Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:47, 18 November 2008

	Libertarianism is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 25, 2005.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 19, 2004 Refreshing brilliant prose Not kept March 20, 2005 Peer review Reviewed May 11, 2005 Featured article candidate Promoted August 16, 2005 Featured article review Kept January 15, 2007 Featured article review Demoted October 24, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed Current status: Former featured article

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Software: Computing

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Template:V0.5

Archives
Archive 1	Archive 2
Archive 3	Archive 4
Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8
Archive 9	Archive 10
Archive 11
Talk:Libertarian, discussion for a page which has been merged with this article.
Talk:Libertarianism/Alfrem, discussion prior to the ArbCom decision banning User:Alfrem from this article.
Talk:Libertarianism/Page move, a July 2005 vote on a proposal to make libertarianism a disambiguation page and move this to Libertarianism (capitalist).

Libertarian is anarchism throughout the world except in US

Whole section moved to Talk Archive 11, however, list of references in that section duplicated here

It is not a myth that "Libertarian" has its origins in European anarcho-communism over a century ago;
It is not a myth that anarchists generally don't form political parties, which would tend to bias current naming-results in favour of minarchist capitalists who have relatively recently adopted the term for themselves;
It is not a myth that a significant section of relatively recent American individualist libertarians - including those associated with minarchist or anarchist capitalism, such as Wendy MacElroy, Murray Rothbard and various writers for "Liberty" Magazine - draw upon the works of libertarian socialists such as Benjamin Tucker, Emma Goldman, and others;
It is not a myth that left-wing organisations and personalities have used the term in reference to their ideas throughout the years:
Current -
- International of Anarchist Federations;
- International Workers Association;
- Freien Arbeiterinnen und Arbeiterunion;
- Confederacion Nacional del Trabajo;
- Unione Sindacale Italiana;
- International Libertarian Solidarity;
- Workers Solidarity Movement;
- "The Pierre J. Proudhon Memorial Computer";
- various International Workers of the World;
- Noam Chomsky;
- 1980's: Sam Dolgoff, "Libertarian Labor Review";
- France (Paris, Nanterre, and Bretagne), Italy, Lebanon & Belgium: "Libertarian Alternative";
- England: "Soliderity: A Journal of Libertarian Socialism";
- George Woodcock, 1962: "Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements" (9 years before formation of US Libertarian Party);
- Cuba, 1959: an anti-capitalist, anti-state organisation - "Libertarian Association of Cuba";
- 1950's: George Fontenis - "The Manifesto of Libertarian Communism";
- New York City, July 1954: Russell Blackwell, Esther and Sam Dolgoff formed "the Libertarian League", (for a short time Murray Bookchin was member);
- 1949, Gregory P. Maximoff: the Libertarian Book Club;
- Spanish Civil War (1936-1939): coalition group - the United Libertarian Organisations (ULO), spread information about revolutionary anarchist activities in Spain;
- Spain, 1932 Issac Puente: pamphlet "Libertarian Communism";
- 1936 Saragossa conference on the eve of the Spanish Revolution: CNT adopted libertarian communism as its goal;
- France, 1926: Dielo Trouda group of anarchists who had fled Russia - "Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists";
- "Libertarian League" in the 1920's: mutualist libertarian organisation;
- 1895: Sebastien Faure, founded "Le Libertaire";
- 1858: Joseph Dejacque, anarcho-communist;
- Webster's New International Dictionary, 'Libertarian' is: "One who holds to the principle of free will; also, one who upholds the principles of liberty, esp. individual liberty of thought and action."
- Dean Russell, Foundation for Economic Education - "Ideas on Liberty" May, 1955: "Who is a Libertarian?" advocated that the right should "trademark and reserve for our own use the good and honorable word 'libertarian.'"
Whether it is intended or not, the article as it stands is effectively special pleading, does not have a neutral point-of-view, and is a political airbrushing of history. Clearly, "libertarian" has a much broader usage and context than is suggested - Misplaced Pages is not the Global Patent - or official Trademarking - office; even if it were, it would be questionable whether it could assign "libertarian" as apparently desired by the current article's viewpoint. Oisinoc (talk) 00:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Libertarianism in the United States - and the World!

Whole section moved to Talk Archive 11, however, list of references in that section duplicated here

First, common sense suggests that if an organisation says it's "libertarian", then we don't need a quote from an academic journal to prove it, moreover, if organisations are cross-referencing one another in such a manner, such common use within a milieu is also important, even if all organisations do not have the term in their title or manifestos; second, it simply isn't tenable in this day and age to suggest that only organisations or persons speaking english count! This would exclude whole continents of knowledge from Misplaced Pages (did Jesus speak English?); this might be a factor where there were very different meanings attached to a similar sounding word or phrase (e.g. "Notary Public"/"Notario Publico" in US/Mexico), or if similar meanings attached to different words; but "libertario" e.g. is used in the same context and manner in Spanish as it's etymological counterpart "libertarian" is in English; thirdly, it is not actually up to the rest of the world, or to critics of the current bias, that they should have to seek permission to use "libertarianism" - the burden of proof actually lies on the excluders to justify their effective trademarking of this term; it is a dictionary term, not a trademark, not a patented idea. Neither the descendants of Karl Marx, nor the current Communist Party of Great Britain presume to have the final - or first - veto on what goes into the "Communism" entry, for example.

OK, references of current international organisations and people using "libertarian" vocab in a manner that conflicts with the aggressively unilateral and chauvinistic definition championed by the current article: (I'm just putting this here so we can all view it with our own eyes, and without messing around with the article - text is from the websites themselves, with exception of that in square brackets. I promise I will clean this up too.)

http://www.afed.org.uk/aims.html "The Anarchist Federation is an organisation of class struggle anarchists (based in Britain and Ireland, but with many contacts overseas) which aims to abolish Capitalism and all oppression to create a free and equal society. This is Anarchist Communism." "The Anarchist Federation is an organisation of revolutionary class struggle anarchists. We aim for the abolition of all hierarchy, and work for the creation of a world-wide classless society: anarchist communism... We seek to build an anarchist international to work with other libertarian revolutionaries throughout the world. " "http://www.afed.org.uk/links.html#UKIreland Aufheben - lots of in-depth articles in this libertarian communist journal. "The journal Aufheben was first produced in the UK in Autumn 1992. " Class against Class - libertarian, autonomist and council communist texts. Colchester Solidarity Group - network of Colchester-based Libertarian Socialists.

http://eventsandissues.bravehost.com/LAF.html "The LAF is an informal non-sectarian left libertarian discussion group which meets usually once a month "

WOMBLES - White Overalls Movement Building Libertarian Effective Struggles. UK based activists. http://www.wombles.org.uk/ "This site - www.wombles.org.uk - collects news and information about anti-capitalist / anarchist direct action, protests and events. The areas we try to focus on include articles on solidarity campaigns for radical prisoners, border / migration struggles, autonomous work place organising, social centres, squatted or free spaces."

http://www.wsm.ie/about_us Workers Soldarity Movement "As anarchists we see ourselves as part of a long tradition that has fought against all forms of authoritarianism and exploitation, a tradition that strongly influenced one of the most successful and far reaching revolutions in this century - in Spain in 1936 - 37. The value of this tradition cannot be underestimated today. With the fall of the Soviet Union there is renewed interest in our ideas and in the tradition of libertarian socialism generally. We hope to encourage this interest with Red & Black Revolution. We believe that anarchists and libertarian socialists should debate and discuss their ideas, that they should popularise their history and struggle, and help point to a new way forward." "In terms of helping to build a broad libertarian movement in Ireland we have continued to work in the Grassroots Gathering. We also initiated campaigns against both Nice referenda, in the second over 50,000 libertarian leaflets were distributed." "Freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice. Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality"

http://www.wsm.ie/public_newswire_1?topic=anarchistmovement "International Anarchist statement for International Workers Day 2008 Towards a new international movement of the exploited, Against neo-liberalism, against war, against hunger and poverty, For peace, food and housing for all, for safe and secure jobs, Towards the libertarian alternative!" http://www.wsm.ie/rbr Issues of irish anarchist magazine Red and Black Revolution

http://www.libcom.org/notes/about "The libcom group is a small collective of libertarian communists based in and around London, we maintain libcom.org, and as individuals are involved with a number of other groups and activity. Our name, libcom, is an abbreviation of "libertarian communism" - and its goals of liberty and community - the political current we identify with. However our primary focus is always on how best to act in the here and now to better our circumstances and protect the planet.

Libertarian communism is the political expression of the ever-present strands of co-operation and solidarity in human societies. These currents of mutual aid can be found throughout society." "Both through human co-operation in everyday life and in the large scale directly democratic ways of organising society developed by working people we see the seeds of a new kind of society. A society based not on exploitation, domination and drudgery but on free, voluntary co-operation, freedom and creativity – a libertarian communist society.

Libertarian communism is a social system where production is based on the concept "from each according to ability, to each according to need" and humanity is emancipated from all systems of economic and political authority. Where humans organise themselves from the bottom-up through the principles of face-to-face direct democracy, mandated delegation and federalism. To this end, where all society's decisions are made at the base, we focus on grassroots working class organisation and self-education today.

We identify primarily with the trends of workers' solidarity, co-operation and struggle throughout history, such as those mentioned above, whether they were self-consciously Bold textlibertarian communist (such as in Spain) or not. We are also influenced by certain specific theoretical and practical traditions, such as anarchist-communism, social ecology, anarcho-syndicalism, the Situationists, libertarian Marxism, council communism, as well as writers including Karl Marx, Peter Kropotkin, Harry Cleaver, Murray Bookchin and Anton Pannekoek."

RED LIBERTARIA. Grupo Libertario de Buenos Aires http://www.inventati.org/rlba/ "What is Red Libertaria (Libertarian Network)?"

"...we, comrades that shared their libertarian ideas, started to find each other in the struggles, all of us looking for the way to overcome the lack of libertarian spaces. And so, the last days of December 2002, the first formal meetings of Red Libertaria took place. " "Red Libertaria´s goal is anarchism´s resurgence; in the streets, in the factories and workshops, in the schools and universities, in the neighbourhoods and shambles; so that anarchism can be a revolutionary force again, a force that combats and destroys capitalism everywhere, wielding the weapons of direct action, horizontality, federalism, solidarity, self-management, freedom and equality. " "We militate in different spaces (cooperatives, unions and syndic groups, students centres and students groups, neighbourhood work groups, social and cultural centres, etc.) to strengthen popular organizations and struggles, propelling libertarian ideas and trying to make people assimilate them and, over all, practice them as their own. "

"Anarchism as a philosophic and political practice has developed a multitude of variants or tendencies throughout its century and a half of history. All of them criticize the present state of things, share rejection to the authority and have a common goal: a society of free and equal human beings. Several anarchist tendencies coexist nowadays and come together in the libertarian movement. Mainly, their differences rest up on the methods that they propose. "

"...we think that libertarians must be organized in order to be able to influence society. Isolated we would be unable to carry out any truly great action. The organization that we propose differences itself from the traditional political institutions inasmuch as hierarchies do not exist inwards: there is not a person or group who decides and another that executes. "

"Anarchists' organization must be a truly democratic organization, in which the decisions are made through assemblies. Since there's a physical limit of persons that can conform an assembly, libertarians' organization would be a federation: the unit of the multiple and relatively small nuclei, each one carrying on a particular activity, but related to the whole through periodic general meetings. Each group would relative autonomy within the framework of these basic agreements. "

"...anarchists, Red Libertaria, and the libertarian movement in general are places where we come together and discuss, plan and organize propaganda and participation in the struggles. Parallel to the libertarian movement, the popular movement develops, sometimes spontaneously, but almost always through union organizations, student groups or neighbourhood work groups in which we must participate."

"...we think that the regrouping of the libertarians is urgent; in the libertarian movement, and according to the tendency of each one, taking ahead an energetic and coordinated militant action towards the social change."

"Federación Libertaria Argentina (FLA)", Argentina Miembro de la Internacional de Federaciónes Anarquistas (Member of International of Anarchist Federations) http://www.libertario.org.ar/

Brasil 1551, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina (1154) Publications: "Acción Libertaria" 1933-1971; "El Libertario" since 1985 - http://www.libertario.org.ar/libertario.html Biblioteca Archivo de Estudios Libertarios http://www.libertario.org.ar/bael.html

La Hidra de mil cabezas. Grupo de Menoza (Argentina), con importante material y trabajo de reflexión sobre las ideas libertarias http://www.lahidrademilcabezas.com.ar/Nombre.htm

" los principios sobre los cuales se asienta nuestra organización: libertad, horizontalidad y autogestión" http://www.lahidrademilcabezas.com.ar/menu.htm "...una federación de comunas agrarias basadas en un régimen comunista libertario." ""Todos los hombres están a favor de la libertad..." "La libertad es el hombre que trastornará al mundo..." "La verdadera libertad se funda en la comunidad de espíritu y en la comunidad de bienes terrenales". "...una confraternidad universal de mujeres y hombres en libertad e igualdad..." "...el clamor de quienes se rebelan contra él es uno solo: "¡Libertad!" "

Anarres Libros / Colección Utopía Libertaria http://www.quijotelibros.com.ar/anarres.htm

Av. Corrientes 4790, Ciudad de Buenos Aires Utopía Libertaria es el nombre de una colección de libros que tanto rescata a las obras fundantes del pensamiento anarquista como actualiza esas ideas para los tiempos que nos han tocado en suerte. La colección es compartida transversalmente por varios grupos que se reclaman libertarios, y cada uno de ellos posee su propio sello editorial.

Ateneo Libertario Virtual

"...Acceso a una gran cantidad de material que servirá para profundizar en nuestros conocimientos de historia, economía y teoría del anarquismo así como nuestros conocimientos de las grandes figuras del movimiento a través de algunas de sus obras y otros escritos". Puesto que el anarquismo no es una escuela ni un cuerpo doctrinal cerrado, no cabe esperar que los textos que señalamos defiendan las mismas ideas o expongan enfoques similares. Tienen en común nada más -y nada menos- que su orientación libertaria http://www.alasbarricadas.org/ateneovirtual/index.php/Portada

FAL Fundación de Estudios Libertarios Anselmo Lorenzo (CNT) "...el comunismo libertario..." http://www.cnt.es/fal/home.php

Talleres de Educación Libertaria en Mendoza http://hernun.com.ar/blogs/enta/2007/09/talleres_de_educacion_libertar.html

Insumiseria (San Juan) "Espacio insumiso de difusión y comunicación de ideas libertarias". http://www.insumiseria.blogspot.com/

RLAM Red Libertaria Apoyo Mutuo http://www.red-libertaria.net

"Crítica Libertaria de la Actual Coyuntura" El Grupo de Trabajo Solidaridad Libertaria de la CGT de Burgos, en su actividad solidaria y de trabajo en común con las organizaciones del anarquismo organizado e insertado socialmente de América Latina, FAU Uruguay, FAG Porto Alegre, FAO Brasil, los compañeros argentinos, etc. http://debatelibertario.blogspot.com/

Colectiva Libertaria D- Género Proyectil Fetal. Grupo Anarcofeminista Queer de Buenos Aires con varias actividades y reflexiones sobre el tema. http://www.proyectilfetal.blogspot.com/

Comisión de Relaciones Anarquistas de Venezuela. Edita el periódico El Libertario y realiza múltiples actividades que irradia a toda latinoamérica. http://www.nodo50.org/ellibertario/

El Libertario es realizado desde 1995 por un colectivo editorial libertario, difundiendo las actividades ácratas y sociales autónomas del continente Libertario- Periodico de los movimientos sociales atonomos http://www.nodo50.org/ellibertario/english.htmlds

LIBERTAD. Grupo anarquista de Buenos Aires "Pagina electronica del grupo anarquista libertad" Por la revolucion social y el comunismo anarquico http://www.geocities.com/grupo_libertad/

KOLECTIVO UTOPIA ACRATA LIBERTARIO (Jujuy) http://kual.com.ar/ PROYECCION DE PELICULAS : “ LIBERTARIAS“ “VIVIR LA UTOPIA“ VENTA DE MATERIAL LIBERTARIO

OSL. Organización Socialista Libertaria (Buenos Aires, Argentina): http://www.osl.org.ar 15 de Noviembre 1164, Buenos Aires, Ar.

FICEDL. FEDERACION INTERNACIONAL DE ARCHIVOS Y BIBLIOTECAS LIBERTARIAS http://ficedl.info/

International Libertarian Solidarity - ILS-SIL - federation of mainly platformist groups of which WSM is the Irish section. Solidarietà Internazionale Libertaria

The ILS/SIL Network The International Libertarian Solidarity network was founded in April 2001 on the initiative of the CGT. Its main purpose is international solidarity and the provision of concrete assistance. The network has over twenty members - libertarian organizations, unions and self-managed communities - who are spread throughout Europe (Spain, France, Greece, Italy, Ireland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Sweden, Switzerland), North America (Canada, USA, Mexico), South America (Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay), Asia (Lebanon) and Africa (South Africa).

It is linked to an even greater number of libertarian organizations who cooperate regularly, for example during international summits against capitalist globalization. The first series of SIL projects concern South America." http://www.fdca.it/fdcaen/ILS/ils_members.htm

ILS/SIL Member Organizations

ALTERNATIVA LIBERTARIA (AL - SPAIN)

AL was founded in 1999 by militants of the anarcho-syndicalist union CGT. It operates mainly in Catalunya.

ALTERNATIVE LIBERTAIRE (AL - FRANCE) www.alternativelibertaire.org/

Alternative Libertaire was founded in 1991. It is part of the international libertarian workers' movement which provides it with its strong ideas, though it does not reject positive contributions from other areas. It works within the workers' movement, with young people and inside social movements. Its action is founded on two distinct levels of organization and expression:

   *the organization and development of a new libertarian current based on class struggle;
   *the emergence of a vast anti-capitalist and self-managed movement in which the libertarian current can be an equal player. 

AL publishes the monthly journal Alternative Libertaire and the magazine Debattre.

CONFEDERACION GENERAL del TRABAJO (CGT - SPAIN) www.cgt.es/

This anarcho-syndicalist organization grew out of the 1979 Congress of the Spanish CNT. It was obliged to take the name CGT in 1988 after losing its claim to keep its name and heritage to the "historical" wing of the CNT. It has 50,000 members and is the third-largest union in Spain The CGT publishes the monthly Rojo y Negro and the magazine Libre Pensamiento .

CONSEJO INDIGENO POPULAR de OAXACA - RICARDO FLORES MAGON (CIPO-RFM - MEXICO) www.nodo50.org/cipo/

The CIPO-RFM is a native american libertarian organization which follows the examples set by Ricardo Flores Magon, the best-known Mexican anarchist militant who, together with Emiliano Zapata was one of the leaders of the Mexican Revolution. The CIPO-RFM has close ties to the EZLN and joined the latter on its national march in February 2001 which reached Mexico City.

FEDERAÇAO ANARQUISTA GAUCHA (FAG - BRAZIL) www.fag.rg3.net/

The FAG was founded in 1996. It operates principally in the southern state of Rio Grande do Sul whose capital is Porto Alegre. This was the site, in 2001, of the Anarchist Days which were held to coincide with, and criticise, the World Social Forum. The FAG is a member of the Concentraçao Anarquista Brasileira together with other organizations and groups from other Brazilian states. The FAG is also a member of the Coordinacion Anarquista de America Latina (CALA) together with the OSL (Argentina), the FAU (Uruguay) and the CUAC (Chile).

FEDERACION ANARQUISTA URUGUAYA (FAU) - URUGUAY) www.nodo50.org/fau/

The FAU was founded in 1965 during a revolutionary period. It is the oldest and most experienced South American anarchist organization. It was the mover behind the creation of the single central trade union (CNT) which at present has a mainly reformist direction. During the military dictatorship from 1976 to 1984, the FAU took part in the armed struggle and fought alongside the Tupamaros. Many of its militants were subjected to imprisonment, torture and exile and others were assassinated. In 1984, about 30 comrades decided to rebuild the FAU, taking advantage of the support and solidarity of the Spanish CNT and the Swiss OSL. At present, the FAU has over one hundred militants and produces several publications including the journal Lucha Libertaria.

It is a member of the CALA together with the FAG (Brazil), the OSL (Argentina) and the CUAC (Chile). LA MARMITA (GREECE)

This is a libertarian group formed around the magazine of the same name. Its members are mainly young militants who are active in schools and in solidarity with and the struggle for political prisoners. They are presently working towards the formation of an organized anarchist current in Greece.

ORGANISACION SOCIALISTA LIBERTARIA (OSL - ARGENTINA) http://www.geocities.com/jmheredia.geo/index.htm

The OSL is the most recent organized anarchist group in Argentina. It publishes the monthly journal En la Calle and has groups in Buenos Aires, Rosario and La Plata. It is involved in the widescale mass struggle which is currently taking place in Argentina and its militants are frequently targeted for State repression. It too is a member of the CALA together with the FAU (Uruguay), the FAG (Brazil) and the CUAC (Chile).

ORGANISATION SOCIALISTE LIBERTAIRE (OSL - SWITZERLAND) www.rebellion.ch/

Founded in 1985, the OSL is deeply involved in social, labour, feminist and anti-racist struggles. Its militants were among the founders of the SUD-Public Services union which now has 8,000 members. The OSL publishes the journal Rebellion.

Organizace revolucních anarchistu - Solidarita (ORA- S - CZECH REPUBLIC/SLOVAKIA) www.fdca.it/fdcaen/international/oras.htm

The ORA-S was founded in 1999. Initially is was an anarcho-syndicalist organization, but took on a libertarian communist orientation and now works towards the autonomous organization of workers within the factories. Much of its activity is dedicated towards the struggle against capitalist globalization and in fact it was at the organizational heart of the anarchist and ecologist sectors of the demonstrations against the IMF and World Bank summits in Prague in September 2000. The ORA-S publishes the monthly Solidarita.

SVERIGES ARBETARES CENTRALORGANIZACION (SAC - SWEDEN)

The SAC is an anarcho-syndicalist confederation and revolutionary syndicalist organization founded at the start of the 20th century. It has 9,000 members and is the most important revolutionary organization in Sweden. It was in the frontline of the protests against the EU summit in Goteborg in 2001. It publishes the weekly paper Arbetares.

RESEAU NO PASARAN (FRANCIA) nopasaran.samizdat.net/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=65

No Pasaran is a network of anti-fascist collectives in France.

CONFEDERAZIONE ITALIANA di BASE - UNICOBAS (CIB-UNICOBAS - ITALY) www.cib-unicobas.it/

FEDERAZIONE DEI COMUNISTI ANARCHICI (FdCA - ITALY) www.fdca.it/

AL-BADIL AL-CHOOUI AL-TAHAROURI (LEBANON) flag.blackened.net/revolt/inter/albadil.html

RED LIBERTARIA APOYO MUTUO (RLAM - SPAIN) www.red-libertaria.net/noticias/index.php

AUCA - SOCIALISMO REVOLUCIONARIO (ARGENTINA) BIKISHA MEDIA COLLECTIVE (SOUTH AFRICA) struggle.ws/inter/groups/bikisha/main.htm

LUTA LIBERTARIA (BRAZIL) http://www.ainfos.ca/05/aug/ainfos00102.html

NORTHEASTERN FEDERATION OF ANARCHO-COMMUNISTS (NEFAC - CANADA/USA) nefac.net/

ORGANISATION COMMUNISTE LIBERTAIRE (OCL - FRANCE) oclibertaire.free.fr/

WORKERS SOLIDARITY MOVEMENT (WSM - IRELAND) www.wsm.ie

ZABALAZA BOOKS (SOUTH AFRICA) www.zabalaza.net/zababooks/

http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/index.html "The Anarchist Library. Liberty - Mother, not Daughter of Order"

http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/mlc/index.html "The Manifesto of Libertarian Communism by Georges Fontenis, Platformist Anarchism. Transcribed from an Anarchist Communist Edition distributed by the Anarchist Communist Federation."

http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/guerin1.html Daniel Guerin's essay on the origins of the words Anarchism and Libertarianism. Anarchism: A Matter of Words (Where the words "Anarchism" and "Libertarian" come from) From Chapter 1, part 1 of the book "Anarchism", by Daniel Guerin

"Today the terms "anarchist" and "libertarian" have become interchangeable." "Some contemporary anarchists have tried to clear up ... misunderstanding by adopting a more explicit term: they align themselves with libertarian socialism or communism. " "During a street meeting on May 4, 1885, in Haymarket Square, a bomb thrown at the legs of the police in an unexplained manner provided the necessary pretext. Eight leaders of the revolutionary and libertarian socialist movement were arrested, seven of them sentenced to death, and four subsequently hanged (a fifth committed suicide in his cell the day before the execution). Since then the Chicago martyrs-- Parsons, Fischer, Engel, Spies, and Lingg-- have belonged to the international proletariat, and the universal celebration of May Day (May 1) still commemorates the atrocious crime committed in the United States. "

http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/lastlib.html A Letter to the Editor of The Match Taken from Issue #86, Summer 1991 P.O. Box 3488 Tucson, Arizona 85722 Dear Fred: I'm a 1967-style Libertarian, and that seems to have little in common with the "Libertarians" we've picked up since 1980. You have no idea of the corruption that entered the "Party of Principle." Reason Magazine sold out. The great anarchistic "Mr. Libertarian", Murray Rothbard, joined with an arch-fascist; most state-level positions have been lost to the conservatarians. Why? Because the right-wingers had so much more money than the left-wingers. They were able to flit about the country and create a controlling clique that people without money couldn't keep up with... Personally, I think the whole Capitalism vs. Socialism argument is a red herring. We're still in medievalism. You tell me what class your daddy was and I'll tell you which one you're in - just like the twelfth century. First, we get out of medievalism, then with everyone starting off equally, we'll see about the Capitalism vs. Socialism bit. However, you would be doing the real Libertarians a favor if you called these pseudo-Libertarians by their true name: Conservatarians. " "Walk Karwicki II Box 2372 York, PA 17405 "

http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/puente.html Isaac Puente's essay on Libertarian Communism.

"LIBERTARIAN COMMUNISM by Isaac Puente First published by the CNT in Spanish as a widely distributed pamphlet in 1932, with many subsequent editions. - The first english translation appeared in 'The Cienfuegos Press Anarchist Review' #6 Orkney 1982. This Edition published 1985 by MONTY MILLER PRESS P.O. Box 92 Broadway, Sydney 2007, Australia. "

http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/mcelroy1.html Individualist Anarchism vs. "Libertarianism" and Anarchocommunism by Wendy McElroy This article appeared in issue #12 of the New Libertarian, October, 1984.

"the two movements which seem to be natural homes of individualist anarchism -- libertarianism (for which it used to be a synonym) and the anarchist tradition (of which it is a subset) -- are now uncomfortable places. This wasn't always true...

Rothbard is also often credited with modern libertarianism, which I consider to be a movement separate from individualist anarchism: that is, I believe they have distinct and often antagonistic goals and strategies. When Tucker referred to himself as a libertarian, it meant individualist anarchist, but words have lives of their own and meanings change...

The word liberal once referred to an individualist who defended the free market; now, it means almost the opposite and libertarians need to use the term "classical liberal" if they want to be clear. Similarly, the word "libertarian" has changed due to the fairly successful efforts of the Libertarian Party to associate libertarianism with political goals and the political means, both of which are anathema to individualist anarchist theory...

More and more, libertarianism has become identified with the Libertarian' Party. More and more, the goal of libertarianism has changed from dismantling the State to joining the State and replacing the face behind the desk of power as though it were the particular face and not the desk -- the position of unjust power itself -- that was the enemy.

As libertarianism becomes increasingly political, it will become increasingly hostile to individualist anarchism, because anarchism poses as great a threat to the political ambitions of the LP as it does to the conventional defenders of government...

The anarchists will then learn from political libertarians the same lesson that the Russian anarchists learned from the Bolsheviks -- we are fellow travelers no more."

Oisinoc (talk) 06:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

PS Ms Mac Elroy's paper is directed at, and reflects an American LP and/or Individualist audience; the US LP is not the global emperor of Libertarian thought - a fact which should be recognised in the tone and content of this article. Oisinoc (talk) 06:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

List of references for Libertarianism before 1950

Whole section moved to Talk Archive 11, however, list of references in that section duplicated here

To start, every reference to Libertarianism before 1950 involves the first libertarianism. How do sources for the New York Times work for wikipedia? They have many articles talking about Libertarians before 1950, but it looks like they are pay for. Can I use those? I will get many more for you, but "mainstream sources" i am trying to follow, and that is an initial mainstream source that extends. Thanks q (talk) 18:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's an article from the Harvard Crimson from 1978 which talks about the Libertarian Party which included all Libertarians at that time. And discusses Libertarianism as it existed. Great read for this topic.

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=146716

"The largest organized group of libertarians in the Boston area is the MLP. MLP, affiliated with the National Libertarian Party which was founded in 1972, has about 100 members. Nason, the editor of MLP's newsletter, estimates that about 100 more people are involved in the party without being official members. "A lot of people don't believe in political parties," Nason explained.

"There are all kinds of people in MLP: anarcho-capitalists, anarcho-socialists, minimal statists. We're not a standard political party," Nason said. The party sponsors libertarian candidates in elections throughout the country, and serves as a mechanism for libertarians to meet other people interested in working on specific political issues, like tax reform and local civil liberties issues."

Libertarians discussed as one group, not just Anarcho-capitalists as in the article here.

Tons and Tons of paid for articles from all different time frames referencing only Libertarians as they were before 1950. Not Anarcho-Capitalists. Can I used paid for articles, I have passed over 100 in just a few minutes. Non-paid for mainstream sources are very difficult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notque (talk • contribs) 18:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9C00E6DB103AE633A25751C1A9639C946396D6CF Free New York times article from May 12, 1912 explaining the movement, quotes some of the magazines they used, one is called "The Libertarian" q (talk) 19:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,770659,00.html Monday, Jul. 05, 1937 "Rightist propaganda announced: "In Santander 15,000 rioters have seized Government buildings and proclaimed a Communist Libertarian Republic.""

From Spanish Civil War fighters who were Libertarians against Hitler, Franco, and Mussolini. q (talk) 19:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It's also a bit difficult to separate articles because many publications connect all Anarchist information with Libertarians, because they were! So even if it doesn't specifically say Libertarian (anarchism is a subset of libertarianism), they connect them all anyway for searches. Very difficult! Still working though, I've passed maybe 500 articles on Libertarians/Anarchists I can't use. Still going for mainstream sources. q (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9A07E6D6123AE433A25752C3A9639C946696D6CF Anarchist/Libertarians calling conscription anti-libertarian. May 31, 1917 q (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Congrats for coming up with a list, which is relevant to history. But remember in general, people aren't too interested in lengthy dissertations on OLD definitions of words, so keeping it short and proportionate in the history section is necessary. What does MPL stand for, by the way?

At this point concentrate on adding WP:RS in proportionate manner. Then can start deleting all this nonsourced opinion stuff which may distort article in a number of ways. That's what I'll be doing :-) Carol Moore 19:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

It isn't an old definition of a word. It means the same thing in the rest of the world, the U.S. has just adopted a different version of the word, and mostly ignores the other definition. It still exists in the rest of the world, and in our history, and must be discussed. It makes it doubly important because no one is aware of it. it's part of the history, and an important history at that.

The main consideration is that this article needs a rewrite. My rewrite attempted to deal with that, and leave all content that was there, still there. That has been reverted. This article needs to clearly articulate the agreements, work through the history of what it has meant, and still means today in most of the world, then focus on the ideas and meanings of the different groups. That is my take. q (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9F06E4DD1638E333A25757C0A9649D946196D6CF Libertarian Japanese Socialist from December 4, 1910

"We are accustomed to think of the Japanese as naturally progressive, the "Yankees of the East," but I learn that Denjiro Kotoku is an "intellectual" who has devoted his abilities and energies to the spreading of libertarian ideas in Japan. As editor of the Tokio daily paper, Yorozu Cho-ho, (Thousand Morning News.) Kotoku enjoyed great popularity and appreciation." q (talk) 19:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Would it help if I start quoting from now? Uses of Libertarianism now that conform to this idea from all over the world? This is not an old usage that is gone, this is a vibrant usage in the rest of the world. The U.S. is completely out of touch with the usage of the word based on it's political leanings, and the jailing and attacking of Libertarians. There was a wish Libertarianism would be destroy in the U.S., and it succeeded in many respects. That needs to be discussed. The history of it, not just an entire article on what Libertarianism that started in the 1950's believes. q (talk) 19:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

And when I say all over the world, I am talking English speaking countries as well. This isn't a minor difference, the rest of the world uses the old pre U.S. 1950 version of Libertarianism. That is not some small difference relegated to a history section somewhere else. There are many articles that discuss what the 1950's version of Libertarianism means, from the Libertarian Party page, to the Anarcho Capitalism page, and I'm not against another Libertarianism article on Right Wing Libertarianism which includes all of this information. But it shouldn't exist like this on the Libertarianism page. You wouldn't have a slavery page that just focused on our slavery for the word slavery, would you? This seems like common sense. q (talk) 19:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Just glanced over the Slavery page, that seems like an excellent way to handle this article. I'm sure about any topic is handled better than this article, which again is one area of a topic, and 99% contains that one area of the topic ignoring everything else. q (talk) 19:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9D02EEDA1030E333A25750C1A9679D94699ED7CF Article on london meeting of libertarians from November 13, 1898 addressing the Libertarian Lecture Society of London q (talk) 19:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt//spain/ruta.html A history of Spanish libertarian youth paper 'Ruta' 1936

I can really go on forever. The sheer amount of New York Times articles on Libertarians in the U.S. is massive. q (talk) 20:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Restructuring Movement Sections/ new US movements article

The principles section is still a mess and needs lots of work, but I wanted to quickly restructure last three sections, perhaps something like the below.

• Libertarian movements
  • Think Tanks (list around the world, including top personalities)
  • Activist organizations (list around the world, including top personalities)
  • Political parties (list around the world, including top personalities)

What do you think?? Also, I do think there is a necessity for a Libertarianism in US article that could detail the history and fights and development, some of which alluded to in this article and should be removed, esp. when unsourced. Maybe rename the short Libertarian Movement article to Libertarianism in US, since it is a on that topic anyway. Carol Moore 03:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Ok, I did some more work earlier than this proposed section. But want to stop and give people a chance to catch up. Meanwhile:

• I think the left lib history needs a title, that was just working title.
• History needs more beefing up with actual important recent events of importance to both sections.(Removed two UNDUES, one from each section.)
• Principles still a mess - shall it only have the minimal principles common to all varieties of libertarianism and then have subheadings on issues? (Which is also done at Controversies within libertarianism, though not very well)
• All those references above to lefty groups can be inserted either in the appropriate subsection as references or into the articles themselves. Why let good research go to waste? But I'm not going to do it. User:q? User:Oisinoc?

Carol Moore 13:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Big, big improvement. Huge. Thank you very much, seriously; that's really much better. What, can't we just continue to whine and wail, and let you do the work? Oisinoc (talk) 16:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I am editing as I have time. I'm mostly working on correcting factual errors at the moment. It seems the contributions that seem to stick from me are just correcting complete factual errors, and while they still exist, that is the work I should focus on. 72.208.186.17 (talk) 20:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Libertarianism, and some qualifiers

Ok, so having gone through a bunch of academic journals, here are some references - instead of snarky comments or hand-waving accusations from me, you know, just for a change:

Peter Vallentyne (2007). LIBERTARIANISM AND THE STATE. Social Philosophy and Policy, 24, pp 187-205 doi:10.1017/S0265052507070082 http://journals.cambridge.org.libezproxy.open.ac.uk/action/displayAbstract?aid=611248

Abstract

Although Robert Nozick has argued that libertarianism is compatible with the justice of a minimal state—even if does not arise from mutual consent—few have been persuaded. I will outline a different way of establishing that a non-consensual libertarian state can be just. I will show that a state can—with a few important qualifications—justly enforce the rights of citizens, extract payments to cover the costs of such enforcement, redistribute resources to the poor, and invest in infrastructure to overcome market failures.

Laurent Dobuzinskis (2004). Real Libertarianism Assessed: Political Theory after Van Parijs. Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique, 37, pp 1053-1055 doi:10.1017/S000842390441021X http://journals.cambridge.org.libezproxy.open.ac.uk/action/displayAbstract?aid=328065

Real Libertarianism Assessed: Political Theory after Van Parijs, Andrew Reeve and Andrew Williams, eds., London: Palgrave, 2003, pp. x, 223

Philippe Van Parijs' Real Freedom for All (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995) is one of the most stimulating contributions to left-libertarianism published in the last decade. It is, therefore, not surprising that an edited volume that critically examines his ideas has now been published. The contributing authors (two of whom, Peter Vallentyne and Hillel Steiner, are other well known left-libertarians) raise interesting and often pointed questions, but they all have some good things to say about Van Parijs' original proposal.

Evan Charney (2004). Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty and Libertarianism Without Inequality. Perspectives on Politics, 2, pp 564-566 doi:10.1017/S1537592704220370 http://journals.cambridge.org.libezproxy.open.ac.uk/action/displayAbstract?aid=246624 In Libertarianism Without Inequality, Michael Otsuka seeks to combine a libertarian principle of the right of self-ownershipwith a robust commitment to egalitarianism. He does this in two ways: First, he argues, against Robert Nozick, that all schemes of redistributive taxation are not on a par with forced labor. Something like a “luxury income tax” for redistributive purposes, Otsuka argues, cannot be considered as equivalent to forced labor since it is easy to avoid; that is, persons can forgo the extra income that amounts to a “luxury.” Second, he denies that one’s right of ownership over worldly resources that one uses for income is as full as one’s right of ownership over oneself: Persons can acquire unowned worldly resources only if they leave enough so that everyone else can acquire an equally advantageous share of unowned resources, where “equally” advantageous means that one can derive the same degree of welfare from it. Furthermore, he claims that persons possess only a “lifetime leasehold” on worldly resources, which lapse into a state of nonownership upon death.

Libertarianism Without Inequality. By Michael Otsuka. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. 168p. $39.95.

Libertarianism without inequality. Author: SREENIVASAN, GOPAL Source: Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Volume 74, Number 3, May 2007 , pp. 792-796(5)

Distributive Lessons from Division of Labour Author: Dietsch, Peter Source: Journal of Moral Philosophy, Volume 5, Number 1, 2008 , pp. 96-117(22) Abstract: In their justification of individual entitlements, libertarians appeal to the concept of self-ownership. This paper argues that taking into account the division of labour in society calls for a fundamental reassessment of the normative implications of self-ownership. How should the benefits from division of labour—in other words, how should the co-operative surplus—be distributed? On the assumption that the parties to the division of labour are interdependent, and that this interdependence is mutual and of the same degree, I argue for an equal distribution of the co-operative surplus. In form, my argument bears similarities to the left-libertarian position that calls for an equal distribution of natural resources. Despite its radically egalitarian implications, an equal distribution of the co-operative surplus remains a libertarian principle.

TI: Book Reviews SO: Journal of Applied Philosophy VL: 19 NO: 1 PG: 75-90 YR: 2002 ON: 1468-5930 PN: 0264-3758 DOI: 10.1111/1468-5930.00206 US: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-5930.00206 AB: Books reviewed: Gordon Graham, Evil and Christian Ethics J. C. Lester, Escape From Leviathan: Liberty, Welfare and Anarchy Reconciled Peter Vallentyne and Hillel Steiner (ed.), The Origins of Left-Libertarianism: An Anthology of Historical Writings; Left-Libertarianism and Its Critics: The Contemporary Debate James P. Sterba, Social and Political Philosophy: Contemporary Perspectives R. S. Downie and Jane MacNaughton, Clinical Judgement: Evidence in Practice John Hardwig, Is There a Duty to Die?: with other essays in Bioethics James M. Humber and Robert F. Almeder (ed.), Is There a Duty to Die?

The Origins of Left-Libertarianism: An Anthology of Historical Writings;

Left-Libertarianism and Its Critics: The Contemporary Debate James P. Sterba,

Review: Mark E. Kann The American Political Science Review, Vol. 72, No. 2 (Jun., 1978), pp. 633-634 Berki presents his main thesis: 'Socialism is not a single thing, but a range, an area, an open texture, a self-contradiction'." "Berki provides an analytical framework which convincingly differentiates four normative tendencies in socialist thought and their historical representatives. Socialist 'egalitarianism' is associated with the underdeveloped world; socialist 'moralism' is linked to Western social democracy; socialist 'rationalism' is tied to Eastern European/Soviet communism; and socialist 'libertarianism' is connected to the New Left. His point is not that one value defines the essence of each variant; rather, Berki demonstrates that the primacy of one value is always in historical tension with (if it does not contradict) the other three."

New Forms of Political Representation: European Ecological Politics and the Montreal Citizen's Movement Timothy Thomas Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue canadienne de science politique, Vol. 28, No. 3 (Sep., 1995), pp. 509-531 Published by: Canadian Political Science Association and the Société québécoise de science politique "Kitschelt maintains that the left-libertarian parties can be considered 'left wing' in their policy orientations because they affirm the principle of equality, and reject the primacy of markets as the final arbiters of social development and justice. They follow libertarian thinking, however, in rejecting the socialist vision of centralized planning and party organization, and call for greater individual autonomy and for citizen participation in public affairs."

Review: American Politics and Conservative Libertarianism Walter J. Nicgorski The Review of Politics, Vol. 31, No. 4 (Oct., 1969), pp. 534-537

CHRISTINA BEHRENDT (). Hilde Bojer (2004), Distributional Justice: Theory and Measurement, Basingstoke: Routledge, 151 pp., £55 hbk, ISBN 0 415 29824-5. Journal of Social Policy, 34, pp 323-324 doi:10.1017/S004727940529880X http://journals.cambridge.org.libezproxy.open.ac.uk/action/displayAbstract?aid=289492 "...In the last chapter of this section the concepts of Marxism and libertarianism as put forward by Nozick, Friedman and Hayek are summarized."

Le libertarisme de gauche et la justice Peter Vallentyne Revue économique, Vol. 50, No. 4, Économie normative (Jul., 1999), pp. 859-878 "Libertarian theories of justice hold that agents, at least initially, own themselves fully, and thus owe no service to others, except perhaps through voluntary action... theories are right libertarian in that they hold that natural resources are initially unowned and, under a broad range of realistic circumstances, can be privately appropriated without the consent of, or any significant payment to, the other members of society. Left libertarian theories, by contrast, hold that natural resources are owned by the members of society in some egalitarian manner, and may be appropriated only with their permission, or with a significant payment to them. I examine the main implications of self-ownership and the main approaches that left-libertarianism can take to the ownership of natural resources."

Review: Harvey Klehr The American Political Science Review, Vol. 73, No. 4 (Dec., 1979), pp. 1126-1126 The American as Anarchist: Reflections on Indigenous Radicalism. By David DeLeon. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979. Pp. xiii + 242...) "The factors in American life which DeLeon believes have made our society particularly open to anti-statism ... have produced a variety of indigenous radical traditions: liberalism, right libertarianism and left libertarianism." "DeLeon turns to the 1960s revival of radicalism and discerns elements in both the Students for a Democratic Society and the Young Americans for Freedom that hearken back, respectively, to left and right libertarianism."

Review: Reconfiguring Socialism George Ross The Review of Politics, Vol. 58, No. 1 (Winter, 1996), pp. 189-192 Published by: Cambridge University Press for the University of Notre Dame du lac on behalf of Review of Politics "Kitschelt wants to account for the differential responses of European social democratic parties to the challenges of changes in political preferences in the 1980s in 'advanced capitalist societies,' primarily new 'libertarian' or 'communitarian' concerns. In their 'left-libertarian' or 'right' (pro-market) varieties these new preferences focus of the forms of decision-making and deeply felt issues about individual participation and identity." "What happened, in general, was that the distribution of preferences changed as these new libertarians and communitarians permeated an older spectrum of pro-equality socialists pro-market capitalists and anti-democratic authoritarians. The change presents a major threat to most social democratic parties."

Self-Ownership, Communism and Equality G. A. Cohen and Keith Graham Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes, Vol. 64, (1990), pp. 25-61 Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of The Aristotelian Society "In this essay I argue that Marxism has failed to distinguish itself sufficiently thoroughly from what I shall cal 'leftwing libertarianism'." "A libertarian, in the present sense, is one who affirms the principle of self-ownership, which occupies a prominent place in the ideology of capitalism." "The libertarian principle of self-ownership has been put to both progressive and reactionary use, in different historical periods." "Libertarianism... may be combined with contrasting principles with respect to those productive resources which are not persons, to wit, the substances and powers of nature. As a result, libertarianism comes in both right- and left-wing versions. All libertarians say that each person has a fundamental entitlement to full property in himself, and, consequently, no fundamental entitlement to private property in anyone else." "Right-wing libertarianism, of which Robert Nozick is an exponent, adds that self-owning persons can acquire similarly unlimited original rights in unequal amounts of external natural resources. Left-wing libertarianism is, by contrast, egalitarian with respect to initial shares in external resources..."

Yeah, I know, I should have just gone and found these first instead of blowing a gasket. Oisinoc (talk) 16:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

First, feel free to write up some paragraphs on the leftie stuff. Although I have hung out with leftist libertarian/anarchist/syndicalist/communists on and off for 30 years, I would not try to describe their views/principles since really don't have knowlege or energy to defend anything I said against disagreements. (Plus the last 8 years most of the ones I've interacted with are more interested in smashing windows than learning or talking ideology.) So don't complain about article being lopsided if those who understand these views don't contribute to it.

Also, I'm keeping a file of all this stuff so can look at it in systematic, as opposed to scatter shot, way after the basic structure is more together. A lot such detailed material belongs in some of the more detailed articles on libertarian sub-groups and those on theory (many of the latter right now are just unsourced original research with wikilinks to other unsourced original research articles!) Carol Moore 18:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Anarchism section

We must be very careful attributing information to Anarchism. It's very easy to attribute a type of anarchist as all of Anarchism, and it's important that if you state it that it fits the broad picture. I understand it's very difficult to make these determinations unless you are aware of the technical meaning of the word. Anarchism is a large, and specific section of thought. An umbrella of thought. It's important not to pick any one thing under the umbrella, and state that's what Anarchism means.

Does that make sense? q (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It would make sense if you said what change you want to make in the text or made it. The sections on anarchism and minarchism both need work, but people can always go to the article. (Some of other sections too long.) But even the anarchism article I believe has a variety of types including individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism.

Also note the needs expansion section. Plus I'm almost ready to replace the Libertarian movement with all the US stuff for one with subject sections where groups of all pursuasions more easily can be added, as I wrote about above. Have to work this PM. Hopefully by tomorrow afternoon at latest. Then who ever wants can add whatever groups seem appropriate, as long as not WP:UNDUE. I'm not going to try to figure out which leftie ones are or aren't. Carol Moore 15:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I don't know who made the POV change to anarchism. Let's at least look at the main article and do a summary of that and not just pick some reference supporting a POV point. I put up the basic structure for Current World Libertarian Movement. I'll add a few of the larger organizations, important individuals I'm knowlegeable about, with wikilinks or external links proving they have some minimum notability. It's your job to add notable ones you have knowledge of in same way. Also, I'm not sure what the policy is with a lot of links to pages that only are in foreign languages. But cooperative editing should make it all work out. There's also a lot more work to do, some of which i mentioned in edit summaries. Carol Moore 02:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Contradictions

There should be a section on contradictions. For example: anarchist groups would appear to be a contradiction. Groups necessitate a common belief, idea, or desire. Therefore, there is always a common direction. Would someone who believed in strict authoritarian government be allowed to join an anarchist group? If the answer is no, then there is structure, governing rules, etc. for an anarchist group. Joining or forming an anarchist group would seem to be a contradiction, therefore. It seems that really what every group wants is not more or less government, but good government and the right amount of government. Moreover it would be good government for a particular class of people. The class of all people is included in the phrase "a particular class of people," as is a class of one. That is, everyone wants a particular form of government for whatever reason, and that form of government is most beneficial to a particular class. So, communism and socialism is generally considered a government designed to primarily benefit the largest group of people possible. A fascist government is designed to primarily benefit a small group of people. An anarchist government is designed primarily to benefit an individual. That is, I am a group of one, and my decisions will be made to benefit me. This of course means that the anarchist individual is outside whatever is the prevailing largest group's government. There seems to be no way for an individual to keep others from forming groups. At least it has never been done before. Therefore there is some form of collective government at all times, and the anarchist may be at odds with the larger group on policy making. That is to say that any system, naturally formed or otherwise will act in one way or another. Any system can be optimized for the benefit of one outcome over another. Governance makes determinations and puts into practice those regulations that attempt to achieve optimization of a given outcome. Let's look at a concrete example which I call the bathroom example. In the bathroom system there is an individual and a toilet. The individual can choose to evacuate his or her bladder in at least two ways. One way is to direct the flow of urine into the toilet bowl optimizing for sanitation. The other way is to direct the flow of urine onto the floor, walls, and other surfaces to optimize for individual expression. For an individual, that choice is made by the brain or some other part of the nervous system. That part of the nervous system is the governing force in this example. In a group governing dynamic, perhaps a man directs his urine into the toilet because he fears his wife or wants sex. Here the wife's wish is the governing force. Nevertheless there is a governing force at work. If a central government decided to enact a law, requiring that all evacuators directed their urine into a toilet bowl, This is generally done by some collective body like a senate. Here some might believe this to be too much government. Others might feel that health issues necessitate enactment of health codes restricting self expression via urine. Let's assume that most groups would choose to optimize this system for a groups benefit. And let's further assume that an anarchist would choose optimize for the self. Decisions in either case will be made either by group governance or individual governance. Let's further assume that the optimization goal may be the same or different for the group or individual. It is not really germane to the argument. In both cases a decision on what resources will be given over to the decision making process, monitoring, evaluation., and enforcement will be made. The group might decide to leave these responsibilities and powers to the owner of the bathroom or to a government agency or to the individual. The anarchist individual would most likely decide to leave the responsibilities and powers to his or herself. Nevertheless decisions are made, and I would argue that these decisions are made with the view that the best amount of government (all things not being equal) has been chosen. Moreover, no one should argue that no governance at all was used in making the decision to aim for the bowl or maximum floor/wall coverage. One should only argue on whether too much or too little or good or bad governance was employed achieving the resultant decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.94.176.22 (talk) 00:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

So find some reliable sources that make these points and start a criticism section. Note there used to be one that did not have inline reliable sources and was deleted. Carol Moore 12:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Factual error in Nolan chart

NOTE: This chart has an error of fact. The lower left corner should be totalitarian. Populist can be anywhere on the chart depending on what is "popular" with the general public. Can someone fix this error? 71.131.13.192 (talk) 17:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

First Use of the word "libertarian"

The word is dated to the 1780's by dictionary.reference.com/browse/libertarian (and 1789 by Webster's Ninth New Collegiate dictionary). 1790 is well earlier than 1857, and that makes the following statement misleading, so I removed it from the article: The French anarcho-communist Joseph Déjacque's use of the word "libertaire" in an 1857 letter to Proudhon is said to be the first use of the term, which translates into English as "libertarian." I'll try to add exactly 'how' it originated in the 1780's (with a verifiable ref, of course) to the article later today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.196.211 (talk) 16:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

While it's fine to use that as first use, it also is accurate to mention what we now know was another use in other circles, if only to keep the complaints down in talk :-) Carol Moore 15:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Libertarianism...by committee? How ironic

This article is an unfortunate example of how the jumbled ideas of a committee may not result in a coherent whole. There's lots of work to be done, but at least the first sentence should be as clear as possibe. I've been focusing on other stuff, but I finally thought I'd launch into this. I have looked at the archives. The clarity of thought is not the best, but I've tried to distill the essence and punch through the soft stuff obstructing the core. I hope true Libertarians can live with the amendments. There are not many of us out there. - Ron Paul...Ron Paul... (talk) 09:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Whoever did footnote 39, please fix it. - Ron Paul...Ron Paul... (talk) 09:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a collaborative effort. Anything others think WP:RS and not confusing or POV pr Wp:undue, as some of your changes are, can be kept. Sarsaparilla?? Carol Moore 02:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Taking some time to look at what you wrote, I reverted to earlier, shorter lead - but agreeing that one sentence was unnecessarily vague, even if in the source, I deleted it. However, you inserted your views into sentences that were sourced by others, which is called WP:original research and against policy. I moved the other views you expressed to the principles section since they were too detailed for a lead and a tad sectarian. (See all the past discussions which have quited down since we put in a somewhat more neutral lead.) Carol Moore 21:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Carol, we've dealt with each other before. I know your edits are in good faith, and that you've had a long-standing interest in Libertarian philosophy. But please realize I do not edit something if I don't know about the topic and when I do edit I have thought very deeply about the topic. There are only three things I do know something about: Austrian economics, Libertarianism and Constitutional Law. That's it. But although my interests are narrow, they are deep. I've seen your talk page, and your interests (and edits) are vast and wide-ranging. But I have to question the previous editors' respective abilities to delve deeply into this topic and distill the essence of this topic because you/they don't seem to be able to do that adequately. Look at the meandering nature of the rest of the article. It's a shambles, and looks like a teenager's bedroom. At least the first paragraph should be punchy, clear and get to the essence of the topic.

I'm going to take this step by step, because although I respect the sincerity of your views I don't respect the quality of some of the editing here and Libertarianism is too important to leave in its current state, especially to those who may have a tendency to WP:OWN this page.

First, let me say I'm only interested in punching out the first paragraph. The rest is (genuinely) a mess, and I'd greatly appreciate you simplifying and organizing the rest of the text - and in fact would greatly welcome your assistance here. My scope of operation is incredibly narrow, and any qualifiers to the first paragraph can be dealt with in subsequent sections (for example, the alleged wide spectrum within Libertarianism which I think is grossly overstated compared to other political philosophies). My keen interest is in grasping the core of Libertarianism so newbies either know it's for them or know immediately it's not for them. A weak first para that tells them nothing or qualifies and waffles is worse than useless. I want to draw readers in, not turn them off. Yes, this will necessarily mean simplifying - but contextualize in the rest of the article, not in the first paragraph.

Second. I've read the history. It's a mess, and the consensus wasn't strong for the first paragraph. Even if the consensus was strong, we can work this through ourselves, because sometimes (often?) the majority is plain wrong because many of the majority are non-specialists, amateurs, part-timers. In fact, by definition, the majority view has to be an "average" view (in every sense of the term). Objectivists and Libertarians are never majoritarians (hence my ironic heading here, given your professed Libertarian leanings and - yet, ironically - your appeal to the majoritarian consensus). The test is not majoritarianism but the quality of the arguments and the logic. At least for the true Libertarian.

For comparison purposes, here are the two proposed first paragraphs:

"Libertarianism is a term used to describe a philisophical movement that views respect for individual choice and individual liberty as the foundation stone of the ideal society and seeks to minimize or even abolish the coercive actions of the state. Broadly speaking, Libertarianism focuses of the rights of the individual to act in accordance with the individual's own subjective values, and argues that the coercive actions of the state are often (or even always) an impediment to the efficient realization of individual desires and values. Libertarians also maintain that what is immoral for the individual must necessarily be immoral for all state agents and that the state should not be above the law. The extent to which government is necessary, if at all, is evaluated from a variety of distinct metaphysical, epistemological, and moral grounds. The word libertarian is an antonym of authoritarian."

"Your" version (and I don't mean that literally):

"Libertarianism is a term used by a broad spectrum of political philosophies which prioritize individual liberty and seek to minimize or even abolish the state. The extent to which government is necessary, if at all, is evaluated from a variety of distinct metaphysical, epistemological, and moral grounds. The word libertarian is an antonym of authoritarian."

1. De l'être-humain mâle et femelle - Lettre à P.J. Proudhon par Joseph Déjacque (in French)
2. Le Libertaire, 1895.
3. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Libertarianism, Stanford University, July 24, 2006 version.
4. "libertarian", ], Merriam-Webster {{citation}}: URL–wikilink conflict (help)
5. Professor Brian Martin, Eliminating state crime by abolishing the state.
6. Murray Rothbard, Do You Hate the State?, The Libertarian Forum, Vol. 10, No. 7, July 1977.
7. Libertarian Does Not Equal Libertine
8. What Libertarianism Isn't
9. A Libertarian Cheat Sheet by Wilton D. Alston
10. Myth and Truth About Libertarianism Murrary Rothbard
11. Do You Consider Yourself a Libertarian?
12. ^ Zwolinski, Matt, "Libertarianism", ], retrieved 2008-08-09 {{citation}}: URL–wikilink conflict (help)
13. Blaming Liberty for the State's Depradations
14. "Authoritarian", Student Britannica
15. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Libertarianism, Stanford University, July 24, 2006 version.
16. "libertarian", ], Merriam-Webster {{citation}}: URL–wikilink conflict (help)
17. Professor Brian Martin, Eliminating state crime by abolishing the state.
18. Murray Rothbard, Do You Hate the State?, The Libertarian Forum, Vol. 10, No. 7, July 1977.
19. "Authoritarian", Student Britannica

I've included the ref list just so people can see the quality and accuracy of the various refs for themselves.

Now, the purpose of a first paragraph is to encapsulate the core ideas. Which version does that? It can't be perfect, it can't qualify, it can't obfuscate, it's got to hit you in the head.

The current version (1) is weak (2) contains generalities (3) contains poor or inappropriate references (4) is vague (5) arguably overstates the case against the state and verges into anarchism (Libertarians are not generally - certainly not necessarily - anarchists).

Weak is self evident. It simply means vaguely expressed. Generalities: "broad spectrum" is simply wrong. The reference goes to political spectrum BETWEEN schools of thought, not within, so doesn't support the assertion. The assertion is also simply wrong. Libertarianism has a number of sub-sets of thought, but is not as diverse (confused?) as socialism or Marxism.

To take an obvious, current example: The current $700 billion/$1 trillion/$2 trillion? bailout of Wall Street (apparently to allow a government guaranteed 4% increase in bonuses to Wall Street executives this year?) was strongly supported by both left-leaning socialists in D.C. (e.g. B. Frank) and conservatives (e.g. GW Bush, Hank the Tank and others). Without in any way using these terms ironically, the bailout could be considered a socialist idea or a fascist idea. It's difficult to know, and there's ongoing debate. However, it cannot under ANY circumstances be considered a Libertarian idea. All Libertarians are against the bailout, but some socialists, some fascists and some conservatives are all for it (and all voted for it). That to my mind indicates that Libertarianism is much more circumscribed than either socialism or fascism. Libertarianism is therefore NOT a "broad" philosophy compared to, say, socialism, which can verge on fascism or communitarianism or communism. This is a concrete example showing the inappropriateness of the use of the term "broad spectrum", in comparison to other political philosophies.

Poor references - see above.

Vague - see above. "From a variety of...." - what the Hell is this sentence getting at???? It's completely useless. All philosophies view topics from "a variety of distinct metaphysical, epistemological, and moral grounds". That's what political philosophies do. Why does this even have to be said? Using these "big" words impresses no one but second-rate academics who don't have the intellects to speak or think clearly. "Metaphysical" - yeah, well, OK the Libertarian view of free will perhaps is metaphysical, but so what? "Epistemological" - no really, perhaps "self truth"? "Moral" - yes, certainly (see Rothbard's defense of Libertarianism). But ALL these terms to newbies are confusing and off-putting and are worse than useless to put into the very first paragraph. Why turn newbies off with this stuff? We're not here to impress each other with big words that say nothing, but we're here to INFORM the ignorant newbie. This meaningless phrasing is what I hate. It sounds like something taken from a liberal Democrat affirmative action brochure. Meaningless drivel.

Overstates the Libertarian case against the state. As is clear from the Rothbard references, the focus for Libertarians is on the potentially unlimited COERCIVE actions of the state. Often idiots characterize Libertarianism, to take an extreme example, as the philosophical equivalent of the "right to rape" (in other words, the right to do whatever the Hell I want to do whenever I want to). The current paragraph veers dangerously close to this cruel libel against Libertarianism. Why keep it?

Socialists consider Libertarianism akin to barbarism and believe in the "civilizing" qualities of the state. Yet, no one thinks deeply about this (except Rothbard) and points out the obvious: that the greatest volume and most vicious rapes always occur by state actors during civil strife or war. WWII, the Vietnam War, the Bosnian War, the Rawandan war all consisted of acts of mass rape by state actors. Arguably Libertarian principles (such as the right to own guns and the right to protect your family and your property) would have protected private families against the rape of the state. Most Libertarians are not against the State in toto. Anarchists are. Libertarians such as Rothbard are concerned about the potential abuses INHERENT in state power because there is no "review" authority other than another state agent. So the COERCIVE state needs to be constrained, but the State does not necessarily have to be eliminated. Rothbard is so clear on this. Why keep this "kill the state" libel in there? Rothbard wants to civilize the state, not eliminate it. Why is this so hard to understand?

"The word libertarian is an antonym of authoritarian." Yeah, so what? Again, a classic case of a meaningless sentence leading no where. How does that help a newbie understand Libertarianism???? By working through a negative of a negative???

Please think about these issues and compare the two versions. The suggested version is not perfect, but it does provide a meaningful summation of Libertarian principles and the references are terrific summations (and defenses) of the philosophy. I've spent some time on this because I'm passionate about Rothbard and a number of other writers and know my stuff on this issue (but not on many others). Please don't fight me on this one. Please.

(And please don't say Rothbard is not representative. He is. And even if it's slightly sectarian, push the other views into the body of the article. That's where the nuances should go.) - Ron Paul...Ron Paul... (talk) 11:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages is based on cooperative editing - which your title obviously mocks. After many complaints about the biases of this article which you can read in archives and above, we made a bare lead. More detailed variations on principles belong in the principles section.
• Your long lead version only creates a POV view point drawn from some minor and some major sources that are fine for the principles section but not for the lead. Arguments for a certain POV doesn't really change that fact, unless 3 or 4 other editors from different viewpoints agree- also, editors who are not suspected to be sockpuppets, since there is a notorious capitalist anarchist sockpuppet with a POV much like yours that a number of us are keeping our eyes out for. I'll wait another 24 hours for others to opine to revert to variation preferred by consensus of last few months arrived at through much hard work. Carol Moore 00:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Keep an eye out. I'll give you my spare tin hat if you want one, whilst you're on the lookout for the dangerous "anarchist". I maintain that the diluted, pathetic lede was so worn down it was completely useless to any newbie. But apparently that's the way you (and who else?) like it. If anyone else has an opinion now's the time to raise your hand, or forever hold your peace/piece. - Ron Paul...Ron Paul... (talk) 12:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Ron, I'm with Carol on this. Only just came across your (pretty drastic) changes to the lead, & I don't have time right now to address them in detail. A specific issue, though, in your new first sentence: your source (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) does not, as far as I can see, identify libertarianism as a 'movement', which has the effect of making it sound a lot more cohesive and coherent a phenomenon than it in fact is, as indeed the rest of the (I agree) pretty rambling article makes apparent. The earlier 'broad spectrum' (subject, I recall, of a fair bit of discussion) was more accurate. This, as I say, is just one problematic detail; there are others.

The lead is now itself more rambling, not to say befogged, yet it fails to an even greater extent than before to give a summary, as irony would have it, of the actual article. This, I fear, is largely the consequence of presuming libertarianism as a global phenomenon to be synonymous with libertarianism in the US sense or the position of the admirable Murray Rothbard; specifically with Ron Paul, a man I'd far prefer sitting in the White House than the blessed Barry (as I presume, from your chosen user name, would you). The issue of libertarianism in the US usage as compared to that in the rest of the world has been the focus of much to-ing & fro-ing herein. Earlier versions of the lead better, for all their undoubted inadequacies, reflected this.

Perhaps an even better summary, given your (strange?) criteria would be "Libertarianism is about liberty"? It's anodyne, says nothing, but then it can't be faulted either. Is that the perfect first paragraph for you? I feel you may have been part of the early arguments, so you may have a slight WP:OWN issue, along with Carol. Please realize I'm not in any way suggesting this aggressively; I'm just pointing out the obvious point that people who agreed on the paragraph before aren't going to agree to change it now. Is there anyone who hasn't contributed to the paragraph before who has a view? I also note that I am not proposing to edit the whole article. Which is very poorly written and a fairly shallow analysis. And meanders. Badly. - Ron Paul...Ron Paul... (talk) 09:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The syntax of the lead is now very rickety. Wingspeed (talk) 12:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. re: "Libertarianism...by committee? How ironic." A good libertarian (and Wikipedian) principle is that articulated by Kevin Kelly: "Nobody is as smart as everybody." Wingspeed (talk) 12:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is as smart as everybody. But some are smarter than others on particular topics they are interested in. That's why there's genetic diversity in human beings and why we don't all replicate like tapeworms. And those who know their stuff should prevail. Ironically, they rarely do. Just look at the "losers" at the Fed and the Treasury...and the "bail me out!" bankers. Cheats and bullies are always the winners. For instance, just watch me get barred by the bullies...Carol's already pulled the trigger (how unsurprising)...nothing like a good barring to stop an intellectual discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron Paul...Ron Paul... (talk • contribs) 06:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, what does "prioritize" mean to you? If something is rated 10th, is it still prioritized? - Ron Paul...Ron Paul... (talk) 09:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Sock puppets form their own committees to influence editing=

What does Sock Puppet mean to you? There's a note on User talk:Ron Paul...Ron Paul... that you are a sock puppet of User:Karmaisking and if I could figure out how to report sockpuppets there would be one for User:Sarsaparilla too. I'll try report to admin later today. Anyway, as you know from having been banned multiple times before, once you have been banned as a sock puppet all this questionable material other people have complained about will be reverted back to original version. Real libertarians don't constantly thumb there noses at widely agreed policies of any group they freely choose to join but try to change them within the rules or just stay away. Carol Moore 14:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Real Libertarians don't resort to protocol when debating intellectual matters. Dumb government bureaucrats and second-rate academics do. I've asked repeatedly how to remove my totally unjustified sockppt status and been told by Gregalton and others to get lost. They won't help and have no interest in reverting the ban. The rule-bound are always on a power trip, and never debate the substance. Because they have none. - Ron Paul...Ron Paul... (talk) 23:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a little humor to hopefully convince Karmaisking/Sarsaparilla that having all your sock puppets agree with each other in editing an article to blow away other editors is just tacky. Carol Moore 23:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

I hope your edits are not as bad as your paranoia. I am not Sarsaparilla. I have not used sockppts simultaneously. Only after an unjustified ban. I've got a great one coming up, if you do want to ban me.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron Paul...Ron Paul... (talk • contribs) 04:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages former featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Misplaced Pages former brilliant prose
• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class sociology articles
• Mid-importance sociology articles
• Unassessed software articles
• Unknown-importance software articles
• Unassessed software articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed Computing articles
• Unknown-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• All Software articles