Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:43, 24 July 2010

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: 21 days

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

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

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

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

Template:FixBunching

Template:FixBunching

Software: Computing

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

Template:FixBunching Template:V0.5 Template:FixBunching

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

Talk:Libertarian, discussion for a page which has been merged with this article. Talk:Libertarianism/Alfrem, discussion prior to the ArbCom decision banning User:Alfrem from this article. Talk:Libertarianism/Page move, a July 2005 vote on a proposal to make libertarianism a disambiguation page and move this to Libertarianism (capitalist).

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Template:FixBunching

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: 21 days

Template:FixBunching

"An Unfathomable Schism"

"Libertarianism is not a complete moral or aesthetic theory; it is only a political theory"

The thesis: Libertarianism and Anarchism are discretely different subjects and should be divided as such. To conceptually overlap libertarianim and anarchism is an academic act of treason. A lady by the name of Carol is the only obstacle between the majority and the re-edit of this page.Ddd1600 (talk) 22:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Is Libertarianism a philosophy or a philosophy of government? Political theory cannot be associated with anarchism, individual philosophy however, can. Some sort of compromise needs to be made. As it is now, this page insinuates a glaring contradiction between order and disorder itself.

Now that this writer has calmed down. I simply wish to preface my concerns below with my simple, acute albeit nuanced complaint. As it stands, the introduction of this article categorically insinuates an almost contiguous comparison between anarchism and libertarianism. It does this by denoting the spectrum of libertarian thought as going from 'minimal government' to 'anarchist'. This is bad enough, however, the article goes even further in, if I may, absurdity, by using the word "minarchist" as a synonym to 'minimal-government-supporter'. This 'minarchist' term, etymological, basically tells us as a takeaway, that libertarian perspectives go from "kind of anarchist" to "fully anarchist". Do you see the insinuation here? Look again at it, its very subtle, subliminal even. But what it says is that libertarianism and anarchism are synonymous or, at best, contiguous. As a political philosophy (free will is something like power and politics is all about power), libertarianism does not want to decapitate the government. Anarchism, however, does. Do you see? The distinction is so subtle that perhaps the creator of such an absurd analogy didn't even realize it. But it's right there. A glaring, shameless contradiction. A total abdication of rationality and logic. This is about order versus a total lack thereof. Libertarianism doesn't have any problem with order, it simply accentuates individual liberty. Anarchism talks about order the whole time, anarchism wants to get rid of external order (viz. government). Libertarianism does not. Libertarianism simply advocates an internal locus of control and the manifestations thereof, viz. liberty. I have no political interests here, I'm just safeguarding common rationality, or at least trying to. The fulmination below I only keep for posterity.Ddd1600 (talk)

Regardless of citations, Libertarianism as a subject should not be even remotely associated with anarchism. Anarchism is a philosophy advocating a lack of government while libertarianism is a philosophy of government. Regardless of citation, unless, again, wikipedia is willing to admit irrationality and deceptive manipulation into its content, libertarianism and anarchism should be clearly divided into two separate pages. Given that there is no locus of authority with regards to libertarianism, there are abound to be errant academic documents suggesting the association between the two concepts, for example with the introduction of deception hybrid terms like 'minarchism'. In lieu of this absence of centralized authority with regards to libertarianism, the onus of responsibility therefore rests on the shoulders of intelligent citizens like yourselves to think for yourselves, as libertarianism asks of you, and remind young, naive viewers that libertarianism, a philosophy of government, and anarchism, a philosophy which advocates a total lack thereof, have absolutely nothing to do with one another, REGARDLESS of what some quack says, REGARDLESS of where he got his paper published. Misplaced Pages should not invite irrational contradiction into its content. Government and Anarchism are diametric opposites, and to allow libertarianism, a philosophy of government to be even remotely associated with anarchism is therefore a heinous academic sin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddd1600 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

We go by what sources say, we do not disregard them. See WP:V. Thus I have removed your WP:POV WP:Original Research. And in reality many people calling themselves libertarians do not want any kind of coercive governance, whether they call themselves anarchists or not. Also, your title insults other editors per WP:Civility and you should change it to something more neutral - and shorter. CarolMooreDC (talk) 08:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Feel about my perspective however you'd like. But it is true. Logically speaking, regardless of any academic history of thought, libertarianism is, again, a philosophy of government. Anarchism is a philosophy advocating a total lack thereof. At the very least, the wikipedia article on Libertarianism should highlight this bald contradiction. The contradiction goes the very core of rationality, and severs it through the middle. Libertarianism is a philosophy of government, anarchism is a philosophy advocating a total lack thereof. They are antonyms. It would be equivalent to saying a man is a woman and a woman a man, or black is white and white is black. It is mental. Indeed, I highlight this insanity for no other reason than goodwill and civility itself. Logic transcends academic opinions. This isn't my idea. It was true before I ever said anything. Libertarianism is the diametric opposite of anarchism, categorically. I won't try to change anything else. I simply leave the onus of responsibility on another brave soul who dares challenge arbitrary institutional academic authority for the sake of sanity and truth. There aren't many 'self-evident truths', but this is one of them. No contest. I give up. Somebody pick up the torch.Ddd1600 (talk) 20:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Like Atheism, this article suffers from trying to be about all topics that are referred to by the name of the article, rather than about any single subject. Ddd1600's point is valid, IF you presume a certain meaning of the term and exclude the others. I'm beginning to think more and more that both Libertarianism and Atheism should be dab pages, where each topic referred to as atheism or libertarianism has its own article. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

You know, that's not a bad idea at all. It would be a fairly major undertaking, but the end results could really eliminate a lot of headaches and edit wars. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 21:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

These arguments are made without reference to any WP:RS that say "libertarianism is, again, a philosophy of government. Anarchism is a philosophy advocating a total lack thereof." and plenty that would disagree, especially about the first statement. In wikipedia terms, your statement is WP:Original Research without WP:Reliable sources.

Most WP:RS see Libertarianism as a philosophy of individual liberty with some libertarians thinking government can have a minimal role in protecting liberty and others thinking it always impinges on liberty. Only conservatives who think they are libertarians think that anarchism is not relevant to libertarianism.

'Most' is a "WP:WEASEL word, 'some' is also such a word, as is 'others'. 'Only' and 'always' are extreme terms and 'conservatives' is a divisive word. That having been said, this is not an issue concerning loose analogies. This concerns politics v. free will. Libertarianism as a political philosophy represents a compromise between centralized authority (government) and decentralized authority (individuals/free will), it is not some kind of extremist philosophy which wants to de-root government in general. That is called anarchism. Hence my concern.Ddd1600 (talk)

ALSO: This section title is really obnoxious and WP:Uncivil to other editors and unconstructive as well. I'd appreciate it if the originator cut it back to a few descriptive words without insults to other editors. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The Websters dictionary def. of Libertarianism, Socialism, and Anarchism, should be enough to settle this debate. These terms are clearly at odds which each other. The original use of the word was quite clear, an unfortunate mistranslation years later, is the source of the confusion here, ""libéral et non LIBERTAIRE" (liberal but not libertarian), that is, the neologism was coined specifically as a distinction from the classical liberalism that Proudhon advocated in relation to economic exchange, in contrast to the more communist approach advocated by Déjacque." Darkstar1st (talk) 01:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

YOu just removed Websters as a source when you again gutted the lead. Stanford ref is a neutral reference that points out what all sorts of WP:RS agree on, there are pro and anti property and anarchist and "minarchist" libertarians. I personally am NOT opposed to deleting all but the first sentence of the second paragraph quoting Stanford, however, as something that can go lower in the article. I just hadn't been able to get agreement on that specific change. If you or others don't object, I will remove that. Also, I do think the longstanding section on minarchism and anarchism should be put back, just haven't gotten around to doing anything about it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Minarchism seems to be a word "on the borderline", so to speak. And again, seeing that anarchism is a school of thought which directly concerns itself with power, it is hard to get by saying that it doesn't have much or even anything to do with politics. It does. Libertarianism does not advocate chaos. Or if it does, it advocates a kind of "ordered chaos", anarchism, however, seems to advocate total...well...anarchy. There's something very obvious about my concerns. But its a very nuanced distinction, and I'm certainly not fired up about it anymore. Regardless, something needs to be done. I'll leave it to you folks. This is a delicate issue.Ddd1600 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC).

@Carolmooredc: "Most," "some," etc. can be used as long as you cite a reliable source to back up what you're saying about some, most, etc. members of a given group. @Torchiest: I think that libertarianism should not be a disambiguation page, although we could have a disambiguation page for the less popular meanings of it. Tisane (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

DDD1600 Rewriting old comments and throwing a lot of new stuff in the middle of it is really far too tiring to try to keep track of. Please add such comments to end of list of postings or start a new thread. Where you actually did so, my reply is: You are engaging in WP:SOAPBOX which isn't very helpful.

It also would be helpful if you would not WP:SOAPBOX in the subject lines. You'll be taken more seriously if you don't, and if you cut down your absurdly long ones to size now. Thanks.

As for Tisane's comments, I agree with first and disagree with second. There are enough people interested in libertarian metaphysics who aren't interested in politics to make it worth while. Please see WP:Disambiguation for relevant rules. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Carol, this isn't "writers vs. editors" here, what Misplaced Pages is is a NEW kind of encyclopedia. Standing behind some artificial web of academic clout is merely an action of evasive rhetorical maneuvering. The fundamental questions here are logical, not much more complicated than that. You responded to this discussion with an attitude, not an argument. To marginalize my commentary as "standing up on a soapbox" is just an inverted euphemism for saying that I am pointing out a glaring contradiction in the wikipedia page for Libertarianism. My comments, like yours, are REACTIVE, not PROACTIVE. Carol, wikipedia is not a traditional encyclopedia. Traditional encyclopedias are not nearly as dynamic as what is going on here. Your marginalizing comments aren't likely to gain as much weight here as they might in a traditionally structured institution. The underlying problem here is this---there are alot of libertarians out there who are likely to be very "upset" that they are being associated with anarchists. The difference is palpable and obvious, whether you are discussing philosophy OR politics, either way, the difference is palpable. Perhaps you've never met a self-described Libertarian. I know many, and none of them would be pleased with the title of 'anarchist', unless it were somewhat of a joke.68.59.4.188 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC).

Just to clarify, whether libertarians are upset about being associated with anarchism has nothing to do with writing this article. Plenty of people are upset about details in Misplaced Pages articles, but we don't change them to make people happy. The point is, if reliable sources say things that relate to this article, and the sources are important enough, we use them to build the article.

Outside of that, how do you feel about anarcho-capitalism? Don't you think that, just by the name, it's clearly on the anarchy side of things? What other political philosophy could you associate it with besides libertarianism? There's nothing wrong with having your opinions about this, but our opinions about things don't matter. We're trying to create a balanced piece that accurately represents all significant viewpoints on the subject. Torchiest /_contribs 14:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

@torchiest - You are absolutely right, subjectivity and encyclopedias have nothing to do with one another. Encyclopedias are meant to represent the most unbiased view possible. However, let me point out an, again, glaring, linguistic flaw in your conscientious retort---you say "the subject" as if libertarianism and anarchism are synonymous. To the contrary, they are not synoynmous, but different, subjects. To associate anarchism with libertarianism is to build a bridge between two different subjects. They are not the same. However, libertarianism, staying true to its own intellectual roots, indeed does not have some kind of central leader 'toting its line'. This, however, does not leave the field open for potshots at libertarianism by associating it with a theory that advocates chaos. Chaos and freedom are two different things. Let me repeat, you say "the subject" as if libertarianism and anarchism were analogous. THEY ARE NOT. I hate to be categorical, and would like to think that I am not being assertive, but the distinction is enormous. Anarchism and libertarianism need to be divided. There is an unfathomable schism between the logical cores of the two subjects. Logic, not politics. Logic. Its as simple as that. Freedom and chaos do not have to coincide. Libertarianism, for example, advocates police officers, an army, and a fire department--maybe not socialized healthcare, but nevertheless. There is a difference. And its not going to change. Simple etymology tells us that 'libertarianism' comes from 'liberty', which simply means personal freedom, NOT chaos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.4.188 (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Where did you get the idea that anarchy is synonymous with chaos? Anarchy merely means no government. It's possible to have order without government. And that, I think, is the connection between libertarianism and anarchism — both advocate non-governmental organizing principles, though to different extents. Torchiest /_contribs 18:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You have highlighted your misunderstanding of libertarianism. Thank you. You say libertarianism advocates non-governmental organizing principles in a way similar to anarchism. This is the hole in your argument. Principles are one thing, form is another. And anarchism and libertarianism differ greatly in their opinions on form. Anarchism advocates that the "form" of government be a total lack thereof. Libertarianism merely advocates smaller government. And you say, "that's what term 'minarchism' is for", etcetera. The nuanced differentiation between libertarianism and anarchism is vast, in fact there is no nuanced differention, it is almost binary. One says "less form" while the other says NO FORM. Perhaps that difference is a small one to you, but it is incredibly significant.68.59.4.188 (talk) 12:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

@torchiest - The etymology of anarchism comes from a Greek word meaning "no leader". The etymology of libertarianism of course comes from "liberty" which means "freedom". Think about it. Individuals can still have freedom even if they're living in a society with a government, viz. with leaders. But that having been said, it is an imperative, according to libertarianism, to minimize the powers of those leaders as much as possible, THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY WANT THE LEADERS TO BE DETHRONED, merely mitigated. Libertarianism strikes a compromise between government and individual liberty, anarchism does not.Ddd1600 (talk) 12:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

<backdent>To put things in a libertarian perspective, joining wikipedia is agreeing (or contracting) to go by certain policies and to only try to change those policies on the relevant policy talk pages. It's not about trying to argue or enforce new policies, not agreed to by others, on talk pages of articles. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Kind of a dubious assertion, for several reasons. (1) There is no EULA users agree to when they edit or create an account, other than that they consent to copyleft their contributions. (2) WP:IAR. (3) Policy is descriptive, not prescriptive, and guidelines are of even weaker force. (4) Some libertarians would say that there is a right to break certain contracts (e.g. slave contracts), if not all contracts. (5) Possession is 9/10ths of the law. Tisane (talk) 15:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

@ torchiest, on anarcho-capitalism: The article sounds like Right Republican rhetoric on economic issues, actually.Ddd1600 (talk)

The term 'anarcho-capitalism' sounds like something coined by a reactionary ideological group/gestalt originally intended to be negative, viz. by someone who did not advocate libertarian perspectives on macroeconomic issues. My purpose, our purpose I think, is to remove such 'borderline'/'marginalizing'/biased perspectives from the proper intermediate channels suitable for an encyclopedia. The term anarcho-capitalism is meant to provoke a loose fear response in the reader's mind---the title itself is on the verge of manipulation.Ddd1600 (talk)

What you think it sounds like doesn't matter. I personally have a very positive association with the term, but that doesn't matter either. Torchiest /_contribs 18:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. while it may not matter one mans opinion, maybe if the majority consensus is united, we can rid this article of the many distractive conflicting ?political philosophy? that pollute this page. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The easy way to fix this pollution is to categorically differentiate the subjects of 'anarchism' and 'libertarianism'. As this recent movement suggests--it is a simple thesis and a simple solution. The whole of the detritus will be handled by addressing this one issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ] (] • ]) by 68.59.4.188

Again, irrelevant without discussing the multiple WP:RS for different uses. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you anon for the current intro, a vast improvement on the past Darkstar1st (talk) 15:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, but Carol changed it back without much of a commentary. It seems to be that she assumes her logic and academic position to be beyond all doubt. She refuses to compromise, and as it stands, is not interested in negotiating or meeting anyone in the middle. Her idea of democracy is an authoritarian and elitist one, not one grounded in reason and sensibility. She stands behind her own opinion as if it were objective.66.153.239.133 (talk) 19:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

agree Darkstar1st (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually I brought some editors here through WP:Original Research Noticeboard who again reverted and did some other work. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The thesis: "Libertarianism" and "anarchism" are distinctly and discretely different subjects and should be separated appropriately as such. The appeal is not one to authority, but rather logical and reasonable consensus on a democratic, user-controlled basis. The appeal to logic is this: libertarianism, in terms of politics, is a political philosophy. Anarchism, in terms of policy, is a negative philosophy advocating a total lack thereof. The contradiction is a priori and hardly debatable. One theory advocates free will but does not deny political establishment, the other advocates the negation and annihilation of government. Libertarianism advocates free will, anarchism advocates the destruction of all forms of government. The appeal to reason is intrinsic. This is not original research. It is a simple, reasonable, appeal to reason, which is not in any way "original". Someone find a citation for this theory, and use it to back up the separation of anarchism and libertarianism, please.66.153.239.133 (talk) 19:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

This WP:Soapbox does not help the editing process. What WP:RS do you have to add. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

CAROL. MAN IS THE SOURCE OF ALL KNOWLEDGE. YOU ARE NOT A SOURCE OF KNOWLEDGE BECAUSE YOU DO NOT ACCEPT THE FACT THAT MAN IS A SOURCE OF ALL KNOWLEDGE. LEARN CAROL. IN NAZI GERMANY WE WOULD HAVE ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS. AS IT WERE, WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH YOU. PLEASE GET OUT OF PROGRESS'S WAY. YOU ARE RUINING OUR FUTURE. YOUR DESIRE TO ASSOCIATE ANARCHISM WITH LIBERTARIANISM IS ANTI-PROGRESSIVE TO OUR CAUSE. PLEASE GO AWAY. PLEASE. PLEASE.71.12.74.67 (talk) 01:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Lead weight

Just wanted to start a new sub-section for this, as I'm tired of reading that long section name in edits. I may not have been clear in my previous comments. I don't think the Standford encyclopedic should be completely removed as a source. My biggest concern is that it is used too much in the lead. That didn't mean that I wanted the lead eviscerated. I also suggested to Darkstar1st that he re-organized his remaining objections, so that we can discuss them in a less scatter shot manner. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 12:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you agree specifically with moving For example, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy right libertarians hold that natural resources "may be appropriated by the first person who discovers them, mixes labor with them, or merely claims them—without the consent of others, and with little or no payment to them." Left-libertarians hold "that unappropriated natural resources belong to everyone in some egalitarian manner"; some also oppose other forms of private property. to further down somewhere in the article?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I think combining the remains of that second paragraph with the third would be better. And perhaps a new third paragraph could be written, outlining that there are many different factions that lay claim to the name libertarian, though they have numerous disagreements about details. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 12:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

OK. However, you'd need a WP:RS for words like "factions" and "claim." The reality is many describe selves as libertarian and differ over what that means. The latest being Wayne Root writing a book "Conscience of a Libertarian" when many libertarians consider him a states right conservative. Anti-property libertarians come and go on this article, but you can bet that any time they are cut out for too long they'll be back and there will be another dustup. So best to present their views in NPOV WP:RS fashion, which is what I try to do, even though both sides may disagree :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Carol, where did you find the word "anti-property". No dictionary has this term, nor is it mentioned in the source linked? I am adding a citation tag, and will delete in 7 daysDarkstar1st (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I've already found several book sources that their are anti-property libertarians and pro-property libertarians and will add before that time. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

would you share one of those with us here?Darkstar1st (talk) 18:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, do you consider John Locke Egalitarian? The primary source; Vallentyne, Peter, list him as such in his book on page 2.Darkstar1st (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I am worried some editors have confused the term "property", as meaning only natural resources, such as land and water. Actually, "property" could mean the monitor you are using to read this passage. Therefore, I suggest we remove the terms "pro-property", and "anti-property", which do not exist in any dictionary, or encyclopedia, or in the very source attributed. No libertarian, of any denomination, would claim your monitor, is not your property, according to all published works by or about libertarians. Darkstar1st (talk) 00:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

'Just wanted to ask a lead in question--do any of y'all realize the fundamentally contradictory nature of the concepts of 'anarchism' and 'sane'? That is the only problem here, that word, 'anarchism'. (Rhetorical) Do you have ANY idea of how 'normal people' think?Ddd1600 (talk)

Lead weight 2

I agree, anarchism means no government, libertarians simply wish to reduce the size back to the constitutional mandate. Much of this article deals with the past meaning of the word libertarian, which seems to be opposite of the current form of the word. For the last few decades, Libertarian is a term employed mostly by people in the libertarian party usa. Definitions evolve, i suggest this article should as well. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Torchiest something that made sense: "if the page seems slanted, perhaps it is a reflection of current attitudes about the term. Much of the article seems to include sources by people who have a political philosophy, opposite of the libertarian party. The edits they make here appear to be more about expressing a pov, instead of reflecting the "consensus" view of the term in modern time. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

There is some truth in that; the minarchists have mostly successfully co-opted the term "libertarian," in addition to co-opting most of the organizations that comprise the libertarian movement, such as the LP. But, if libertarianism is defined is such a way as to exclude the anarchist libertarians, then what will the anarchist libertarians call themselves? Will we have an anarchist libertarianism article, or libertarian anarchism article? (Hmm, upon hitting "preview," I see that the second of those is blue-linked...) Also, anarchism is arguably the logical conclusion of libertarian ideas such as the non-aggression principle; if this article is changed to define libertarianism as minarchism, to the exclusion of anarchism, that is kind of like excluding the John Birchers from the article on conservatism. Hard-liners who have been fairly influential/important within the movement belong somewhere in any article on a political viewpoint, just as the moderates do, even if the information presented about them is mostly historical. Tisane (talk) 20:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep your new comments at the bottom, or it gets very confusing. It sounds to me like you have a very negative bias against anarchism, somehow think the idea itself is a bad one, and resent libertarianism being in any way associated with it. Is that correct? Because I don't think anarchism is really all that bad, and I also think there is a clearly a connection between the two concepts, with anarchism being the extreme end of the spectrum of limited government, i.e. no government. I think there are plenty of WP:RSes that state that as well. Torchiest /_contribs 20:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

As defined by Oxford; ANARCHY "Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder." This just doesn't sound like any libertarian I know. Much effort has been spent on defining the "classic" version of libertarianism, yet the current use of the term does not appear to have the correct weight in this article. People who come to WP seeking to learn what libertarians believe may go away with the wrong ideas. Noam Chomsky, who i deeply respect, identify himself as a left-libertarian, yet no political party or organization exist supporting this term. Libertarian party, is the 3rd largest party in the use with millions of members and a clearly defined platform of less government, lower taxes, personal freedom. Democrats voted against civil rights 2-1, yet the wp article on democrat is not about the racist democrats of the 60's. lets get the commonly accepted version of libertarian the most consensus can build. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Racism within the Democratic Party could surely go in an article about the Democratic Party, or an article about its history, though. I'm not sure how you define a "member" of the LP (the LP itself has changed its definition of an LP member several times; it used to be a dues-paying member, and now I think it means anyone who has ever agreed to the Libertarian Pledge), but there only a few hundreds of thousands of registered Libertarians. And there are probably only a few tens of thousands of dues-paying LP members (exact statistics seem hard to come by). All in all, it's not such a big organization that it dwarfs groups like the Ludwig von Mises Institute, which is pretty influential in academia for an organization of its size. Tisane (talk) 22:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, however, the current democratic party would probably distance itself from those beliefs as I am suggesting libertarians are aligned under the definition provided by most dictionary and encyclopedia entries, other than the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. LP.org, and Von mises both seem to agreed on the beliefs of libertarians. Combined, these 2 do dwarf all other current libertarian voices imho. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the solution is to come up with a history of the definition, noting how the common understanding of the term has changed over time. Torchiest /_contribs 23:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st, you are aware that LvMI is a pro-anarcho-capitalism organization, right? They are opposed to the Cato Institute and aren't all that happy with the direction the LP is going either. Anyway, it seems to me that libertarianism is an umbrella term that continues to cover both libertarian anarchists and minarchists. The term has been co-opted, but not so thoroughly that we should define it solely in terms of minarchism, although we could say something like "Most libertarians favor limited government" while still acknowledging the anarchist minority. Consider too that Mary Ruwart, an anarchist, almost won the 2008 LP Presidential nomination and that the Dallas Accord was in effect until 2006. As much as the minarchists might like to downplay the anarchist presence in the party, to leave out significant mention of the anarchists would be error by omission. Tisane (talk) 01:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

anarcho-capitalism is a fringe term, even the wp entry is not sourced. Mary Ruwart has no mention of anarchy on her site, or her wp page. Regardless, it is far from socialism, communism, and firmly rooted in private property as stated on the site: http://mises.org/about/3467#conservative. The libertarian page is struggling with the past interpretation (or misinterpretation of the word "libertare" by communist Joseph Déjacque. William Belsham coined the term in opposition to necessitarian/determinist views.) and the current use of the word almost exclusively employed by those in favor of private property, and smaller government. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Ruwart most certainly is an anarchist. Notice that her article about her conversion to anarchism is called "How I Became a Libertarian. Also, the libertarian pledge is arguably an anarchist pledge, depending on what you regard as the "initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals." If you hold government to the same standard as individuals on that matter, then you are arguably an anarchist. Also, what about this line from the 2004 LP platform: "We recognize the right to political secession by political entities, private groups, or individuals." That sounds pretty anarchist to me. As Rothbard said, "Once admit any right of secession whatever, and there is no logical stopping-point short of the right of individual secession, which logically entails anarchism, since then individuals may secede and patronize their own defense agencies, and the State has crumbled." There is no escaping the LP's anarchist past. Tisane /_stalk 12:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

We seem to be arguing both sides of the coin. My original point was the page seems over weighted toward left-libertarian, libertarian-socialism. Now I will simply say the page appears over-weighted to terms other than libertarian. Perhaps we are making the issue far too complex. Anarchist=no government, Libertarian=small government, Socialist= big government, Communist=bigger government, Fascist=biggest government. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It would probably be more accurate to say libertarian = smaller government. "Smaller government" is in fact part of the motto of the LP, and the concept is also reflected in the Boston Tea Party (political party) platform: "The Boston Tea Party supports reducing the size scope and power of government at all levels and on all issues, and opposes increasing the size, scope and power of government at any level, for any purpose." All that the libertarians agree on is that there should be smaller government, less taxes, and more freedom than we have now; that does not rule out some parts of government continuing to exist or even expanding (e.g. some libertarians support banning abortion), as long as the overall size/scope of government is reduced. Smaller government also does not rule out completely abolishing government, since a nonexistent government would be infinitely smaller than what we have now. The minarchists and anarchists unite for the time being, and will presumably part ways once the size of government has been greatly reduced, with the anarchists continuing on to pursue government's total abolition. Tisane /_stalk 15:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

No, small is accurate, as smaller to the point of nil, thus anarchy, already has a WP page. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

<backdent>First, Misplaced Pages is about references, not opinions. If you think there are NOT enough references showing that many free market libertarians, including in the US LP, are anarchists, I can add dozens more. So which references do you challenge? Note a lot of stuff on that was removed (forget by who) that I know I've been too busy/lazy to put back. But it easily can be. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

According to the different definitions of Anarchy, I agree, however, Anarchy has a page, as does Socialism, yet no mention of Libertarian on either of those pages, much less entire sections. My concern is people are associating the most traditional version of the word anarchy with Libertarian: 1. a state of lawlessness, rather then the modern form: 2. each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder). IMHO, those who edit this page with these terms are trying to degrade the term libertarian. It is obvious the the majority of primary sources are far from libertarian, or free market/property rights. I suggest we re-align the term as it is commonly employed today by the most people, leaving room for pre 1970's uses to the "classical" libertarian page Darkstar1st (talk) 13:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Both Anarchy and Anarchism mention anarcho-capitalism/free market anarchism and individualist anarchism. So you are incorrect. Just because you personally are scared of associating anarchism with libertarianism does not mean you can shunt off the many hundreds of thousands of people and the hundreds of WP:RS that link them. Don't forget the LP Platform reads in various parts: "We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual:....Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights... Self-Determination: Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of individual liberty, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, ...Omissions: Our silence about any other particular government law, regulation, ordinance, directive, edict, control, regulatory agency, activity, or machination should not be construed to imply approval." I think the ordinary American would see the LP as a group rotten to the core with anarchists, which it indeed is.

Please stop arguing WP:SOAPBOX over and over and over. It's just becoming WP:Uncivil.CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Carol i said "Anarchy has a page, as does Socialism, yet no mention of Libertarian" not anarcho-whatever Darkstar1st (talk) 14:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

"Whenever any form of government becomes destructive " meaning some form must exist prior. Which I suggest the majority of libertarians support. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Rather than your claim of soapbox, i think i am simply trying to edit this page, to reflect others pages in the same group. specifically removing unnecessary tangents that debase the term. i call it WP:IACarols Darkstar1st (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Concerns about "debasing" the term libertarianism are way off point. We need to focus on examining all the writings on libertarianism, determining how much there is for various hybrid philosophies, and properly weighting the article to match the different amounts of work on the subjects. The article has to balance viewpoints, and there is a large body of work which talks about libertarianism as it relates to anarchism. Why not write up some kind of outline on how you think the article should be structured, and we can compare it to what we already have to determine if the article is truly unbalanced, or if we just need more sources to properly distribute amongst the sections. Torchiest /_contribs 15:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Well said. Libertarian does relate to anarchism, as socialism relates to communism. Libertarians do support a central government, Anarchist do not. Trying to combine the 2 schools is as confusing as the pro-property, anti-property debate. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Some libertarians support a central government. Communism is arguably a subset of socialism, by the way, much as anarchism is a subset of libertarianism. Remember the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? Tisane /_stalk 17:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

No, most libertarians support SOME form of central government, anarchist want no central or local government. The USSR was most certainly communist, and I would suggest totalitarian after 1933. Nazi's had the word socialist in their name as well, although few consider them remotely socialist. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hitler was definitely a socialist. To quote Hans-Hermann Hoppe's Democracy: The God that Failed, "democracy has been the fountainhead of every form of socialism: of (European) democratic socialism and (American) liberalism and neo-conservatism as well as of international (Soviet) socialism, (Italian) fascism, and national (Nazi) socialism." See also the National_Socialist_Program#The_25-point_Program_of_the_NSDAP. Sounds pretty socialist to me. Tisane /_stalk 19:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

That is a fringe source. He also thought that Reagan and the Bushes were socialists. TFD (talk) 19:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The primary source is the name of the party, NAZI, aka "National Socialist. Tisane, what separates a libertarian, who is an anarchist, from an anarchist? Darkstar1st (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

UserDarkstar, please read Misplaced Pages:Soapbox#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox]. If you do not have anything to add via WP:RS you really are abusing this site and its editors. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar, logically, there is nothing that separates a libertarian who is an anarchist from an anarchist. Libertarianism and anarchism are not mutually exclusive, but neither does a belief in one imply a belief in the other. There are libertarians who are anarchists, but not all libertarians are anarchists, nor are all anarchists libertarians. If it were a Venn diagram, it would look like the MasterCard logo, with red on one side, blue on the other, and a purple section in between where the two circles intersect. Tisane /_stalk 01:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Tisane, then logically they are simply anarchist, and not libertarians. We both agree anarchist do not want any government, libertarians do. Carol, I have enjoyed your comments, but must guide my edits by the previously mentioned WP:IACarols. Tisane, what do anarchist who are not libertarian, believe different from libertarians? Darkstar1st (talk) 08:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

There used to be an essay called WP:Ignore all editors, but they got rid of it. Anyway, anarchism refers to the absence of rulers, and some anarchists consider wealthy capitalists, and especially absentee business owners, to be "rulers"; therefore, they advocate expropriating their property and giving it to the workers, so as to eliminate that ruling class.

To be sure, Rothbard wasn't too keen on legitimizing existing titles to private property if said property was obtained through aggression; he brought up the dilemma: "Suppose that libertarian agitation and pressure has escalated to such a point that the government and its various branches are ready to abdicate. But they engineer a cunning ruse. Just before the government of New York state abdicates it passes a law turning over the entire territorial area of New York to become the private property of the Rockefeller family. The Massachusetts legislature does the same for the Kennedy family. And so on for each state. The government could then abdicate and decree the abolition of taxes and coercive legislation, but the victorious libertarians would now be confronted with a dilemma. Do they recognize the new property titles as legitimately private property?"

Rothbard thought such titles should be regarded as invalid, but some anarchists go a step further to say that all interest, rent and profits should be abolished since they are exploitative. Thus, socialistic anarchists would tend to view contracts for interest, rent and profits as being voidable, while libertarian anarchists would probably view intentional breach of such contracts as fraud, which is a form of aggression. In summary, I think the main differences between libertarian anarchists and non-libertarian anarchists are their viewpoints on what property rights are legitimate. Since only legitimate property rights can be legitimately defended through use of defensive force, these differences in philosophy result in different opinions on the circumstances under which violence is justified. Since all political theory comes down to the question of when violence is acceptable, libertarian anarchism and non-libertarian anarchism must be regarded as different political theories. Tisane /_stalk 16:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, they are different, so why are they included on this page as a form of libertarianism? Also, if a libertarian-anarchist owns property, thus a ruler, what is anarchist about being a ruler? Wouldn't any libertarian who owns property(land, business, shoes) no longer be an anarchist? Darkstar1st (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The theory is that in a free market, your landlords, employers, etc. don't have sovereignty — i.e. supreme dominion, authority or rule — over you (and hence, aren't your rulers) because you have a choice of competing providers of rental property, wages, etc. Likewise, you aren't a ruler over your landlords, employers, etc. because they have a choice of competing providers of rent, labor, etc. Thus, the sovereignty of the consumer frees everyone from rulers. This theory only works if monopolies are indeed impossible in a free market; libertarian theory holds that you will always have a choice of providers, if not for a specific product, then for a more general category of products that will suffice to fulfill the same needs, or at least fulfill them better than would be possible under any other economic system. Tisane /_stalk 18:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

"anarchists consider wealthy capitalists, and especially absentee business owners, to be "rulers" "your landlords, employers, aren't your rulers" Tisane, i am having trouble following you. "libertarian who is an anarchist from an anarchist", then why not just call him an Anarchist? Carol your soapbox has been noted, several times, thx Darkstar1st (talk) 14:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Please bring WP:Soapbox to personal discussion pages. WP:Soapbox is a policy, not just a fantasy. I only see one Reference up there and it's not WP:RS. Everything else evidently is just your personal opinions - known as

DarkStar, You left out the word "some," which preceded "anarchists" in the sentence you quoted. The particular subset of anarchists that views capitalists as being rulers would be the part of the "A" circle in the Venn diagram above that does not intersect with the "B" circle. Carol, just keep reminding him of the soapbox rule; hopefully eventually he'll get annoyed enough to say something over-the-top uncivil so we can take this case to the ArbCom and obtain a topic ban. In fact, we can probably already report him to wikiquette alerts on the basis of the IACarols remark, side-splitting though it may have been; that will help establish later that we've exhausted every remedy but the ArbCom. Tisane /_stalk 14:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

"libertarian anarchists and non-libertarian anarchists are their viewpoints on what property rights are legitimate" Which property rights do libertarian anarchist hold, that anarchist do not? Both of you seem bent on soap, so plz provide a small example so i may avoid repeating Darkstar1st (talk) 14:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, for instance, suppose I build a factory totally with my own money, which I obtained through consensual exchanges with others, and without benefiting from any government subsidies or regulations. Anarcho-capitalists would hold that I have a rightful title to the factory, while non-libertarian anarchists would hold that I am a ruler and an exploiter and that ownership of the factory should be transferred to the workers. As for a factory owned by a government contractor such as Lockheed Martin, the bulk of whose revenues came from money obtained through taxation, the company would arguably not have a rightful title to the factory since it was knowingly purchased with stolen property, and therefore the factory could be homesteaded by others. Such companies could be regarded as merely branches of the government that are private in name only. We're not going to drop the soap anytime soon so don't get your hopes up. Tisane /_stalk 15:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

So a libertarian anarchist could own a factory, while an anarchist would seize the factory for the workers. Would other anarchist seize the factory from the workers? Darkstar1st (talk) 15:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Presumably, the anarcho-capitalist factory owner would use hired goons to either prevent the factory from being seized to begin with, or to regain control after it had been seized by the workers. I would say that as a practical matter, the capitalist would be in a better financial position than the workers to hire such goons, but some hired goons might also work on a commission or contingency fee basis; for instance, some private military companies have accepted payment in diamonds after helping countries regain control of their diamond mines. But some of those companies also were, as a matter of policy, only willing to work for democratic governments and internationally-recognized liberation factions. No doubt, the prevailing moral standards of the day would play a big role in deciding which policies would be most popular. Since a factory is property like any other, under anarcho-capitalism, it would probably be handled similarly to the wristwatch scenario. To answer your question, yes, some other anarchists might seize the factory from the workers, if they deemed the workers to have an illegitimate claim to it. Tisane /_stalk 15:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

but the workers do have a legitimate claim, as they do the work. But why would an anarchist honor a claim? Darkstar1st (talk) 15:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

How does their doing the work give them a legitimate claim? The contract that both parties agreed to stipulated that the workers would receive wages, not a factory. Further, it's inefficient to give workers ownership over the factory, because they are not experts in factory management. On the other hand, if the workers appoint a factory manager, rather than making decisions by majority vote, they are right back to a hierarchical system. Either way, now the management of the factory, or the oversight of the factory manager, is subject to all kinds of public choice dilemmas such as rational ignorance that will hinder effective management/oversight. Plus, because the system does not reward wise/productive investors (and in fact punishes them by expropriating their capital), it will be social Darwinism in reverse; the workers who never bothered to make something of themselves will be put in charge of (mis)managing productive resources. Does the phrase "Twentieth Century Motor Factory" have any meaning to you? Tisane /_stalk 17:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Tisane, thank you for your help. I think now we can all see anarchist produce chaos. There is nothing libertarian about workers seizing factories. Therefore the two words do not belong together in the same sentence. I noticed how you consistently replace the term libertarian anarchist, with anarcho-capitalist. I think the people who coined these terms so many years ago meant the classical libertarian of the french communist, not the modern libertarian movement. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar, you're attacking a straw man; nobody said there was anything libertarian about workers seizing factories, except perhaps if the factory owner obtained the factory through crime, and there was no way to transfer the factory to the victim as restitution; in which case, the factory could be homesteaded by the workers or by anyone else. There are forms of anarchism that are compatible wtih libertarianism and forms that are not. Arguably, minarchism is incompatible with libertarian principles, though; especially the non-aggression principle, since government's existence depends upon taxation, which is a form of aggression. Given your seeming inability to grasp the concept illustrated in the Venn diagram above, in accordance with the instructions on how to win any argument on the Internet, I'm going to have to do the wiki-equivalent of adding you to my block list, by unwatching this page. I call it IADarkstars. Tisane /_stalk 21:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Great, so libertarian-anarchist is an oxymoron, i start the process for removing anarchist from this article. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

That's not what he said. He was making the distinction, per your request, between libertarian anarchists and non-libertarian anarchists. The libertarian anarchists would not agree with seizing the factory. Compare Anarcho-capitalism (a featured article, no less) with Anarcho-communism. And there is no agreement that anarchy is synonymous with chaos. Torchiest /_contribs 21:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

@carol : refering to your previous post on this section about "Soapbox"---I would just like to highlight your position. This is a page on libertarianism, on a website created upon democratic albeit acadeic tendencies. Are you asserting that each individual voice is not a source? How much more "statist" could you be? Its as if you had a, I dunno, biased position!68.59.4.188 (talk) 23:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

" Modern anarchists are irrational collectivists, and therefore at opposite poles from Libertarian."-This is a horrible generalisation, and a value judgement-can it be deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.109.10 (talk) 16:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Lead weight 3

(Another subsection to break up the discussion.) Adding my 2 cents for first time here: Libertarianism does not equal — or even include — anarchism. The assertions otherwise — in the lead of this entry — are perhaps the greatest flaw I've seen on Misplaced Pages in years of regular reading. In fact, this specific flaw has grown notorious among my friends that read Misplaced Pages. Libertarianism and anarchism are two entirely different concepts. This is something that 99.99% of people would agree upon. To assert otherwise is simply ridiculous and is probably not part of a good-faith argument. 72.79.130.164 (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

agree i suggest the article is being influenced by those who do not libertarian and wish to hurt the movement by distorting the definition of the term. the people burning cars in toronto g20 are being called anarchist by the media, using the term here is not helpful. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I am suggesting that we push to get the individuals responsible for this barred from editing on Misplaced Pages. They have clearly violated any standard of reasonableness in editing in good faith. They are most likely trying to discredit libertarianism or are possibly playing some game/bet to see how long they can get Misplaced Pages to say that libertarianism = anarchy, up = down, green = blue, etc. There is no point in arguing with them about libertarianism not equally anarchy, because this is not a subject of reasonable debate. How do we get them barred? 71.161.243.67 (talk) 23:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

there is an easier, faster way. i like to use there own sources against them, example, murray rothbard is used as a source in 2 of the 1st five sources. when i try to insert material from murray where he says, "We must therefore turn to history for enlightenment; here we find that none of the proclaimed anarchist groups correspond to the libertarian position, that even the best of them have unrealistic and socialistic elements in their doctrines. Furthermore, we find that all of the current anarchists are irrational collectivists, and therefore at opposite poles from our position. We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical." they revert my edit. i suggest we continue to search the sources for errors, as well as additional sources supporting the definition as understood by the most people today. perhaps a starting point would be stanford professor peter vallentyne, a person who is given undue weight in this article via the stanford article he wrote which sourced himself 4 times, and his writing partner a few more. an editor here suggest the source is valid as it is "peer-reviewed". however i found glaring errors in his own book which he listed as a source, ex:page 2 he claims john locke is egalitarian. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a good idea (to win with persuasive ideas), but, unfortunately, it won't work here. This "debate" has been going on for at least 1.5 years. This isn't a matter of trying to inform people who are uninformed. Rather, they know crystal clear that what they are doing is totally bogus. In fact, they are probably amused at the scores of people like you who have come on here for years to try to correct the blatant inaccuracy that libertarianism = anarchism. I applaud you for your efforts, but I think it would make more sense to investigate wp:block at this point. 71.161.243.67 (talk) 23:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

There is only one relevant comment in this section about a WP:RS and you don't provide the link to the relevant quote or the context you want to put it in. So I think you'd have trouble proving your point. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of blocking, note that 71.161.243.67 could be blocked for four non-edits in a row made on June 30 just to insult other editors in the edit summary. Don't do it again please, it's a time waster for everyone and WP:UNCIVIL. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Carol, you are lead weight with regards to this subject. Your opinion represents nothing other than the status quo. Have you considered that fact? Your 14,000 edits lend you little credence. Abandon your project with regards to this page. Your un-natural regard for authority alone reveals you as the ANTITHESIS of a libertarian. Go away, you're not providing value here.Ddd1600 (talk) 22:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Please remove your WP:Uncivil WP:Personal Attack comment from the talk page. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a personal issue Carol, its essentially impersonal, objective. The fact is, you don't "add value" to the process on this page. Unless you have constructions or constructive criticism, please refrain from speaking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ] (] • ]) by User talk:68.59.4.188

<--Is User:68.59.4.188 the same person as USer:Ddd1600? If so they should edit with only one identity as not to create false impression of two editors editing. In any case User:68.59.4.188 also was being uncivil and should remove his comment. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Socialist Libertarians? LOL How about militaristic pacifists?

A philosophy that supports one perspective, defacto excludes it's antithesis. Thus claims that an article describing a philosophy lacks balance by failing to include a hybrid between the philosophy and its antithesis is frivolous. Tags removed.--99.21.36.80 (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Those including the term Socialist, get there strength from writing hundreds of years old describing the European classical French "libertaire", which I maintain is inappropriately associated with the modern libertarian movement which is very clearly defined in all dictionaries, and all but one encyclopedia, the online user submitted Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The tags are there to further your point, they were placed there by like minds. The section that needs expanding will be deleted if no further material supporting the section is added. The unbalanced tag means it is weighted too far toward socialist for most here, and a few who disagree. I am glad to have a new voice join in this debate, with your help we will fix this page with sources supporting our opinions, and consensus among the major editors of this page. Please make a homepage/user name so others will know your a regular here. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

It would help if people mentioned Which tags they are removing or putting back, ie Unbalanced in the Lead. Guess I'll have to look for references. However, since Libertarian socialism article exists and it's POV to try to get rid of this section. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually it has been tagged for expansion, so unless that requirement is met, it must be deleted no matter the pov. the tags were all removed and all replaced. the editor was confused, not vandalism on his part, simply an error. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Quote attributed to Einstein: "I am not only a pacifist but a militant pacifist. I am willing to fight for peace." Kwiki (talk) 20:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

said the man whose creation incinerated people by the 10's of thousands in a second. a horror unknown to man since the biblical fire and brimstone, or older texts that warn of human caused annihilation. makes me wonder if we have been around this track before.

Einstein did not invent nuclear weapons. 67.173.10.34 (talk) 07:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)Larry Siegel

It was Einstein who convinced Franklin D. Roosevelt to initiate the Manhattan Project with his Einstein–Szilárd letter. Like them or not, Einstein played a pivotal role in the development of nuclear weapons. BlueRobe (talk) 16:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

 Darkstar1st (talk) 21:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

<backdent>Darkstar wrote: Actually it has been tagged for expansion, so unless that requirement is met, it must be deleted no matter the pov. the tags were all removed and all replaced. the editor was confused, not vandalism on his part, simply an error. I am not sure what tags you are talking about. Actually, however, looking at the Libertarian socialism article, I can see there would not be a problem with merging it to left libertarianism section of this article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC) apologies Carol, you are correct. and i agree on merging also. Darkstar1st (talk) 04:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

1. I'm not sure I'm understanding you correctly, but if you're both implying that the entire article Libertarian socialism should be merged into the article Libertarianism as a section, I think that's a terrible idea, for the same reason that integrating the entire Anarchist communism article into the Communism article would be a bad idea. Libertarian socialism is a separate subject in it's own right, as you can see by checking the dozens of sources at the bottom of the article. And the article is far too long too include as a subsection of the already long Libertarianism article.
2. If you are talking about merging it into Left libertarianism, I would also have to disagree, for similar reasons. Just like anarchist communism is a form of communism and anarchism, libertarian socialism is a form of left libertarianism and of socialism. Just as not all communists are anarchist communists, not all left libertarians are socialists.
3. And to whichever author entitled the section "Socialist Libertarians? LOL How about militaristic pacifists", you should look at the history of the word "libertarian", and how most of the world besides the U.S. uses it today. Hint: They aren't usually talking about right-wing capitalists. Libertarian refers to individual freedoms in relation to government and other institutions. Socialist/capitalist are about economic organization. You can have totalitarian socialism or libertarian socialism. And you can have totalitarian capitalism, or libertarian capitalism ... just thought I'd clear that up for you.

Anyhow the articles clearly shouldn't be merged, unless someone can explain why two long articles on clearly separate topics should be integrated into one extremely long article.

--Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with Jrtayloriv. Any such article mergers would be silly. There might be a case for merging the section on libertarian socialism in this article with the section on left libertarianism in this article, but I don't really see what would be gained. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, I was only talking about merging sections in this article, not the two articles. And I figured if no one from Libertarian socialism objected to doing so, that it was a decent compromise. But you have objected with pretty good reasons, so I shall back off my suggestion. Earlier in the year (Before Darkstar or someone with similar views completely destroyed the structure) the section on types was more clearly separated into pro- and anti-property libertarians. The alphabetical listing is just useless for explaining the different shades of libertarianism, but since all the work I did on the first incarnation was blown up I haven't felt like trying again. So the article remains a bit confusing and un-edifying. You might at least consider making it clear how the two differ in the text, if you can find WP:RS that explain. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Carol, it was not me who killed the last intro, but i was certainly in agreement it be changed. And, it was my my cite tag on the redundant listing of the forms of libertarianism, which i still say is incorrectly formated as that section is still not sourced. Why not remove it completely? The sections it announces have been marked as well, as are the main articles for a few of these fringe terms. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Libertarianism is considered WP:FRINGE, so a small and not WP:UNDUE section on the different types can't be much more fringy. I'm going to put in more refs and hopefully you'll stop attacking this article. You are the only person who has every called these subsections fringe. And note that 750 people watch this article, which is high. Please stop trying to impose your will through constant soapboxing as if exhausting other editors with it will help you get your way. It's really verging on WP:Uncivil. Which reminds me it's not too late to change the section title here since insulting other editors and viewpoints and flaming about your POV really is tacky too. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Poppycock Carol, unless you have proof i have insulted anyone, i will hold my breath until you retract your lie. soap noted part 5, thank you, but i have not forgot your objection to my edits. define flaming? since your edit yesterday was made after i placed my tag, i would suggest not only am i helping, but also directing your edits somewhat. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

BTW, i did not create the section title here Carol. i suggest we bury the hatchet. all of my edits have stood, therefore rather than attacking, i am simply editing. i realize we have different views, but is it possible we can be friends at the same time? Darkstar1st (talk) 14:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, sorry for not checking first message in thread to see that AnonIP did the insulting subject line. Anyway, will concentrate on some refs right now. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Carol -- Discussion of libertarianism cannot, by definition, be considered WP:Fringe or WP:Undue in an article on Libertarianism. You should read up on both of those policy articles to understand what they actually mean. Adding several sections about the opinions of various Libertarian groups in the article on, say, Barack Obama would be ]. If you picked some random, non-notable libertarian who had very unusual views on something, that differed from the large majority of other libertarians, and then gave them undue weight in the article on libertarianism, that would be a violation of WP:Fringe. Having sections on various forms of libertarianism in the article on libertarianism is neither. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you there should be "sections on various forms of libertarianism" and was making a convoluted/ineffective argument to disagree with Darkstar who seemed to be saying that there should not be. FYI CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Pardon my interjection, but in the United States - in the 21st century - outside the world of political theorists (but inside the world of that 15% of the U.S. population that is said to self-identify as libertarian), "libertarianism" simply means "classical liberalism." (This word-shift is necessitated because the word "liberal" has already been taken by those opposed to classical liberal principles.) Thus "libertarian" has come to mean pro-property, free market, capitalist (but not "right wing," another matter entirely - the right wing, traditionally, defends the king *against* the interests of the enterprising classes and others!). Other, contrasting uses of the word should be placed in their historical context. 67.173.10.34 (talk) 07:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)Larry Siegel

and ford did not invent the auto, but far more died from ford's vehicles than from karl maybach's. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Lead again after purging of left libertarianism: both sides please avoid WP:Original research, discuss changes here

Again editors have been putting in their own interpretations and leaving existing refs that don't support them. Please don't do that. There was a good six month period of truce between left and right during late 2009, early 2010. But more recent efforts by pro-property libertarians to purge all mention of left libertarianism without working cooperatively to find appropriate refs to the reality that both groups use the term inevitably is bringing a reaction as those who want the left to have its proper role try to edit it and commit their own faux pas in editing. Just preview changes here so we can find language we all agree on. (Second paragraph was problematic but I was too exhausted from dealing with those who want to purge instead of cooperate to comment.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It is Misplaced Pages convention that every article on liberty has to discuss left/right, english/continental, positive/negative definitions. I am known for missing a word or two when I read, but when I read the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Left/Right libertarians, I see nothing to indicate that left libertarians are against property/ownership rights in general. What the article states is that left libertarians are against private ownership of natural resources (a specific type of economic good). To clarify-- socialists believe in a classical idea of what creates property/ownership rights: one has a right to that which one mixes with ones labor. They just add two addenda to it, that follow the Marxist critique: (1) labor value is based on time spent, not productivity; (2) current, active usage trumps prior usage and ownership. Hence, a capital owner cannot lease, rent, or charge interest for the use of the means of production and other goods because the moment a capital owner lets these items be used by other workers, the workers mix their labor with them and they become the property of the worker. My crtique: The current intro is vague, the word liberty must be used when defining libertarians. Second, 'left' and 'right' are useful terms because they distinguish substantially different attitudes of libertarians toward certain kinds of property (capital and natural resources). Lastly, if some people object to a continuation of a left-right paradigm, maybe 'American' and 'Continental' libertarian schools should replace 'left' and 'right'. However this is resolved it is worthy of mention in the intro paragraph, and worthy of being stated simply and clearly: right libertarians are classical liberals, left-libertarians are socialists. Both agree to extensive protections of the individual from force wielded by the state or other agents Mrdthree (talk) 15:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree well said. American/Continental. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

lol ... "continental libertarianism". We don't make up terminology just because you don't like what is widely used. Phrase has all of TWO hits on Google. BigK HeX (talk) 16:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. We should use the accepted terminology of left and right libertarianism and then just make a note that some libertarians dont like the qualifiers. However I think even that is a misquote; i.e. the left and right to which Harry Browne is referring is the conventional American political spectrum, not left/righ libertarianism which turns on the question of the suitability of natural resources and various other capital for private ownership. Mrdthree (talk) 15:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

some=weasel word. a sure sign of political polyandry. imho, left refers to social policy, and the right fiscal, meaning all libertarians are both. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Just curious. What does political polyandry mean? Mrdthree (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

a term keeping more than one meaning simultaneously. in an attempt to differentiate anarchy from libert'y'arian, i will use myself as a source of the neologism Darkstar1st (talk) 16:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't researched these in details, but have not given up notion that these may be sufficiently notable to be used in this article: See Books google search listing for term anti-property, Books google antiproperty, books google pro-property, anti-property pro-property libertarianism. Just have other more pressing deadlines to deal with. They certainly were discussed freely enough by editors in Archives 13 and 14 til Darkstar challenged the verbiage. Mea culpa for putting bill paying ahead of wikipedia editing. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

there is no book in the list that involves a discussion of pro- and anti- property libertarianism. That is because there are no self-described anti-property libertarians. 'Left' libertarians discuss what is legitimate property and believe in the notion of property. I (and various sources that attempt objectivity) think simplicity is to define left and right libertarianism and leave nuances to the article body.Mrdthree (talk) 10:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I think I am coincidentally pushing the intro back to where it was in March. I think since I didnt write that version, it must reflect some sort of consensus in interpreting sources or meaning. Mrdthree (talk) 10:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The edit summary saying that left libertarians have different views on property obviously made a good point. It seemed like a good consensus when various people made it a few months back, but looking at the list I knew it would be stretching it to put it in here. (Though it would be nice if some major academic wrote some big WP:RS book repeatedly using the terms after checking out my links. ;-) But since already had the links around, what the hey. I just hate the left-right dichotomy since right originally was AUTHoritarian!! Left libertarians at least have staked out the old Liberal ground. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Would you consider taking a voluntary break from editing here Carol?

in the spirit of wp:kumbaya i have removed myself permanently from this article. would you consider taking a short break yourself? you seem very confident your edits are based on solid wp practice, should that be true, they will withstand your absence for a week or so. maybe what is hold us back is us? i have noticed far more progress since i have limited my soapbox to the discussion page. now that others are accusing you of the same, would you be willing to temporarily excuse yourself here? Darkstar1st (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has accused Carol of soapboxing... BigK HeX (talk) 21:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

apologies, you are correct. i was meaning to point out she is getting the same resistance i had to my edits. my experience was after i stopped making the edits, others came in and did what i was trying to accomplish and their work remained, where as my edits would have been reverted. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I like Darkstar1st's recommendation. Maybe those who have been closest to this article over the last 1.5 years should back away for a couple weeks. No single person has all of the answers. Let's all take a break for awhile and see what happens. 71.161.243.67 (talk) 00:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

My problem is I have allowed myself to get dragged into pointless discussions here when I should have been just editing the article. So I've already engaged in far too much of a voluntary break. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

the "Libertarianism and anarchism" section

Does anyone want to translate this section into English while tying it into the subject of the article? I mean really, what the hell does this section say (for those of us who are not tripping on acid)? Sorry for my tone of voice, but I have a hard time believing that this writing was done with any genuine effort at contributing towards clarification of the subject. It reads like the author should be institutionalized. 71.161.243.67 (talk) 00:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

clarification of sources claiming libertarians are anarchist

"Libertarians have a variety of views on natural resources and the size of the State, ranging from pro-property to anti-property (sometimes phrased as "right" versus "left"), and from minarchist to openly anarchist." the sources support anarchist are confusing, is it possible to separate these five sources so we can evaluate which source makes the claim libertarians are anarchist including page numbers and line? Darkstar1st (talk) 14:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Generally, it's not preferred, but if you'd like to suggest a rewrite here ... Go For It. BigK HeX (talk) 15:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

no, i meant, the editor that jumbled up the 5 sources together, please separate them out in the sentence. i have reviewed the sources and cannot find it. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm the editor that "jumbled" the sources. And, no, I don't plan on unjumbling them, because I have little reason to believe that you could actually have reviewed the links available and then honestly say you couldn't find support for anarchist perspectives on libertarianism. I clicked on 3 links, taking me all of about 4 minutes, which resulted in: 1 source that I could not verify, 1 source that offered weak support for the assertion, and then 1 source that was filled with nothing but support for anarchist views on libertarianism. If you didn't really try in earnest to review the sources, please don't post disingenuous challenges here. BigK HeX (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

kudos! thank you for cleaning up your edit. removing unverifiable, weak sources makes wp a better place. perhaps unjumble is a poor term, i meant would you be willing to place the sources individually, inline as needed? Darkstar1st (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

A) I didn't say any of the refs were "unverifiable". I said that *I* could not verify it.

B) I didn't say any of the refs were weak. I said one was a weak support for assertions on anarchism, saying nothing of whether it was strong support for the remainder of the sentence. And, TBH, it's only weak because it required a large amount of the source's context to support the assertion, but it *does* support the assertion, though it may be short on conclusive one-liners for doing so.

Anyways, my answer at the moment is, 'No.' I don't think anyone has presented a legitimate gripe with the specificity of the sourcing as it is now, so I don't plan any changes yet. If someone else wants to play this fun little game, then I applaud them, but I'm not much of a fan of mollifying people who refuse to accept that there are notable perspectives which conflict with their preferred opinion. BigK HeX (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

the suggest sentence makes 7 claims requiring sources. adding all the sources at the end is confusing. i understand you are unable or unwilling to cite which applies where. this is not your job, and your edit is appreciated in its current form. perhaps a more skilled editor than us both will be able to correct the edit.

1. Libertarians have a variety of views on natural resources 2. and the size of the State 3. ranging from pro-property 4. to anti-property 5. (sometimes phrased as "right" versus "left"), 6. and from minarchist 7. to openly anarchist. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

No one may have told you this, but the lead is SUPPOSED to be a condensed version of assertions made in the article. BigK HeX (talk) 16:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

would placing the sources inline uncondense the wording? Darkstar1st (talk) 16:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

"Anarcho-capitalist Murray Rothbard has stated that "Capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism." --- This is an example of a sentence that confuses me, because I cannot understand what this sentence has to do with the subject of the article (i.e., libertarianism). There is no explanation before or after this sentence that explains how it relates. May I go through the article and erase sentences like this, that have no apparent connection to the subject of the article? (Please do not erase my discussion comments, as has been happening). 71.161.243.67 (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC) agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkstar1st (talk • contribs) 19:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

If you don't understand that the sentence explains Rothbard's view on anarcho-capitalism, and that anarcho-capitalism is classified as a libertarian ideology, then it might not be wise to delete material. If you do understand these relationships, then feel free to FIX the material and make the relationships more explicit. If an editor doesn't want to expend the effort to fix the material, then maybe the {{Clarify}} tag is the right tool. BigK HeX (talk) 19:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

" Please name the source that identifies two classes of libertarians based on whether they believe in property rights or not. 137.132.250.7 (talk) 12:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

agree i am in favor of deleting the claim until clarity of sources can be achieved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkstar1st " given murray clearly stated libertarians are not anarchist, and no clear source opposing, delete the text, until correctly sourced. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Lead as of July 1

I can't keep track of who did what but here's lead as of this moment after I edited it (with comments) and part I just deleted (with comments).

• Libertarianism describes a range of political beliefs that advocate the maximization of an individual's ability to think and act with few constraints from large social structures, such as government, and the minimization or even abolition of the state. Libertarians have a variety of views on natural resources and the size of the State, ranging from pro-property to anti-property (often phrased as "right" versus "left"), and from minimal state ("minarchist") to no state ("anarchist").
  • Actually first sentence is WP:OR using existing refs. Natural resources doesn't equal property; but I do like this new variation I put in minimal state ("minarchist") to no state ("anarchist"). References could be improved. So over all, needs work.
• Left-libertarianism is rooted in nineteenth century socialism. Left-libertarians believe in protecting the freedom of action of individuals from interference by state or other actors but are against unfettered individual ownership of natural resources and the means of production. Right-libertarianism is rooted in nineteenth century classical liberalism and right-libertarians believe liberty and property ownership are inviolable natural rights. However right-libertarians are difficult to place in the conventional left/right political spectrum as they also support traditionally left-wing issues, such as broad freedom from search and seizure, freedom of the press, and other civil liberties. Consequently some libertarians reject being described as "left" or "right" or as "anarchists."
  • This is too much to say without some discussion here. And will re-check those refs and see if they say what you say they say but from my memory of them I believe they are WP:Original research or WP:Synthesis. (Look up and read articles if you do not understand.) My doggis mistress insists on her walk so I must depart for now. Plus on a big deadline this week. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Libertarians have a variety of views on natural resources and the size of the State, ranging from pro-property to anti-property (often phrased as "right" versus "left"), and from minimal state ("minarchist") to no state ("anarchist").

i would like to suggest a rewrite: Libertarians have a variety of views on natural resources and the size of the State, ranging from pro-property to anti-property (often phrased as "right" versus "left"), and from minimal state ("minarchist") to no state ("anarchist"). this is an example, i hope a more skilled editor than me, or one with more time than BigK HeX will correct his edit. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Per your edit summary of last message, I think you meant that things be sourced where they are mentioned and that any info not properly sourced should be. I agree. Also, people should look for better refs. One of the reasons I've been held up is I don't want to mess with same old refs. When I get back to it maybe I'll list some of best ones not currently used here. At the very least people should take a look at: Ronald Hamowy, The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism, Sage, 2008. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no original research or synthesis in the statement. Please read the stanford article on libertarianism. Then refer to the introduction written in March 2010. Both the paragraph written by myself above and the March 2010 say essentially the same thing and reference the same article. This is evidence of a fair summary of a source article, not synthesis of multiple sources. Synthesis and original research is to claim there are pro- and anti-property libertarians, a statement without evidence. Please name the source that identifies two classes of libertarians based on whether they believe in property rights or not. 137.132.250.7 (talk) 12:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

agree i am in favor of deleting the claim until clarity of sources can be achieved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkstar1st (talk • contribs) 13:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

<backdent>Put messages in chrono order as not to confuse things. I'm not sure who User talk:137.132.250.7 is. And of course Mrdthree has reverted to yet another version - or is it the version above? - without discussion, unless that was Mrdthree. Also not sure who Darkstar is agreeing with. But must go out and celebrate what little liberty is left so another day will figure it out. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Carol, i was agreeing anon the pro/anti dichotomy only confuse the article. example: some horses have stripes(zebras), others do not. synthesis and original research is to claim there are pro- and anti-property libertarians, a statement without evidence. Please name the source that identifies two classes of libertarians based on whether they believe in property rights or not. 137.132.250.7 (talk) 12:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

agree i am in favor of deleting the claim Darkstar1st (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

IMO, there's no reasonable way to read that sentence and conclude that it promotes any sort of "dichotomy". It quite clearly describes a political view has ended up acquiring many dimensions, with the article giving broad coverage and coverage of many of the specific, defined variants. BigK HeX (talk) 15:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Are any other political views like communist, socialist, capitalist, democrats, or republicans, pro and anti property? Darkstar1st (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

We're not discussing ANY of those things, and neither an answer of "yes" or "no" would have any relevance here whatsoever. Please stay on topic. BigK HeX (talk) 15:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

As you can see I've mentioned above I do agree that if the phrases are used they must have adequate WP:RS which they do not have now. In fact as I also say above current lead is WP:OR using existing refs. And I still don't know who did it. And still stuck on higher priority nonwiki projects so can't finish updating with better research. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I can see that you mentioned that you would "re-check those refs and see if they say what you say they say". If you find a claim that fails verification, it'd help to list it. BigK HeX (talk) 01:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

<backdent>Please note that ala Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article." And when there is no link to the source, as there is not for some of the relevant references, see Misplaced Pages:PROVEIT#cite_note-1 "When there is dispute about whether a piece of text is fully supported by a given source, direct quotes and other relevant details from the source should be provided to other editors as a courtesy." That said, I challenge these refs:

• with few constraints from large social structures, such as government, that is not in the new WP:RS and you'll have to prove it was in the former ones or anywhere else in the text of the article. Looks like WP:OR.
• Libertarians have a variety of views on natural resources and the size of the State, ranging from pro-property to anti-property (sometimes phrased as "right" versus "left"), and from minarchist to openly anarchist. As others have said, need to integrate refs into the sentence and need refs for pro and anti-property usages.
• Left-libertarianism is rooted in nineteenth century socialism. No evidence that ref says that and looks like editor WP:OR.

That's a start. Tomorrow I'll look to see if the Stanford material is correctly reflected. Meanwhile there you only need one quote at the end of the sentences which come from that source. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

agree Darkstar1st (talk) 03:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

What are you?? Some kind of agreebot?? FYI, WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY. If you have don't actually have anything substantive to add to the discussion, there's no reason to enter the thread. BigK HeX (talk) 06:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

@CarolMooreDC: I've addressed your first complaint by elaborating on the varieties of libertarianism.

As to your second objection, I think the claims are easily verifiable, as I discussed above, and now even more so, with the additions I made to satisfy your first objection.

On your last issue, I don't think I edited anything around that passage about "nineteenth century socialism", so I'm not sure what's in the refs for that. I'm pretty sure it's attributable though to someone like Kropotkin. BigK HeX (talk) 06:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

apologies bigk, i stopped editing the page and limited myself to the talk page to avoid conflict. now i see it may produce less angst if i return to editing, and minimize my talk support. i will return to editing here now. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Lead as of July 19

The current lead is worse than one complained about July 1. Done by who knows who, it removes action ala Merriam Webster and makes Sam Konkin the second ref, when there isn't WP:RS in his whole bio, just Fan references. And of course it leaves in "social structures" when Libertarianism is about political structures. I'll revert to an earlier better ref'd version and clarify some of issues mentioned above. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Libertarians have a variety of views on natural resources (among other means of production) and the size of the State, ranging from pro-property to anti-property (sometimes phrased as "right" versus "left"), and from minarchist to openly anarchist, respectively. If that is so, then the term 'libertarianism' is meaningless, it means Everything!

Since 'liberty' has got a good name, all you have to do to promote your idea is to call it 'liberal'. Quoting from the Foreword to von Mises' Liberalism: In the Classical Tradition (Louis M. Spadaro, 1977):

The underlying issue is not merely terminological; nor can it be

brushed aside as just another instance of the more general degeneration of language—an entropy of words, so to say—in which earlier distinctions of meaning and tonalty have tended to be lost. There is more here than a devaluation of terms, important as that may be; involved are substantive matters of the greatest

practical as well as intellectual significance.

To begin with, the word "liberal" has clear and pertinent

etymological roots grounded in the ideal of individual liberty. It also has a valuable historical foundation in tradition and experience, as well as the patrimony of a rich and extensive literature in social

philosophy, political thought, belles-lettres, and elsewhere. ...

Yet, for all of this, the term Liberalism proved unable to go

beyond the nineteenth century or the Atlantic without changing its meaning—and not just slightly but virtually to that of its contrary! The resulting confusions and imprecision are such that one finds it hard to conceive of a deliberate plan that could have succeeded more

in obfuscating its content and meaning.

The other reason for regret is that the loss of term "liberal" made

it necessary to have recourse to any number of contrived surrogate terms or tortured circumlocutions (e.g. "libertarian," "nineteenth century liberalism," or "classical" liberalism.). ...By any reasonable standard, Liberalism belongs to us, I believe we are bound to try to take it back—as a matter of principle, if for no other reason.

The pity is that now libertarianism has to fight for itself. Perhaps there is a need to coin a new term now; I propose libertararianianism. I understand that this is not the forum to coin a new term, my point is that there is a semantic war going on, and thus the editors of Misplaced Pages have to take sides.

Returning to the lead, what is "anti-property"? I propose two changes in the lead, (i) The term libertarianism has come to encompass a range of beliefs about social structures with some libertarians striving for minimization of the state, -- "minimization" replaced by "minimization or abolition", where abolition can link to anarchism, (ii) Libertarians have a variety of views on natural resources (among other means of production) and the size of the State, ranging from pro-property to anti-property (sometimes phrased as "right" versus "left"), and from minarchist to openly anarchist, respectively., replaced by, simply, "Libertarians have a variety of views on unappropriated natural resources."

As for anarchism, "Priding himself on his radicalism, he used to brag that if there were a button one could push that would sweep away all vestiges of government in an instant, he would break his thumb pushing it." http://www.libertariannation.org/a/f23l1.html I am willing to follow up, and provide references form von Mises and Rothbard whenever appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by N6n (talk • contribs) 15:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

agree anti-property is a fringe term Darkstar1st (talk) 16:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Glad N6N noticed that abolition was recently kicked out despite being there for a long time. I'll review the past refs and find better ones. Taking a wikipedia day. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Was John Locke Egalitarian?

Egalitarianism a social philosophy advocating the removal of economic inequalities among people. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_8_36/ai_n8580032/ Otsuka complains that "even many of Locke's more moderate or left-leaning interpreters have not yet provided a sufficiently egalitarian reconstruction of his political philosophy." In other words, Locke wouldn't agree with Otsuka, but once Otsuka has "cleansed" Locke's ideas and made them "sufficiently egalitarian," Otsuka can call himself a Lockean. If not, should we purge this article of the often used "peer reviewed" SEP article which relies heavily on peter valentyne and micheal otsuka who both reference john locke as an egalitarian. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Your "expertise" in judging Otsuka (or any other source) is not recognized here (or anywhere else on Misplaced Pages). The same applies to editors here whom you are soliciting for opinions. BigK HeX (talk) 23:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

i am flattered you think i am an expert, which i maintain not to be on this topic, but actually i am just a layman voting libertarianism. as you reread the above edit, notice the research was by Reason, Jan, 2005 by Tom G. Palmer Darkstar1st (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparently you believe you're expert enough to deem Palmer "correct" and suggest Otsuka as a source needing to be deleted. BigK HeX (talk) 05:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Bigk, ill put you down for "yes" john locke was egalitarian. i suggest you read John Locke, Second Treatise on Civil Government. "The reason why men enter into society is the preservation of their property." "As much land as a man tills, plants, improves, cultivates, and can use the product of, so much is his property" "His labor hath taken it out of the hands of nature, where it was common, and belonged equally to all her children, and hath hereby appropriated it to himself" Darkstar1st (talk) 12:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you put BigK in the argumentum ad hominem column. As to the topic at hand, I'm heartily sick of revisionist academics rewriting history and literature to contrive interpretations that support their pet theories. BlueRobe (talk) 17:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

it appears we are close to consensus. i suggest we remove the stanford encyclopedia as a source here given the author cited john locke as egalitarian, a view held by only fringe historians. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

"close to consensus" ... how amusing.

To be clear, we're supposedly "close to consensus" as a result of a nonsensical rant from User:BlueRobe which pretty much failed to address your supposed logic here.

We're "close to consensus" that John Locke certainly could not be deemed as egalitarian, and further that this logically means that the source related to such a claim should be censored from the article.

Clearly, people have jumped to support your logic here. /sarcasm BigK HeX (talk) 22:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

do you have any sources to support john was egalitarian? Darkstar1st (talk) 23:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have to wander off-topic so much on article talk pages?? Locke IS NOT EVEN DISCUSSED in the wiki article. BigK HeX (talk) 23:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st, could you please explain the purpose of this discussion thread, otherwise i will archive it. TFD (talk) 04:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

actually john is incorporated incorrectly into the sep article on libertarianism which is over-sourced in the 1st paragraph. see peter valentyne's self sourced article/book. he list john as egalitarian, if not, are you in favor of excluding sep as a source? Darkstar1st (talk) 04:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I became embroiled in this debate. For my part, I suggest that there is a Libertarian element to the political philosophy of John Locke. Whether or not Locke counts as a Libertarian philosopher depends on the extent to which we insist upon adherence to the core Libertarian ideals, (such as the Harm Principle, individual political rights, private property rights and clear constitutional restraints upon the use of government coercion and intervention). The purists among us will limit the Libertarian label to less-compromising philosophers, such as Ayn Rand and Robert Nozick. Others will cast the net a little wider to include the likes of John Stuart Mill.

Egalitarianism emphasises the equality of economic wealth distribution as a primary political ideal. Egalitarianism is, by definition, incompatible with the ideals of Libertarianism. So, the question of whether Locke was an egalitarian is significant to the extent that, were the "egalitarian" label to apply to him, he could not fall within even the widest definition of "Libertarian".

Locke does indeed place some emphasis on the need to place limits on economic wealth accumulation. Locke places particular emphasis on the need to prohibit the accumulation of unused wealth (economic capital), arguing that unused wealth is inefficient and wasteful. Locke specifically excludes money from this definition of wealth. Indeed, Locke expresses little concern with an inequality in the distribution of money.

While Locke's philosophy is inconsistent with the purist forms of Libertarianism, (it breaches basic property rights regarding private property that remains unused), he justifies the imposition of government intervention regarding unused wealth because of the utilitarian reason of its inefficiency and not because of egalitarian reasons. Locke leaves open the question of the extent to which government may legitimately intervene in the economy to ensure equal wealth distribution. Thus, John Locke was not an egalitarian. BlueRobe (talk) 10:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

For those who haven't figured it out, there is no "debate". There's only some soapboxing about a wholly irrelevant topic here. Archival or deletion of this crap thread is the best response that could be hoped for. BigK HeX (talk) 15:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Left-libertarianism and its critics: the contemporary debate By Peter Vallentyne, page 6, "exponents of some form of self-ownership combined with egalitarian ownership of natural resources include: john locke." the majority of historians disagree. i suggest this fringe author and his source be removed from this article, if there be no objection. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Supporting the "egalitarian ownership of natural resources" is not the same as being egalitarian. Is the water in the river owned by the people or the personal property of the King? How do you think Locke would answer? TFD (talk) 23:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

our opinions are irrelevant. the point here is given peter's fringe theory of john. "The plowed field is worth more than the virgin prairie precisely because I have invested my labor in plowing it; so even if the prairie was held in common by all, the plowed field is mine. This personal appropriation of natural resources can continue indefinitely, Locke 2nd Treatise §33 Darkstar1st (talk) 23:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Well no it cannot continue indefinitely - it stops when land becomes scarce or when we run out of land. But notice that he says the prairie was held in common by all. That clearly contradicts the conservative view that the prairie was the personal property of the King. In fact even if the King granted the land to a yeoman, the natural resources on and under the land remained the property of the Crown. The yeoman only had the right to the property he added his labor to, and could forfeit that right for non-payment of property rates which were levied by the community not the Crown. TFD (talk) 00:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

you realize these are johns words, not mine? if so, you are arguing the point with one of the 100 most influential authors in history of man. he was referring to the field he plowed, not indefinitely plowing under all the land in the world, just the patch he plowed which was previously "common", not the kings private garden. Darkstar1st (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I am actually stating what Locke said. Please read the complete book and get back to us. (Hint - there are no prairies in England.) TFD (talk) 00:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

we may be arguing different points here, i am saying you are incorrect by saying, "Well no it cannot continue indefinitely" johns words, not mine. please provide a source supporting john thought "egalitarian ownership of natural resource" Darkstar1st (talk) 00:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

See The Second Treatise of Civil Government, cap. 5. TFD (talk) 15:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

what page number? Darkstar1st (talk) 15:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

People do not generally use page numbers when quoting Locke. If you want to gain a better understanding of John Locke you should consider taking a course. What does any of this have to do with the article? TFD (talk) 15:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

i missed the quote, paste here please. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar, I think the Locke question is tangential to the article itself. I think we've already established that SEP is a valid WP:RS, and should remain as a source in the article. The primary question, in my mind, was whether it was being granted WP:UNDUE weight in the article, by being cited, I believe it was, two or three times as often as the Encyclopedia of Philosophy. A reliable source can have so-called "fringe" views on certain subjects and still be reliable, though I'm not sure that what you're arguing re: Locke is actually the case. That site has an extensive bibliography of references anyway. —Torchiest /_contribs 17:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

agree, undue weight. locke being an egalitarian is beyond fringe. his own words are clear, i will await tfd's locke quote contradicting this fact. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st, this article is about libertarianism and Locke would be at most primary source. TFD (talk) 19:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

you were unable to locate the quote which locke says he is egalitarian? i found chapter five, but his words do not sound very egalitarian: "Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property." Darkstar1st (talk) 22:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

How is that not egalitarian? TFD (talk) 23:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

i thought it meant progressive redistribution of money? Darkstar1st (talk) 23:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

TFD, that quote does NOT capture the essence of egalitarianism. Egalitarianism is a consequentialist political philosophy, and that quote refers to the causal link between productive input and property rights. There is nothing in that quote to suggest that Lcoke believed equality of wealth distribution is likely or desirable. BlueRobe (talk) 03:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

That does not seem to be the definitions I have seen. TFD (talk) 03:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

i took it from the wp page. what is the definition you have seen? Darkstar1st (talk) 10:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is a definition from wiktionary: "A person who accepts or promotes social equality and equal rights for all people". TFD (talk) 04:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Egalitarianism is the promotion of equal rights? One man's equal rights is another man's social engineering. Unfortunately, in this era of political correctness the phrase "equal rights" is given all manner of rhetorical spin to support the political agendas of those who want to engineer their own versions of utopia.

Egalitarianism has nothing to do with political rights. Egalitarianism is a political philosophy that emphasises the equal distribution of wealth among the population. The paradigm of an egalitarian society is one where every person receives identical income or has identical wealth. BlueRobe (talk) 23:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

So you and Darkstar1st do not believe that equality exists in the United States? TFD (talk) 00:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I cannot speak for Darkstar1s, but, I believe America has relative equality of rights (in theory, if not in practice), but America is clear not an egalitarian society. Indeed, the closest real world example of an egalitarian society would probably be North Korea (in theory, if not in practice). (I am not an egalitarian and I do not endorse the tyrannical regime of North Korea). BlueRobe (talk) 01:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

the usa is far from equal to most of the world. in india they say, "i want to live where even the poor people are fat". what confuses me about the socialist/liberals/progressives here, is they want to implement social programs to help those in need amongst us. supplying public health care, housing, food, etc. to those inside our border, when the same $ spent on the poorest in the world, would help 100, 1000 times as many people. these same people reject the term nationalist, especially when combined with socialist(nazi). what is public health care in the usa if not a national and social program? caring is not uniquely a left pov. the right think by allowing enterprise to flourish, the greater good will be served via advancements in technology. Darkstar1st (talk) 01:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Social welfare was never justified on the basis of equality. TFD (talk) 02:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Social Welfare is primarily motivated by calls for needs-based distributive justice, (and various other shades of Marxism). That said, calls for a "more equal society" are common during political discourse regarding social welfare policies, especially in the Western World. For example, some left-leaning political economists refer to the Gini coefficient or the Lorenz curve to support their calls for policies that will more effectively redistribute wealth (from the rich, to the poor). BlueRobe (talk) 03:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

(out) Actually the social welfare state was developed in Prussia. British liberals promoted a welfare state with the justification that it would lead to greater freedom, not equality. The national health service was considered necessary in order to ensure military readiness. The left opposed the welfare state from Bismarck to Roosevelt. Although this is fairly well-known, it is actually explained on the Von Mises and Lew Rockwell websites. TFD (talk) 04:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Is the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy given undo weight in the lead?

is there support for using additional sources, such as th encyclopedia of philosophy, to create the lead? Darkstar1st (talk) 19:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

As well as Hamowy and lots of other good sources available on books.google. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Please mention vandalism in edit summaries

Catching up on changes and I note there was a lot of real vandalism (both stupid smut and absurd things like "a couple of people." It would be helpful if when you revert it you write in your edit summary Vandalism: with any explanation. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Comic Relief Update/Education

'Ever seen XXx the movie? Remember the "bad guy"? "Anarchy 99" right? OH YEAH. THANKS CAROL. Ddd1600 (talk) 21:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Be_bold_in_updating_pages —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.12.74.67 (talk) 21:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The first line looks like a WP:Personal attack. Not the first time USer:dd1600 engaged in it. I reported it last time as mentioned at User_talk:Ddd1600#Please_do_not_replase_WP:RS_info_with_WP:OR. In any case, ambiguous inscrutable statements not helpful. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

How does your garden grow?

The fundamental problem with this article is that it's an out-of-control ambiguation page. It's like somebody sprinkled a random mix of vegetable seeds into one small garden plot. Now all the different veggies are growing over each other and choking each other out. All the other veggies, except, say Eggplant (Libertarianism), already have their dedicated plots...those veggies need to be carefully transplanted into their respective plots so that the Eggplant can have some room to grow and bear fruit. --97.93.109.174 (talk) 00:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The Obvious / The Issue At Hand

• Update: The new introduction is a strong improvement on the previous one, much more nuanced, at least. However, for some reason, I'm still interested in further minimizing the association of libertarianism and anarchism. This, however, is not up to me. I am not a statist, but I am also not a non-statist. The borderline issue here is between minimalization and destruction---at what point is the government too large? Is the government a constantly growing thing which must be continuously curtailed? Like a gardener cuts a hedge? I don't know. But I do know that we should come to a consensus here on the Misplaced Pages page, we as libertarians, we as huge fans of Thomas Jefferson, et al. We want to look good. We want to come as as not "extreme". We want Ron Paul to sound more credible, and possibly for him to tone down his extremism. Government's solution ultimate is this, in my opinion--social liberty, and fiscal conservatism. Does that make me a Democrat? No. Does that make me a Republican? No. That makes me a libertarian. Libertarians are not anarchists. Libertarians are not extremists. Libertarians are libertarians. They are conservative in some ways, and liberal in others. And we do not want to dismantle the government, specifically the government which Thomas Jefferson conceived.Ddd1600 (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Anarchists want to dismantle the government.

Libertarians do not want to dismantle the government.

Therefore the two subjects should not be analogously associated on the wikipedia "Libertarianism" page. Minarchism included.

RS requested. Add on to this section if you have anything credible to support this simple, straight-forward notion.68.59.4.188 (talk) 01:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC) agree Darkstar1st (talk) 19:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Strongly agree! "others striving for complete abolition of the state" Holy crap! Don't say "others" say..."one guy who wrote a book". It's completely ignorant to even mention it at all, especially in the first paragraph. Libertarianism is based on the simple concept that the freedom to swing your fist ends where somebody else's nose begins. If you punch somebody in the nose...then what? If you can get away with it then you have anarchism but if you're punished then you have libertarianism. Obviously you need some form of government in order to enforce that rule. The first paragraph was so completely off base and misleading that I replaced it with a quick substitute in the meantime. 97.93.109.174 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC).

For reference...see http://www.DownsizingGovernment.org/ Notice the website name? It's not called AbolishingGovernment.org --97.93.109.174 (talk) 23:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

the new paragraph reads much better, thx. the difference is rule of law, well said. if someone is a libertarian, and an anarchist, why not call them an anarchist? Darkstar1st (talk) 23:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Anarchism means absence of government. Libertarianism has solutions. Anarchism, then, is a part of libertarianism.N6n (talk) 16:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow. I just looked through some of the discussion on this page...you should be nominated for sainthood. Are you an elementary school teacher? Or do you work with the mentally challenged? Your patience is amazing. But at this point...isn't there some higher wikipedia power that can step in and kick the anarchists off our page? There's a disambiguation page so there's no logical reason that they should be allowed to continue to confuse the issue. The irony is that this kind of behavior is exactly why we don't want to be associated with the anarchists in the first place. --97.93.109.174 (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

aw thx. glad you are here, and look forward to more of your input. there is a higher power, it be us collectively. wikipedia is like driving a greyhound bus on a frozen lake, turns slow, and hard to stop. make a user name asap, other editors will chide you, wp:bite Darkstar1st (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

someone will undo your last edit. i support what you wrote, but they want you to make your point here 1st, get consensus, sacrifice a virgin with one blue eye, and one brown, recite a magic incantation, then edit the page. be careful not to edit this page twice in 24hr, i have already been banned here once. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

LOL...consensus! Sheesh...if we were any good at collective action the anarchists wouldn't be peeing all over our page. Uh, are Torch and Carol anarchists trying to promote their favorite authors? Or closet anarchists? Or just really really stubborn editors, who, despite your completely logical explanations...fail to acknowledge the simple distinction between anarchism and libertarianism? --97.93.109.174 (talk) 15:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

All this talk of "your" page is pretty inappropriate. The point is, we're trying to accurately describe the subject using sourced information. If you have a content dispute, bring some sources to the table. —Torchiest /_contribs 16:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

easy, wp:bite we all on same team Darkstar1st (talk) 16:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Tell him that. I still don't understand this animosity towards the concept of anarchism, or why it seems so horrifying that there is a connection between it and libertarianism. Both are clearly anti-authoritarian, which is a significant relationship right off the bat. —Torchiest /_contribs 16:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

i will. he is new and has good ideas. a connect, yes! just anarchist are more evolved, total government gone, like the communist utopia marx described, flowers, milk and honey. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I, too, completely fail to grasp why there are so many POV warriors on this page who are so hellbent on blatantly censoring all references to anarchism, when left-libertarianism quite clearly has a relationship which is covered in tons of WP:RS. BigK HeX (talk) 17:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You think I would be protesting this page if I wasn't a Libertarian? Of course it's "my" page. If you were a Libertarian you would realize that Libertarianism is based on John Stuart Mill's Harm Principle...which we need an authority to enforce. It's not even mentioned in the first couple paragraphs. All you do is murky up the issue with irrelevant and misleading "sources". If you want a good source take a look at the britannica entry... http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/339321/libertarianism --97.93.109.174 (talk) 16:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Torchiest, seriously? Libertarianism has the guiding principle that you can't harm other people. Take that away and you have Anarchism...murder, mayham, rape, pillage, plunder, etc. It's a very fundamental difference. Now do you understand why we don't want to be associated with them? --97.93.109.174 (talk) 17:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Your characterization of Anarchism is inaccurate. —Torchiest /_contribs 17:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Are there any mechanisms that prevent Anarchists from engaging in said behavior? --97.93.109.174 (talk) 17:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

i christen they don Quixote until your user name is finished. don, a good place to start this edit would be the sources used by brittanica, which i suggest have all the evidence you will need. Darkstar1st (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC).

<---Enough silly WP:Soapbox, please! Time waster having to figure out if anyone's bothered to discuss any actual WP:RS. (Reliable sources, fyi). CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

You've got 141 sources talking about wildly different things. It's not about adding more sources it's about separating the different ideologies. That's why there's a disambiguation page. Given that every other minor form of Libertarianism has its own main page...this page should solely be dedicated to the most widely accepted form....the modern, American based form that recognizes that some type of government/state/authority is necessary to punish those that harm others. --97.93.109.174 (talk) 21:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

i realize this page has too many sources, and am trying to help. this page is monitored by so many peopel, we have to make the case by using more relevant sources to displace the undo weight here. now that we have alerted everyone to our secret plan, plz don, proceed cautiously. i can already see others circling you. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Wait...I thought our secret plan was to copy over the contents of this page to http://en.wikipedia.org/Libertarianism_overview and then remove everything from this page not relevant to modern, American Libertarianism? --97.93.109.174 (talk) 21:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

ok, but dont tell anyone as you will meet stiff resistance. maybe going back to the Britannica sources would be faster. wp is easy to change, just use the things others are using to stop you, to stop them, like published facts from more relevant sources. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

<backdent>Comments:

• Ddd1600 wrote: We want to look good. We want to come as as not "extreme". We want Ron Paul to sound more credible, Sorry, the purpose of Misplaced Pages is NOT to make some political faction look good. Your POV and your personal attacks really make it questionable whether you should be editing this article at all and I will mull that over in next few days. Libertarianism means many things to many people and any one faction trying to enforce their view, especially with little discussion of WP:RS, really is working against wikipedia policies. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The State, then, is not simply a part of society. The brunt of this part of the present volume, in fact, is to demonstrate that the State is not, as most utilitarian free-market economists like to think, a legitimate social institution that tends to be bumbling and inefficient in most of its activities. On the contrary, the State is an inherently illegitimate institution of organized aggression, of organized and regularized crime against the persons and properties of its subjects. Rather than necessary to society, it is a profoundly antisocial institution which lives parasitically off of the productive activities of private citizens. Morally, it must be considered as illegitimate and outside of the ordinary libertarian legal system, which delimits and insures the rights and just properties of private citizens. Thus, from the point of view of justice and morality, the State can own no property, require no obedience, enforce no contracts made with it, and indeed, cannot exist at all. The Ethics of Liberty, Murray N. Rothbard, New York University Press, 1982, 1998; pp. 187

—Preceding unsigned comment added by N6n (talk • contribs) 16:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Note that any Libertarian Overview page would be a Misplaced Pages:POV_FORK created by those with a POV against certain viewpoints that go under name of Libertarianism. I'm sure it would be speedily deleted. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Anarchism is not the absence of government. Anarchism is the absence of non-consensual government. In theory, an Anarchist society would be made up of an array of geographically-determinate political entities, each with their own distinct political systems and laws, among which each person could find one to join by their explicit consent. While the ideology of Anarchism is not particularly practical, it's main use is as a philosophical counter-point from which one can challenge the legitimacy of those ideologies that would impose non-consensual authority upon unwilling citizens. I really wish people (especially people who call themselves "Anarchists") would stop misrepresenting Anarchism as some form of Socialism (the antithesis of Anarchism) or as the absence of government (which is more akin to Thomas Hobbes' State of Nature). BlueRobe (talk) 13:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

American Libertarianism

At the top of this article it says..."The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject." Yet, Noam Chomsky's perspective is included in the lead. According to Chomsky..."The American version of "libertarianism" is an aberration, though—nobody really takes it seriously. I mean, everybody knows that a society that worked by American libertarian principles would self-destruct in three seconds." http://www.distantocean.com/2008/04/chomsky-on-libe.html

I think we can all agree that Chomsky's perspective is clearly not from the perspective of the United States. The basic problem is that this article is a mishmash of two different articles...an article on American Libertarianism and an article on the world view of Libertarianism. Since the current article is mainly about American Libertarianism we just need to extricate the world view perspective and give it it's own page. We could call the new page either Libertarianism overview or Libertarianism world view.

Once the world view has been extricated...at the top of this article it could say..."This article is about American Libertarianism as a political and social philosophy. For other uses, see Libertarianism (disambiguation). Not that there's anything wrong with criticizing American Libertarianism...but it shouldn't be included in the lead. Rather, it should have its own section within the article. --97.93.109.174 (talk) 00:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

agree there is already a Classical Libertarianism article, but it redirects here??? most other political articles have separate articles for the "classical" interpretation of the term. "non-usa" libertarian's are less than 23% of the total libertarian philosophy.(source: myself) why then should the views of the minority, have more weight here than the majority? Darkstar1st (talk) 01:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Two comments:

• The worldwide tag refers to mentions of other libertarian movements worldwide. There was such a section which was removed as being too long. As has been discussed previously in talk, this needs to be put back in in some form.
• Chomsky is wrong as the article itself quotes several sources who say that market libertarianism is more popular worldwide.
• Again, the new articles you contemplate writing would be a speedily deleted WP:POV forks because you clearly have stated your opposition to anarchism being in the article cause it allegedly hurts Ron Paul (who was closely related to anarchist Murray Rothbard until his death). Note that you'll have trouble finding refs for something called "classical libertarianism." And "American libertarianism" has the most free market anarchists and refs are rife, even if they aren't yet in this article. So you'd still end up with an article with lots of info on anarchists. Unfortunately, I spent most of my Misplaced Pages day on another article. But will see what I can do tomorrow with this one. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The point is not whether Chomsky is wrong or right...the point is that his perspective should not be mentioned in the lead of an article on American Libertarianism. An article on American Libertarianism should not be rife with info on anarchists. How many references to Anarchism are in the Britannica article on Libertarianism? http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/339321/libertarianism That article should be the guideline/standard for an article on Libertarianism. However, since you feel that Anarchism and American Libertarianism are so closely related then the only solution is for you to create your own page for a worldwide perspective of Libertarianism. This page should be dedicated to American Libertarianism as defined by Britannica. --97.93.109.174 (talk) 03:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not an article on American libertarianism. It's about libertarianism, as described worldwide, except some American libertarian pulled out all the worldwide stuff a few months back and no one has put it back. What you could do is an article on the "American libertarian minarchist movement" - assuming you could find refs describing it thusly. And knowing that there would be a criticism section from free market anarchists saying what's wrong with it, including various historical battles within the libertarian movement between anarchists and minarchists. It could be a lot of fun. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

On Noam Chomsky's page it says that he's an Anarchist. You know why it doesn't say that he's a Libertarian? Well...because we appropriated the term a long time ago. This page should reflect modern usage...Anarchism means no government and Libertarianism means limited government. Therefore, Chomsky should be referenced on the page for Anarchism...not Libertarianism. --97.93.109.174 (talk) 09:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Books google search on "Chomsky" and "Libertarian". Lots of returns. What, a WIKI article that is WRONG??? CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

And there are even more results when you do a search for "Chomsky" and "Anarchism". On your talk page (which you quickly archived) we established that you are incapable of specifying the difference between Tribalism and Libertarianism. Please face the music and acknowledge that you are an Anarchist...plain and simple. You don't want any form of government. Do us all a favor and focus your energies on editing the page on Anarchism. --97.93.109.174 (talk) 20:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

<backdent>You are harassing me (see WP:Harass) on my user page and personally attacking me (WP:NPA) here. All that matters is references. I'm busy checking them out. Have you ever bothered? CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I only see 97.93.109.174 on my talk page. Who is we who thought they established something? I see that two anonymous IPs have attacked me in the same way and for the same reasons that User:Ddd1600 did as I reported to Wikietiquette alerts.

You are an Anarchist vandalizing a page on modern Libertarianism. We refers to the fact that I asked you to describe the difference between Libertarianism and Tribalism and you were incapable of providing an answer. If somebody cannot reasonably differentiate between the two then they should not be editing or selecting references for an article on Libertarianism. --97.93.109.174 (talk) 22:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

reviewing sources=good Carol is busy vetting sources, a tedious process indeed. she has proved her dedication several times concerning this topic, i say lets wait 24-27 hours for her to finish. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

If person understands Tribalism <> Libertarianism Then

reviewing sources=good

Else

reviewing sources=bad

End If

Darkstar1st, it's one thing if this article were just a mess. Unfortunately though, it's terribly misleading and honestly does more harm than good. Given that this is the number one Google search result for Libertarianism...my vote would be to delete the page. Honestly I'm one step away from reporting CarolMooreDC for vandalizing this page. It's not obvious vandalizing like "libertarians suck"...it's insidious vandalizing that equates modern Libertarianism to Anarchism. It's insidious because it's well within the guidelines and evidently only obvious to people familiar with modern Libertarianism. You and others have been completely reasonable with her for a really really long time but the line has to be drawn somewhere. If you haven't had a chance take a look at her archived talk page for our discussion on Libertarianism vs Anarchism. It goes a long way towards explaining the current state of this page. --97.93.109.174 (talk) 00:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

<backdent>Changed my mind. Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_alerts#Users:97.93.109.174_.26_71.12.74.67. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

i beg you, plz give us a day to review sources. ps, notice Carol and I are far from sharing the same pov. Darkstar1st (talk) 03:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you and Carolmooredc have different points of view yet this article is entirely a reflection of her point of view. Compare how many times some form of the word Anarchism is mentioned in this article (115) compared to the Britannica article (5). Is it a coincidence that she's an Anarchist? --97.93.109.174 (talk) 06:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Searching for Reliable Sources

Anyone who spends an hour or so searching for WP:Reliable sources on this topic in order to create a WP:Neutral Point of View encyclopedic article will find a variety. Just a couple examples of things I thought looked useful, using books.google:

• Searching “definition of libertarianism” found some credible/relevant sources like:

• A companion to American thought By Richard Wightman Fox, James T. Kloppenberg which doesn’t have an ideological ax to ground. Describes variety of libertarianism.
• A good Jan Narveson definition.
• Problems of market liberalism: Social philosophy etc By Ellen Frankel Paul, etc. a scholarly book which despite it’s own POV accurately quotes or refers to definitions by several well known libertarians.

• Prof 0 Hamowy’s Encyclopedia of Libertarianism is searchable for anything you want to know.
• For lots of refs on the minarchism anarchism debate/dispute in case you want to get a perspective for an encyclopedia, as opposed to pushing a particular POV.
• libertarian socialism Murray Bookchin is a good search for one of the well known Lib socialists not mentioned in article as yet.
• Not to mention libertarianism and anarchism search for a variety of viewpoints.

In Libertarianism a thousand flowers do bloom. Don't blame it on me :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Now that we have the sources, lets use them to find examples of why anarchist are not libertarian.

*Freedom and authority By William Russell McKercher p 67, "this is where libertarianism and anarchy parts company. anarchism insist first and foremost, the total abolition of government..."

*Mobilizing Resentment: Conservative Resurgence from the John Birch Society ... By Jean Hardisty, Wilma Pearl Mankiller p 165

"Libertarianism is often confused with anarchism because both are opposed to government control over the individual" Darkstar1st (talk) 14:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• I Must Speak Out: The Best of the Voluntaryist 1982-1999 By Carl Watner p 56.

the destination of anarchism is different and antagonistic to the destination of minacrchism. Murray Rothbard captured the difference in his famous question, "do you hate the state". political anarchist are in the gray realm of agreeing heartily in words to principles which their actions contradict. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Non-academic Writings by libertarians and books that are about other subjects (e.g., the John Birch Society) are not reliable secondary sources for this article. TFD (talk) 19:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Books by libertarians are perfectly acceptable for reporting libertarian thought, by definition. —Torchiest /_contribs 19:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course people say libertarian is not anarchism, and I can't think of anyone who says it is. What is said is some people interpret libertarianism as best being fulfilled through a minimal state (be in national or local) and others think it is best fulfilled through no state, or some voluntary association others might define as no state. This has been said in the article and on this page numerous times. How many dozens of times does one have to say it to make it clear? CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

What's the difference between a Libertarian that wants to get rid of the state and an Anarchist? --97.93.109.174 (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

@tfd, these are books gleaned from carols sources above.(i already knew any source i present will be challenged, thus i have resorted to commenting on others source). @carol, "people say libertarian is not anarchism", then i say we remove the "anarchist" from the opening. "others think it is best fulfilled through no state" as Murray's question "do you hate the state" proves, the "others" are simply confused anarchist, not libertarian. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

From New York Times Magazine, 1971: "If it were not for the fact that libertarianism freely concedes the right of men voluntarily to form communities or governments on the same ethical basis, libertarianism could be called anarchy." http://fare.tunes.org/liberty/library/new_right_credo.html Most people here would have heard about libertarianism through Rothbard. Rothbard defines libertarianism as absence of all coercion, and, because government is a coercive agency, abolition of government is (by definition) a goal. However, if you read libertarianism literature, this is just a small part. In For a New Liberty: A Libertarian Manifesto (1973, 1978) Rothbard presents a blueprint of a society based on 'natural law', of how to defend against criminals and foreign forces, how Courts for justice would be run, how dams would be built, etc. N6n (talk) 10:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

@Darkstar1st,97.93.109.174: For a libertarian, removal of the state is not the goal per se -- the goal is liberty. If ten (or one) people come together and try to coerce someone to do something, the philosophy of anarchism would be silent, but not that of libertarianism. N6n (talk) 11:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

My characterization of Anarchism is based on what I read of Bakunin. It seems that many who call themselves anarchists would not agree with what I said about Anarchism. All said, this is a hornet's nest. Getting one meaning of 'libertarianism', which all who call themselves 'libertarians' will agree to, is probably not possible. N6n (talk) 06:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Common Ground

It's already been mentioned that the purpose of this article on Libertarianism is not to make the Libertarian Party look good. However, whether we are Libertarians who want a smaller central government or Libertarians who don't want any central government...hopefully we can both agree that we want the Libertarian Party to succeed. That would mean more freedom for everybody.

The thing is...the Libertarian Party (and by extension the ideology of Libertarianism) doesn't seem to be making much progress. One problem is that there is quite a bit of confusion regarding what Libertarianism actually is. Taking myself for example...I've considered myself a Libertarian for quite a few years now and thought it was pretty straightforward...the freedom to swing my fist ends where somebody else's nose begins. We have complete freedom as long as our actions do not harm others. In my mind, some form of government was absolutely necessary in order to enforce that very important non-aggression principle. If you take the government completely out of the picture then you have Anarchy...or do you?

When I read this article for the first time I didn't even make it past the first couple sentences because I was so pissed off that the article strongly connected Libertarianism and Anarchism. When the average person thinks of Anarchism they don't think of Rothbard...they think of chaos, violence and maybe that song by Sublime...talking about "participatin' in some anarchy". The average person wants nothing to do with anarchy. They might see it on TV but they sure as heck don't want to live in it.

Hearing some of you mention Rothbard so many times I decided to at least look at his Misplaced Pages article. Turns out that from his perspective, everything that the government provides...the private sector can provide cheaper and better...even security. Can the private sector really provide comparably good security? It definitely got me thinking.

The concession that I'm willing to make is that more thought has gone into the ideology of Anarchism than I'd initially appreciated. Maybe it isn't all raping, pillaging and plundering...at least assuming that security would be affordable to lower and middle class people.

The concession that I'm hoping for in return is the acknowledgment that Anarchism is a complete anathema to most people. The Libertarian ideals of freedom that we both support and agree on are hamstrung by people's instinctive rejection of Anarchism...which they automatically correlate to the absence of government. For some, the concept of Libertarianism in itself is difficult enough to digest even when it's just defined as smaller government. The challenge is to help clear up the confusion by presenting the modern, commonly accepted aspects of Libertarianism.

Let me stress that I agree that the goal of this article should not be to make Libertarianism or the Libertarian Party look good...in fact, it's surprising that this article does not include a section for the criticisms of Libertarianism. That being said, let's definitely not add to the confusion by blurring the lines between Anarchism and Libertarianism. Rather, this article should present the ideology of Libertarianism as defined by the CATO institute. David Boaz, the vice president of the CATO institute, wrote the Britannica article on Libertarianism and it really goes a long way towards making the concepts of Libertarianism accessible to the average reader. --97.93.109.174 (talk) 10:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:Soapbox. Long dissertations that don't concern specific sources or policy issues but just your views really don't count. And the questionable assertion made above somewhere in talk is that involving anarchism and libertarianism hurts the credibility of Ron Paul, who is not a Libertarian Party representative. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

(Interjection) : CAROL, GO AWAY. YOUR COMMENTS HAVE NO GROUND WHATSOEVER. YOUR DISCUSSIONS ARE MOOT AND YOUR ARE A TREMENDOUS ROADBLOCK TO PROGRESS. YOU ARE TESTING OUR PATIENCE. "SOAPBOX" MEANS THINKING AND SPEAKING FOR YOURSELF. LIBERTARIANISM MEANS THINKING, SPEAKING AND ACTION IN TOTAL ACCORDANCE WITH YOUR GOD-GIVEN FREEDOM. GO AWAY. FOR GOD SAKES, LEAVE US ALONE. YOU ARE THE PROBLEM HERE. YOU. SPECIFICALLY YOU.

If you look at the top of this page it says..."This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Libertarianism article." What I wrote was a recommendation on how this article should be improved. This article does not present a modern or mainstream perspective on Libertarianism. It presents a very marginal and outdated perspective. The CATO institute, which is the fifth most influential think tank in the world, holds more weight than you do on what modern Libertarianism is. Yet, this article is solely a reflection of your perspective...which you justify by citing dozens of sources that hold no weight in modern Libertarianism. When confronted with the fact you either say "Soapbox" or "Reliable Sources". --97.93.109.174 (talk) 20:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages former featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Misplaced Pages former brilliant prose
• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates
• B-Class sociology articles
• Mid-importance sociology articles
• B-Class politics articles
• High-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• B-Class Philosophy articles
• Mid-importance Philosophy articles
• B-Class social and political philosophy articles
• Mid-importance social and political philosophy articles
• Social and political philosophy task force articles
• Top-importance politics articles
• Unassessed software articles
• Unknown-importance software articles
• Unassessed software articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed Computing articles
• Unknown-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• All Software articles