Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:38, 23 June 2013

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Libertarianism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42Auto-archiving period: 14 days

view · edit Frequently asked questions Q: Are libertarianism and socialism mutually exclusive? A: No. Libertarians believe liberty consists of personal autonomy, and they justify a strong distrust of the state upon this foundation. Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system. Although socialism is commonly associated with the planned economies proffered by Marxism-Leninism and other "authoritarian socialists," libertarian socialism rejects economic direction from a central authority such as the state. Thus, libertarianism and anarchism have been synonyms since the 1890s, and other equivalents include libertarian socialism, socialist anarchism, and left-libertarianism. The libertarianism of the 19th century had two strong currents, social anarchism and individualist anarchism, both of which fall under the umbrella of libertarian socialism and were explicitly anti-capitalist. In the 20th century, members of the Old Right in the United States such as Albert Jay Nock and H. L. Mencken began identifying as libertarians to declare their commitment to individualism and distance themselves from liberals who supported welfare capitalism. Some libertarians (e.g. Murray Rothbard, who popularized the libertarian philosophy anarcho-capitalism) were explicitly influenced by the American individualist anarchists, but most were "a rather automatic product of the American environment." This modern American libertarianism is also referred to as right-libertarianism. Q: What is right-libertarianism? What is left-libertarianism? A: Right-libertarianism refers to those libertarian ideologies that extoll private property without recompense paid by the owner to the local community, and includes anarcho-capitalism and laissez-faire, minarchist liberalism. This is contrasted with left-libertarianism, which either rejects private property, or accepts it only under the condition that the local community is compensated for the exclusionary effects thereof (e.g. a land value tax). Left-libertarianism includes libertarian socialism, left-wing market anarchism, and geolibertarianism. Q: How are all these political philosophies related? Which ones are closely related or inclusive? A: Some labels and qualifiers are typically used to group together multiple political movements or ideologies or distance them from others. Below is a rough and simplified visual representation of how many of the political camps described in the article (i.e. groups that have either identified or been described as libertarian) relate to one another, without any regard to their affinity for one another, their prominence or their significance. Libertarian classification diagram References Badie, Bertrand; Berg-Schlosser, Dirk; Morlino, Leonardo (2011). International Encyclopedia of Political Science. SAGE Publications, Inc. p. 2456. ISBN 978-1412959636. "Socialist systems are those regimes based on the economic and political theory of socialism, which advocates public ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources." Sacco, Nicola and Vanzetti, Bartolomeo (1928). The Letters of Sacco and Vanzetti. New York: Octagon Books. p. 274. "After all we are socialists as the social-democrats, the socialists, the communists, and the I.W.W. are all Socialists. The difference—the fundamental one—between us and all the other is that they are authoritarian while we are libertarian; they believe in a State or Government of their own; we believe in no State or Government." Nettlau, Max (1996). A Short History of Anarchism (in English, translated). London:Freedom Press. p. 162. ISBN 978-0-900384-89-9. OCLC 37529250. Guérin, Daniel (1970). Anarchism: From Theory to Practice. New York:Monthly Review Press. ISBN 978-0853451754. "Some contemporary anarchists have tried to clear up the misunderstanding by adopting a more explicit term: they align themselves with libertarian socialism or communism." Ostergaard, Geoffrey. "Anarchism". The Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social Thought. Blackwell Publishing. p. 14. ^ Bookchin, Murray and Biehl, Janet (1997). The Murray Bookchin Reader. New York:Cassell. p. 170. Marshall, Peter (2009). Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism. Oakland:PM Press. p. 4. ISBN 978-1-60486-064-1. " emerged at the end of the eighteenth century in its modern form as a response partly to the rise of centalized States and nationalism, and partly to industrialization and capital. Anarchism thus took up the dual challenge of overthrowing both Capital and the State." ^ Chartier, Gary. Johnson, Charles W. (2011). Markets Not Capitalism: Individualist Anarchism Against Bosses, Inequality, Corporate Power, and Structural Poverty. Minor Compositions. pp. 4-5. ISBN 978-1570272424. "The anticapitalism of the 'first wave' individualists was obvious to them and to many of their contemporaries." Burns, Jennifer (2009). Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right. New York:Oxford University Press. p. 309. ISBN 978-0-19-532487-7. DeLeon, David (1978). The American as Anarchist: Reflections on Indigenous Radicalism. Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 127. "only a few individuals like Murray Rothbard, in Power and Market, and some article writers were influenced by . Most had not evolved consciously from this tradition; they had been a rather automatic product of the American environment." ^ Goodway, David (2006). Anarchist Seeds Beneath the Snow: Left-Libertarian Thought and British Writers from William Morris to Colin Ward. Liverpool:Liverpool University Press. p. 4. "'Libertarian' and 'libertarianism' are frequently employed by anarchists as synonyms for 'anarchist' and 'anarchism', largely as an attempt to distance themselves from the negative connotations of 'anarchy' and its derivatives. The situation has been vastly complicated in recent decades with the rise of anarcho-capitalism, 'minimal statism' and an extreme right-wing laissez-faire philosophy advocated by such theorists as Murray Rothbard and Robert Nozick and their adoption of the words 'libertarian' and 'libertarianism'. It has therefore now become necessary to distinguish between their right libertarianism and the left libertarianism of the anarchist tradition." Hamowy, Ronald. "Left Libertarianism." The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. p. 288 Foldvary, Fred E. "Geoism and Libertarianism". The Progress Report. Progress.org. Retrieved 2013-03-26.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

	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

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

Template:WikiProject LibertarianismPlease add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Philosophy: Social and political Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Social and political philosophy 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.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Template:Misplaced Pages CD selection 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 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Libertarianism sidebar (again)

Seriously, guys. Why do people keep screwing with the sidebar? What is wrong with the color scheme? How about we leave it the way it was until somebody comes up with a better alternative instead of just eliminating it altogether. --Adam9389 (talk) 22:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Discuss at sidebar talk page where those who futz with it tend to hang... It is frustrating. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 13:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Bad article

It's beyond dispute that "libertarian" is a term whose etymology - in a political context - dates back to anarchists, and has for a hundred years been synonymous with that tendency.

By stretching the term to accommodate a few capitalists who truly only have a presence online, you've made it pretty much meaningless. Libertarian, according to this article, includes people who both support the state, AND those oppose it. It includes capitalists, and it includes communists. Apparently, the only thing you need to be a libertarian is to "support free will," whatever that means.

By giving in to a small minority's OPEN AND OBVIOUS redefining of a word, you've made this article - and the concepts behind it - completely unintelligible. Please, re-edit this and remove any mention of American "libertarians," or at the very least confine them to a small footnote, because in the scope of it all, that's all they really are.

76.104.138.63 (talk) 03:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)John

This has been debate ad nauseum. Please see the above and/or the archives. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 13:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, a compromise developed over years between folks with views at opposite "extremes" on the question, with yours (76.104.138.63's) being one of those. North8000 (talk) 15:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

"Libertarianism" meaning, context and definition

Misplaced Pages articles are suppossed to convey a worldwide view of the subject (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias)

But "libertarianism" here is mostly only taken from the USA point of view since Rothbard in the 50's, which is self-admittedly a distortion:

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

In most non-english languajes the world keeps the left-anarchist aception: https://www.google.com.ar/search?q=libertarios&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=es-419&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=rs-5UZmxPMaB0QGE6YC4BQ&biw=1600&bih=725&sei=sM-5UeO-GtOt4APQ7IGYDA which is collectivist-syndicalist-communist.

This article, and the category, quotes all mises-like sources which are austrian/classical liberal and not libertarian. libertarianism does not start with Locke; that is liberalism. Libertarianism starts with Proudhon, and was only started to use by USA right-wing very recently in history, while in the rest of 95% of the world is still a left-anarchist word. And this is the denotation that shpuld be referred in a worldwide wikipedia page. See French article for reference: https://fr.wikipedia.org/Libertaire

This article requires a complete rewrite with sourcing from the w. --190.49.244.157 (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

It covers both, as it should. And about every week we get someone from one or the other end of the spectrum saying that it should focus on their end of the spectrum. North8000 (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

No, it is covering just one primarily and the other as an afterthought, which should be historically and world-wise exactly the opposite. "Libertarianism" is not based on Locke "god-given rights" or the "age of elightement" morals. The history of the use does not even go there. Mises did not call himself a libertarian and the US revolution was not libertarian but classical liberal, same as minarchy as reduced government role and opposition to taxes. For this ideology there is already: https://en.wikipedia.org/Minarchism https://en.wikipedia.org/Classical_liberalism "It shares a number of beliefs with other belief systems belonging to liberalism, advocating civil liberties and political freedom, limited government, rule of law, and belief in free market" ; how is the definition of US "libertarianism" different? --190.49.244.157 (talk) 14:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, as to why this is undesirable and repealed by wikipedia guidelines, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias --190.49.244.157 (talk) 14:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Quite the opposite, it follows the common usage of the term and coverage in sources. The approach is to cover all strands, except with less emphasis on those whose more common name is anarchism. North8000 (talk) 14:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we should create a new article for "American Libertarianism", although I don't know what the distinction between Objectivism, the American Libertarian Party and "American Libertarianism" would be.67.176.100.125 (talk) 14:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)+

Quite possibly, but I don't see how that should affect this (the top level) article where the approach (worked out over 3 years) is cover all strands, with less emphasis on those whose more common name is anarchism. North8000 (talk) 14:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is questioning the approach which correctly includes both minarchism and anarchism. What's contested is the systemic neutrality of this top level article. "Libertarianism" clearly means different things in America than it does in the rest of the world.67.176.100.125 (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Nolan, Rothbard and others drew on both libertarian and neo-classical liberal sources. TFD (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

To promote a classical liberal philosophy. Just because they learned a thing or two from actual Libertarians doesn't make their arguments defining of or even relevant to Libertarianism (at least not as the term is most widely-used).67.176.100.125 (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that Rothbard, Mises and company would be a better fit for an "American Libertarianism" article. That would remove the systemic neutrality objections, while maintaining an inclusive approach to both minarchism and anarchism (Georgism could stay, for example, as a minarchist-Libertarian school of thought which is not Socialist.).67.176.100.125 (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

AnonIP 67.176.100.125: If you are brand new you should look at policies I left on your talk page, starting with put your new sections at end of the page, not beginning. Also note that there is a whole Category:Left-libertarianism so that perspective is hardly ignored. There also is Libertarianism in the United States. Yes, more is needed from around the world. Feel free to find sources and put them in the article, noting WP:reliable sources. And please avoid WP:Edit warring which can get one blocked from editing. Thanks. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 15:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I am brand new, and I thought that's what I was doing... perhaps you've confused me with the IP which created the new section? If we already have an article on "Libertarianism in the United States", then what's the defense of the systemic bias in this article?67.176.100.125 (talk) 15:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed that the section order now goes from April 9, 2013 to April 3, 2013. Am I misunderstanding you, or should you ban yourself? Seems like a pretty childish move to apply rules in such a discriminatory fashion.67.176.100.125 (talk) 16:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

In the above posts, I see an argument that the common US style libertarianism isn't "real" libertarianism, and a vague / unexplained claim that the article is non-neutral. To me it looks like you don't like that the article IS neutral, and covers all strands without declaring that the US style isn't "real" libertarianism, or for including the US style which you don't consider to be "real" libertarianism. If not, the what are you saying is non-neutral? North8000 (talk) 15:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, the "US style libertarianism" is quite distinct from "Libertarianism" as the term is most-widely used, yet "US style libertarianism" forms the basis of the article. In fact, why should the US be mentioned at all, if we're not going to mention the multitude of nations which use the term in a completely different manner? I see that the original post to this section explained the case for systemic bias within this article quite well already.67.176.100.125 (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's make it clear, editing wikipedia is about What Sources Say not what editors think. Bring us sources, we can discuss them. Keep discussing your opinions and we'll just hide the whole thread as irrelevant WP:Soapbox. And if pro-property libertarians have captured libertarianism from the left and that's the way it's used in most reliable sources, so be it. The world isn't fair and wikipedia reflects reliable sources in the world, not idealists in their abodes. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 15:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, here's a source: "But you see, "libertarian" has a special meaning in the United States. The United States is off the spectrum of the main tradition in this respect: what's called "libertarianism" here is unbridled capitalism. Now, that's always been opposed in the European libertarian tradition, where every anarchist has been a socialist—because the point is, if you have unbridled capitalism, you have all kinds of authority: you have extreme authority."-Noam Chomsky, Professor of Linguistics at MIT.

http://www.distantocean.com/2008/04/chomsky-on-libe.html

So, now what is your defense against the systemic bias in this article? Remember to use a source, because, "The world isn't fair and wikipedia reflects reliable sources in the world, not idealists in their..." conservative think-tanks.67.176.100.125 (talk) 16:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Chomsky is already mentioned in the article. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 16:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

This quote is not meant for inclusion, but rather to further illustrate the systemic bias of the article. Is there any reason why we shouldn't edit the article, remove the US bias and references to the US, with the exception of a note indicating that the word has multiple meanings in the US and a link to "Libertarianism in the United States"?67.176.100.125 (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

You can't be serious posing it that way. North8000 (talk) 17:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Chomsky, who as a Linguist is an excellent source on the topic, says, "..."libertarian" has a special meaning in the United States. The United States is off the spectrum of the main tradition...", which substantiates the claim: this article contains systemic bias. Since Libertarianism in the United States is far removed from the traditional and contemporary usage of the term, this article should not contain such a focus on the US. As someone else pointed out above, there is already an article for that: Libertarianism in the United States. So I ask again, is there any reason why we shouldn't edit the article, remove the US bias and references to the US, with the exception of a note indicating that the word has multiple meanings in the US and a link to "Libertarianism in the United States"?67.176.100.125 (talk) 17:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Given the nature of this dispute and the lack of defense against it, may we now safely add the

The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this article, discuss the issue on the talk page, or create a new article, as appropriate. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

template to this article?67.176.100.125 (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, one of the many many the reason why is that about 30 editors have been working on this (including all of the thoughts and questions which you are raising, plus the same from the other end of the spectrum, and had many immense debates on that) for many years, and through an immense amount of work have developed this. Which is to cover all strands of libertarianism. And so that is why you don't get a green light to gut / remake all of that work and the entire article to your liking. Which means that normal editing practices apply, including proposing discussing controversial edit is individually and specifically to get consensus. North8000 (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm proposing and discussing the edit here, individually and specifically to get consensus. Unless the "about 30 editors" are intending to publish a print edition of wikipedia, I don't understand why the existence of previous work and edits should preclude those in the future. The proposal isn't to limit the number of "strands of libertarianism", but rather to limit the systemic bias in this article, pursuant to the wikipolicy originally linked in this thread. While there has been no counter to this proposal so far, I recognize that perhaps more stakeholders will weigh in, given more time. Thus, I suggest adding the overpost tag. Is there any objection to this step?67.176.100.125 (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

That's not a proposal of a specific edit, it's your characterization of what you want to do. North8000 (talk) 18:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

It is a proposal for a specific edit (One to remove US bias from the article by removing references to the US and US libertarianism, with the exception of a note proclaiming that the term has different meanings in the US, and a link to Libertarianism in the US.). I'm avoiding imposing my characterization of what that would look like, since as you say, edits should be consensus-based. I understand that you've had this debate before, and that the de facto conclusion was to retain the bias, contrary to wikipedia policy and objectives. What I don't understand is why this conclusion was reached, though one might infer that from your inability to reproduce a closing argument here, this conclusion was reached when one side of the debate simply became exhausted. Is there any objective reason, therefore, why the overpost template should not be included in the article now, in order to draw more voices to the table, that a consensus which does not violate wikipedia policy and objectives may be reached?67.176.100.125 (talk) 18:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Please see years of Talk page archives on why this idea has been shot down over and over. (Just like the idea that all anarchism should be removed and that all left/communist/socialist anarchists calling themselves libertarian should be removed.) CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 19:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Per CarolMooreDC and above and extensive discussions in archives. North8000 (talk) 19:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. IP, we already have in the article the facts you are presenting here. And, full disclosure, I am a libertarian in the traditional sense of the word and so my bias is the same as your own. Despite our convictions, however, libertarianism is popularly known as a pro-capitalist, pro-government (insofar as it only protects human rights) ideology, and not only in the USA. As sources illustrate, this modern libertarianism is becoming popular in other countries as well, though it is still mostly confined to Western cultures. As the parent article for libertarianism, it is our duty to present this information here. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

My interest is in preserving the integrity of WP, not advancing a particular opinion. After reviewing the archives, I didn't find anything which would lead one to conclude this matter has been settled. I did find quite a bit of evidence of discrimination in the removal of sources and content. (Did I miss something in specific any of you could quote from the archives?) Again, what's under contest is not the inclusion of minarchism, nor the balance between minarchism and anarchism, but the systemic regional bias within the article, which may also be extended to the double-standard being used for sources (see: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Libertarianism). For example, it appears that sources which contradict Objectivist opinions have been removed for being opinions, for lack of neutrality and mostly for North8000's personal inability to verify. At the same time, at least the first 4 sources on the page remain in a gross double-standard (probably more). In the archived talks and edits, it is clear that North8000 consistently frames this dispute as arising between radicals at both ends of a spectrum, whereas in actuality, the dispute is between: those who wish to remove an egregious, corporate-backed coi (Cato, Mises, et al.) which is only substantiated by sourcing opinions and coi propaganda, rather than contemporary and historical primary sources. The article is so biased that "Libertarian Capitalism" even redirects to it. I agree with the OP: despite the three years "30 editors" have put into this article, it desperately needs some very critical attention. WP can be better than this.67.176.100.125 (talk) 13:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

IP, perhaps, then, I am confused as to what you are proposing. I think we ought to include Objectivism here, as well as add more reliable sources and remove ones that do not meet reliability standards. I think the best way to do this, though, is to edit the article and provide these sources, instead of using the talk page to goad others into unsourced edits. I agree this article needs work—sorry, everyone... I'll get to that "Left-Libertarianism" section eventually—but I'm not sure exactly what you're suggesting as an improvement. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

A little good faith would be nice. I'm not trying to "goad" anyone into anything. Rather, as suggested by your peers, I am using the talk page in an attempt to build consensus before editing from my POV alone, which from the archives has resulted in endless edit wars. What's specifically proposed (which you objected to, evidently without reading) is:

1. Tag the article with the overpost tag, or a dispute tag, or anything else to attract as many minds and voices to the revision as possible, that this revision may be less contested moving forward.

2. Use "Libertarianism in the US" and "Libertarian Capitalism" to house the systemic US bias on this topic, with an easy to find note explaining the difference.

So much of the debate within the archives is centered around semantics. It took years for American editors to begin to realize that they were using different definitions entirely. Now, instead of removing the US systemic bias, it is rather imposed upon the article, to the point that "Libertarian Capitalism" redirects to "Libertarianism".67.176.100.125 (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I appeared hostile with my choice of words; I assure you I am operating under good faith and did read the entire conversation (though perhaps my retention has suffered due to sleep deprivation). I very much appreciate the straightforward manner in which you've outlined your proposals in this latest post. As for item #1, perhaps I just have no faith that this will accomplish anything. I think—if you'll excuse the cliché—we need to be the change we want, and not simply throw a flag hoping others will take the initiative. That said, I won't fight the placement of these tags.

Could you please elaborate as to item #2? I know you've said you want to cover both minarchism and anarchism here, which I am taking to mean both anarchism and the pro-capitalist, classical liberalism valued by the Cato and Mises Institutes, etc., so I'm not quite certain exactly what this "systemic US bias" you want removed is. It seems to me that the best way to make this a more worldly article is to add reliable sources for the non-US definition (what you and I would probably consider the "True" definition), instead of removing supported content referring to the US one. I mean to improve this article by doing exactly this, but have been extremely busy with real life and have not yet had the time to devote to such an undertaking. You assistance would be greatly appreciated! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. For all the reasons stated above. Just providing additional back-up. --Adam9389 (talk) 21:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Addition of two top level tags

Someone added and re-added two top level tags. I think that their complaint is opposite to the tags. This article covers all strands of libertarianism, and they want it to focus on their preferred stands and declare others (e.g. US strands) as not being libertarianism. North8000 (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Tags and all, this is a repeat of what has happened before. Someone from one or the other end of the spectrum feels that the article should focus on their preferred strands, and consider it to be a problem (and tag it) with the article if it doesn't. North8000 (talk) 14:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

It's anonymous IP who put talk page section in wrong place - no it's another one. There are two today!!!

Obviously needs to study past archives linked above. Maybe we need a summary statement in a box on top of article saying something like:

This article is a work on progress. It covers all strands of libertarianism. Feel free to suggest new information referenced by WP:Reliable sources. Before starting new threads detailing problems with the focus of the article, please see the many different long discussions of this topic we have conducted in the Archives listed below.

Thoughts? And maybe add an FAQ which we request they read listing all the arguments from left and right (and even libertarians.) CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 15:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, both good ideas. North8000 (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think we ought to get away from telling people to read through the archives. The point of consensus is to allow the evolution of the article; we don't want to be made impotent by the decisions of past editors, nor do we want to hold future editors hostage to the decisions of current editors. I think the FAQ is a great idea though. All we need to do is inform editors that the current consensus is to minimize anarchism because it already has an article under its common name, as well as present all views that have been characterized as libertarian by reliable sources. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Good points. Especially when taken as a whole. There are some legitimate reasons to say "look at the archives" more to say to recognize the work, debates and consensus that has has occurred, but not to lock it in stone. North8000 (talk) 23:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the removal of all the anarchism material happened more because when I went through every ref, I found so many had nothing about "libertarianism" at all and only mentioned various forms of anarchism. And of course there are all sorts of anarchisms, so it's not a matter of keeping them out as much as making sure they belong in (WP:undue allowing). Maybe something like ... (adding FAQ if someone creates one) 23:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)(By CarolMooreeDC)

Through a long evolution editors have agreed that this article will cover all strands of libertarianism identified by reliable sources. This article is a work-in-progress, so feel free to improve it by adding sourced information directly related to libertarianism. Feel free to search the archives below for specific topics or see the FAQ.

(By CarolMooreeDC)

My personal preference would be to make it more explicit. I think we ought to state that libertarianism is not only the traditional philosophy synonymous with anarchism, but the modern philosophy which has been referred to as classical liberalism as well, and that this article is to cover both of these meanings. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 05:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Technically, an excellent summary of the situation. (Except I don't have the expertise to know if the traditional philosophy = anarchism) Maybe in FAQ, but in article space I think that that presumes knowledge that we have yet to impart. For USA readers this means learning that liberalism doesn't mean liberalism and anarchism doesn't mean anarchism before they even start reading the article. 10:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I must admit, I'm not sure what you mean when you say "liberalism doesn't mean liberalism and anarchism doesn't mean anarchism." Can you elaborate on this please? And, to expand on CarolMooreDC's proposed text (additions underlined):

Through a long evolution, editors have agreed that this article will cover all strands of libertarianism identified as such by reliable sources. This includes libertarianism as a synonym for anarchism, as well as the modern libertarianism popular in Western cultures. This article is a work-in-progress, so feel free to improve it by adding sourced information directly related to libertarianism. Feel free to search the archives below for specific topics or see the FAQ.

The FAQ can then ask whether anarchism and modern libertarianism are indeed libertarian, with affirming answers and the supporting sources. I'm not sure what else ought to be included in the FAQ at this time. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't mind the addition.However, since many people won't get the fact that first section is somewhat of a historical reference (I didn't first time around) might help to tweak it to say "various forms of anarchism" since that is the case. Plus it avoids people assuming we're talking only about the kind they like or the kind they do not like. What Icon should we use?? See Category:Icons. (I have html to make it light tan if one knows how to make usual darker tan). CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 18:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

CarolMooreDC, that sounds like an excellent idea. As for icon, I was looking at the Help icons and kinda like the "Help-browser.svg" icon and any color of the "Emblem-question" icons. I guess I don't really care which icon we choose, so if anyone has a strong preference that's fine by me. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Answering Mr. Dub's question, to a typical American, an anarchist is someone who throws firebombs and advocates chaos, disruption, rioting, turbulence; disorganization, disintegration. Also when a motorcycle gang takes over a town. And a liberal is someone who advocates expansion of government and a more activist role for government. So a typical US reader who comes here will get educated on the international meanings of those terms. So I was advocating not trying to accomplish all of that in the hatnote. :-) North8000 (talk) 01:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

This notice is more for potential editors or commentators. If we put it at bottom under "American English" they probably won't even notice it - not to mention the general reader. However when the complaints start, we can just recommend they look at that. And the main complaint I've see is that there's too much anarchism of any kind or that there's not enough left anarchism. If it cuts the amount of debate in half, it's worth it! CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 04:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Any of the the above ideas would be OK with me. I was just trying to add thoughts. North8000 (talk) 09:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Thoughts! That's what get us humans in so much trouble. :-)

Icon-wise, standard help icons good. Even better, something denoting diversity: Four people icons in four subdued colors (also have some brighter ones); this one is colored lines like LGBT flag; this one is Five pens pointing towards center. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 04:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The first two seem too associated with the organized labor and LGBT movements, respectively. I'm largely indifferent to the third one, so if you choose to run with that one, I have no real objections. However, if we could find something that was more indicative of liberty than diversity, I think that would be best, as the foremost principle of liberty is what makes us all libertarians in the first place. --Adam9389 (talk) 21:32, 15 June 2013

I do agree on LGBT; Coop one is more flexible since all libertarians for cooperation as opposed to coercion :-) (Though they often disagree on whether voluntary competition is a form of coercion or not.)

Commons Liberty icon search only brought up statues of liberty (too American) and other unrelated stuff. Searching liberty ends only with a Category:Lady Liberty, which looks like it's been manipulated some how, so I'm going to go to Village pump about it.

Actually we may have to make a Liberty one, but will look some more through the big listing. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 14:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Before you folks get too involved with locating a suitable icon, it appears the FAQ template I just added already includes a question mark icon. Also, I've added some very basic questions with less-than-satisfactory answers on the FAQ page. I figured I'd get it started, and you lovely peoples can add to it. I'm not sure if references ought to be included, but I have done so at this time. I will expand on them further as I get time. Thanks! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. North8000 (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, I was thinking of a FAQ as a separate page to send people too. I think you may be opening too many cans of worms that editors will end up spending a lot of time debating. But whatever... (I did think a bird flying free might be a good icon by the way but won't look for one now.) CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 19:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

MisterDub said that it needs work. Maybe that includes paring or shorter answers (I think so) Feel free. I'm just happy that someone got it started. North8000 (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, re-reading I do see he's more flexible (that others who have been driving me crazy lately ;-(. But I would cut it 50-75% because there's too much stuff likely to start debate than end it... I'll look at tomorrow... CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽

I thank MisterDub for getting this rolling and inviting changes. Regarding evolution of it, I think that it tries to get into two much depth in covering the topic which is the job of the article. Also in it's attempt to summarize American libertarianism it misfires a bit. Especially trying to see it through a philosophical lens rather and a "common meaning of the term" lens. My thought would be to focus more on the main re-occurring objections which I believe are essentially this:

1. It misses the point. It should only cover and say that the true meaning of libertarianism is anarchism. As a minimum, the amount of coverage of anarchism should be expanded.
2. (from USA folks) It misses the point. "Libertarianism" just means following a few tenets. Prioritizing increased freedom, and reduced power and size of government. Not only do the "libertarianism is anarchism" folks have it wrong, but even focusing on the USA folks with complex complete philosophies (e.g. on property, capitalism etc) are off on some philosophical tangent. The "complex, complete philosophies" is an incorrect European or philosopher lens.
3. (from USA folks) Anarchism is about throwing firebombs in riots, motorcycle gangs taking over towns, and the violence that occurs when civilization has broken down. Libertarianism has NOTHING to do with that. What the heck is that doing in a libertarianism article? What has gone wrong here?

North8000 (talk) 00:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The answers to these are:

• To #1. You are right that until recent decades, that was the almost sole meaning of the term But now the common meaning for the 200,000,000+ people in the USA who use the term is very different than that. We have decided to cover all significant strands and meanings of libertarianism, including BOTH of those. Also, since there is an Anarchism article, the main coverage is there and so we have decided to have slightly reduced coverage of anarchism in this article.
• To #2. We are working towards covering what you just described better in the article. But, FYI, libertarianism means something very different historically and in much of the world outside of the USA. It's very interesting. Please read the article to find out about it.
• To #3. Anarchism means something very different in much of the world outside of the USA. It's very interesting. Please read the article to find out about it.
• To everybody. Through extensive processes over many years we have decided to acknowledge and cover the significant different meanings and strands of libertarianism. If you are seeking to limit it to one meaning, or to eliminate coverage of a significant meaning contrary to your own, please reconsider. North8000 (talk) 01:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

1. 1: I think today worldwide "libertarianism" - without some adjective like left or socialist or communist - does mean more a pro-property and free market view. Just search Category:Libertarianism and these types of groups and individuals have far more articles, including in many non-English speaking nations, than lefties do. Even Category:Left-libertarianism have people generally in favor of property rights, though they may have some ideological differences on when natural resources become owned, the preferred voluntary way of organizing work, etc. If those who used to call themselves only libertarians (and I don't even see that much evidence that they did so without some adjective) now insist on an adjective to distinguish themselves from more pro-property libertarians, that will become clear in the article, whatever a few WP:RS including chomsky may assert. In any case, I don't think we should be emphasizing it in a FAQ or statement. (Did a new search on "libertarianism" and "worldwide" and "global" and got some interesting stuff to add to list of things still haven't gotten around to dealing with. Latest thing is defending some libertarian BLPs from attacks from right wingers... sigh...) Geez, and I didn't even do a more expanded search on "modern libertarianism." :-) CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 04:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Whatever we decide, I think it's important to answer the common questions with well-explained justifications for why we are including these various ideologies. As we all know, the common questions revolve around the inclusion of anarchism and what we have in the article as modern libertarianism. I think we should use the FAQ to show the connection between these ideologies and the libertarian label as rationale for their continued inclusion in this article. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 05:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

You two have a far better understanding than I do regarding what libertarianism means outside of the US. My answers in that area were just essentially going by what MisterDub wrote. North8000 (talk) 11:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Statistics of millennial generation

Someone added a source about political leanings mostly for those in the UK, but with a brief mention of USA. The problem is the source states that "oung Britons have turned liberal, both socially and economically" and "have turned strikingly liberal, in a classical sense", whereas it was cast here as a popular resurgence in libertarianism. Nor is there in this source any mention of wealth redistribution or support for social programs by USians. The closest the article comes to claiming this is: "Some polls hint that young Americans are more inclined than their elders to think that the government ought to do more." For now, I've left this material in, but I find it completely irrelevant to libertarianism and think it really ought to be removed entirely. Maybe you folks will think that the mention of classical liberalism is enough to make a necessary assumption that this is the same libertarianism popular in the USA (which is why, for now, I've placed it in the section for "Modern libertarianism"). In any case, it definitely doesn't belong in the lead, and probably needs to be rewritten so it accurately reflects what is in the article. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Also it's very confusing and IMO and so does more harm than good. North8000 (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Also I'd already used the source in the sentence above in Modern Lib section and it better reflected relevance to this article than what that editor put in. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 17:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah... I missed that. Thanks for catching it! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs)

The Neoliberalism pejorative

About the same time I noticed that Simon Critchley was quote on "the pseudo-libertarianism of contemporary neo-liberalism" I ran into another quote on libertarianism being called neoliberalism. And looking at that article, it's obvious that like "right libertarianism" it may be more a pejorative term than an actual philosophy, except as mentioned here or there in the past. (See discussion here and short list of 5 refs calling it pejorative: Another article to clean up?) Anyway, a paragraph on the topic, and the use of term itself, might be in order. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 13:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Neoliberal is a widely accepted term for the modern economic paradigm that emerged in the late 1970s. What else would you call it? TFD (talk) 13:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't deny it is used, but more as a negative descriptor. And I found a number of solid sources that say so. So it's more a matter of making it clear that while the term is used by some in describing libertarianism, it is not one used by, and is doubtless rejected by, libertarians. Just to be accurate. But just one of many many issues in the article. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 13:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

As with any other term, some users will associate negative connotations and other users will associate positive. Nonetheless it is clearly defined and widely-used term and it's not for us obscure the term with a gratuitous overlay of social, economic, or political opinions here. SPECIFICO talk 14:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

1. http://wiki.mises.org/Libertarianism

• 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
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class politics articles
• High-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• C-Class Philosophy articles
• Mid-importance Philosophy articles
• C-Class social and political philosophy articles
• Mid-importance social and political philosophy articles
• Social and political philosophy task force articles
• C-Class sociology articles
• Mid-importance sociology articles
• Misplaced Pages articles that use American English