Aside from this, the two philosophies have very little in common. Indeed, Anarchism and Libertarianism have many MANY more differences than commonalities, especially when looking at the Socialist and Communist variants of Anarchism. Oh, and some of the variants of Anarchism have the word "Libertarian" in their name, which seems to confuse a hell of a lot of people. 122.60.93.162 (talk) 13:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

OK that basically says that there is is an attribute which they both have. Also points out that I have to more carefully word my question. Which is: " TODAY (not historically, TODAY) is there some part of anarchism which is truly, inherently a part of libertarianism? Not just an aspect in common, but truly a part of? I.E. is there a strand, philosophy or group within anarchism TODAY where belief/membership in that strand, philosophy or group AUTOMATICALLLY/CATEGORICALLY makes them be a part of (ONE WORD) libertarianism? North8000 (talk) 11:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

No. They have a few things in common, but, Anarchism and Libertarianism are two separate and distinct political philosophies, each with its own history and philosophical foundation. Each can exist without the other - you can have a full and complete discussion of Anarchism without any reference to Libertarianism; and you can have a full and complete discussion of Libertarianism without any reference to Anarchism. They are as different as Socialism and Fascism. Actually, Socialism and Fascism are much more intimately related than Anarchism and Libertarianism. To be blunt, I have never encountered the confused merging of the ideologies of Anarchism and Libertarianism - as if they are synonyms or as if one is a sub-set of the other - that appears around Wikipedia's Libertarianism page. 122.60.93.162 (talk) 14:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Before trying to summarize I'm going to let this sit for a few days to see what others say. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

In agreement with Byelf2007, I'd like to comment that 122.60.93.162's assertions lack substantiation. Furthermore, they conflict with some of the sources presented in the article. 122.60.93.162 should submit sources that back his claims such that we might discuss their merit and, assuming we find any, determine a way forward. KLP (talk) 14:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you just tell us your thoughts on the question. It's a talk page. :-) North8000 (talk) 14:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

This site cares about reliable sources. Even if we all come to agree about what various terms should be defined, that doesn't mean we ought to have this site represent those views. Byelf2007 (talk) 23 March 2012

Well, by that measure, I'll start adding a large section on plutonium enrichment to this article as long as it is sourced. Maybe another on the geology of Mt. Everest. :-) We're trying to get our thoughts together on article scope, not create content. Why don't you just give your opinion on the question? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Just go with whatever is implied by the sources we have and/or the definition of libertarianism we've so far agreed on (unless we want to change it). These each clearly support having a large scope, because there are so many different definitions of libertarianism and the definition we've agreed to (so far) is pretty vague. There seems to be a push lately for a smaller scope. It strongly oppose this. I believe the solution to this scope issue is to make a "Libertarianism (small government)" article. Byelf2007 (talk) 23 March 2012

Byelf2007, either your claim to be from the Austrian school is a lie or you're one very confused editor. 122.60.93.162 (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what's the question, again? KLP (talk) 05:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Pasting together the important preface with the clarified version of the question, it's:

Actually there is an underlying consistency with what just about everybody has been saying, when they are specific. I plan to create and propose a summary relevant to the article. But before that, there is one area that is not covered. My question there is, TODAY (not historically, TODAY) is there some part of anarchism which is truly, inherently a part of libertarianism? I.E. is there a strand, philosophy or group within anarchism TODAY where belief/membership in that strand, philosophy or group AUTOMATICALLLY/CATEGORICALLY makes them be a part of (ONE WORD) libertarianism? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I already said this, but if we're going by the current definition (which I agree with), then all anarchists are libertarians. Byelf2007 (talk) 24 March 2012

Then you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. God alone knows what you've been reading to come up with that belief. 122.60.93.162 (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it, by the sources this article presents, one qualifies as a libertarian as long as he strongly supports liberty. Libertarians refuse to surrender liberty to authority where people of other persuasions will. I do not understand libertarianism to necessarily require the State or capitalism, so, yes, all anarchists are libertarians. I believe that the distinction between libertarians who support strong private property rights and those who oppose such rights is stronger than the pro-State/anti-State distinction. I believe that it is strong enough that it might in fact serve as a demarcation between two separate libertarianisms. I might even support an article split on those grounds. However, I am not aware of a reliable source that upholds this particular perspective. KLP (talk) 12:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, if we decided to do justice to actual use of the word "libertarian" outside the US, it could even be argued that all the right wing pro-capitalist things in this article should have to be sent to the articles "Liberalism" and "Neoliberalism" and the article "Libertarianism" will have to simply be merged with the article "anarchism". But anyway i think now the article is fair as to actual worldwide usage of the word.--Eduen (talk) 00:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Eduen, what prompted this is a large range of opinions, (from "zero modern anarchism belongs here" to "everything with the word anarchism should be put into this article" and seemingly putting in large amounts of anarchism material, some of which doesn't appear to related to the def (of the many) that relates to non-statist philosophy. What are your thoughts there. North8000 (talk) 01:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed summary and proposed compromise plan

This has been going on for years. How about the following compromise summary/plan....is it acceptable as a compromise (operative wording is bolded):

Comments were solicited; generally these are based on what was learned from sources. "Anarchism" has various common meanings. Some (but not all) of them relate to a philosophy of elimination of the state and / or other authority. Most agree that historically anarchism and libertarianism were intertwined and thus that historic anarchism should be covered in this article.

There is a difference of opinion regarding whether a portion (or all) of modern anarchism is inherently libertarian. I think that answers from both "sides" on this were short on specifics. One person (me) who disagrees with "or all" pointed out that some common meanings of anarchism/anarchists do not fall under a philosophy of advocating zero government.

A compromise would be: Include limited coverage of modern anarchism in this article. One criteria for limiting would be to include only material where it clearly about those with anti-statist philosophies. But including a only limited amount of modern anarchist material would also be due to these considerations:

As a compromise, where germane-ness is disputed
There IS an Anarchism article
Due weight with anarchism representing a smaller fraction of modern libertarianism

What do you think? Close enough to be a compromise? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

For almost every topic the appropriate thing to do is to summarise and use see alsos: pointing at main articles. This article is a very high order topic, so should avoid discussing any issue at length. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
So you're basically saying "only include 'anarchism' material that corresponds with 'libertarianism' according to how this article defines it in the lead? Sounds good to me, although honestly I'm not sure if any of the current 'anarchism' material would get eliminated as a result. Byelf2007 (talk) 27 March 2012

I was intending that the summary stand alone (even if vague) not dependent on any unspoken understandings. I was also limiting it to things discussed. If it's not OK we should change it. But I wrote it so as to impose two restrictions on anarchism material:

Modern anarchism material must about about persons, groups, philosophies where abolition of the state is a core agenda
Overall amount of Anarchism material is limited, with those three points being the rationale for that.

As a personal interpretation (not an unspoken understanding) I think that the amount of modern anarchism material is proportionately too much in certain sections, but that could be remedied by keeping the amount of anarchism material the same and expanding the non-anarchism material. Possibly something like "the amount of anarchism material is a little heavy for the current sized article but about right for a future expanded article" could be added to the "Proposed summary and proposed compromise plan". North8000 (talk) 11:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I understand the first restriction. Is not the abolition of the State always the core agenda of anarchism? Why should we attempt such a restriction when all of libertarianism does not have such a core agenda? KLP (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, that means that for you it would not be a restriction. :-) But what I was getting at is that journalists and others often use the term "anarchist" to refer to things unrelated to a non-statist philosophy. E.G. anybody anybody who riots etc.. For example, here [2] it discusses that journalists applied the term "anarchists" to folks who rioted protesting a REDUCTION in government. North8000 (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

There's definitely a lack of pro-govt libertarianism material, which is what we should be focusing on. As far as I can tell, all the current anarchism material is appropriate. I would like to reiterate that I'd rather we have a skew with appropriate material rather than take out appropriate anarchism material to get "balance" just because it's easier to take material out than put new material in. Byelf2007 (talk) 28 March 2012

Yes, I think that is ideal. That entails some risk of the anarchism material also expanding. But IMHO this article needs building in the modern libertarianism / libertarianism in practice areas, and the recent anarchism additions are that. North8000 (talk) 20:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

RE: "This has been going on for years."

If the source of this issue is merely the fact that a single editor (User:Xerographica) still wants to engage in WP:IDHT after making and losing his case years ago, then I'd be little convinced the article needs any compromise plans. BigK HeX(talk) 12:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that it's broader and longer than that.North8000 (talk) 13:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed summary and proposed compromise plan - 2 (revised)

This has been going on for years. How about the following compromise summary/plan....is it acceptable as a compromise (operative wording is bolded):

Comments were solicited; generally these are based on what was learned from sources. "Anarchism" has various common meanings. Some (but not all) of them relate to a philosophy of elimination of the state and / or other authority. Most agree that historically anarchism and libertarianism were intertwined and thus that historic anarchism should be covered in this article.

There is a difference of opinion regarding whether a portion (or all) of modern anarchism is inherently libertarian. I think that answers from both "sides" on this were short on specifics. One person (me) who disagrees with "or all" pointed out that some common meanings/usesof anarchism/anarchists do not fall under a philosophy of advocating zero government.

A compromise would be: Include limited coverage of modern anarchism in this article. "Limited" would be accomplished by 2 criteria:

One criteria for limiting would be to include only material where it clearly about those with anti-statist philosophies.

The second criteria would be to generally keep modern anarchism material to a smaller amount due to these considerations:

As a compromise...the germane-ness of modern anarchism is disputed
There IS an Anarchism article
Due weight with anarchism representing a smaller fraction of modern libertarianism

The total amount of modern anarchism material in the article as of March 29th, 2012 is (proportionately) a little too much; somehow the percentage devoted to modern anarchism would get reduced. While this might get accomplished by reducing the quantity of such material, the preferred remedy is to leave the amount the same and expand modern non-archism libertarian material.

What do you think? Close enough to be a compromise? North8000 (talk) 11:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

This compromise gets my approval. KLP (talk) 13:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

This compromise gets my approval. I'll add that I just "trimmed the anarchist fat" from the article. I think everything else is necessary and we should now concentrate on adding pro-government libertarianism info. Byelf2007 (talk) 30 March 2012

approveDarkstar1st (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks good! Remember when expanding government-based libertarianisms to use the highest quality sources available! Fifelfoo (talk) 23:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

"Due weight with anarchism representing a smaller fraction of modern libertarianism"

I wonder how User:North8000 measured which "libertarianism" is bigger. Let me remind you that proponents of unregulated capitalism in the rest of the world use the word "liberal" for themselves instead of "libertarian". It is clear that they do not want to be confused or associated with anti-capitalists who smash store windows and who put bombs as well as with proponents of libertarian communism and anarcho-syndicalism. In places like France, Spain, Italy, Argentina and Greece this could be an important reality to take into account by neoliberals from there since there exists large anarchist movements with old complex histories and in the case of Spain the most notorious "libertarians" where the ones who fought in the Spanish Civil War and who expropiated landowners and collectivized factories in Barcelona. Today "libertarians" in Spain are mainly associated with the current Social Center and okupas/squat movements and in no way with yuppies, neoliberal politicians in the right wing Partido Popular and followers of austrian economics.--Eduen (talk) 07:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

This compromise does not involve / is not based on me measuring anything. Other than that, all very good points. As is unusual here, the talk page here is sometimes more informative than the article. The point "let me remind you that proponents of unregulated capitalism in the rest of the world use the word "liberal" for themselves instead of "libertarian"." is very important but totally missing from the article. North8000 (talk) 12:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

So that could be good information that we could provide readers of this article. Now Canada and the United Kingdom have a "hybrid" situation where both uses coexist. These lines extracted from the article Liberalism show these things "In North America, unlike in Europe, the word liberalism almost exclusively refers to social liberalism in contemporary politics. The dominant Canadian and American parties, the Liberal Party and the Democratic Party, are frequently identified as being modern liberal or center-left organizations in the academic literature.^[1]^[2]^[3] In Canada, the long-dominant Liberal Party, colloquially known as the Grits, ruled the country for nearly 70 years during the 20th century. The party produced some of the most influential prime ministers in Canadian history, including Pierre Trudeau, Lester B. Pearson and Jean Chrétien, and has been primarily responsible for the development of the Canadian welfare state. The enormous success of the Liberals—virtually unmatched in any other liberal democracy—has prompted many political commentators over time to identify them as the nation's natural governing party.^[4]^[5] However, in recent elections the party has been performing poorly, and have currently been eclipsed federally by both the Conservative Party and the social democratic New Democratic Party.^[6]^[7]

In the United States, modern liberalism traces its history to the popular presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who initiated the New Deal in response to the Great Depression and won an unprecedented four elections. The New Deal coalition established by Franklin Roosevelt left a decisive legacy and influenced many future American presidents, including John F. Kennedy, a self-described liberal who defined a liberal as "someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions...someone who cares about the welfare of the people".^[8]

In the late 20th century, a conservative backlash against the kind of liberalism championed by Roosevelt and Kennedy developed in the Republican Party.^[9] This brand of conservatism primarily reacted against the civil unrest and the cultural changes that transpired during the 1960s.^[9] It helped launch into power such presidents as Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush.^[10] Economic woes in the early 21st century led to a resurgence of social liberalism with the election of Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election.^[11]"

And this extracted from the article liberalism in Europe: In general, liberalism in Europe is a political movement that supports a broad tradition of individual liberties and constitutionally-limited and democratically accountable government. This usually encompasses the belief that government should act to alleviate poverty and other social problems, but not through radical changes to the structure of society.

European liberals are divided on the degree of government intervention in economy, but generally they favor limited intervention. Most European liberal parties today adhere to conservative liberalism, with only a minority adhering to the principles of social liberalism,^[12] such as the British Liberal Democrats."

In this way the closest european equivalents to the US Libertarian Party are parties like the Free Democratic Party (Germany)

So if someone can suggest a good way of incluiding this in this article then it will clarify some important things for the readers both US and non-US.--Eduen (talk) 21:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Cool. Why don't you put it in? North8000 (talk) 22:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps what we need is an article on political terminology that, among other purposes, would attempt to sort out regional differences in the use of such terminology. This article could then point to that one. KLP (talk) 16:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. But when material uses a term that has very different meanings, it should, as a minimum, clarify which of the meanings that it is using, doubly so where, to a large group of readers, a completely different (and even opposite) meaning is the only one that they know. North8000 (talk) 11:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

What about a section within this article on how people commonly use the term from region to region. It might say something like, "in the United States, people commonly view libertarianism as a minarchist, capitalistic political philosophy" and "in Europe, people commonly view libertarianism as a socialistic political philosophy sometimes synonymous with anarchism". Maybe we can fit similar text into an existing section rather than creating a new section for it. KLP (talk) 19:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC) (edit: KLP (talk) 19:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC))

If you will excuse a reply that is too short/superficial for this complex topic..... Libertarian is not the first word that came to mind when I said that because it's the aim of the whole article to do that. But yes, I think it needs the type of thing that you described. That wouldn't be my first choice of how to explain it to the target audience, (using an even more obscure-to-them term minarchist to explain it , and capitalism is the context of the USA common meaning rather that a core tenet of it) but we shouldn't limit this to anybody's "first choice". But...... the words I most had in mind when I wrote that are liberal/liberalism, conservative/conservatism, and socialist/socialism. The common meanings of those words in the US are immensely different than in many other places/ writings. And since this isn't an article on any of those three topics, I was thinking more along the lines of just brief qualifiers when using those terms here to explain things. North8000 (talk) 10:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you mean. I envision a template box or some italicized header text that reads something like "This article uses the political lexicon of the United States of America. See political terminology in the United States of America." That would free us from having to qualify every statement that uses the words conservative or liberal. Of course, it requires the existence of Political terminology in the United States of America... KLP (talk) 12:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know the best way. I don't know how deep in to go in the article. The minimum I can imagine that would do the trick is to put a footnote that says "this uses a meaning that is different than the common USA meaning of the term" and then just putting an "asterisk" to that footnote in a few crucial areas when a totally different meaning of is used. Then at least we avoid mis-informing (in the language of those folks) to the confusion, if not fully clearing it up. For example, for example, if you say "libertarians are liberals in country X" you are telling USA folks that in Country X libertarians are in favor of expanded government. The "asterisk" would at least avoid saying that, if not totally clearing it up. North8000 (talk) 12:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Definition

I recently added "is variously defined by sources. There is no consensus on the definition nor on how the term should be used as a historical category." at the beginning of article instead of the old "generally refers to". This really isn't a substantive change, so I can't imagine why the old version would be preferable to anyone. We already (a) didn't have a reliable source for the "generally refers to" and (b) the 2nd paragraph clearly shows that it's variously defined by sources. Also, the bit I added comes straight from the "capitalism" page (and that bit has been on that page for a long time), which faces a similar definitional issue as "libertarianism".

Basically, I did this because I think we ought to make it very clear to the reader that this word has pretty much always meant different things to different people since it started getting used. The old way sorta implied that there's always been a general agreement that the term means X since it started getting used and/or there aren't a variety of definitions from sources (as in, they all agree on the same 'vague definition', as opposed to having a bunch of different definitions that we sift through to get the 'sort-of general agreement' definition of "emphasis on a couple things". Byelf2007 (talk) 6 April 2012

I like the old way better but have no objection to your change. My gut feel as a reader is "I came here to find out what libertarianism is, not to hear a bunch of wikipedian talk (sources, consensus etc.) telling me that you don't know. But the answer is one of developing this overall article, your sentence summarizes what's currently in it which is "here's a bunch of material, figure it out for yourself, we're not really telling you what it is." North8000 (talk) 10:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I prefer Byelf2007's change. "...is variously defined by sources..." more accurately describes the term than "...generally refers to...". Furthermore, the latter employs the passive voice in a rather annoying manner. KLP (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I like the "variously defined" wording too.BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

There's another point I want to make on the definition. If this term was something where there was no "general consensus" (like 99% of scholars) on a definition, BUT there was a "general agreement" (like 75% of scholars) of what it was, THEN I think it would make more sense to start out with "Generally refers to X Y and Z" instead of "is variously defined by sources" (this would apply to something like 'capitalism' or 'existentialism'). However, in the case of 'libertarianism', there isn't even a general agreement on the definition. The only general agreement is basically "Well, I guess it refers to philosophies which emphasize X Y and Z". That's not a very clear definition (and we don't even have a source for that--since there's relatively little scholarly work that's been done on defining this term, we're sort of flying by the seat of our pants here). Therefore, another reason why I think it makes sense to start out with "is variously defined by sources" is because it emphasizes that currently there is basically nothing approaching a general consensus of a clear definition of the term. Byelf2007 (talk) 12 April 2012

Byelf2007, regarding this comment on your last edit, "i like the first part, but i think it's important to say "there is general agreement". otherwise, i'm left to wonder "it 'broadly means X' according to whom?"", the same can be said about your version: "who generally agrees?". Thoughts? KLP (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I'm going to put in "among scholars". Byelf2007 (talk) 11 April 2012

Can we nix the passive voice and go with "Scholars generally agree..."? KLP (talk) 00:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. Byelf2007 (talk) 12 April 2012

From the point of view of the guidelines like WP:LEAD, you're supposed to have a sentence something like 'Libertarianism is ' at the beginning of the article. Also, there's a subtle point that you're really defining the topic that the article covers, and one or more concept(s); you're not really defining and describing usage of the term libertarianism. Usage of terms is more dictionary territory. But it's not necessarily wrong to include that as part of an encyclopedia article, but it's not the point of the article, and you shouldn't imply that it is. The article is supposed to be about the idea of libertarianism, and any other closely related concepts.Teapeat (talk) 04:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

So libertarianism doesn't refer to something (because that implies that it's a term), libertarianism is a political position... it's the use-mention distinction.Teapeat (talk) 04:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Libertarianism is multiple contradictory political movements philosophies or "vibes", with few analogous scholarly definitions and no homologous scholarly definitions. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

"Libertarianism doesn't refer to something".

You're assuming that there is a general agreement that there is a definition of "libertarianism". There isn't. Therefore, it DOES 'refer to' stuff. If we said "Libertarianism is [definitively] the group of philosophies..." then we'd be endorsing an opinion of which there is not general consensus. That's not something we do on this site.

You have however convinced me that we ought to say what libertarianism is (as best we can, which is just to say what it refers to) right away. I think what I've written recently "Libertarianism is generally considered by scholars to refer to..." works. Byelf2007 (talk) 12 April 2012

Specific Suggestion for Improving This Article

In order to improve this article we need to mention that libertarianism is a form of conservatism.

Libertarianism is a form of Conservatism often considered separate from the more mainstream conservative ideologies, partially because it is a bit more extreme, and partially because Libertarians often separate themselves from other forms of more mainstream Conservatism. - Brian R. Farmer, American conservatism: history, theory and practice

Libertarianism, sometimes considered a type of conservatism, believes in the autonomy of the individual and a minimal role for the government. - Charles W. Dunn, J. David Woodard, The Conservative Tradition in America

However, most observers treat libertarianism as a strain of current conservative thought. - Michael Tanner, Leviathan on the Right

Hoover distinguishes the traditional and libertarian strands jointly constitutive of "conservative capitalism," the ideology common to both the Reagan and the Thatcher administrations - Desmond S. King, New Right Ideology, Welfare State Form, and Citizenship - A Comment on Conservative Capitalism

Again, if you're not willing to use tenets to differentiate between the various political ideologies then you shouldn't have any objections to dedicating a significant section of this article to conservatism. Of course, then we'll have to change the lead accordingly. But at least we'll be that much more closer to our goal of hopelessly confusing readers. That is our goal isn't it? To convince people that libertarians are both for and against the abolition of the state...and both for and against capitalism...and both for and against social conservatism. --Xerographica (talk) 07:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It is philosophically impossible for a Libertarian to be "for" Social Conservatism. That's absurd. Social Conservatism = Authoritarianism. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 12:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion, currently we're using a major scholarly encyclopaedia of philosophy, one of the preeminant scholars publishing on libertarianism definitions, and the major historian of libertarianism. Woodcock completely disagrees with your suggestion, Long substantively and at length, and Vallentyne is indifferent. The sources you present include a press with this abomination of a home page (here), a google ebook textbook aimed at American undergraduates only, a publication from a partisan political organisation, and a non-article (it is titled "Debates," rather than in the section "Articles") journal item specific to the analysis of the new right which claims, "I think Hoover is incorrect to use the term libertarianism to refer to all these sets of ideas. It is more helpful to group them as liberal principles, recognising libertarianism as a powerful subcategory. We do not disagree on the broad content of this category,10 but to use the term libertarianism rather than liberalism is misleading" (795). Compared to a scholarly encyclopaedia, Long's synthetic definitional work, and Woodcock's magisterial history; I don't find these sources persuasive. The best effort, King's, specifically excludes libertarianism from conservatism, even with its extreme hesitancy around the definitional debate. We'd want sources superior in quality to Woodcock, Long and Vallentyne supporting your position. Look for review articles in scholarly journals that summarise debates on the definition of libertarianism. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

George Woodcock was an anarchist, Roderick Long is also an anarchist...and Peter Vallentyne is an anarcho-socialist. Is that just a coincidence? Hardly. Clearly your biases are clouding your judgement. Either we change the title of this article to anarchism or we turn this page into a disambiguation page. It's absurd to try and pretend that we're talking about the same political philosophy here. The thing is, if you anarchists were capable of self-regulation then we wouldn't have to worry about the lead being constantly biased towards anarchism. This is definitely not a new problem and it's not a problem that's going to go away by asking you anarchists to show some discretion. Therefore, the solution has to be structural. Turning this page into a disambiguation page would allow readers to decide which political philosophy they are interested in learning about. It shouldn't be our job to make that decision for them. --Xerographica (talk) 09:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you retract the personal attacks in the above; specifically the argumentum ad hominem. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Which part of my argument was not relevant to the topic in question? Are you trying to tell me that it's just a coincidence that the three "experts" you referenced all happen to be anarchists? --Xerographica (talk) 11:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Immediately retract your accusations that I have edited based on politics, and your aspersions that I hold particular politics. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Xerographica, this article is a work in progress regarding how to cover libertarianism. Neither perfection nor completion is claimed. And maybe your proposed statement is an attempt to remedy some actual issue with the article. But IMO saying that libertarianism is a form of conservatism is a statement that most would call in error, and which would be very confusing rather than informative. North8000 (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

What are your objections to turning this page into a disambiguation page? --Xerographica (talk) 11:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

First and foremost it's a top level subject that needs an article. North8000 (talk) 11:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

No, first and foremost it's a word that needs to be disambiguated. --Xerographica (talk) 12:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Deleting a 10+ year old article on a major topic just isn't going to happen. Why don't you tell us what your main point/objective/concern really is? North8000 (talk) 12:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

My point is that this article continues to give undue weight to anarchism and clearly there's nothing that you can do about it...assuming you've even tried. Compare the lead for right-libertarianism and left-libertarianism. Do you notice a difference? Half the lead on right-libertarianism is dedicated to left-libertarianism yet the lead for left-libertarianism doesn't even mention right-libertarianism. The anarchists are going to push their views anywhere they can...which is exactly why we should just convert this article to a disambiguation page and allow readers to decide for themselves whether they want to learn about anarchism or libertarianism. Why would you object to allowing readers to decide for themselves which political philosophy they want to learn about?

There needs to be one article entirely dedicated to the limited government libertarianism of Nozick, Hayek, Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, Mises, Herbert Spencer, Bastiat, Adam Smith...where anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-socialism are only mentioned in the See Also section. Trying to mix everything into this article just isn't working...and it will never work given that if you give the anarchists an inch they'll try to take a mile...as they have consistently demonstrated. So step one is to turn this article into a disambiguation page and then step two is to think of a name for the article dedicated to limited government libertarianism. --Xerographica (talk) 15:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. That is helpful. And I think that I agree with you about the imbalance, but not on it's causes. After seeing this article go through warfare and calm, stability and instability for the approx 19 months I've been active here, I don't think that the current state is a result of POV'ing by anarchists. I think that it is a result of being on a track of mostly being about philosophies rather than practice. So the article is about what 20 people have philosophized on libertarianism, using those 20 people as sources on themselves. What it needs is more material on the rest of the story. For example, I plan to put a section on the 20,000,000 person US "libertarian vote" (I have sources) but I have been slow to do that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The thing that Xerographica seems to be confusing is the definition of "Conservatism," and how it relates to the concepts of "Small/Limited Government" and Libertarianism. The word "Conservatism" has nothing to do with being in favor of "Small/Limited Government," nor does the word "Liberal" mean "Big Government." Any quick check of the Wiki pages for such concepts, and Left/Right in general, will quickly show him/her the fallacy of such thinking, both in a historical and philosophical context. Also, most of the people he/she just mentioned (Rand, Hayek, Friedman, Mises, etc.) were primarily only concerned with economic/fiscal matters. Yes, Conservatism (in the modern US, at least) is fairly Libertarian on economic issues. But that's just half of the equation. Social Conservatism, which is an enormous factor in US Conservatism, is completely opposed to Libertarianism...which is why Libertarian philosophers and organizations generally describe US Libertarianism as being "Socially Liberal, but Fiscally Conservative." (See Boaz, Cato Institute, etc.) If Libertarians were simply "Conservatives," then there would be no need for any term to differentiate them from the Conservatives. (Same goes for Anarchism, by the way...) If you believe in the economic theories of Rand/Hayek/Mises/etc., but believe in the "Big Government," Socially Conservative positions of being Anti-LGBT Rights, Pro-Drug War, Pro-Christian Supremacism/Anti-Separation of Church/State, etc., (and/or "Big Government" Conservative foreign policy positions of being pro-interventionist in foreign wars) then you are just a "Conservative," and not a "Libertarian." You don't get to redefine terms to make them mean what you want them to be... --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 16:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It could be a matter of definition, or it could be a way that they are using that channel to pursue a concern. Whether it be in the fireworks that we had early fall 2010 or in the comments of people that have wandered through sort of goes like this: They are one of the 250,000,000 people in the USA to whom the term means simply "more freedom, less government". And maybe half of them could go a little further and say "conservative on economic & size of government issues and liberal on social issues. 99% go no further than that into any particular libertarian philosophy as defined in this article. And to them anarchists Z(per the mainstream US definition of the term) are the people who break windows and throw firebombs or motorcycle gangs that take over towns. (per the common US meaning of all of those terms). And then they come to this article and see what you see here and say "this article seems to be about the fire bomb throwers and motorcycle gangs (anarchists) and obscure philosophers and arcane terminology that I never heard of, and has little about what the 250,000,000 of us consider to be libertarianism." Of course I see both sides, but that's one of them. North8000 (talk) 23:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

You've been working on this article for 19 months...yet you didn't feel qualified to offer an informed opinion when I brought up Hayek's partial knowledge concept in the above section. Hayek's partial knowledge concept forms the basis of the economic arguments for libertarianism. If you don't understand the economic arguments for libertarianism after working on this article for 19 months...then what are the chances that somebody interested in libertarianism will learn about the economic arguments for libertarianism after reading this article? Are you familiar with Bastiat's opportunity cost concept? Do you understand that the time we spend trying to fix this article could be better spent writing a new article where we don't have to worry about anarcho-capitalists or anarcho-socialists? Let's cut our loses and spend our time working on an article that can help people better understand the economic arguments for libertarianism. With that in mind...do you have any objections to creating a new page called Limited government libertarianism? --Xerographica (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually I've refereed here a lot more than I've edited the article. :-) Not sure about the title, but I think that some type of an additional article along those lines is in order, possibly to replace the one that never should have existed Right libertarianism. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure about the title either. It sounds redundant doesn't it? Can you think of a better one? I mean...we shouldn't necessarily let a title bog us down...given that we can always change it at a later date. The point is to have a space solely and entirely dedicated to libertarianism...not anarcho-capitalism/socialism. Anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-socialism already have their own dedicated articles. Given that libertarianism as we know it is 10 times more popular than anarcho-capitalism/socialism...it stands to reason that the libertarianism of Nobel prize winners such as Hayek and Friedman merits having its own dedicated article. Including the term "limited government" in the title of the article would help people understand that it is not intended to cover any "no government" political philosophies. --Xerographica (talk) 02:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

When disambiguating articles where there is no solid term, wouldn't the use of brackets, such as Libertarianism (limited government) be a better suited title? I'd suggest you locate which works actually differentiate this libertarianism in comparison to other libertarianisms. I'd suggest Long, because he actually pays attention to all libertarianisms and publishes in a scholarly mode. This would give any term derived from Long much more weight in supporting the article, and the particular differentiation and specific coverage of the article. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. We'll rename this article to Libertarianism (anarchism) and we'll use the Libertarianism page as a disambiguation page to allow people to decide whether they are interested in learning about Libertarianism (anarchism) or Libertarianism (limited government). --Xerographica (talk) 03:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I oppose creating a "libertaranism (limited government)" page. "Libertarianism" has come to refer to (among other things, which get their own articles) a group of political philosophies with some similarities. I don't think we should get rid of it because of the particular difficulty of this article because of its unique issues. "Libertarianism", in this sense, is not the same as "limited government", if only because one (maybe) refers to advocacy of limited government (though this is bound to become a very controversial topic, just like whether or not libertarianism necessarily includes advocacy of private property was also controversail), but "limited government" refers to just that. It's just like how we have a "communism" and a "communist state" article, and a "minarchism" and a "night-watchman state" article.

Having "libertarianism" go to disambiguation page sounds good to me (this already occurs with "libertarian". Byelf2007 (talk) 7 March 2012

The dab argument would require a fair amount of argument, given that this article covers libertarianisms that support limited government already. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

That's a joke right? Because it sure makes me laugh when you say that this article covers the libertarianism of the Nobel prize winners Hayek and Friedman. Especially if you're trying to say that this article covers their libertarianism in proportion to its importance to society. Perhaps you don't believe that Nobel prizes are an objective measurement of the importance of libertarianism (limited government)? In any case, this article has clearly been taken over by you anarchists so there's no point in me trying to waste any more time trying to fight you guys for space on this page. We tried that approach last year and obviously it didn't work. We'll deal with the dab argument once the Libertarianism (limited government) is developed. --Xerographica (talk) 03:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Please stop being so petty. No one "takes over" a wikipedia page. Byelf2007 (talk) 7 March 2012

Go read Long and Woodcock. Woodcock's history notes Bastiat; Long deals with all forms of libertarianism. Wikipedia is written from the taxonomy contained in reliable sources, in this case reliable sources of the highest quality. We don't derive our taxonomies from personal inspiration. You have been mentioned at WQA for personal attacks, point and battleground disruption. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

When I search on JSTOR...do you have any idea how many more references I find for Nozick, Friedman and Hayek than I do for all your anarchist experts combined? Personal inspiration my foot. What a laugh. Speaking of funny things...it's amazing how quick you anarchists are to report people for frivolous reasons. --Xerographica (talk) 04:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an anarchist. Byelf2007 (talk) 7 March 2012

So you're a statist? --Xerographica (talk) 03:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

If your definition is "supports the existence of the state" then yes. Byelf2007 (talk) 8 March 2012

On your page it says that you "adhere" to the Austrian School of economics. This is the first time I've ever encountered an Austrian economist that wasn't an anarcho-capitalist. Why do you support the existence of the state? --Xerographica (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

This isn't the place for that. I'll put my email on that (my) info page. Byelf2007 (talk) 9 March 2012

This is the perfect place given that I'm trying to understand why this article on libertarianism is so skewed towards anarchism. --Xerographica (talk) 02:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that has to do with making suggestions/resolving problems, which is actually what the talk page is for. It's probably (in part) because there's more widely known/influential anarchist-libertarian history/theory than non-anarchist libertarian history/theory. Most of the 'first wave' libertarians were anarchists. Also, I've personally put a lot of stuff from the anarchism page in here. Other pages (like right-libertarianism) aren't as well developed. Otherwise, I guess anarchist contributors to this page are disproportionate. Finally, I'm not sure how your understanding my reasons for being a statist would aid you in your endeavor regarding the anarchist skew. Byelf2007 (talk) 9 March 2012

"there's more widely known/influential anarchist-libertarian history/theory than non-anarchist libertarian history/theory". This is incredibly untrue. By any objective standard...Adam Smith, Bastiat, Herbert Spencer, Mises, Hayek, Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, Nozick...are far more widely known and incredibly more influential than any anarchist theorists. That you believe that anarchist history/theory is more widely known/influential than non-anarchist history/theory does help me understand why this article is skewed towards anarchism. --Xerographica (talk) 02:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Most of the people you mentioned are influential is the U.S., but not so much worldwide. People like Proudhon, Stirner, Kropotkin, Bakunin, Tolstoy, and Chomsky are generally influential both in and outside the U.S. Also, Mises and Hayek did very little political theory. Libertarianism is about politics, not economics. Byelf2007 (talk) 9 March 2012

Proudhon ("is considered among the most influential theorists and organisers of anarchism."), Stirner ("one of the fathers of nihilism, existentialism, post-modernism and anarchism"), Kropotkin ("one of the world's foremost anarcho-communists"), Bakunin ("well-known Russian revolutionary and theorist of collectivist anarchism"), Tolstoy ("a fervent Christian anarchist and anarcho-pacifist"), and Chomsky ("Ideologically identifying with anarcho-syndicalism and libertarian socialism"). "Libertarian socialism" is better thought of as anarcho-socialism. Clearly we are talking about two entirely distinct political ideologies...I'm talking about "libertarianism" and you're talking about "anarchism". We don't need two articles on anarchism. It's a moot point though...at least for now. You guys can continue to use this page to promote anarchism and I'll work on the article on Libertarianism (limited government). --Xerographica (talk) 03:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

We establish the main topic, structure and weight of articles based on what field reviews say, not the opinions of individual editors. Again, I refer you to read Long, Vallentyne and Woodcock; all of whom indicate that libertarianism covers both pro- and anti-statist positions, all of whom indicate that property is a serious issue of question within libertarianism, with both Long and Woodcock indicating positions taken for and against private property in the means and tools of production. I encourage you, again, to find a propensity of sources of equivalent or higher quality, that are field reviews of libertarianism and not merely publications of a scholar's opinion, that supports an alternate construction of this top level article. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Renaming this one and making libertarianism a DAB is a whole new question. Not sure, but I think I disagree. The libertarianism article needs to try to make sense out of the term. Maybe one could view that as a DAB article. North8000 (talk) 03:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Let's at least have an article that does justice to libertarianism...and then we can debate the DAB options. Should we sit on the title for a day or two? Or is Libertarianism (limited government) good enough to get started? --Xerographica (talk) 04:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, this is only a decision to start a Libertarianism (limited government) article. If so, I support that, either by that term now to get started, or first noodle a bit more on what the title should be. North8000 (talk) 04:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see. That's fine (as long as we keep this one). Byelf2007 (talk) 7 March 2012

I couldn't think of a better title. Do you want to create the page or shall I? Or should we first develop the outline on a practice page? --Xerographica (talk) 03:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in making the page, so you can go ahead, practice page or no (I may have objections to some of it, but I'll put them on talk first). Byelf2007 (talk) 8 March 2012

My suggestion. Make sure you/we have an idea what the article is about, with a title to match. (to be honest, I'm not sure what either is) Then write a stub with a couple of references (to immediately adress wp:notability. Then develop on the article and talk page. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 04:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Now, if you were to ask for my recommendation of what to do overall, it would be to build material in THIS article. Lose the accusations and nastiness, recognize that those novel taxonomic theories/questions are not a useful place to start. And then start building in THIS article. Move in and have some fun. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

How could I contribute to this article? This article is primarily about socialism and anarchism...so should I just build material in the section on the criticisms of "libertarianism"? In the criticisms of "libertarianism" section I'd refer to Mises, Hayek, Rand...and all the other "libertarians" that dedicated their lives to debunking exactly what this article is about...anarchism and socialism. Naw, no thanks. Last time I tried to contribute to this article...each time I turned around my contributions were removed. That's not my definition of fun. --Xerographica (talk) 14:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

As you describe and via whole new sections. IMHO you are misunderstanding the situation here. But that's your choice. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm just going to stick this here. Libertarian_Party_(United_States). Might be something useful in the ideology section of the Info box.Gsonnenf (talk) 18:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

How can Wikipedia maintain any degree of credibility when it contains trashy articles like Libertarianism - an article that would surprise and disgust just about everyone who would describe themselves as being ideologically "Libertarian" in 2012? This is why Wikipedia will never be accepted as a reliable and credible encyclopedic source - dishonorable hacks with too much free times on their hands (aka. the unemployed and mental health patients) have wantonly sabotaged this article in their efforts to censor Libertarian ideas and push their own political agendas. And, typically, the absurd morass of Wikipedia's incoherent rules and guidelines have been used to crush anyone who attempts to fix the appalling errors and lack of balance in this broken article. While most Wikipedia articles contain a few errors, the Libertarianism article is rife with absurd misrepresentations and blatant nonsense which can only be the result of a deliberate and sustained effort to sabotage the article. A pox on Wikipedia and all those who allowed this appalling situation to develop. 122.60.93.162 (talk) 11:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that you have a few good points in there but buried inside of all of that nastiness, vitriol, insults and attacks against other well-meaning editors, nobody is going to notice them. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 11:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

That's just it - while you are a well-being editor, it is abundantly clear that far too many editors are not "well-meaning". As the current nonsensical state of the Libertarianism article and the absurd sophistry in the threads (above) on this talk page illustrate. I can just picture the truly well-meaning editors bashing their own heads on their keyboards before they log-off in frustration. The Libertarianism article is missing critical information while being packed with misrepresentation and abject nonsense. An innocent researcher who arrives here in search of information about Libertarianism is going to leave confused and hopeless misinformed. And that is no accident. 122.60.93.162 (talk) 12:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

If you came here thinking that the word "Libertarian" is a synonym for "Conservative," then yes...you'd bang your head in frustration, as that is not, and never has been historically, the case. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 13:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Who said anything about Conservatism? What has Conservatism got to do with Libertarianism, aside from a considerable over-lap (by no means complete) in economic policies? Why are you throwing this needless tangent into your response? Discussion around here are as pointless, dishonest and infantile as I remember. I already regret poking my head in for another look. 122.60.93.162 (talk) 21:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, because that is usually the reason that people get upset about this page. Sorry for assuming. (And you're absolutely correct about "Conservatism." --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 12:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

If anything deserves criticism it is the absurd predominance of Anarchism in this article. How the hell does Chomsky - a world-famous (Syndicalist) Anarchist - warrant mention in the Lede? How is it that Rand - probably the most well-known (neo)Libertarian philosopher of all time - rates nothing more than a single mention in a list of so-called "Libertarians" that is dominated by Anarchists like Bakunin and Bookchin. The Libertarianism article is an appalling farce that blatantly misrepresents Libertarianism and fatally misinforms the curious reader. A pox on Wikipedia and those who have deliberately sabotaged this article. 122.60.93.162 (talk) 12:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

"an article that would surprise and disgust just about everyone who would describe themselves as being ideologically "Libertarian"" "The Libertarianism article is missing critical information, while being packed with misrepresentation and abject nonsense." So what exactly are these problems? I don't see that you've listed any. I think you should explain what your objections are so we can consider them. If you came here to just complain about wikipedia, then I'm not sure how you can present most wikipedia editors as being more silly than you. I mean, you're here on wikipedia contributing by writing this without explaining what your objections are, but you're also complaining on how most wikipedia editors use the site. I can't help but wonder if you're unemployed or a mental health patient. Byelf2007 (talk) 15 March 2012

I'm outta here, lest I feed your obvious troll. Your user page says you subscribe to the Austrian School. I assume that you were being ironic (or setting up an ambush) when you put that reference in there, as your posts suggest you are far FAR removed from the laissez-faire philosophy of Hayek (et al.). Or perhaps you simply have no idea what the "Austrian School" means but you like the idea of personally paying less tax while welcoming government intervention into the lives of everyone else (God knows, I've met enough of those in my time). 122.60.93.162 (talk) 21:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

There are some really biased edits in the review history, Byelf2007 has been systematically removing content he finds personally disagreeable. Will objective people please review his edits for reason. There is a lot of confusion with the american and European definitions of libertarianism which he has really not understood. There is a page for Right-libertarianism as well as Left-libertarianism and Centrist libertarianism, so please lets keep this page as an overview for all libertarianism. Ayn Rand is listen here as a libertarian , so lay off the European libertarian anarchists Ahahaha373 (talk) 05:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Ayn Rand gets a single mention in a list. How mightily informative. I guess that makes up for a Wikipedia page on Libertarianism that resembles a brochure from some college Anarchist club... 122.60.93.162 (talk) 06:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

So add content on Ayn Rand. Byelf2007 (talk) 19 March 2012

Conservapedia is hiring guysAhahaha373 (talk) 08:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I added some content on Rand. It's amazing what you can accomplish when you're typing in the article and not the talk page. Byelf2007 (talk) 19 March 2012

Will start on new subsection

I noted previously that I was going to start on a new subsection of the zillions of "vague libertarians", I have sourcing on a place to start. I'm planning on slowly buildign it in place rather than building it elsewhere and dropping it in. The things happen more slowly so that people can see, comment etc. So please excuse the stub etc. in the meantime. I plan to start now, probably in an obscure place such as under "21st century" Now I plan to actually start that. North8000 (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I think grouping the LPUSA and essentially all American Libertarians under the umbrella of "Right-Libertarians" is incorrect. LPUSA is the classic example of how American Libertarianism is truly "Socially Left and Fiscally Right." Right-Libertarianism, in my understanding, is pretty much only concerned with economics. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 12:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree. I didn't do that. Actually, I don't think that "right libertarianism" is even a real term. Just a two word phrase that various authors have used under various meanings for various purposes. North8000 (talk) 12:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

"Right Libertarianism" is not a term used in the real world. It seems that term was used by a few editors only in this talk page as a way to distinguish real Libertarianism from the Anarchist ideologies that just happen to use the word Libertarian, such as Left Libertarianism and Libertarian Socialism. It speaks volumes for how much ignorance is plaguing this article that editors think "Right Libertarianism" is a popularly recognised version of the Libertarian ideology. 122.60.93.162 (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Users like "Byelf2007" beautifully demonstrate just what an utter lack of integrity we are dealing with here. This is the last person in the world interested in providing the public with quality information, yet his edits dominate this page as well as the Ayn Rand page. It couldn't be any more obvious this user is hell bent on skewing everything to fit his Ayn Rand, Objectivist inspired narrative.

I do think the article does a good job describing how internationally, this is a term associated with left anarchism, while in the US it is associated with conservatism.

As far as the different types of libertarians in AMERICA, you have two main breeds:

~Your philosophical libertarians: who believe in the philosophical principle that the government that governs LEAST is the government that governs BEST. They stress the Founding Father's MINIMALIST tolerance for the state, but DO acknowledge the legitimacy of that state. They prefer philanthropic efforts, through individual action, towards bettering society as opposed to the state's efforts.

~Your Ayn Rand/Austrian libertarians: Who are basically your re-packaged social darwinists. They preach that helping others is actually WRONG. Where we are only out for our own struggle for survival, and assisting others in this struggle is an "evil" and disruption in this process, where we will just allow the weak and inferior to breed more like them and bring the country down. They do NOT believe in the legitimacy of the state, and Ayn Rand OPPOSES philanthropic efforts of any sort.

It would be nice if this is reflected in the article, for not all libertarians are atheistic Ayn Rand acolytes who hate their fellow man. Some of us DO believe in making the world a better place, we just stress that this role lies with the INDIVIDUAL and not the STATE.

--174.44.124.123 (talk) 18:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Building off an Abandoned Page (?)

Hi, this talk page taught me more than the article! As I read it, each contributor (thanks for your hard/heated work) seems to be right, GIVEN their definition. And their are plenty of very good sources which give fine but different definitions.

The split between the US and non-US definition is very, very large - in fact, the philosophies are incompatible, and it's a bit unfortunate (but irrevocable) that Americans in the 50's chose to use the word Libertarianism to describe a pretty different idea. I found another page, not mentioned by anyone above and not linked to the disambig page, called Libertarianism in the United States. It seems abandoned around 2010, but it is describing the general philosophy as defined in the US, and as petitioned for by contributors for this one.

Since our page here almost uniformly is describing the non-US term, anyone viewing in the US is almost guaranteed to be horribly confused, especially by the ever-growing thicket of disclaimers and statements about "well, no one really knows what it is." I'm happy to work on expanding the other page, with a title like Libertarianism (US Definition). I know a number of you have wanted to work on this part (irrespective of whether it is a new page), and I can do the work/writing on anything you want me to cover while you are busy.

Here is what it looks like so far, in my sandbox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sunny_Side_600/sandbox

Ideally, we could cut the tiny, tiny amount of US-defined stuff off this page, call it something clear like Libertarianism (Non-US Definition) and just have the main Libertarianism link go to a disambiguation link so neither philosophy has priority.

If it helps, I'm an international student at college in the US, so I've seen both definitions (and from both points of view, US and non) and have gone through the iterations of realizing beyond the name, they have very little to do with each other in current practice.

This is pretty much the compromise you all are proposing, but (at least temporarily, possibly permanently) we would add the US-defined stuff to its own page, as this one is really mostly something else and I'd hate to delete huge tracts of it. Sunny Side 600 (talk) 30 April 2012 —Preceding undated comment added 21:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC).

IMO building that other article sounds great, and I think that your perspectives / background would be a really nice addition to our ongoing efforts at libertarianism articles. My only disagreement with you is on giving up on this one being the top level article for libertarianism. The definitions are different, but there is plenty of overlap and common tenets. And yes, I've also found the talk page to be more informative than the article. There are a lot of expert people here contributing an immense amount in the discussions. Still trying to get the article good or really good. Also being cautious..... about 19 months ago we emerged from bloody warfare here and we don't want to go back there. North8000 (talk) 21:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

PS:I've learned that the same dicotomy in meanings (US vs. elsewhere) exists for "conservative", "liberal", socialism/socialist so those could be your next projects :-) North8000 (talk) 21:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't like this idea. There's no official 'US definition' or 'outside-the-US-definition'. I'd prefer that we simply add more content to this article concerning the various definitions of the term and also add more content to the 'libertarianism in the US' article, and possibly create a 'libertarianism outside the US' article. Byelf2007 (talk) 30 April 2012

I think that Byelf2007 and I are 90% saying the same thing. Except that I think that the word has a somewhat different common meaning in the US and I think that needs to be explained. And I think that the roots of that distinction are that "liberal" has a different common meaning in the US than elsewhere. North8000 (talk) 00:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good, at the very least I'll add to the other one (hopefully a bit this weekend) and we can move anything whenever it comes up. Sunny Side 600 (talk) 1 May 2012 —Preceding undated comment added 00:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC).

More on my previous comment, the differing common meaning of "liberal" just influences the common meaning / causes a variation on the common meaning of of libertarianism. Not some fundamentally different structural or philosophical definition. Outside of the US, folks who simply want less government in all areas are often called liberals. In the US, where the common meaning of "liberal" includes expansion of government, such would not occur and they would be called libertarian. North8000 (talk) 02:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

All libertarians share common intellectual roots and beliefs. There may be confusion however in that the term is also used as a synonym for neo-classical liberalism. TFD (talk) 04:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

There is already a Right libertarianism article. Just work on that one. That's the most common term for the non-socialist versions Big Large Monster (talk) 02:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree. Someday I'm going to AFD the Right libertarianism article for the reasons described there. North8000 (talk) 11:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

" 'Deontological libertarians' and 'libertarian moralists' are just different terms for the same thing

According to what source? And even if this is true, what's the point of saying 'libertarian moralists' anyway? Deontological is obviously more popular and using different terms for the same thing is confusing. Byelf2007 (talk) May 21 2012

According to the Murray source. Who knows which is more popular? You don't know, and I don't know. Until you find a source that says one is more popular than the other, there is no argument for one over the other. I don't care which term is used. That's not the point of my edit. My edit was to try to reflect what the source was saying about the moralist versus the consequentialist view. What's there now is lacking in that respect. Big Large Monster (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I can make an educated guess--I've seen the "deontological vs. consequentialist" thing in a number of books/articles. Today is the first time I've heard of "libertarian moralists".

"My edit was to try to reflect what the source was saying about the moralist versus the consequentialist view." I get it, I just don't want the use of "libertarian moralists" because (a) it's rarer and (b) it's unnecessary to use 2 terms for the same thing (so we might as well just use "deontological" throughout the article. Also, we haven't introduced this term in the article yet (I think). I'll put your edit back in with the relevant change. Byelf2007 (talk) May 21 2012

Ok but I don't see why you didn't do that in the first place instead of reverting the whole thing. Big Large Monster (talk) 22:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Fifelfoo said "please consult Murray et al 2005 before changing content over citations.", so I thought his issue with the edit was over something other than the "libertarian moralists" term itself (something more substantive). Byelf2007 (talk) May 21 2012

No prob man. Big Large Monster (talk) 23:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

One of the purposes for edit summaries is to indicate if you've consulted the source listed against the claim you're changing :). Glad to see people are improving the article. Maybe they could bring that citation into style and see if there isn't a readily available online copy of it that is reliable. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Libertarians support limited, constitutional government

Thus libertarians are not “anti-government.” Libertarians support limited, constitutional government—limited not just in size but, of far greater importance, in the scope of its powers.

--David Boaz This essay originally appeared in the July/August 1998 issue of Cato Policy Report. [3]

--Born2cycle (talk) 01:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

IIRC Cato Policy Report is neither scholarly nor peer reviewed. Ulrich's confirms this. The Cato Journal (0273-3072) is peer reviewed though. I don't think that this is sufficient to WEIGHT the topic of this article, but it does represent a major position found in the scholarship. I'm not sure if we should hang such weight on Cato Policy Report though. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that it is an accurate statement (true 99% of the time) regarding people in the USA who would call themselves one-word libertarians. And somewhat true on a world scale, since most such people are in the USA. This is not because USA folks have any monopoly on such thinking, it's because elsewhere people with that mindset usually call themselves liberals. Obviously "liberal" has a very different common meaning in the USA vs. elsewhere. North8000 (talk) 09:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Time magazine and the NY Times are neither scholarly nor peer reviewed either, but this encyclopedia is riddled with legitimate citations to material in them. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that Fifelfoo has higher source-quality standards than Wikipedia in general. I say this with both admiration and sometimes disagreement. But, that said, I don't think that Boaz was trying to give an overall definition of libertarianism there. I think that he was talking about what the common-type libertarian response would be to the "anti-government" statement. North8000 (talk) 17:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The NY Times has editorial oversight and fact-checking, and publishes corrections for errors when they are found. We should not use political think-tanks as sources. BTW everyone today claims to support "limited, constitutional government". In fact "limited, constitutional" is a redundancy, because constitutions place limits on government. TFD (talk) 18:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

My 2 cents. Just talking in general (not this particular case where I think that their comments were taken out of context) Once one puts it in the context of / accounts for any biases, I'd consider expert writers at a think tank to be several levels above the NYT as a quality source in a somewhat academic/technical areas such as this. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

agreed, if "mainstream" is the current system deployed, i suggest it will soon fall out of favor, and perhaps Austrian will become "mainstream". Darkstar1st (talk) 22:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Bodily integrity

Bodily integrity is a good way to describe libertarianism because it is specific and concise. Pass a Method talk 13:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

According to what?/On what authority? We only go by reliable sources here. Furthermore, I could say libertarianism includes "advocacy of eating bananas" because that's specific and concise.

The reason the first sentence (or definition sentence) currently is the way it is is because a lot of users have been splitting hairs over it for months. It's stayed the same for a couple months now, which is rather unprecedented. If you can find several reliable sources that include "bodily integrity" or similar, that's enough to get a good discussion going. Even then, it wouldn't be enough to alone justify inclusion because there is no general agreement on what "libertarian" means. The only way we can really get there is by going over all the reliable sources we can find and only then come up with a *general* definition that seems correct, or at least better than any other idea any of us can come up with.

The current first sentence is the result of a lot of research and discussion on the part of many different users. Please familiarize yourself with the discussion in the archives and the various definitions of libertarianism (from reliable sources) before you conclude that "bodily integrity" is generally considered a part of libertarianism.

If you do reach that conclusion, please take your case to talk before putting the content in (because of the contentious editing history of this article, and the lede in particular, and the first sentence very very in particular). Byelf2007 (talk) 1 June 2012

The point of WP:NOTDICTIONARY

I changed the lead from this version (Libertarianism refers to the group of political philosophies which emphasize freedom, liberty, and voluntary association) to this one (Libertarianism is the group of political philosophies which emphasize freedom, liberty, and voluntary association). That earned me a revert with the bizarre edit summary, "there is no singular coherent definition in the scholarly literature, multiple partly reconcileable terms are in debate, and this article discusses both the terms and their referrants. Do bother to read the article & talk." The point of my edit should have been perfectly clear. This is an article about Libertarianism, not the word "Libertarianism." That's why we say that Libertarianism is a group of political philosophies which emphasize freedom, not that it refers to them. Whether there is a single accepted definition of libertarianism or not has nothing to do with the issue of whether is is preferable to "refers to". If there is no single accepted definition, then the version that Fifelfoo reverted back to is equally as unacceptable as mine, since wording Fifelfoo seems to like ("Libertarianism refers to the group of political philosophies which emphasize freedom, liberty, and voluntary association") also implies that there is an accepted definition. Fifelfoo's reason for reverting me was wrong, and his version of the lead just looks dumb and unencyclopedic. Someone should revert him in turn. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 08:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Except it isn't. Show me the coherent singular object of inquiry this article refers to? It doesn't. Your proposed edit amounts to reification: saying that something is a thing which is not a thing. Perhaps you haven't read the article's talk page archives, nor the article's history, nor the key secondary sources. I suggest you do, because at the moment you're making false arguments regarding plurals. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your reason for reverting me was not just wrong, it was completely incoherent. You seem to think that the effect of replacing "is" with "refers to" is to imply that there is no accepted definition of libertarianism. It doesn't have that effect at all - rather, it implies that there is an accepted definition, and the definition is that "libertarianism" is a word used to describe a group of political philosophies that emphasize freedom. That isn't, in any conceivable way, a more defensible position than saying that "libertarianism" is a group of political philosophies that emphasize freedom. It simply confuses the purpose of an encyclopedia with that of a dictionary, and let's be frank: it looks dumb. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 08:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that "refers to" is more accurate. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

To use 'refers' in that sentence is actually a grammatical error.

Libertarianism is a philosophy. -> CORRECT
"Libertarianism" refers to a philosophy. -> CORRECT
Libertarianism refers to a philosophy. -> INCORRECT

— goethean ॐ 21:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I sort of prefer what you put in, but we never really settled it here. North8000 (talk) 21:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I think polisher has made a completely valid point, that is, when you describe something, it is better to say it "is" than it "refers to". His point has little to do with coherent definitions or anything, but with the assumption of a definition to begin an encyclopedic article. I understand, though, that saying it refers to a group of philosophies gives a better idea to the reader that, mind you, we`re not really sure if libertarianism really is that, many of us seem to know for sure what it is but they don`t agree on their definition, and nevertheless we`re pretty sure it refers to it, that is, people use that word when referring to one or more of those philosophies. That we know.

It is just a rhetoric expedient, and a good one, for suggesting to the reader that this article doesn`t really define precisely what libertarianism is and then analyses the subject, but it does at least talk about those philosophies that people call libertarianism and gives a summary of the discussion on their relatedness, causing confusion and, occasionally, hilarious uproar among those who came here quite sure they knew what libertarianism was all about. Again, mind you, it would be nice to say it more clearly to the reader instead of using rhetorical artifices in the hope people will get the idea. Nice, but surely against the wp guidelines. So we settle for this for now, until the new meaning of the word becomes so widespread that anti-propertarians find it increasingly difficult to maintain the original meaning against the overwhelming uproar of people who wants nothing to do with evil socialism and finally, out of pure tiredness, the new majority wins the word struggle and starts telling old-school libertarians that want to change the page to read all the ever-increasing talk discussion before questioning the new orthodoxy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco.natalino (talk • contribs) 16:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I changed the beginning to "is". I think this solves the problem. A recent version I reverted implies that there's general consensus about what the definition is (as if it's one single philosophy), when it's not -- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libertarianism&diff=510506429&oldid=510347910 Byelf2007 (talk) 5 September 2012

Concur. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Didn't analyze the background but it looks good. Lets try to give it a bit of stability. North8000 (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Libertarian Communism

To anarchists and those familiar with anarchist historiography the existence of the term "libertarian communism" is almost a banal fact. Nevertheless I understand that US users and readers of this encyclopedia closer or more formed with the US right libertarian view of things might be unfamiliar or surprised with the existence of the term. For those with doubts about this i direct them to the google search page with the word "libertarian communism" so as to leave any doubts on how widespread the use of the term is. Those who check this will find many political manifestos from the early 20th century onwards titled with that word as well as other uses. Also here is the google search of the word "comunismo libertario" in spanish and the word "communisme libertaire". As far as the contemporary US there exists the organization called Common Struggle – Libertarian Communist Federation which shows the term is also in use in the US. One could even argue that a big part of the contemporary use and past use of the word "libertarian" has been alongside the word "communism". As such libertarian communism has to be dealt with in the wikipedia article "libertarianism", otherwise it will suffer from a big disconnection with reality. More important facts and references on the use of the word:

"Anarchist communism is also known as anarcho-communism, communist anarchism, or, sometimes, libertarian communism.""Anarchist communism - an introduction" by Libcom.org

"The terms libertarian communism and anarchist communism thus became synonymous within the international anarchist movement as a result of the close connection they had in Spain (with libertarian communism becoming the prevalent term).""Anarchist Communism & Libertarian Communism" by Gruppo Comunista Anarchico di Firenze. from "L'informatore di parte", No.4, October 1979, quarterly journal of the Gruppo Comunista Anarchico di Firenze

"The 'Manifesto of Libertarian Communism' was written in 1953 by Georges Fontenis for the Federation Communiste Libertaire of France. It is one of the key texts of the anarchist-communist current." "Manifesto of Libertarian Communism" by Georges Fontenis

"In 1926 a group of exiled Russian anarchists in France, the Delo Truda (Workers' Cause) group, published this pamphlet. It arose not from some academic study but from their experiences in the 1917 Russian revolution." "The Organizational Platform of the Libertarian Communists" by Delo Truda--Eduen (talk) 06:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that something like what you just wrote in the talk page (but sourced) would be a good addition to the article. However, what I see in the article is a giant new section on "anarcho-communism" with libertarianism not even discussed. Even if the the linkage were made IMHO it is clearly wp:undue. Also contrary to our discussion/consensus of degree of anarchism covered in libertarianism article. I feel obliged to revert but would support a smaller addition if more of a linkage (such as you made in the talk page) with libertarianism were established. in the article text. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Now i think it fits this article more correctly since it emphasizes the history of the use of the word "libertarian communism" alongside that of "anarcho-communism" and how they became synonyms. Also the inclusion of the photo of Joseph Dejacque´s publication "le Libertaire" is clearly important for the article "libertarianism".--Eduen (talk) 01:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me. North8000 (talk) 15:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

That is because this article misses the second key unifying principle of Libertarism besides "freedom of action": complete simplification of social rules and interactions. Like all political argument people tend to skip over consideration of the fundamental principles/philosophy and get bogged down in the specifics of the latest suggestion for practical implementation. Thus controversy, often based on social history, about which is simpler: the concept of private property limited by your ability to enforce possession or communal ownership limited by ability to prevent private usage or first come first served usage? There is however much agreement about common concepts like making economics extremely simple by declaring a fixed prices and a constant value money supply based on rare non-consumable physical items (gold, silver, diamonds). Many of those concepts provide indirect backing for other desired circumstances such as enforcing population limits (average money per family drops as population rises) to keep social interaction simple and time spent on government meetings short (towns <400 voters). In fact a return to a rural-small town society should be considered a corollary principle of Libertarism, a necessity, to limit complexity of social interactions -- although a more social or cosmopolitan libertarian might well tour several widely separated locations on a regular basis to tend to various businesses or family affairs. 72.182.15.249 (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Section "Influential libertarian philosophers"

My suggestion is that we delete this section since the article itself gives an enourmous amount of names of theorists and activists. Let´s let the reader himself/herself choose which theorist to read about and the historical section to point out to the most important theorists. also I suggest this in order to avoid a discussion on whether this list is biased towards libertarian socialists or right wing libertarians--Eduen (talk) 01:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose I like having the section there. It provides the reader with a very quick overview of the most influential thinkers of libertarianism.

"Let's let the reader himself/herself choose which theorist to read about"

Having the influential theorists section doesn't prevent that.

"I suggest this in order to avoid a discussion on whether this list is biased towards libertarian socialists or right wing libertarians"

This wouldn't stop this discussion from going on w/ the history section. As I see it, as long we strive for there to be no bias, there won't be (regardless of the distribution of left/right on the list--all we'll be concerned with is which persons were very influential). Byelf2007 (talk) 20 June 2012

Well then I have to question why someone decided to delete the main theorist of libertarian communism and one of the main classical theorists of anarchism such as Peter Kropotkin but instead we include a secondary theorist of neoliberalism like Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Fredrick Bastiat also seems to be a liberal economist of interest mainly to those with a particularly dedicated interest to that segment of economics. And why we don´t have Emma Goldman here, the main anarcha-feminist and Joseph Dejacque who published the first publication with the name "libertarian". But besides that I continue to support the deletion of this section.--Eduen (talk) 20:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that this list is good, even if immensely hard to manage who goes in. Eduen, if you think some of those are major with respect to libertarianism, IMO you should put them in. North8000 (talk) 20:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I also oppose.75.200.93.160 (talk) 10:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I oppose simply because most so-called philosophers are not in fact philosophers discussing basic principles - but merely the oldest advocates of particular implementations discussing details and effects of practical implementation of principles only briefly mentioned. Again this article fails to mention the second key unifying principle of Libertarian-ism besides "freedom of action": complete simplification of social rules and interactions so that decisions about actions can be made with minimal secular contemplation -- complicated only by personal moral or ethical considerations. Libertarian-ism not about freedom to manipulate a society of complex rules. Or that a return to a rural-small town society should be considered a corollary principle of Libertarian-ism, a necessity, to limit complexity of social interactions.72.182.15.249 (talk) 20:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

On the inclusion of the US Libertarian Party views in the Introduction

"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." From libertarian socialist views this affirmation is clearly foreign to their views. As I read the Us Libertarian Party article in wikipedia it is clear that there must not be a single libertarian socialist there since that party´s main issue seems to be defense of unregulated capitalism. As such the sentence dealing with the views of that particular organization belong maybe in the right libertarianism article´s introduction but not in this one. The same thing could be argued if someone decided to include in the introduction something like "Libertarianism advocates the expropriation of the capitalist class". Then someone could rightly say "that sentence could go on the libertarian socialism or the anarcho-communism article´s introduction but not here". The introduction of an article on a political philosophy has to do provide a summary of the main views shared by all currents. For example this doesn´t happen with the Roderick T. Long affirmation even though he seems to come from the US right wing libertarian side.--Eduen (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that you reading things into it that are not there, and that that is important to the discussion at hand. That sentence pretty much states the common tenets of (non-anarchist) libertarians. Which is pretty much what the USLP is about. Even in the 2,000 words of their very detailed platform there is nothing in there about support of capitalism being a part of their action items/agenda. I think that core of the fireworks that this article went through in 2010 and the continued unease with it is that it fails to cover what I call the ~40 or ~60 million US "vague libertarians" whose libertarian philosophy in 4 words" "less government, more freedom." and couldn't even name a libertarian philosopher or any of the philosophical strands in this article. IMHO the article and lead needs to address this. The USLP is merely a prominent source for it. But, addressing your point directly, first this is an opinion attributed to the USLP, not something stated as a universal fact in the voice of Wikipedia. Second, I think that it states common tenets that do not conflict, except possibly that it accepts the existence of government which would be in conflict with anarchists. Would appreciate your thoughts on this. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

PS / sidebar In the US, "right wing libertarian" is an oxymoron. North8000 (talk) 21:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The US Libertarian Party is Socially Left-Wing, and Economically Right-Wing, and therefore certainly not that (largely fictitious construct) known as "Right-Libertarianism." It is the largest Libertarian organization, and therefore also likely the "kind" of Libertarian that most people coming to this page are looking for more information about. It is certainly at least as prominent a position as that of Noam Chomsky, also in the lead. While the page should not necessarily be completely "American-Centric," the USLP, and US definition of Libertarianism, should at the very least have equal footing with that of the other, generally smaller, groups outside of the USA (especially since these other forms of Libertarianism are usually "qualified," such as with "Libertarian Socialist" or what not). --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 21:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The gorilla in the living room (or Rosetta stone) that we're slowly learning here, and will need to deal with, is that the common meaning of libertarianism varies depending on which side of the pond that you're on, and this is because the same goes for the common meaning of liberalism. (But libertarianism everywhere has some common tenets. ) In the USA, the word for the 10's of millions of people who simply want and prioritize less government/more freedom is "libertarian" and so THAT (and ONLY that) is the common meaning of the term there. In Europe, those people are called liberals, (note: this is the opposite of the US meaning of "liberal" regarding the size of government). So, in Europe, the common meaning of "libertarian" is NOT them, it is the smaller specialty groups and philosophies such as anarchists etc..

So, not only is the meaning different, but the whole approach of trying to deal with the largest group of libertarians (USA) via talking particular philosophies , philosophers, views on other topics (e.g. capitalism) is approaching the topic with the wrong somewhat irrelevant toolbox. We need to cover all of the major libertarian meanings, philosophies etc.; when trying to do so I think it will be useful to keep this in mind. North8000 (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

My Point here is that the US Libertarian Party view of things is not representative of libertarian socialism and so it doesn´t belong in the introduction for this article since this article has to deal with both pro-capitalist and anti-capitalist view of things. I think that sentence could go in one of the section that deals with the US pro-capitalist liberals but is clearly out of place if it is applied to libertarian socialist views and so if a distinction is not made, it cannot go in the introduction.--Eduen (talk) 00:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

libertarian-socialism is a tiny minority, US libertarian party is not, the coverage should reflect such in the ENGLISH version. even the french/spanish versions of wikipedia have nothing about anti-capitalist libertarians, instead they mention anti-statist and lassie-faire. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Eduen, regarding that statement in the lead, which of these do you think makes it inappropriate for the lead:?

The core statement: "libertarianism is the advocacy of a government that is funded voluntarily and limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence."
The in-text attribution or mention of the USLP
Use of a USLP item as the reference

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

In addition, there are a few other issues here:

US Libertarians, represented ideologically by the USLP, are far greater in number than Libertarian Socialists, or any other group describing themselves as "(Qualifier)-Libertarian."
Libertarian Socialists generally describe themselves thusly, rather than simply as "Libertarians."
The paragraph in question is about various definitions of "Libertarianism," so the definition used by the greatest amount of people is certainly warranted.
As previously noted, since the majority of people coming to this page are likely to be coming to learn what Americans mean by the term "Libertarianism," it should have some form of prominent sentence in the lead, and this tiny sentence, at the end of a paragraph of other definitions, is pretty much the bare minimum required.

In fact, it seems pretty POV to try to make it seem like the US definition is some sort of minor fringe view, when it is in fact the dominant one in terms of adherents. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 14:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

My main thought is that the general common tenets ((prioritizing) less government, more freedom) should be prominent in the lead and more prominent in the rest of the article. For me the other details are secondary. North8000 (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Darkstar1st said:"libertarian-socialism is a tiny minority, US libertarian party is not, the coverage should reflect such in the ENGLISH version."

I have to confess that I don´t understand to what specific place you refer to when you say "Libertarian socialism is a tiny minority". As it has already been accepted in this article a long time ago it is only in the US that the word "libertarian" tends to be mostly associated with deregulated capitalism or neoliberalism. In the rest of the world those views tend to be classified as "economic liberalism" and "neoliberalism". Even in other english speaking countries such as Canada, Australia and the UK both of these uses of "libertarian" exist and in non english speaking countries (which account for millions of users). I suggest you check this long explanation and support for all of this so you can get informed about this situation here. As such this is the english version of wikipedia and that means that we should account for all uses in the english language and not just those of the US. This is an old discussion already and so we should move forward.--Eduen (talk) 22:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

"Eduen, regarding that statement in the lead, which of these do you think makes it inappropriate for the lead:?

The core statement: "libertarianism is the advocacy of a government that is funded voluntarily and limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence."

It is clear that this sentence is not appropriate for the lead. The introduction of an article of political philosophy should focus in what the different tendencies within a philosophy have in common and if differences are dealt with there has to be a brief explanation of what factions agree with one or other position. For example if we were dealing with Christianity we will have to explain how Catholicism supports the Pope while Protestantism does not and that the Orthodox Churches have national clergies and churches that separated from Catholicism at some point in history.

In libertarian socialist schemes the question of who "funds" the state is strange or simply irrelevant since most of libertarian socialism is againts the nation-state itself and since most of it tend to the elimination or at least an important suppression of money itself and taxes. On the other part of the sentence by the US Libertarian Party, in libertarian socialist communes and federations the economy is thought to be composed of worker controlled enterprises and worker´s and communal councils and so libertarian socialist theories do speak of more things than just "protecting individuals from coercion and violence." As such just as in the Christianity article we cannot say something like "Christianity is a religion which consists in the acceptance of the authority of the Pope and the Catholic Church" we cannot say here that Libertarianism is about this liberal 19th century view of the "nightwatchman state" that the US libertarian party supports.--Eduen (talk) 22:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

"As previously noted, since the majority of people coming to this page are likely to be coming to learn what Americans mean by the term "Libertarianism," it should have some form of prominent sentence in the lead, and this tiny sentence, at the end of a paragraph of other definitions, is pretty much the bare minimum required...In fact, it seems pretty POV to try to make it seem like the US definition is some sort of minor fringe view, when it is in fact the dominant one in terms of adherents.Bryon Morrigan -- "

It almost sounds like a small case of US linguistic imperialism the way you make this sound. In Latin American countries there exists almost three times as much as the population of the US and there what you in the US call "libertarians" there they tend to call themselves and get called "liberals". As far as the other non-US english speaking countries which account for millions of persons, the uses of the word libertarian happen both to deal with right wing neoliberalism as much as to anti-authoritarian forms of socialism and communism. Anyway I am open to read the numerical and statistical evidence that supports this affirmation that "the dominant one in terms of adherents." Outside the US, liberals (or libertarians in the right wing US view) are very careful in associating themselves with the word libertarian since there very often is associated with Black Bloc anarchist vandals and people propagandizing for things like "libertarian socialism" and "libertarian communism". In Spain if you say the word "libertarian" is is most likely that people will get images in their heads of anarchist squats and Spanish Civil War anarchist militias rather than yuppies or supporters of "austrian economics".--Eduen (talk) 22:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

"Spain if you say the word "libertarian" is is most likely", is this your opinion? did your read the spanish wp article? Darkstar1st (talk) 23:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Eduen, thanks for your thoughtful response and there is a lot of good stuff in what you wrote. However, in the points which you made to support the thought that "the US does not have the biggest numbers of libertarians", I believe that you actually reinforced the point that I was making. I believe that you were essentially saying that there are a huge amount of simply "less government, more freedom" people outside of the US, and that they are called liberals, and that they are actually libertarians. Thus that that meaning of libertarianism is immensely prominent/predominant. (?) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

But the use of words is important and so if they call themselves and get called "liberals" then they are an issue of the "liberalism" article (or of the "neoliberalism" article). This article should deal with people who actually call themselves "libertarian" and not to those who, according to the particular exceptional US use of the word, "should" be calling themselves "libertarian". As far as spanish language wikipedia I have to say that it is much less reliable than the english language wikipedia but anyway the article in spanish wikipedia called "Uses of the word libertarian" will give you both the anarchist anti-capitalist use and the US liberal pro-capitalist use. But I advise you to just type the word "libertario" and "libertarios" in google and you will get lots of anti-capitalist and libertarian communist things. These are the things I get when I type the word "libertario" in Google:

1. "libertarismo" spanish wikipedia article 2. "socialismo libertario" spanish wikipedia article 3. The venezuelan anarchist newspaper called "El Libertario". This particular publication is critical of the Hugo Chavez regime but mainly because it thinks it is "reinforcing capitalism" and so it is clear it is an anti-capitalist anarchist publication. 4. A spanish website of anarchist events and culture called "munod libertario". No pro-capitalist things will be found here 5. An argentinian party called "Liberal Libertarian Party". It is not a party that has parlamentary representation but it does seem to adhere to laizzes faire capitalist economics. We have to note though how they also call themselves "liberal" as well as "libertarian" 6. a website called "Socialismo libertario" 7. "Directorio Libertario". A website with addresses of anarchist groups in the spanish speaking world 8. "Portal Libertario OACA". A spanish website which has news and articles from a clear anti-capitalist libertarian point of view. 9. "frente Ateo Libertario". It could be translated as "Libertarian Atheist Front" and it is a facebook account which distributes content mainly related with anti-religion, atheism, freethought, science and rationalism. As such its focus is not really economics.

It is clear how extended the use of "libertarian" is of anarchist anti-capitalists in the spanish speaking world and this happens in other languages such as french and portuguese also. So it is clear we are providing wrong information to the readers of this article if we decide to use the definition of the US Libertarian Party in the introduction without pointing out that this particular definition is restricted to a US specific situation.--Eduen (talk) 07:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

you inadvertently merged the term "English" with "US". this is not the US WP site, it is the english speaking wp site. if you have spanish additions, the spanish site is where they belong. this article is about the english and the English translated rs on libertarians. Darkstar1st (talk) 11:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC) Darkstar1st (talk) 11:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit conflict, responding only to Eduen: I agree with 90% of everything you just wrote and that it useful for the development of the article. I think that it useful to address the other 10% plus one area where I think that you are disagreeing with yourself. A core issue here is "Is an article about a word, or is it about a distinct subject that exists separately independent of the word, or is it somewhere in between?" Guidelines lean towards "about a distinct subject that exists separately independent of the word" but the reality is that for 10's of thousands of articles (including this one) the reality here MUST be "somewhere in between". Strands that include the word in their name should be included unless are in conflict with the basic meaning of the subject. On the beginning of the post, I agree with you (basically saying that "if it isn't called libertarian, then it isn't libertarian"), but you are basically arguing against yourself, or at least against what you put in your previous post. So, then the question is "Are "libertarismo" and "Libertario" libertarian?" My short answer is "they are different words with a different meaning (e.g. not a direct translation) than "libertarainism"; the topics that they cover should be included in the article, but, being different words, that their definitions should not drive any definition of "libertarianism". Much as "BMW" can be in the "automobile" article, but is not used to define the word "automobile".

You keep repeating what I believe to be a misunderstanding, essentially saying the "pro-capitalism" is a part of US type libertarianism agenda. It ISN'T. I don't know where you get that from.

Finally, on the text in question, I think that most folks that want it in there want it in there because it states the agenda of what I'd guess to be 90% of one-word libertarians and a common tenet of 100% of belief sets (if you acknowledge that "less government" includes "zero government") that belong in the article. Less government, more freedom. Period, end of platform. Getting something like it from the USLP is merely a wiki-way to do that. North8000 (talk) 11:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

As far as "less government more freedom" that will be fine with libertarian socialism but the introduction has more sophisticated and better sourced affirmations which are fine. The problem is the US libertarian party definition which is restricted to a neoliberal pro-capitalist view of things. As far as "libertario" and "libertarian" being different words, well. They tend towards an affirmation of "liberty" and "libertad" and so they are synonyms. Of course there is a conflict if a supporter of laissez faire capitalism says his politics are libertarian while an anarcho-communist also calls his politics libertarian ("Libertarian communism). So for a neutral point of view to be achieved in this article the US Libertarian party either has to be contextualized or it just has to go be deleted from the introduction. As far as "one word libertarianism" many anarchists also call themselves just "libertarians" (spanish:"libertarios", french: "libertaire") and will refer to the US pro-capitalist "libertarians" as neoliberals or "pro-capitalist libertarians".

As proof of anarchist use of "one word libertarianism" I refer those debating here to one of the most important historic books on anarchism in the english language. Anarchism: A History Of Libertarian Ideas And Movements written by the canadian George Woodcock. No pro-capitalist authors are dealt there or are included as being part of anarchism and as such of "libertarianism". And in the US there exists from the mid 20th century until today the "Libertarian Book Club" in New York City. In a usual self-description they clearly state that "We are not right-wing, capital-L Libertarians. We are left-wing anarchists. When LBC was founded in 1946, the word "libertarian" had not yet been co-opted by the free-market right, and was basically a synonym for "anti-authoritarian" or "anarchist." We stubbornly refuse to surrender the name."[4]. And they seem to be active until today since this link[5] leads to an event they organized in Tuesday, May 15, 2012.--Eduen (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I think we're mostly in agreement, and I'll have a more thorough response later, but one little question. Where do you see "pro-capitalist" in these 18 words?: "the advocacy of a government that is funded voluntarily and limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence" North8000 (talk) 20:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Heh I once heard a Libertarian describe prehistoric caveman as the ideal practitioner of US Libertarianism - with groups voluntarily associating to form hunting groups and protect children ...or if the hunting group members or tactics irritate him wandering off in the night with half the tribe's food. And at voluntary group level said tribe either deciding to waste time hunting him down and kill him ...or deciding to let him go and spend the time on more profitable hunting of fresh food. No imprisonment or complicated court procedure. The good life is simple. 72.182.15.249 (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

North8000 said: "Where do you see 'pro-capitalist' in these 18 words?: 'the advocacy of a government that is funded voluntarily and limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence'"

If I may interject my two cents...

I see 'pro-capitalist' in that sentence because a government that is funded voluntarily (i.e., no mandatory taxation) and limited only to protecting individuals from coercion and violence (i.e., no additional regulation over people's lives or businesses) does not (cannot, under those stipulations) regulate, control, or inhibit people's freedom to voluntarily exchange goods and services as they wish, unless it somehow inflicts force or fraud upon someone. That said, I do think it should be included.

Also -- and forgive me if this concern was already raised; I seemed to have missed a lot of this debate -- but I find the initial heading sentence, "Libertarianism refers to the group of political philosophies that emphasize freedom, liberty, and voluntary association without violent coercion" unnecessarily vague when compared to the previous: "Libertarianism is a political philosophy that upholds individual liberty, especially freedom of expression and action. Libertarianism includes diverse beliefs and organizations, all advocating minimization of the state and sharing the goal of maximizing individual liberty and freedom." Those two sentences seem to express a commonality between the various strains of libertarianism throughout the world as well as articulating the fact that there are diverse schools of thought, so I don't quite understand why it was removed.

Furthermore, "violent coercion" is sort of a redundant use of terms, as coercion implies the threat of force/violence if one does not comply. --Adam9389 (talk) 14:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your first point, I don't see any argument there for including "pro-capitalism" as a part of the definition. I think I took it out. IMHO it should not be in the because it is not a defining tenet. Regarding the rest of your points, I agree. I think that the first sentences have been messed with a zillion times. Half of those times nobody disagreed and the new one stayed in to become the version-of-he week. IMHO you should just change it, but leave out the "pro-capitalism". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Understood. Glad we can agree on the latter. I will change it and if anyone has any objections, they can voice them here. --Adam9389 (talk) 16:39, 02 September 2012 (UTC)

^ Puddington, p. 142. After a dozen years of center-left Liberal Party rule, the Conservative Party emerged from the 2006 parliamentary elections with a plurality and established a fragile minority government.
^ Grigsby, p. 106-7. [Talking about the Democratic Party] Its liberalism is for the most part the later version of liberalism—modern liberalism.
^ Arnold, p. 3. Modern liberalism occupies the left-of-center in the traditional political spectrum and is represented by the Democratic Party in the United States.
^ Penniman, p. 72.
^ Chodos et al., p. 9.
^ Lawrence Martin (November 22, 2011). "The great Liberal fall started long before Iggy". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved February 16, 2012.
^ Chantal Hébert (October 17, 2011). "The decline of Liberal brand in Canada continues unabated this fall". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved February 16, 2012.
^ Alterman, p. 32.
^ ^a ^b Flamm and Steigerwald, pp. 156–8.
^ Patrick Allitt, "The Conservatives", p. 253, Yale University Press, 2009, ISBN 9780300164183
^ Wolfe, p. xiv.
^ http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=LmfAPmwE6YYC&pg=PA107&dq=EU+left-wing+liberal+parties&hl=en&sa=X&ei=AZ8cT_DqCMSYhQel79GyDA&ved=0CFcQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=EU%20left-wing%20liberal%20parties&f=false

[1] Puddington, p. 142. After a dozen years of center-left Liberal Party rule, the Conservative Party emerged from the 2006 parliamentary elections with a plurality and established a fragile minority government.

[2] Grigsby, p. 106-7. [Talking about the Democratic Party] Its liberalism is for the most part the later version of liberalism—modern liberalism.

[3] Arnold, p. 3. Modern liberalism occupies the left-of-center in the traditional political spectrum and is represented by the Democratic Party in the United States.

[4] Penniman, p. 72.

[5] Chodos et al., p. 9.

[6] Lawrence Martin (November 22, 2011). "The great Liberal fall started long before Iggy". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved February 16, 2012.

[7] Chantal Hébert (October 17, 2011). "The decline of Liberal brand in Canada continues unabated this fall". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved February 16, 2012.

[8] Alterman, p. 32.

[Flamm_and_Steigerwald,_pp._156–8-9] Flamm and Steigerwald, pp. 156–8.

[10] Patrick Allitt, "The Conservatives", p. 253, Yale University Press, 2009, ISBN 9780300164183

[11] Wolfe, p. xiv.

[12] ttp://books.google.co.uk/books?id=LmfAPmwE6YYC&pg=PA107&dq=EU+left-wing+liberal+parties&hl=en&sa=X&ei=AZ8cT_DqCMSYhQel79GyDA&ved=0CFcQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=EU%20left-wing%20liberal%20parties&f=false

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]