Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:23, 5 April 2014

Libertarianism was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (February 12, 2014). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

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.

Origin of the term "libertarian" (in modern usage).

I tried to add some relevant, factual information to this article, but now see that it is protected. I strongly believe this article should give credit to Dean Russell, for suggesting modern usage of the term "libertarian" and also for his influence upon John Hopsers, who in turn had enormous influence upon both the party and the movement of that name. I'd like to compose (brief) text to do so, but don't know how make edits to this "protected" page.

In 1955, Dean Russell wrote a short essay entitled "Who is a Libertarian" (published in "The Freeman"), in which he proposed the term "libertarian" to describe a specific set of views (see excerpt, below). Some time thereafter, the publisher (FEE) issued a small pamphlet with that title and the text of the essay. Here is a URL for the article:

Link: Who is a Libertarian

During the early 1960s, Prof. John Hospers often advocated use of the word "libertarian" and distributed copies of this pamphlet at Brooklyn College (where he was faculty advisor for "Students of Objectivism") and elsewhere. (I still have a few of the pamphlets that he handed me!) Below, I have inserted the opening paragraph of Dean Russell's short essay, and also the beginning of the postscript which appeared on the back of the FEE pamphlet.

Hospers also crafted a simple statement of ethical principles (i.e. the "non-agression" or "non-initiaton of force", which later became the LP "pledge") and suggested the term "libertarian" to describe anyone subscribing to such principles -- regardless of whether or not they agreed with Objectivist metaphysics and epistemology. Tripodics (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Opening paragraph of the 1955 essay:

Those of us who favor individual freedom with personal responsibility have been unable to agree upon a generally acceptable name for ourselves and our philosophy of liberty. This would be relatively unimportant except for the fact that the opposition will call us by some name, even though we might not desire to be identified by any name at all. Since this is so, we might better select a name with some logic instead of permitting the opposition to saddle us with an epithet.

Text from back of FEE pamphlet:

The beliefs which identify a libertarian - as defined by Dean Russell - are not in vogue today. And in their absence grow and thrive the opposite beliefs - label them interventionism, socialism, communism, Fabianism, nazism, fascism, the planned economy, the Welfare State, or whatever. ...

--Tripodics (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC) (I have obtained permission from FEE to quote this essay, either in full or via excerpts in context.)

We would need some coverage of the incident by a secondary source, indicating the incident's importance. — goethean 16:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a pretty interesting bit of history, though. Page is protected for a week, but could you make your edits in a sandbox? I'll try to find some secondary sources on this. Also, your first link above is seems to be broken. Finx (talk) 16:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The funny thing is that Russell proposed using the (already existing and accurate) term "libertarian" instead of "liberal" because the word "liberal" was corruptly being used by leftists to "identify themselves and their program of more government ownership of property and more controls over persons", and continuing to use the term "liberal" was at best "awkward and subject to misunderstanding." Sound familiar? Lockean One (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

You need a secondary source to establish the significance of the article. TFD (talk) 17:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't. Did you intent to reply to someone else? Lockean One (talk) 00:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

See Help:Using talk pages#Indentation. I was replying to the initial posting. When you post a comment without indenting, as you just did, you are not replying to anyone. TFD (talk) 01:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I remind user Lockean One that there were people like Sebastien Faure and Joseph Dejacque in the 19th century naming newspapers "Le Libertarie" and that now there are spanish language periodicals named "El Libertario". We are not writing here the "United States wikipedia" but the english language wikipedia. His discussion here is relevant so as to establish the origins of contemporary US usage of the word "libertarian" for right wing pro laissez faire capitalism views but clearly not "for suggesting modern usage of the term "libertarian"".--Eduen (talk) 19:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Eduen, what are your thoughts on the previous question? Would you consider libertarian socialism to be a form of libertarianism? North8000 (talk) 20:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The english language major general work on the history of anarchism by the canadian George Woodcock shows the intimate relationship that libertarian socialism has with the word "libertarian". His book from 1962 is called Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements. No pro-capitalist movement is included in that book unless as a political enemy of anarchism. All the political movements there discussed are anti-capitalist. Another more recent work in the english language is Anarchism Volume Three: The New Anarchism (1974-2008) (Anarchism: A Documentary History of Libertarian Ideas) by Robert Graham. I don´t think anything can be more "libertarian" than anarchism-libertarian socialism as far as representing the usage of the word "libertarian" in a worldwide scale. This is why this article has to pay special attention to the US centered use of the word "libertarian" for right wing laissez faire capitalist economics.--Eduen (talk) 23:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

In the U.S., the term "libertarianism" is generally used the same way it is used by mainstream English language media outlets and encyclopedias on both sides of the pond, ie to mean classical liberalism. The "libertarianism" article in Encyclopedia Britannica, for example, defines libertarianism as essentially classical liberalism, as do other major encyclopedias. It's not just the common or normal meaning used by those mainstream sources, it's the exclusive one. And they define libertarianism in a way that logically excludes socialism. Of course the term libertarian has been and is still used by some socialists to describe themselves, but there is no indication in any reliable sources cited in this article that the term has ever been used to any significant extent by non-socialists to refer to socialism. It's a minor alternate meaning at best.

And I'm not trying to be rude, but lecturing about this being "English language Misplaced Pages" instead of "U.S. Misplaced Pages" because I recognize the "common" meaning of a term to be the same as that used by Encyclopedia Britannica is pretty bizarre. So is assuming that I was ignorant of the historical use of the term libertarian by some socialists to refer to themselves, when this very article takes up a inexplicably huge amount of space just to give examples of it. Lockean One (talk) 12:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Full compilation of sources unambiguously stating that libertarians (in contemporary mainstream American parlance) advocate laissez faire capitalism

• Huebert, Jacob H. (2010). Libertarianism Today. Santa Barbara, Calif.: Praeger. p. 55. ISBN 0313377545. but it is not a failure of the laissez-faire capitalism that libertarians advocate because that has not existed

• Younkins, ed. by Edward W. (2005). Philosophers of Capitalism: Menger, Mises, Rand, and Beyond. Lanham: Lexington Books. p. 223. ISBN 0739110772. The concept of limited government libertarianism has been subjected to withering criticism in intellectual circles. These three -- Robert Nozick, Michael Levin, and Ayn Rand -- are united in their view that laissez-faire capitalism is the only just economic system. {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help)

• Hussain, Syed B. (2004). Encyclopedia of Capitalism. Vol. II : H-R. New York: Facts on File Inc. p. 492. ISBN 0816052247. In the modern world, political ideologies are largely defined by their attitude towards capitalism. Marxists want to overthrow it, liberals to curtail it extensively, conservatives to curtail it moderately. Those who maintain that capitalism is a excellent economic system, unfairly maligned, with little or no need for corrective government policy, are generally known as libertarians.

• Rigney, Daniel (2001). The Metaphorical Society: An Invitation to Social Theory. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. p. 95. ISBN 0742509389. Libertarianism has two aspects — economic and civil. Economic libertarians, in the spirit of the Scottish economic philosopher Adam Smith ( 1937), advocate laissez-faire ("let it be") capitalism with minimal state interference

• Paul, edited by Ellen Frankel (2011). Liberalism and Capitalism: Volume 28 - Part 2. New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 55. ISBN 1107640261. There are other classical liberals and libertarians who reject such welfarism and advocate laissez-faire capitalist freedoms and robust or absolute property rights on different grounds {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

• Schmidt, Steffen; Shelley, Mack; Bardes, Barbara (2012). Cengage Advantage Books: American Government and Politics Today, Brief Edition, 2012-2013. Cengage Learning. p. 13. ISBN 1133708684. Libertarians support laissez-faire capitalism.

• Schmidt, Steffen; Shelley, Mack; Bardes, Barbara (2012). American Government and Politics Today, No Separate Policy Chapters Version, 2013-2014 (2011-2012 ed. ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning. p. 18. ISBN 053849719X. Libertarians strongly support property rights and typically oppose regulation of the economy and redistribution of income. Libertarians support laissez-faire capitalism. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)

• Reidy, edited by Jon Mandle, David A. (2014). A Companion to Rawls. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. p. 438. ISBN 1118328434. The opposite perfectionist notions are no doubt at work, sub rosa, in libertarians' ostensibly instrumental justifications for laissez-faire capitalism and strong private property rights {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

• Schmidt, Steffen; Shelley, Mack; Bardes, Barbara; Ford, Lynne (2013). American Government and Politics Today, 2013-2014 (Brief ed. ed.). Belmont, Calif.: Cengage Learning. p. 19. ISBN 113395605X. For that reason, many libertarians today refer to themselves as classical liberals. Outside of the United States and Canada, the meaning of the word liberal never changed. meaning enthusiastic advocates of laissez faire capitalism. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)

• Wortham, Anne (1981). The other side of racism: a philosophical study of Black race consciousness. Ohio State University Press. p. 35. Not all libertarians and conservatives endorse the "individualist expectancy" to the same extend or with the same degree of consistence. While they both advocate capitalism as the politico-economic system that can best eliminate racial disharmony, they are at irreconcilable odds over the moral foundations of capitalism.

• Chomsky, Noam (2013). Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky. New York: The New Press. ISBN 1595585885. "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. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

• Bast, Herbert J. Walberg, Joseph L. (2003). Education and capitalism : how overcoming our fear of markets and economics can improve America's schools. Stanford, Calif.: Hoover Institution Press. p. 167. ISBN 0817939717. Libertarians and other proponents of capitalism do not speak with one voice, and this chapter is not intended to suggest they do.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

• Hans-Hermann, Hoppe. Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, A. Ludwig von Mises Institute. p. 255. ISBN 1610163214. by force of logic one is committed to abandoning liberalism and accepting instead its more radical child: libertarianism, the philosophy of pure capitalism, which demands that the production of security be undertaken by private business too.

• Koval, edited by Ramona (2011). The best Australian essays 2011. ISBN 1921870435. Most but not all were anarchists of the Right, or in American parlance, libertarians, who supported laissez-faire capitalism. {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help)

• Edney, Julian (2005). Greed: A Treatise in Two Essays. New York: iUniverse, Inc. p. 43. ISBN 0595360009. Libertarianism: A Primer says so. It states that laissez-faire capitalism is the answer to everything because it brings incredible wealth to all. And it proudly champions Adam Smith's ideas as its heritage.

• O'Flynn, Micheal (2009). Profitable Ideas: The Ideology of the Individual in Capitalist Development (. ed.). Leiden: Brill. pp. 172, 175. ISBN 900417804X. As far as libertarians are concerned, capitalism would work to the benefit of the vast majority if left alone, without interference. Though the minds of libertarians are occupied by an imaginary capitalism, their thinking is often influenced by interests generated under existed conditions. As far as libertarians are concerned, capitalism would work to the benefit of the vast majority if left alone, without interference

• Janda, Kenneth, Jeffrey Berry, Jerry Goldman. The Challenge of Democracy: American Government in Global Politics. p. 25. ISBN 1133170137. This kind of economic policy is called laissez faire, a French phrase that means "let (people) do (as they please)." Such an extreme policy extends beyond the free enterprise that most capitalists advocate. Libertarians are coval advocates of hands-off government in both the social and the economic spheres. Whereas Americans who favor a broad scope of government action shun the description socialist, libertarians make no secret of their identity.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

• Mankiller, Wilma (2000). The Reader's Companion to U.S. Women's History. Boston, Mass.: Houghton Mifflin. p. 126. ISBN 0618001824. the philosophy of objectivism and celebrated unbridled individualism, rationalism, and laissez-faire capitalism

• Himmelstein, Jerome L. (1992). The Transformation of American Conservatism. : Univ Of California Press. p. 47. ISBN 0520080424. In the libertarian view, freedom and capitalism are two sides of the same coin. The defense of one implies the defense of the other. Libertarianism is above all a defense of what is best called pristine capitalism

• Boaz, David. The Libertarian Reader: Classic and Contemporary Writings. p. 175. ISBN 1439118337. Rand's theory of rights is what informs her defense of capitalism. Indeed, for Rand, the essence of capitalism is represented by a moral rather than an economic doctrine. If individual rights are respected in a society, then that society is capitalistic.

• Miller, Wilbur R. (2012). The social history of crime and punishment in America. An encyclopedia. 5 vols. London: Sage Publications. p. 1006. ISBN 1412988764. Right-libertarians see strong private property rights as the basis of freedom and thus are—to quote the title of Brian Doherty's text on libertarianism in the United States—'radicals for capitalism.'

• Hamowy, Ronald (2008). The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. Los Angeles: SAGE. ISBN 1412965802. So, too, it is maintained, the dependents of the crumbling socialist societies should be brought into a market capitalist system as rapidly as possible. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

• Rothbard, Murray (1978). For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto. Ludwig von Mises Institute. p. 28. ISBN 1610164482. The libertarian favors the right to unrestricted private property and free exchange; hence, a system of 'laissez faire capitalism

• Zafirovski, Milan (2007). Modern Free Society and Its Nemesis: liberty versus conservatism in the new millennium. Lanham Md.: Lexington Books. p. 258. ISBN 0739115154. In particular, as critics comment, U.S. "libertarians want to institute a form of moral and political authority that is only compatible with the social framework of laissez-faire capitalism"

• Merrill, Ronald E. (2013). Ayn Rand explained from tyranny to tea party ( ed.). Chicago: Open Court. p. 36. ISBN 0812698010. Many pro-capitalist intellectuals are producing a rich array of commentaries, articles, blog posts and books addressing the moral issues. And, after decades of arguing for "the free market," libertarians are finally defending "capitalism." {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

• Wiley, A. Terrance (2014). Angelic Troublemakers: Religion and Anarchism in America. A&C Black. p. 100. ISBN 1623569958. Indeed, because so many right-libertarians are unmistakably procapitalism

• Farmer, Brian (2005). American conservatism : history, theory and practice (1. publ. ed.). Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Press. p. 75. ISBN 1904303544. Libertarians, like Classic Liberals, celebrate the writings of Adam Smith and his free-market laissez-faire capitalism.

• Eberly, edited by Don E. (1994). Building a community of citizens : civil society in the 21st century. Lanham: University Press of America. p. 183. ISBN 0819196142. Their failure to deal with moral and social values encourages the conclusion that libertarians, whose favorite institution is capitalism, are inherently materialistic. {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help)

• Soltan, Karol Edward; Elkin, Stephen L. The Constitution of Good Societies. p. 13. ISBN 0271041064. One approach calls for more extensive development of the institutions of capitalism, especially the market. In practice, its proponents are often hostile to the democratic state. Various anarcho-capitalists and libertarians are examples.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

• Okereke, Chukwumerije (2007). Global Justice and Neoliberal Environmental Governance: Ethics, Sustainable Development and International Co-Operation. Routledge. p. 41. ISBN 1134126883. However, Nozick, instead, extends his theory to argue in favour of free market capitalism as well as a minimal state. Nonetheless, these scholars are better known as libertarians — a term that reflects their belief that individual liberty

• McDonald, Chris (2009). Rush, rock music and the middle class : dreaming in Middletown (. ed.). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. p. 92. ISBN 0253221498. By referencing Rand, Rush seemed to align itself with a politics that emphasized laissez-faire capitalism, individualism, and a decidedly pro-business posture, often associated with libertarianism, neoliberalism, and secular neoconservatism.

• Cunningham, Frank (2003). Philosophy : the big questions. Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press. p. 242. ISBN 1551302306. The Libertarian Capitalist Position - Marvin's libertarian opinion corresponds in politics to advocacy of neoliberal capitalism.

• Herbst, Susan (1994). Politics at the Margin historical studies of public expression outside the Mainstream (1. publ. ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 138. ISBN 0521477638. Libertarians argue that free markets, where they are allowed to flourish, work very well, and that capitalism should be our guiding metaphor when it comes to systems of governance

To Lockean One and North8000: your insistence on good faith and consideration of your beliefs leads me to believe this is a matter of a basically unimaginable level of editorial incompetence, especially for someone who's been "editing" this particular page for a number of years, so here is a helpful article I've found, called "Internet Research for Beginners: How to Properly Research Facts/Opinions Online". Assuming your intentions are pure, please take some time to read it thoroughly and try a bit of independent research before wasting any more of anyone's time.

I propose adding this to the FAQ above, so that this talk page can function as something other than a blog comment section. Finx (talk) 02:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

If you read the first sentence of the last section, which starts with me saying "While it is certainly true that some libertarians do "advocate capitalism....", hopefully you will agree that nobody is disputing that point, in and of itself. The issue is that it's misleading to portray the difference between classical liberals and socialists as being no more profound than whether they like capitalism. As you yourself have pointed out (I think, correct me if I'm wrong), the difference between those two ideologies is far more profound than that.

And as I pointed out in that last section, I don't object to that Rothbard quote being used in the article (and neither does North8000 AFAIK). It's the structure of that particular sentence and its being a misleading synthesis of multiple sources that's the issue. Would you object to Rothbard's quote being used for a separate sentence instead? Lockean One (talk) 04:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

"correct me if I'm wrong" - okay: you're wrong; neoliberal libertarians eagerly advocate capitalism; libertarian socialists want to abolish capitalism; very simple, no bloviation required

and yes, I would object strongly to anything that distorts the plain verifiable truth, which is "some libertarians advocate laissez-faire capitalism" Finx (talk) 04:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, maybe I was wrong about that. I thought I remembered you acknowledging that it wasn't that simple, something about "self-ownership", but perhaps that was someone else. My bad. Regardless, it's certainly not that simple. The difference in ideologies is far more profound than that, and involves self-ownership and Locke's theory of property, and is described quite well in some of the sources (without even mentioning capitalism). In addition, capitalism as described by classical liberals is very different from capitalism as described by socialists, so it's still misleading to synthesize those different sources into a single sentence that way.

OK, but you're objecting strongly to something that nobody is proposing. My question was whether you would object to that being in a separate sentence instead of combined as a synthesis of radically different sources. Lockean One (talk) 06:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

No, "synthesize" in WP policy does not mean "state directly what every source says precisely or verbatim." Yes, I would object to creative writing and bloviation in place of directly stating a straightforward, verifiable fact. This is not the article for classical liberalism; the article for classical liberalism is over this way. Your musings about socialism belong in a blog's comment section, not here. Please stay on topic, and also you're still misusing indentation. Learn to indent properly, like you were told above and save everyone some time. Better yet, refrain from posting if you have nothing to contribute. Finx (talk) 06:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure you can see that that sentence does not "state directly what every source says precisely or verbatim". And I never said WP synthesis meant that. It means "combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". The conclusions implied by that combined statement (by using the "while some...others..." structure) are that classical liberals advocate capitalism in the same ideological sense that socialists oppose it, that their notions of what capitalism consists of are the same, and that the term "libertarian" itself has the same meaning in each case. Those implications are not "explicitly stated" by the sources used, and contradict many of the sources.

As far as your "advice": while I'm sure it's a completely altruistic gesture on your part intended to aid me in my effectiveness in convincing others to agree with me, I think I'll pass on it nevertheless. Lockean One (talk) 08:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that a part of the problem is the difference between what the phrase says literally, and it's meaning in that context. What it says literally is that some people who are libertarians advocate capitalism. Of course this is true, just as some libertarians like apple pie. But a meaning in that context is that it is, to a significant, a tenet of some some strnads of libertarianism. I think that this is neither established or correct. I think that it can be solved but a much cleaner, correct, sourcable sentence which also conveys the original intent: "Some forms of libertarianism reject capitalism, others don't."North8000 (talk) 03:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is that you believe this page ought to placate your religious convictions instead of saying what all the sources say. Finx (talk) 06:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Another false implication of that sentence is that classical liberals oppose socialism in and of itself, as a mode of production, instead of merely opposing an agenda to abolish capitalism. Worker owned and managed cooperatives are not politically opposed by classical liberals according to any of the sources, and many of them currently exist in the U.S. In fact, the tenets of classical liberalism, as described in all the sources, clearly support the freedom of such enterprises to operate. Perhaps something like "advocate a laissez-faire economy" might be appropriate, since it would correctly include non-capitalist enterprises as well. Lockean One (talk) 12:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's dissect and untangle it and move forward

I think that a first step in working on a sentence is that the wording should refer to forms or strands of libertarianism, not people. While I think that the sentence was originally intended to imply that, that is not what it literally says, and I believe that that ambiguity has allowed the process to become much more protracted. Second, we should unbundle "capitalism" and "property rights" (except those endemic to capitalism) Next, there has not been a dispute about the statement on property rights (of the type not endemic to capitalism); let's presume that there will be a sentence on such. So then it comes down to a statement about capitalism or the converse of capitalism. Now within that, I think that there has been strong but non-unanimous support of the statement about forms of libertarianism that reject capitalism. And so I think that a sentence that puts that into words is:

Some forms of libertarianism oppose capitalism and private ownership of the means of production in favor of common or cooperative ownership and management.

Leaving the core of the question any possible addition to that sentence regarding forms of libertarianism that do not oppose capitalism. North8000 (talk) 11:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Umm... capitalism is private property. It would be nice if you learned something about politic philosophy. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course capitalism involves private property, but they are not synonyms. More specifically, (and germane to this discussion) there are private property tenets unrelated to capitalism, and capitalism covers more than private property. North8000 (talk) 16:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. Please feel free to support anything you've said with reliable sources. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I am talking about your unsourced assertion that capitalism is private property. North8000 (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize a dictionary was forever out of your reach.

capitalism (n):

1. An economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. (Oxford English Dictionary)

2. An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development occurs through the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market. (American Heritage Dictionary) -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

How you feel about factual, verifiable, sourced and appropriate statements is irrelevant. If you remove them from the article because you don't like them, your changes will be reverted. Finx (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Finx, you statement/insult has a false implied premise. MisterDub, those definitions support the first part of my statement (capitalism involves private property) but not your assertion essentially that "private property" and "capitalism" are synonyms. North8000 (talk) 22:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The definitions provided above by MisterDub (talk · contribs) define capitalism in terms of private property; they don't equate the two concepts, as he did in the statement, "capitalism is private property". --B2C 00:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

If you have private property, your means of production are controlled privately for profit; you cannot have private property in a socialist society. Conversely, if the individuals of a society are usufructuaries (i.e. private property is not protected), the means of production are operated by the workers. The presence of private property is not just a feature of capitalism, it is the defining feature. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Fortunately, we don't have to deal with that particular branch of idle contrarianism since 32 out of the 32 references above used the word capitalism. Like I said, edit to proselytize and it will be reverted. Finx (talk) 01:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Also agree that "private property" isn't "capitalism", but would add that this is clearly not a legitimate dispute. How can one miss the word "profit" in those definitions of capitalism? Non-profit enterprises are common, own private property, and their property rights are supported by classical liberals in the exact same way as those used for profit (capitalism). Classical liberals support private property rights generally, regardless of how the property is used.

Other than that, again, the article should clearly say that the term itself is being used differently compared to the rest of the article. I think it's clear from all the sources Finx posted above that it is the term itself being used differently, not just discussing different "strands". Note how none of those sources are referring to "some libertarians", they are each referring to libertarians in general, as the term is being used by them. Even Chomsky's quote makes that clear (even if he thinks it's odd or "special" to associate the term liberty with being "unbridled". Silly Americans!). Lockean One (talk) 02:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

In academic consensus, capitalism refers to private ownership of the means of production for the purpose of capital accumulation. There are no homonyms. Libertarian refers to pro-capitalists or (traditionally) the anti-state branch of the socialist/anticapitalist movement. It's obvious why someone would simply say "libertarian" once the subject has been established, the same way that anarchist sources, old and new, will refer to "libertarians" and "libertarianism" without qualifiers, except to distinguish from state socialism and authoritarian communist ideologies. Finx (talk) 02:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Make it a dab page?

The ongoing never-ending controversies indicates something is fundamentally very wrong here.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The concept of an umbrella general "libertarianism" is rarely used in reliable sources. Instead, the term is almost always used in reliable sources to refer to one or another specific type of libertarianism.

Yes, there are obscure academic references that try to look at "libertarianism" from 40,000 feet or whatever, but most everyday references in newspapers, magazines, and even most academic books are referring to one or another specific kind of libertarianism. Attempting to describe the topic in general terms when everyone who comes here has a specific topic in mind is why it's so controversial, and why this article has got to be one of the worst and most useless on Misplaced Pages.

So, I'm still convinced that the best content at Libertarianism is the dab page. Personally, I would delete this article, but if there is consensus to keep it I would move it to something like Libertarian philosophies. --B2C 00:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no controversy. Two users don't like what the three dozen sources say and want them to say something different. There is no issue to resolve. Finx (talk) 01:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe if you repeat that enough times someone who doesn't bother to compare it to the text that you are claiming it supports will believe you even though your claim about the references is false. Unless you mean it in its literal pointless ambiguity, I.E. that some people who are libertarians advocate capitalism, which of course, is true, even if it is not a tenent of their form of libertarianism. North8000 (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Seeing as how the statement has nothing to do with what's a tenet and what's a consequence of tenets, as I've already said, nobody cares and we don't have to consider it. As stupendously asinine as the brand of sophistry you've chosen is, for everyone who isn't employed in professional apologia (considering one could squabble the exact same way about the Third Reich's advocacy of racial purity -- i.e. "nuh-uh, eugenics is a consequence of nativism, not a tenet!!"), we simply don't have to consider it or entertain it and you can stop the soapboxing at your convenience. It's a very simple issue, entirely obvious to anyone disinterested in the subject. You insisted a statement was "unsourced and unsourceable"; I provided 30+ sources proving you wrong. If you want to resolve your objections on the ANI page, we can do that. Finx (talk) 02:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

If it was ANI, it would be about your behavior towards editors, not the topic of debate. North8000 (talk) 02:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I am available to discuss my behavior towards editors whenever you'd like to do so and we can address the matter at your earliest convenience. Please post a noticeboard report on what you perceive as my misbehavior and let me know. I'm prepared to back up everything I've said and explain why I think a topic ban would be the most appropriate course of action, for both you and Lockean One. Finx (talk) 02:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no controversy? 37 pages of talk page archives. The article is currently locked from being edited. If there is no controversy here, there is no controversy anywhere. --B2C 06:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't realize "controversy" was measured in talk archive pages. I suppose the Sarah Palin article is also pretty controversial with 65 talk pages, along with the Lady Gaga article and its 18 and the Grand Theft Auto IV article, with its 15. Maybe we should turn them into disambiguation pages? The article is currently locked because user Lockean One, who had been the star of several ANI complaints and previously already administratively blocked from editing this article, decided to spam content removal, yet again. There's literally just a couple disruptive editors. Ban them from editing and this will become regular, boring article people try to research and improve. There is nothing unusual or undefinable about this political camp, except for the fact that some obstructionist people who can't put aside their zealous politics refuse to let it have any definable features. What is the point you're trying to make? Nothing you've mentioned has been a case for deletion. Finx (talk) 07:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Please be civil and stop making false statements about other editors. Your incessant falsehoods and personal attacks are disruptive and violate several Misplaced Pages policies. If you choose to delete your comments above, you may delete this post as well. Lockean One (talk) 13:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no controversy in reliable sources. There are just some editors who have decided to call themselves libertarians and never bother to read Rothbard. Hess, or Nolan, or the history of the Libertarian Party or libertarianism in the U.S. It would be the same as if editors called themselves Communists but had never heard of Marx or Lenin. My suggestion is that before editors argue about libertarianism they spend a few minutes reading about the subject. TFD (talk) 06:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Please be civil and stop making false statements about other editors. Your incessant falsehoods and personal attacks are disruptive and violate several Misplaced Pages policies. If you choose to delete your comments above, you may delete this post as well. Lockean One (talk) 13:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I propose that we have honest and civil discussions about article content instead of having them constantly disrupted and derailed with personal attacks, falsehoods, misguided and rude lecturing, etc. How about that for a topic ban, since it's already Misplaced Pages policy? Lockean One (talk) 13:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Set of philosophies?

Neither of the cited sources (both Rothbard) supports the claim of the opening sentence, that Libertarianism "is a set of related political philosophies..." --B2C 06:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

How would you phrase it differently? Starting out with Rothbard references for "liberty as the highest political end" does seem a bit obscure (as there are better-known writers on this topic), but the "set of related political philosophies" part of the statement seems to be reasonably well supported through the article.

1. "set" meaning "a number of things of the same kind that belong or are used together" (i.e. political groups all describing themselves as anti-authoritarian)
2. "related" because they oppose state and/or private authority, in some capacity, to one or another extent
3. "political philosophies" because they represent bodies of critical ideas concerning "topics such as politics, liberty, justice, property, rights, law"

Maybe there is a better way to phrase this? Finx (talk) 08:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I missed it, but I don't see Rothbard describing libertarianism as being comprised of multiple distinct (related or not) philosophies. Beyond that, it doesn't make sense for any -ism to refer to multiple philosophies or belief systems or whatever. Every -ism is a separate and distinct philosophy or belief system.

Is there a better way to phrase it? Is there a way to divide by zero? I think it's unhelpful to have one article about multiple topics, just because they have been given the same name and are related. Each major libertarianism is fundamentally different, because each is based on a different conception of liberty. They're each called "libertarianism" because each upholds some form of "liberty", but since they're based on different concepts of liberty, they are fundamentally different. In particular, Rothbard makes no mention of "libertarian socialism", though he does say socialism has "manifestly failed, politically and economically", yet our article includes LS as part of "libertarianism". That is, Rothbard does not even refer to "libertarian socialism", let alone include it in his conception of "libertarianism".

Put another way, any statement that starts with "Libertarianism is ..." must be referring to one of several uses of the term; which one depends on the context. If the context is Rothbard, that use is not libertarian socialism. The sentence will be nonsensical if "libertarianism" is referring to all uses of the term. Yet that's exactly what we try to do. Worse, we try to cover all philosophies that happen to be named libertarianism in this article, rather than having separate articles about each distinct major flavor of libertarianism.

My major objection is to the inclusion of "libertarian socialism" in this article. Maybe the others are related close enough, but LS is a beast of its own, starting with a different conception of liberty. --B2C 09:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

"I don't see Rothbard describing" - Rothbard didn't describe it that way, it's just an accurate summary of the content of the article. "it doesn't make sense for any -ism to refer to multiple philosophies or belief systems or whatever" - there's a ton of articles describing conflicting ideologies all sharing the same label: criminal justice (restorative vs. retributive), conservatism (divine-right monarchism/theocracy or secular 'progressive conservatism'), socialism (a gamut from Tuckerite individualism to unreconstructed Stalinism). "In particular, Rothbard makes no mention of 'libertarian socialism'" - oh, yes he does:

Rothbard, Murray (2007). The Betrayal of the American Right. Auburn (Ala.): Ludwig von Mises Institute. ISBN 1933550139. 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...

"If the context is Rothbard, that use is not libertarian socialism" - of course not, and Rothbard was well aware, having stated that "capturing" the word for propaganda was a major victory. Libertarianism is, however, a description of any one of a number of political camps promoting themselves anti-authoritarian. That part applies to Rothbard and Kropotkin alike. Whenever discussing history or the core of the ideas, yes, context does matter. "My major objection is to the inclusion of 'libertarian socialism' in this article. Maybe the others are related close enough, but LS is a beast of its own, starting with a different conception of liberty." - So? Is there any basis for that objection other than personal preference? How is this different than highly conflicting ideologies calling themselves conservative, for example?

Just for the sake of it though, let's assume everyone decides this is a special case that needs two articles. Why do you assume so casually that CATO and the USLP should stay and lib-soc is what doesn't belong? Why not the converse? Why not an article describing Dejacque, left communism, the situationist international, insurrectionists, autonomists, platformists, etc, with a little bitty blurb at the top that says "perhaps you're looking for this other recent thing also incidentally labeled libertarian in one or two countries in the world"? It's amazing how the US has so little of the world's population, and yet I've not seen anyone insisting that all this Koch brothers stuff belongs some other place. fi (talk) 10:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Just to be a little more constructive, this has come up before, and my own opinion hasn't changed much. I think this article should make very clear, from the start, that "libertarianism" is not a singular, coherent ideology but a word applied to (and self-applied by) multiple groups with often almost diametrically opposed political views, which can be irreconcilable and antagonistic to one another. I think it's very bad to evade or try to obscure that fact; I just don't think separate articles are necessary to describe what has been called libertarian in the not-quite-two-centuries of that word's political use. There are more detailed articles already available for both Libertarianism in the United States and Libertarian Socialism and even the less prominent groups mentioned here, like Geolibertarians, etc. There is no article tracing the history all "libertarian" groups and movements, indiscriminately, whether or not they all happen to agree. In other words, if there was a notable white-ultra-nationalist group, or a group of puritans calling itself "libertarian" in a socio-economic/political context, then it does warrant coverage here. We should contextualize the best we can and leave it to the historians and anthropologists to comment on why they chose that name. fi (talk) 11:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Finx, I mostly agree with what you've said here. We need to be explicit about the differences between these ideologies, but all libertarian philosophies do share commitments to liberty, diminution of government power, and individual autonomy. The consequences and phraseology differ, such as right-libertarians supporting self-ownership, minimal government, and private property. I tried to accomplish this when I first proposed changes to the lead: the first paragraph should explain these shared commitments, the second should explain the differences between the major currents, and anything beyond that should present historical information.

Another point to make is that, some time ago, we decided to minimize coverage of libertarian socialism here because it has its own article with a more thorough treatment. I reduced a lot of this in the changes I made, but the "Libertarian socialism" section was edit warred back into the "History" after the edit was discussed. I think we ought to honor this agreement or work toward a new consensus. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not all too surprised that editors had a problem with removing libertarian socialism from a more-or-less chronological description of the history of people who use the label. That just gives the impression of erasing it from history. On the other hand, reduction sounds fine to me, where appropriate. I see no reason to duplicate articles, if we can summarize the relevant parts and link instead. The same does apply to "Libertarianism in the United States" by the way. This article just needs more of its own content, with links to main articles where that's appropriate. Other than that, I think we agree. Different people all see themselves as proponents of liberty and clearly disagree about what liberty means. fi (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, B2C. This article should discuss libertarianism, as the term is commonly used (on both sides of the pond), with a disambig section for other uses. The simple fact is that, regardless of claims to the contrary, major encyclopedias and mainstream media sources use the term libertarianism (logically) to refer to classical liberalism, while fringe and biased sources use it to mean the opposite. And if this article is going to discuss other uses, it should clearly say that the term is being used differently (disambiguate it). Lockean One (talk) 14:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

All of your major encyclopedias are written by classical liberals... you don't think that's a biased sampling of sources??? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course I do, there are no unbiased sources. But the fact remains that "major encyclopedias" are far more representative of society than the sources used in this article to contradict them. That doesn't mean Misplaced Pages shouldn't mention them, but it does mean that they are the exception rather than the general rule. The term "libertarianism" is generally used to refer to classical liberalism, biased or not. Lockean One (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

So you would support a reduction but not complete removal of anarchism from this article? Minimize the coverage of libertarian socialism so that classical liberalism has the bulk of the content? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I have never suggested removal of anarchism (in general), only socialism, and only separation or disambiguation, not actual removal from Misplaced Pages. In fact, I think "Libertarian Socialism" should be described (separately) in much more detail than it currently is in its own article, since reading it leaves far more unanswered questions than answers. I think "Libertarian Socialism" should be covered separately because it is very different (to say the least), but if it is covered here, it should be differentiated accurately, including disambiguating all the terms that are used differently by socialists than how they are used in common speech or in dictionaries. The former would be far more practical than the latter. Lockean One (talk) 00:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

It sounds like you do want to remove the common meaning of anarchism (i.e. libertarian socialism) then. I don't agree with that, but I would support a reduction. In fact, that was the consensus before, and I'm just trying to determine whether this decision needs to be revisited. As for terminology, I think we need to use terms in accordance with their meanings in political philosophy, not with what the general populace thinks. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to terms that socialists use differently from their standard meanings, not terms used in political philosophy that are unfamiliar to the general populace. But even the latter shouldn't be used without specifically defining them. It is Misplaced Pages policy to use standard English. Lockean One (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm curious to know what terms socialists use differently from their standard meanings; honestly, I doubt this claim very much. I do agree that we should be careful to define the terms we use here, but we still should be using the terms accurately (i.e. an article on political philosophy should use terms consistent with the academic field). If we can agree on that much, we can hopefully move on to improving the article. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree about accuracy, but I'd say consistent with standard dictionaries, since the article is intended for a general audience. And any term used differently should be specifically defined. As far as examples, I seem to remember you using the word "wrong" to describe the standard dictionary definition of "private property" specifically because it wasn't the way socialists use the term, although it was exactly the way non-socialists use the term (ie "movable property (as distinguished from real estate) " or "land or belongings owned by a person or group and kept for their exclusive use"). How can you say you "doubt that claim very much" when we have already discussed how at least one term is used differently by socialists than in standard dictionaries and by classical liberals. (If I have you confused with another editor, I apologize, I'm too lazy to search for it now) As far as other terms used differently, I'm too lazy (again) to try to list and explain them at the moment, but if you don't recognize "private property" as one of them, there wouldn't be much point, anyway. Lockean One (talk) 05:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I stand by my initial objection. None of the cited sources support the opening statement. The word libertarianism is obviously used in various sources to refer to different related philosophies. Some sources like Rothbard acknowledge the different uses of the word. But we don't have articles about words; we have articles about topics. If we can't agree that one of the topics to which "libertarianism" refers is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, then there should be a dab page at Libertarianism (like there is at Mercury). But combining libertarian socialism with what is the more prevalent use of the term in the English speaking world today in one article, because both topics share the same name and are both socio-political concepts, makes almost as little sense as incorporating the contents of Mercury (element) and Mercury (planet) into one article at Mercury because they both share the same name and are both scientific concepts.

Such unnatural combinations forces us to use contrived and awkward constructs, like this introductory sentence, which is not only grist for disagreement and conflict, but arguably a violation of WP:NOR. The insistence to keep them combined baffles me. It's totally confusing and unhelpful. --B2C 17:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

More to the point, libertarianism is NOT "a set of related political philosophies...". That's like saying mercury is a set of a concepts. It makes no sense. Mercury is an element. Mercury is not an element. Both sentences are true, depending on which mercury is being used. But the following statement is not true: mercury is and is not an element. That would be using two different meanings of the same word at once. It's nonsensical. And that's what this article is, nosensensical, for the same reason: it's trying to use one word to refer to two (or more) distinct meanings at once.

Now here is a statement that is true: "Libertarianism", the word, like "mercury", is a homonym. All of its meanings are socio-economic philosophies related to some concept of liberty, but essentially they are distinct, and it's impossible to coherently have the word refer to all of the meanings in any particular context. --B2C 17:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Now here is a statement that is true: "Libertarianism", the word, like "mercury", is a homonym.

Quick! Alert the dictionaries, because they all got it wrong! — goethean 17:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Rothbard is correct, that libertarianism is an ideology that supports liberty. They disagree among themselves in how that should be achieved. In the same sense, socialism is an ideology that supports equality, but socialists disagree on what approach to take. In both cases there is a shared history and core literature. TFD (talk) 17:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The various types of socialism all have much more in common than do property rights libertarianism and libertarian socialism. The libertarian socialism sense of the word, at least referred to explicitly as just "libertarianism", is so obscure, dictionaries don't even recognize it. --B2C 17:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

It's so obscure that it was the only definition for over a century and was used as the exclusive meaning of libertarian by both George Woodcock and Robert Graham? And you really think self-described socialists have more in common? Maybe Benjamin Tucker and Joseph Stalin would have made good dinner pals? fi (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Born2cycle, I don't know why you're so baffled by a pretty simple concept. There are, as MisterDub put it, several political camps/ideologies claiming "commitments to liberty, diminution of power, and individual autonomy" - at least three distinct groups. Some of them (like the ones around since Dejacque) claim that the fullest liberty can be achieved by abolishing both capital and state; some of them claim that the fullest liberty can be achieved by curtailing/privatizing state functions through deregulation and devolution into the hands of private enterprise, extending vast or limitless power to capital to do what it does unhindered; some of them claim that the fullest liberty can be achieved if capital is only modified or restricted in a few very particular ways. Respectively, those loose groups are:

1. labor radicals, anarchists (individualists, syndicalists, etc), certain marxists (left communists, council communists - depending on whom you ask, autonomists, etc)
2. various advocates of laissez faire capitalism, typically with links to USLP, CATO (or Reason, AFP or name your favorite Koch-funded NPO), Rand, Rothbard, Hess, Mises and heterodox economics, to some extent Hayek, etc
3. geolibertarians, georgists, a few other not-quite-socialists

There's no homonyms here and it's really not that confusing when explained properly. As the quote above shows (and there's others like it I can provide), when what Ayn Rand described as the new right chose labels like "libertarian" and "anarcho-", it wasn't just some weird coincidence. Some leading figures consciously decided, a bit like Falangist fascists who draped themselves in red and black to mimic anarchist style/rhetoric, that it would be tactically useful to appropriate the language of the left, claiming to do what they claim to do, only better. So, the connection was chosen quite a few decades ago by people like Rothbard and it's really not our call to make. fi (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Those three bullets above make my point. There is no coherent use of the word "libertarianism" that refers to all three meanings. The word is used to refer to each of the three distinct meanings, but not to ALL of them at once. That's a homonym, by definition. Each meaning should have its own article. An article about all three is going to necessarily be incoherent and disjointed, full of awkward and contrived statements, like this one is. --B2C 18:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

"There is no coherent use of the word 'libertarianism' that refers to all three meanings." - sure there is. A libertarian is an advocate of social and political/economic liberty. The same way, a socialist is someone who wants socialism, a conservative is someone who wants to preserve traditions and values and a criminal justice activist is someone who wants justice for criminals. People disagree about what those things are exactly and how to achieve them. It doesn't mean that the words become useless, just because people with very different or opposite views both decided to use them. fi (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

FWIW though, I think Mercury-style disambiguation page would at least be kind of funny. "Did you want Libertarianism (political philosophy), Libertarianism (political philosophy) or Libertarianism (political philosophy)?" fi (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

More like

• Anarchism
• Minarchism
• Libertarian socialism
• Geolibertarianism
• Georgism
• Etc.

I'm sorry, but that statement is not coherent. It is meaningless, or at least uselessly ambiguous, because for it to apply to each of the three types of libertarians, the word "liberty", and the phrase "social and political/economic liberty", must be interpreted very differently. It's like saying, "Mercury is a heavy entity comprised of atoms". It's contrived to technically apply to both the element and planet named mercury, but it says nothing with clarity. Neither does your statement. Neither can any statement that attempts to use "libertarian" or "libertarianism" in a way that applies for all uses of those words. And when you try to adhere to such a restriction, not just in one 10-word sentence, but in an entire article, the result is an incoherent mess, like this article is, starting with the opening nonsensical sentence. --B2C 19:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

"the word 'liberty', and the phrase 'social and political/economic liberty', must be interpreted very differently." - yes, and again, the same can be said for conservative, socialist, liberal, etc. We don't have any control over people who redefine the crux of political terms. All an encyclopedic article can do is note, in a disinterested manner, that a wide variety of people refer to themselves (or are referred to) as conservatives. You need a more convincing argument to turn every political label into a giant disambiguation page. There are reasons why all of these different groups call themselves libertarian. They each see themselves as the true advocates of maximum liberty. That's not a band-the-musical-ensemble vs band-the-elastic-loop-of-stretchy-rubber distinction. fi (talk) 19:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Put another way... without a clear definition of "social and political/economic liberty", the following statement is meaningless:

A libertarian is an advocate of social and political/economic liberty.

But if you clearly define "social and political/economic liberty", then you're referring to one of the types of libertarians, not all of them. In other words, you simply moved the ambiguity from "libertarian" to "liberty". --B2C 19:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The world is a complicated place. If every concept was clearly and uncontroversially defined, there would be little need for disinterest or neutrality. fi (talk) 19:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The concept of "liberty" has been understood since antiquity, and is clearly defined in dictionaries all around the world. It basically means "freedom of action" or "freedom from restriction". The only controversy is created by those who choose to use such a commonly understood term to refer to a completely different (and far more vague) concept. Lockean One (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

That is not true. There is a conservative view of freedom where only a loyal subject of the king can be free. ~

That's a non sequitur. Your conclusion "that is not true" does not logically follow from that observation. Lockean One (talk) 15:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not really freedom. — goethean 15:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Your sarcastic "No true Scotsman" analogy is way off the mark and way off topic. My comments above were about the meaning of the term "liberty" not what is or isn't "really freedom". Lockean One (talk) 00:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

You said that the concept of liberty has been understood since antiquity. But my point is that there are different conceptions of liberty, and when writers in antiquity wrote about liberty, they did not have the same conception as the average member of the Libertarian Party USA today. In modern times, Frank S. Meyer drew a distinction between Liberty which he espoused, and libertinism, which he said Rothbard and others supported. TFD (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

LOL, again, I was referring to the meaning of the term "liberty", not which liberties are supported (or not) by whom. The meaning of the term itself, ie "freedom of action". The same exact meaning of the term used by both "writers in antiquity" and the Libertarian Party, even if they disagree about what specific liberties should be supported. Lockean One (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

ROFL, defining liberty as freedom is a tautology. Freedom and liberty are synonyms, but one derives from German while the other derives from Latin. TFD (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Just to give one example.

Democracy and aristocracy alike belong to the stage where some are free, despotism to that where one is free, and monarchy to that in which all are free.

— Bertrand Russell, describing Hegel's philosophy, A History of Western Philosophy, p667

Please don't "guess" at things like this just because something sounds right to you ideologically. fi (talk) 19:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Please be civil and stop making false statements about other editors. Your incessant falsehoods and personal attacks are disruptive and violate several Misplaced Pages policies. If you choose to delete your comments above, you may delete this post as well. Lockean One (talk) 06:11, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The point is that although classical writers wrote about liberty or freedom they did not mean what the average member of the Libertarian Party USA means by the term. TFD (talk) 06:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they did, assuming you mean classical liberal writers. They used the term "liberty" to mean "freedom of action". The Libertarian Party uses it to mean "freedom of action". They may disagree about which particular actions people should have the freedom to perform, but not the meaning of the term itself. Are you confusing multiple referents with multiple definitions? Lockean One (talk) 08:11, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

By classical I meant people writing in classical history not during the classical period of liberalism. You are the one who said "The concept of "liberty" has been understood since antiquity...." We are talking about Plato and Aristotle, not Malthus and Ricardo. And to say liberty=freedom is a tautology. It is like saying the US is defined as the USA. TFD (talk) 08:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

LOL, Plato and Aristotle also used the term liberty to mean "freedom of action". And liberty=freedom is not a tautology. They are synonyms when used in the same sense, but not in "every possible interpretation". The term freedom (unlike liberty) is often used to refer to a mere absence of something, ie "freedom from cancer", "freedom from head lice", "freedom from want", "freedom from vaginal dryness", etc. The term liberty, as used by Plato and Aristotle, did not refer to those latter types of freedom, they referred to freedom of action. Lockean One (talk) 20:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

ROFLOL Be very interested to know where you got your info. The English words liberty and freedom both translate into the Classical Greek word eleutheria. Aristotle would not have defined "eleutheria" as "eleutheria of action", because as the author of Logic he would have identified its circularity. And Plato's model of freedom was the Republic, complete with a rigid class system ruled by a philosopher king and aristocrats. Incidentally, your examples are extremely vulgar. TFD (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

LOL, you seem confused about what the term "tautology" means. It does not mean "can be translated into the same Greek word". And it doesn't mean that two terms can be or often are used as synonyms. It means that terms are necessarily interchangeable under every possible interpretation, which is clearly false, since no one ever says "liberty of action" ("of action" would be redundant with "liberty", but not with "freedom"). Perhaps less obvious in this context is that the term freedom, unlike liberty, may also refer to a concept in math and physics (degrees of freedom, an objects freedom to rotate, etc). Freedom=liberty is simply and obviously not a tautology, and it has nothing to do with Aristotle or how the words translate into other languages.

And you are absolutely right about how Aristotle would have used the word (eleutheria). He would have used it to mean liberty, not to refer to a kitchen sink being free of dirty dishes (less vulgar?). Nor would he have used it to refer to asymptotic freedom. Regardless, none of this has anything to do with the issue at hand, and I regret participating in this sidetracking. Lockean One (talk) 02:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Not commenting on your overall post, but translation does not necessarily mean "the same meaning"; at its best it essentially means "the word in the language with he closest meaning". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Certainly the way classical writers envisioned the world differed from ours. But the point is they had only one word for freedom/liberty. TFD (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and that single word was used to mean the same thing classical liberals mean when they use the term "liberty". It meant freedom of action, not freedom from cooties, systolic freedom, or any other kind of freedom. Lockean One (talk) 02:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

And other than demonstrating that Lockean One knows as little about history as he does about political science, this thread is completely off-topic. — goethean 21:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Please be civil and refrain from such personal attacks. If you would like to delete the above post, you may delete this one as well. Lockean One (talk) 02:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Saying you're incompetent is not a personal attack. It's a value judgment on your competence, which matters here. No one called you a gaudy dresser. If you're angry that people are complaining about your competence, try being less useless/clueless/incompetent. fi (talk) 07:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The only relevant fact in all of the above sidetracking (including my regretful participation in it) is that socialists (rightly or wrongly) use the term "liberty" differently than classical liberals. By the socialist definition, classical liberals are anti-liberty and vice versa. Can we seriously not just agree on that instead of sidetracking the issue into oblivion? Lockean One (talk) 03:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The issue is about free market libertarianism and socialist libertarianism, not classical liberalism and socialism. TFD (talk) 03:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I won't be getting dragged into another irrelevant sidetracking this soon. How gullible do you think I am? You gotta give it more time than that. Lockean One (talk) 03:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Right, so, once again, absolutely everything Lockean One has decided to share with us is flimsy personal opinions that honestly don't hold up to any halfway serious investigation. I've already provided two dozen examples of important, pre-capitalist, classical liberal writers that argued against neoliberal principles, which somehow went unnoticed. More importantly, we can drop it because nobody cares, as this isn't the article about classical liberalism and the connection between classical liberalism and the CATO institute (a few ideologues and politicians claiming it) is about like the connection between Archimedes and Ross Perot. If you want to cite that someone made it, great. We can also cite that a whole slew of scholars think that's basically a joke. Either way, I don't see what there is to discuss. fi (talk) 07:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Again, please be civil and stop making false statements about other editors. Your incessant falsehoods and personal attacks are disruptive and violate several Misplaced Pages policies. If you choose to delete your comments above, you may delete this post as well. Lockean One (talk) 07:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Then report it on ANI and stop spamming the talk page with your copy-pasta, for probably the twentieth time now. If you think questioning your competence is a serious offense, report it already. fi (talk) 07:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

If you have a problem with my "copy-pasta", you are free to delete it in each case, just like it says, along with the uncivil post it refers to. If you don't want to delete your uncivil post along with my "copy-pasta", then don't. And if you want it on ANI you are free to put it on ANI, too. (FYI, this same issue with Goethean is already on Only's user talk page, if you're interested.) Lockean One (talk) 07:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Copy

I think the Tea party section should be copy-pasted to the Libertarian Republican page for two reasons. First the tea party does not hold mainstream libertarian views, hence i think it confuses people when you give so much coverage to them. Secondly, they are primarily affiliated with the GOP and we already have such an article. Isn't that what spin-off pages are for? Cinemwallz44 (talk) 21:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you have sources supporting these claims? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

What claims are you referring to? As far as I can tell, Cinemwallz44 wasn't suggesting adding any content, just moving already sourced content. Lockean One (talk) 00:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I think "cut-pasted" would be better. Lockean One (talk) 00:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thats what i meat, cut and paste it. That section should not be on this article. Cinemwallz44 (talk) 00:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

@Misterdub Just read on the page link and its plainly obvious. Cinemwallz44 (talk) 00:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

You mean like this? "Many political scientists and political pundits who have not examined the data wrongly conclude the Tea Party is the GOP's base of extreme fiscal and social conservatives. Instead, examination of nationwide survey data reveals the Tea Party has at least two major groups: one libertarian leaning and the other socially conservative." (source) I have reinstated the material until a time that someone can actually provide an argument for its removal. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

It is not from a reliable source. TFD (talk) 19:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Why is it not a reliable source? It is one of two sources currently used to support the same claim in the Tea Party movement article, the other being "Libertarian Roots of the Tea Party." -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

improve or remove note 6 and citation 67 Alexander Berkman

Berkman (1929). The revolution abolishes private ownership of the means of production and distribution, and with it goes capitalistic business. Personal possession remains only in the things you use. Thus, your watch is your own, but the watch factory belongs to the people. and Berkman, Alexander (1929). What Is Communist Anarchism? Vanguard Press..

• is a text from 1929 really the best source?
• is Alexander Berkman a libertarian socialist? Does his cited text even use the term? his wikipedia page contains neither libertarian or socialist. (other than the series box). unless objection, i suggest we tag the material. Darkstar1st (talk) 11:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

1. Good, informative quotes don't expire.
2. Alexander Berkman was, as the title of his work implies, a communist anarchist (i.e. libertarian communist, libertarian socialist, or just libertarian).

I guess I'm a bit confused by this... what are you trying to accomplish here? Why does the quote need improvement? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 13:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Berkman's Now and After: The ABC of Communist Anarchism (a.k.a. "What Is Communist Anarchism?") could be argued to be either a primary or secondary source, but either one seems perfectly appropriate as there is no interpretation of the quoted material. And yes, anarchist communism and libertarian communism are more or less synonymous. Communists are socialists categorically, as communism is a subset of socialism. fi (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Removing content that portrays LibSocs as dimwits.

Can we at least remove the obvious self-contradictions and incoherent statements in the LibSoc sections (and LibSoc article)? The fact that some sources support statements that unfairly make all LibSocs look like idiots doesn't automatically require this article to do so. After all, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, particularly if the content serves no useful purpose. I'll even try to find better sources myself for better content if there is a consensus to do so, under the assumption that not all LibSocs are that dimwitted.

As an example, the article simultaneously says LibSocs promote free association, but seek to abolish wage-labor. Another, it says LibSocs oppose authoritarian control of means of production, but believe that all means of production should be controlled politically by "worker coops", etc. That's just a couple of examples, I won't list them all here.

And just to try to preempt the predictable "you just don't understand LibSoc" response, Misplaced Pages policy requires standard English, so while those examples might not be self-contradictions if non-standard definitions of terms are used and explicitly stated, they are obviously self-contradictions in standard English. Lockean One (talk) 07:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

1. http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/who-is-a-libertarian

• Former good article nominees
• 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