Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:59, 17 January 2014

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

Template:Vital 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.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Narrower question

I'd like to distill a narrower question out of the above wide-ranging debate. And that is: shall the article say (in whatever words are chosen to implement this, including those already in the article) that some strands of libertarianism reject capitalism? And so this refers to the libertarian philosophy/ideology/platform, not to the people who practice it. North8000 (talk) 13:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment IMHO, in the context of this article, the answer should be based on whether such significantly exists or has existed, identified as libertarianism, not a debate of the validity of it. And I would like to see someone knowledgeable on left-libertarianism (MisterDub, Euden, TFD?) give a direct answer to this question before I weigh in. North8000 (talk) 13:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

the answer should be based on whether such significantly exists or has existed, identified as libertarianism, not a debate of the validity of it.

It sounds like you are trying to remove left-libertarianism based on the number of followers you think it does or doesn't have. A philosophical theory is not dependent for its validity upon the number of followers it has. It is dependent on rational argumentation in reliable sources. Take Utilitarianism. It is an important philosophical theory which is taught in philosophy courses in colleges across the world. How many utilitarians there are in the world makes precisely zero difference in how important or notable the theory is. — goethean 16:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Umm, yeah... anarchism is traditionally anticapitalist. I don't really see the point of this discussion though. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. This is just to settle it, seemingly one of the few concrete questions from the closed thread. Goethean's complete-misfire inventing bad faith aside. North8000 (talk) 17:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Then maybe you could explain what you intended by your comment, which is not at all clear. (IMHO, in the context of this article, the answer should be based on whether such significantly exists or has existed, identified as libertarianism, not a debate of the validity of it.) It sounds exactly like what I interpreted it as, an attempt to reduce the meanings of libertarian to those meanings which have a certain level of followers. Maybe you can enlighten me regarding exactly what you meant and exactly how my interpretation was so far off base. — goethean 18:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The wording was to elicit information from people more knowledgeable on left libertarianism than me. And the rest of the wording was paraphrased from the close on the huge RFC which we had. Basically, if a strand significantly exists, we will cover it here. And it ended up as I thought it would....me supporting inclusion. As has consistently been my pattern here for several years. North8000 (talk) 01:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it was something that I had previously taken as fact but I decided to recheck after TFD seemed to hedge on it in the big thread.....seemingly to the effect that it was a natural conclusion rather than a stated tenet. North8000 (talk) 02:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support including "some strands of libertarianism reject capitalism" North8000 (talk) 17:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

You mean, like the article currently does? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes.North8000 (talk) 18:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. TFD (talk) 18:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Yup. I changed the admittedly ambiguous 'reject' to 'oppose' just to be clearer. As in, they want to abolish it the way abolitionists wanted to abolish chattel slavery. That's what literally defines libertarian socialism: abolishing capitalism through some anti-state/non-vanguardist/direct means, whether they be syndicalist or insurrectionist or platformist or any of the other innumerable ways they want to get to that goal. The goal, again, just to be clear, is to make capitalism history. Finx (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• How about "some strands of libertarianism reject state support of capitalism", since so many are insisting that is what is actually being rejected? Lockean One (talk) 00:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

No. Libertarian socialists reject capitalism, not just the state support of it. Some of them believe that without the state, capitalism cannot be sustained, but make no mistake, they are still anti-capitalist. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

LOL, you don't say. Wow, who would have guessed that? Did you miss the reason for my suggestion? It follows the word "since" above. Lockean One (talk) 16:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

You know what else I missed? A reliable source. This isn't a debate site, it's an encyclopaedia based on verifiability. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

A reliable source for what? I have not suggested adding or including any unsourced content in this article. "Case of the missing source" solved. :) Lockean One (talk) 22:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Please read the notices at the top of this page. "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." TFD (talk) 22:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Then perhaps you should refrain from derailing discussions about article accuracy and neutrality with such nonsense just because you can't get by with shutting them up before they start. I will certainly try my best to refrain from taking your bait in the future. Lockean One (talk) 00:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

You just wrote "I have not suggested adding or including any unsourced content in this article." TFD (talk) 03:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know what I wrote. The source for my suggested wording is already referenced at the end of that sentence, and does in fact say that "Libertarian Socialists" reject state support of capitalism, so I'm not sure what your point is in just telling me what I said, other than taking up space to derail the discussion. Lockean One (talk) 03:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide a source that makes the same claim you wish to include? TFD (talk) 03:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Already addressed. Lockean One (talk) 03:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

A point on the introduction and 'liberal libertarianism' vs anticapitalist libertarianism

If you read through the references cram-packed into the lead, it's clear that there's two different things being described on what's nominally the 'left' of this umbrella, quite apart from ultra-capitalist side of all different feathers.

Particularly, on one side of that side, there's different flavors of economically liberal parties concerned with social welfare which are upset about how unappropriated stuff is made private stuff. These go by different names - 'georgism' and 'geolibertarianism' are two. They span the stretch from non-socialists who want common ownership of common goods to 'capitalism + land reform' liberals.

On the 'leftier left' you have groups more interested in expropriation, dissolution of private property, abolition of wage labor and a permanent paradigm shift of power in labor relations from bosses and proprietors to workers, whether through market means or market abolition - aka: socialists. This might be the cause of some confusion and I tried to reorganize the paragraph and its references to make the distinction more clear. Finx (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The lead has since been cut back a ways and FWIW, by the way, I much prefer Somedifferentstuff's last edit to the longer, wordy lead this was addressing. Going over the details of 'geolibertarianism' vs anticapitalism doesn't seem appropriate for the introductory paragraph. On the other hand, if we were painting radicals with the center-left brush, as in the last version of the lead, some explanation is needed to make it clear they're not one and the same. Finx (talk) 05:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Propose mass changes, part 2

In my continued quest to improve this article's grade, I'd like to change the "Philosophy" section dramatically, as it is currently a confusing list of value-distinctions without any rhyme or reason. I propose summarizing the common tenets of these philosophies here, with a short introductory paragraph explaining that, though they may differ significantly, they all have been identified with the term libertarianism. I think we can change the current content to a more coherent description of the major differences between these philosophies (i.e. the existence/role of the state and support/rejection of capitalism), while still stressing that they all value, to some extent, an opposition to the state. Here is what I have thus far:

The term libertarianism refers to a wide range of differing philosophies, including anarcho-capitalism, traditional, left-wing anarchism and libertarian Marxism (aka libertarian socialism), and the libertarianism that is commonly referred to as a continuation, or even radicalization, of classical liberalism. These philosophies all share a skepticism of governmental authority, but have distinct views on the role of the state and capitalism.

Some issues I'll note right off the bat:

1. I'm not very knowledgeable about anarcho-capitalism and, honestly, didn't feel like searching for a REF to support this. I figured the "citation needed" template could be filled quickly by someone more knowledgeable than I in this area.
2. I'm not sure of Geolibertarianism's proper place in the organizational scheme I've worked up, and thus have omitted it from the introduction I've proposed here. It seems more on the socialist (in the American individualist sense) side to me, but one source characterizes it as "a branch of anarcho-capitalism" and the other, a free-market ideology (though it doesn't refer specifically to either capitalism or socialism). Do we have a reliable source that concretely places it in one of these currents? One source says that adherents to both libertarianism and Georgism/geoism are called geolibertarians, so maybe it's not a subset, but a fusion (the article currently calls it a synthesis).
3. I've copied the lead from the Geolibertarianism article as a (hopefully) fair summary of the philosophy, but perhaps our coverage should not be so extensive. Maybe we should leave my sandbox's version out and simply use the section we have currently (under "History"), whether we leave it there or move it to the new "Philosophy" section.
4. I don't think it necessary to summarize Objectivism as I've done here. Instead, we should probably discuss the similarities between it and libertarianism, while noting the criticisms and rejection of libertarianism by Rand and other Objectivists.
5. It is probably also worthwhile to add a section on left libertarianism explaining the use of the term to refer to those who support an egalitarian sharing of natural resources, whether this describes the socialists and communists who reject private property, the market-oriented anarchists who extoll freed markets but maintain they are still part of the socialist tradition, or the Georgists and others who have proposed a land-value or similar tax. However, I have left this out of the "Philosophy" section of my draft at this time.
6. I think we can organize the references better by adding a "Notes" section, as shown in my sandbox. This will clear up our "References" section and still provide a place for people to get more information about, or clarification/confirmation of, the relevant statement; however, I have yet to do so for much of the content in question.

I'm not sure if we want to tackle any or all of these issues before making the edit, or if it would be better to get a good foundation and make changes later. In any case, please let me know what you think. Again, thank you for your time and consideration! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 04:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Just as a comment on where "Geolibertarianism" fits in, it clearly uses the term "libertarianism" to refer to libertarian philosophy as defined in Stanford, etc., ie in the same broad category as classical liberalism, U.S. libertarianism, etc.

I would also suggest that it's misleading to say that (non-socialist) libertarians have "distinct views" on capitalism. The encyclopedic sources on libertarianism (Stanford EOP, Internet IOP, and Britannica, for example) don't even mention capitalism. Libertarianism (in that sense) isn't about capitalism vs socialism per se. It's about advocating liberty itself, not what people choose to do with it. -Lockean One (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the "distinct views" on capitalism, I'm open to phrasing this better, but US libertarians quite clearly extoll private property, "free" markets, and capitalism, as is made clear by many on the left who criticize these values. Maybe we have to explain it as a criticism from the left, and not an explicit tenet of these propertarian ideologies, but this information should be in the article. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree, (regarding capitalism specifically) that would belong as a "criticism from the left" instead of an actual stated tenet. And I agree that such criticisms should be in the article. That's a double agreement! Lockean One (talk) 17:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

All, I have replaced the current "Philosophy" section with the one I proposed in my sandbox. I have slightly modified the leading paragraph to avoid claiming that these differing philosophies have "distinct views" and corrected many of the references in this section, including grouping the more detailed ones into a "Notes" section for further reading. The coverage of Geolibertarianism and Objectivism still need work, per my list of issues above, but I will work on these as time permits. Thank you everyone for your input! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Overall it looks good, but can you point me to where you proposed this version? I don't see it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

North8000, it's the very first comment of this section.

Finx, I have a couple of concerns with the reorganization you did in this section. First, I don't mind grouping them together as you have, but I feel others will. The main issue here being that "Laissez-faire capitalism" (aka right-libertarianism, propertarianism) isn't an explicit value of neoliberalism, even though it is certainly an implicit value, as evidenced by the criticism of others. Second, you've included Objectivism within the "Laissez-faire capitalism" section. While it is true that laissez-faire capitalism is an explicit value of Objectivists, Objectivism is not itself a libertarian ideology, according to its major theorists Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff. In fact, I intentionally placed this last, as its own philosophy, for just this reason. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

@Misterdub, from a process standpoint, if you are proposing a huge change you should specifically show us what you want to change it to. Again, it looks like overall good work. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

You know, I really don't need to adhere to your perception of how Misplaced Pages works. If you didn't read the section with the heading "Propose mass changes" to understand what was being suggested, that's on you. Please do not respond with more irrelevant comments. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you need to talk like that? Where did you show us specifically what you proposed to put in? North8000 (talk) 02:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

"The" instead of "any" means of production?

Seriously, an edit war to preserve an obvious grammatical error? Using the definite article "the" is a simple grammatical error here. LibSocs oppose private ownership of "any" means of production, not just certain "particular ones" as the definite article "the" would refer to. Anybody else object to fixing this obvious grammatical error in the intro?

Or does anyone claim that Libsocs only oppose private ownership of certain particular means of production but not others? (and if so, which ones?). Or should a grammatical error be purposely used in this article simply because such grammatical error is "common" in certain circles? Lockean One (talk) 22:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

When did the come to mean only some??? And really, who cares either way?! This is completely asinine! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree it's asinine, all I did was correct an obvious grammatical error and got reverted without discussion. Lockean One (talk) 23:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the phrase is usually "the means of production,", and it's not a grammatical error, let alone an obvious one. I don't see how you've interpreted it as, "maybe kinda sorta some of thems?". -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 23:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

LOL, yes, I'm aware that it's "usually" worded that way by socialists. And it's not my "interpretation" that the word "the" means "specifically identified ones" instead of "any". It's why it's called a definite article. Returning to the relevant issue, any legitimate reason to oppose wording it accurately as "oppose private ownership of any means of production", given that they mean any of them, any that currently exist plus any that would or could ever be built by anyone, precluding the legitimate use of the definite article "the"? Lockean One (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Garbage. "The" is inclusive in this context. If you have an actual argument then present it, otherwise leave it alone. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Advice declined. If you have a legitimate reason to insist on incorrectly using the definite article "the" to refer to an indefinite plural noun (means of production, in this context), or if you disagree that LibSocs oppose private ownership of "any" means of production, in the indefinite sense, please explain. Thank You. Lockean One (talk) 02:45, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Lockean One, can you please stop posting disingenuous discussions. TFD (talk) 01:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Sure, if you would please stop punching kittens. See how fruitless it is to ask uncivil loaded questions? Lockean One (talk) 02:45, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you pretending that you are not familiar with the term "means of production" or do you not know what it means. If the former, then stop it. If the latter, then you should read about subjects before wasting other editors time asking them to explain them to you. TFD (talk) 04:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't ask anyone to explain that to me, and you know it. And the answer to your first question is "neither", and you knew that, too. And your petty and misguided lecturing is as entertaining as ever. You just go ahead and ramble on with such nonsense. Lockean One (talk) 14:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources on the meaning of 'neo-classical liberalism'?

The classical liberalism article has very poor, incomplete references on this topic. I can't seem to track them down. The links to it, previously linked to 'neoliberalism', are now circular references. This discussion suggests there are no such reliable sources describing any 'neo-classical liberalism' at all.

I've always simply assumed it to be the longer-form version of 'neoliberalism', describing the bulk of currents among economists and intellectuals to advocate certain laissez-faire capitalist ideas and doctrines, under (rightly or not) the banner of a sort-of return to classical liberal philosophy, going back to before Hayek, etc. I could be mistaken. Is anyone here knowledgeable on this topic?

If we can't get to the bottom of it, I'd suggest linking to the neoliberalism article, which has a little more meat on its bones than a single unsourced claim. Finx (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The problem, if I'm not mistaken, is that critics tend to use the term neoliberal while adherents use the terms libertarian and/or classical liberal. I'm fairly certain Chomsky has mentioned that libertarians within this classical liberal current ought to use neo-classical liberalism because they do not quite follow the classical liberal "agenda." I will have to return with that source. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The article on classical liberalism is sourced and explains what neo-classicl liberalism is. Essentially, they rejected classical lbieral tenets such as the labor theory of value, the iron law of wages and Malthus's population theory, while retaining faith in minimal government, free trade and laissez-faire. "Neoliberalism" was the term adopted by the Mont Pelerin Society in the 1930s, but became a popular term in the 1990s to describe the Reagan-Thatcher policies implimented in the 1980s, which drew heavily on neo-classical liberalism. Sometimes neoclassical liberalism, including neoliberalism and libertarianism, is referred to as classical liberalism. Apparently the original term was "true liberalism", in order to distinguish them from the new, or "social", liberals. What does this have to do with this article? TFD (talk) 03:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

As far as the label "neoliberalism" it has been used so widely and for decades now in such a huge number of books that it is clearly a serious field of scientific and academic enquiry. But frankly i don´t understand what some people have againts that label and here i mainly refer to economic liberals/right libertarians. The "neo" just means a recent or a renovation of something old, in this case a new kind of liberalism and not the old "classical liberalism". The reason that neoliberalism is so important a concept in the social sciences is the perception that the 2 or 3 past decades of state economic policies have been hegemonized by economic laissez faire deregulated capitalism which replaced as a dominant paradigm the previous keynesian economics approach.--Eduen (talk) 04:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

In the US, the common meaning/usage of "neo" has been corrupted to often mean "extreme" or negative-because-extreme. North8000 (talk) 12:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I do not think that is true. Why do you think that? TFD (talk) 16:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

My description of the "negative" use was a little narrow, but, for example, If you google "Neo-con epithet" (don't use the quote marks) you will see a lot about it being used as an epithet rather than (and largely unrelated to) the actual intellectual meaning of neoconservative. North8000 (talk) 17:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The neo- prefix doesn't mean anything like extreme; that's just complete nonsense! neo- means new, as Eduen stated, and sometimes the new ideologies are extreme, but that doesn't somehow place a negative connotation on the prefix itself. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

As I indicated, my first attempt was too narrow/specific. But either way, noting common meanings in usage is not "making stuff up". But either way, it was a just a side note to Eduen, not a proposal for the article. North8000 (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

No, your statement was wrong, plain and simple. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

TFD, it has to do with the article having a section on so-called neo-classical liberalism, which is a label that's been challenged (not by me) as being basically made-up by some editor, on account of seemingly having zero reliable references to be found anywhere. I'm not trying to be difficult, and I'm aware of the history you're describing; just not sure about the terms being thrown around. Maybe I'm just blind. I'll give the classical liberalism article another look, but on first glance I hadn't found anything there which supports that 'neo-classical liberalism' (as opposed to just 'neoliberalism') is an actually-existing label used in any serious academic texts or otherwise. If you'd be so kind as to provide a source, I'd be much obliged. Finx (talk) 02:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

TFD Finx, here is one of the primary references for the Classical liberalism article, Alan Mayne's From Politics Past to Politics Future: An Integrated Analysis of Current and Emergent Paradigms (p. 124, emphasis added):

In the early nineteenth century, all liberals supported 'laissez-faire liberalism' and capitalism, which was developing rapidly as a result of the Industrial Revolution. This variant of liberalism developed into neo-classical liberalism, which argued that government should be as small as possible to provide full scope of the exercise of individual freedom. The more extreme neo-classical liberals advocated social Darwinism, whereby the 'survival of the fittest' should apply to social and economic life as well as to wildlife. A later variant of neo-classical liberalism is libertarianism, which supports an exceptional degree of individual freedom, indeed, so much that it advocates minimal intereference by the state, even where the freedom of different individuals clashes severely.

I prefer to use the term neo-classical liberalism because "Classical liberalism does not constitute the whole of the tradition but refers to a particular historical phase" (James L. Richardson. Contending Liberalisms in World Politics: Ideology and Power. p. 42), but I think classical liberalism will work if there is significant repudiation. I think changing it to neoliberalism would be a change for the worse, as that term is really only employed critically and its use--I suspect--would violate NPOV. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Neoclassical refers to the liberalism that emerged in the mid-nineteenth century, while neoliberalism is defined more narrowly as the liberalism that was adopted by governments in the 1970s. I don't see any POV issues. Neoliberals read Hayek and Friedman, they don't read just Jevons and Menger. They also accept that government has grown bigger and do not attempt to return it to what it was in 19th century, they just try to scale it back. TFD (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The contemporary use of neoliberalism is even more striking because scholars once employed the term nearly the opposite of how it is commonly used today. As we demonstrate in the second section, the term neoliberalism was first coined by the Freiberg School of German economists to denote a philosophy that was explicitly moderate in comparison to classical liberalism, both in its rejection of laissez-faire policies and its emphasis on humanistic values. These characteristics imbued neoliberalism with a common substantive meaning and a positive normative valence: it denoted a "new liberalism" that would improve upon its classical predecessor in specific ways. Only once the term had migrated to Latin America, and Chilean intellectuals starting using it to refer to radical economic reforms under the Pinochet dictatorship, did neoliberalism acquire negative normative connotations and cease to be used by market proponents.

Despite the prevalence of the term neoliberalism, its application in contemporary scholarship is uneven. In the present-day study of political economy, the term neoliberalism is most frequently employed by those who are critical of the free market phenomena to which it refers. Neoliberalism is not exclusively a bad word, but one rarely sees it used as a good word—as the term that an author chooses when emphasizing the positive aspects of a pro-market philosophy, development model, or reform policy. One compelling indicator of the term’s negative connotation is that virtually no one self-identifies as a neoliberal, even though scholars frequently associate others—politicians, economic advisors, and even fellow academics—with this term. While a fifth of the articles on neoliberalism in our sample referred prominently to other people as neoliberals, in all of our research, we did not uncover a single contemporary instance in which an author used the term self-descriptively, and only one—an article by New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman (1999)—in which it was applied to the author’s own policy recommendations.

Above excerpts from Taylor C. Boas and Jordan Gans-Morse's Neoliberalism: From New Liberal Philosophy to Anti-Liberal Slogan illustrate (with figures displaying their research) that neoliberalism is overwhelmingly a term used by critics, not supporters. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

If you think that nothing changed in the 1970s, that Reagan and Thatcher made no changes to governance or that "New Democrat" Clinton and "New Labour" Blair changed them back to what they were before, and that none of these policies affected the rest of the world, then I would agree. But if you believe there was a shift in government polices, then we can either call it "the changes that began in the 1970s, which were accelerated by Reagan and Thatcher and became permanent as they were accepted by their successors" or "neoliberalism." True, no one used the term "neoliberal" until the 1990s, after Reagan and Thatcher were out of power, although ironically it had been used by Hayek and Mises' colleagues in the 1930s, but no one used the term "classical liberal" in the early 1800s and the term liberal was not even used in England until about 1830. I suppose the reason adherents do not use it is that they call it liberalism. Incidentally the prior paradigm is social liberalism, but their adherents generally did not use that term either, but called themselves liberals. So too did classical and late 19th century neo-classical writers. It is confusing however if we call all of them liberals without qualification. TFD (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

TFD, I guess I'm not following. I agree with what you've just wrote, but my point is that, though libertarian proponents of the free market do not never self-identify as neoliberals, they do self-identify as classical liberals (see Hamowy and Boaz for confirmation). Because of this, I think it'd be appropriate to use either classical liberal or the more accurate neo-classical liberal, instead of the pejorative neoliberal. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Libertarianism is an ideology, while neoliberalism is a paradigm. There is certainly overlap between the two, and the terms may sometimes be used interchangeably, but the concepts are distinct. There are a lot of non-libertarian aspects to the neoliberal paradigm, and notably Ron Paul, Stockman and other libertarians broke with Reagan over them. TFD (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that one thing that is particularly important is that terms are terms, not fundamental entities, and their meaning varies with time and place. For example, in the current United States, where in many major respects "liberalism" means the opposite of what it meant many decades ago and what it means elsewhere in the world, people who know will be sure to add qualifiers (e.g. "classical") when using the term liberal/liberalism. And doubly so proponents of Libertarianism/Classical Liberalism. In short the common meaning of the term "liberal/liberalism" in the US is (on many issues) the exact opposite of classical liberalism, and so the qualifier "classical" is important and used. North8000 (talk) 11:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Liberalism as popularly used in the U.S. does not mean the "exact opposite" of what it meant decades ago.. As Ian Adams explains in Political Ideology Today, p. 42, "Ideologically, all US parties are Liberal and always have been. Essentially they espouse classical liberalism, that is a form of democratized Whig constitutionalism, plus the free market. The point of ideological difference comes with the influence of social liberalism. How far should the free market be left alone; how far should the state regulate or manage, and how far should government at federal or local level provide social security and welfare services?" they these two versions of liberalism appear to be the "exact opposite" to you is probably based on the fact that actual conservatives and socialists, let alone fascists, are not part of U.S. political discussions.

Also, informed writers in the U.S., such as academics, are able to distinguish between the universal meaning of liberalism, and its regional variations in the U.S. and France. Americans do not use the term "classical liberal", they say "economically conservative."

In any case, what does it matter whether some people find these terms confusing?

TFD (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the good info and link. I was making the point about terminology for one small reason at the moment (a reason why no US libertarian or classical liberal would self-identify as a liberal or neoliberal). But in the broader sense it is to avoid a Tower of Babel on the talk page or in the article. (the latter in order to clearly communicate to folks on both sides of the pond) (As it turns out, that was a big part of the problem and solution a few years ago when this article was in flames.) But what would you say to this: A portion of the common meaning of one-word "liberal" in the USA is to favor a larger and more activist government in almost all areas (except military, security, and legislating morality (e.g abortion) including larger taxes, expenditures, redistribution of wealth, larger amounts of regulation etc.. Would you not agree that in those areas, such is the opposite of libertarianism/classical liberalism? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

It is more a matter of degree than two distinct ideologies. McCain for example wanted a 36% maximum federal tax rate, while Obama wanted 38%. Not exactly the same as the difference between the world views of the leaders of North and South Korea.

Liberals do not support redistribution of wealth. While there was a social safety net, no attempt was made to turn over factories to the workers. And mostly the safety net was paid for through regressive taxation. So unemployed persons would be drawing from funds that they would pay into when they were employed. Classical liberalism had also provided a safety net, through workhouses and public works programs such as road-building.

U.S. libertarians do not self-identify as neoliberals, but then neither did Clinton and Obama, although both supported the neoliberal paradigm. In fact they are closer to it than libertarians, who reject certain aspects such as "free trade" agreements, agricultural subsidies, foreign interventionism, the war on drugs, the war on terror, no child left behind, and a strong central government.

TFD (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

China btw is seen as having adopted neo-liberal policies since 1978, and so have other Third World countries. But one would not call them libertarian. TFD (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

LOL, I doubt North8000 had McCain and Obama in mind as examples of opposite ideologies, they are both anti-liberal in the classical sense, and as you point out, differ only marginally as "a matter of degree". But in the U.S., Obama is considered (slightly) more "liberal" than McCain precisely because he is (slightly) less classically liberal than McCain. The word itself has opposite meaning, even when used to describe politicians who are not opposites. 166.147.67.42 (talk) 12:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Certainly they differ on some issues, but they agree on fundamental principles as enshrined in the U.S. constitution, even if they may disagree on some matters of interpretation. That puts both firmly within the liberal tradition. That they may appear to be at opposite poles owes to the fact that no one in the U.S. political mainstream questions the fundamental issues on which they agree. Compare with France, where both the National Front and the Communist Party challenge the fundamental values of the French constitution. TFD (talk) 19:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure they may share some fundamental liberal principles, but they also share some anti-liberal (and anti-constitution) principles. But the point I (and North8000) was making was that the term "liberal" itself is used in the U.S. to mean the opposite of classical liberal, ie to specifically refer to how the views of McCain and Obama differ from classical liberalism, not how they are similar to it. Again, it's the word "liberal" itself that is often used to mean the opposite of classical liberal, not that the people referred to are opposites. Nobody here has even remotely suggested or implied in any way that McCain and Obama (or any U.S. politicians) are opposites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.192.167 (talk) 10:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

No, liberal is not the opposite of classical liberal; these words have real meanings that TFD made clear. If you and North8000 want to pretend liberal means something it doesn't, present some sources. We don't get to change Misplaced Pages to reflect the personal experiences and assumptions of its editors. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

You might try rereading the post you responded to. It didn't say "liberal is the opposite of classical liberal". It said the word "liberal" is often used to mean the opposite of classical liberal, a subtle but important distinction, since the actual people referred to share many tenets. And we don't need to change Misplaced Pages, since it already says that in the various respective articles. 70.195.194.25 (talk) 04:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I read MisterDub's posting to mean "liberal", as the term is commonly used in the U.S. is not the opposite of classical liberal. I quoted Adams above who wrote, "Ideologically, all US parties...espouse classical liberalism...." TFD (talk) 05:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, MisterDub's posting tried to reference my post while omitting the term "often". As an example, expanding government power is the opposite of limiting government power, and the term "liberal" is often used in the U.S. to refer to the former, while "classical liberal" refers to the latter, as described in various Misplaced Pages articles, including modern American liberalism that you linked below. That doesn't mean that the terms are opposites in general, just that they are used to have opposite meanings in certain specific contexts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.194.25 (talk) 05:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Expanding government power (I assume you mean expanding what government does) is not a liberal objective, even if it has been a result of government policy. So when the government paves your street they do not do so because they want to expand, but because (a) they think paved roads are good and (b) it is more efficient and effective for them to pave the road than leave it to the individuals who use the road. TFD (talk) 05:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

LOL, that's hilarious, dude! As if we were talking about roads, or as if classical liberals opposed roads. As if that's what Americans argue about: whether to have public roads! Very funny! Try reading the article you linked earlier on modern American liberalism. It's not about roads, it's about "government management of the macroeconomy", etc. You know, things that people actually have opposing views on? Roads? That was a good one! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.196.0.228 (talk) 11:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

TFD, I have a lot of respect for you and have learned much from you. But I don't think that you are recognizing that the common meanings of terms are relevant and important (at least in the context of where and when they have that meaning) and I'm also thinking that you may not understand the common meaning of "liberal" in the US. Probably the best definition that I can give is the the "progressive" corner of the Nolan chart, recognizing that the Nolan chart has the minus that it itself uses common US meanings of other terms. I think that you are dealing only the world scale and academic meanings which of course are also valid and important. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

In the 1930s, Roosevelt called his supporters liberals and his opponents conservatives and hence we have two articles modern American liberalism and conservatism in the United States. But the line between the two was never fixed and both are within the liberal tradition. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn called this the "Great American Semantic Confusion." While Hayek and others disliked the terminology, U.S. conservatives adopted the term after 1955. See for example John Wayne saying "I always thought I was a liberal." The 1930s KKK had complained saying they were "true liberals." Schlesinger wrote about it in "A note to Europeans." Different countries have different terms for distinguishing left and right-wing liberals, e.g., the UK, where they are yellow-book and orange book Liberals.

So yes I am aware of it. I just do not see what relevance it has to the article.

TFD (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Mainly that we should provide context for clarity when using terms which have very different meanings in different places and times. North8000 (talk) 12:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

First you apparently have to spell out in excruciating minute detail that you are referring to the terms themselves often having opposite meanings, while repeatedly trying to prevent that seemingly simple and obvious point from being misconstrued as claiming that various ideologies are opposite of one another. 70.196.4.123 (talk) 14:35, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you meant, but what I meant is just providing the place/time context in term-use cases where the meaning varies a great deal. North8000 (talk) 15:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I was just facetiously referring to your (relevant, well-known, and obvious) point about the term "liberal", how it has been misconstrued by some despite repeated efforts to clarify it. I seem to be the only one here who accurately comprehended what you were saying. Unless you were really claiming that McCain and Obama are "opposites"? If so, then I'm the one who misunderstood, and the others had it right ;). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.196.4.123 (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

This conversation has gone way off-topic. Are we talking about a change to the article or not? If not, let's close this discussion. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The conversation has gone in a different direction than the heading, but is nevertheless about and relevant to the content of the article. But either way I think that the particular thread is completed. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

North8000, it was not relevant, but I'm glad we can drop it. IP, we all understood what North8000 was saying, Misplaced Pages just doesn't provide a platform for OR. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

MisterDub, you know that I respect you and your work a lot, but you seem to have been taking some crabby pills lately with swipes like this. I let the last one pass (saying I was wrong that the term sometimes has that common meaning, when I already showed that it did) but now you did it again. If certain terms heavily used in the article have significantly varying meanings, discussing that and how to approach using and clarifying such when used in the article certainly is relevant. Let's be nice.  :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2014 (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
• 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