Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:57, 31 December 2019

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: 3 months

Template:Vital article

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

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

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

	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 February 12, 2014 Good article nominee Not listed Current status: Former featured article

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

Template:WikiProject Libertarianism Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Conservatism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism 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.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism 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. Politics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Philosophy: Social and political Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Social and political philosophy Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory Low This article has been rated as Low-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. United States: History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history. Template:WP1.0 Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Human rights Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights 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.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Jake Parker (2 September 2016). "It Only Took Half The Misplaced Pages Entry On Libertarianism To Convince Me It Was The Right Political Ideology For America". Clickhole.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Thin and thick libertarianism was copied or moved into Libertarianism with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

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, 42

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Merging left- and right-libertarian distinction to one place

I'm thinking that possibly the only solution to the ongoing dispute about the very existence of an article called Right-libertarianism may be to either merge that article and Left-libertarianism into a single article discussing the distinction between Left and right libertarianism, similar to articles like Positive and negative rights, Claim rights and liberty rights, etc; or else to merge both of those articles into a subsection of this article discussing that distinction, the way that the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on Libertarianism] does. --Pfhorrest (talk) 22:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• I actually like both of those ideas (but the first one would probably not fly from a guideline standpoint). But I think that you jumping to putting those specific templates all over the place is out of process. There is a substantial thorough discussion going on (with differing opinions but I wouldn't call it a dispute) and that isn't the way to handle that it was coming to a conclusion that you didn't like. North8000 (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• I support merging pages "Right-libertarianism" and "Left-libertarianism" into the article "Libertarianism". "Entities should not be multiplied without necessity". Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 02:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Very strong oppose. Two different, distinct, and notable concepts, that would be like merging left-wing politics and right-wing politics. Velociraptor888 15:09, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• We are not creating articles "Left liberalism" and "Right liberalism" or "Left socialism" and "Right socialism". In this case, in my opinion, it should be similar. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 16:08, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Гармонический Мир: I have to disagree with your example, although I understand/respect it. Left liberalism is specifically used as synonym for social liberalism, especially in Germany. A more pertinent example would be that of Populism which also has Left-wing populism and Right-wing populism. Libertarianism is similar in this regard; populism is "the people vs. the elite", but who is the people and who is the elite; for left-wing populist, "the people" is the working and lower classes and "the elite" is the ruling capitalist and moneyed class; for right-wing populists, "the people" is the middle class and "the elite" is the "left-wing" and "globalist" class, which would also include social liberals and social democrats even if they're closer to the center than the left. Likewise, left and right libertarianism have different meaning of the word liberty and what it means to be free. Thus, I agree with @Velociraptor888: that these are "Two different, distinct, and notable concepts", although they may share a name and some very broad similarities, that warrant separate articles, so I strongly oppose the merger proposal.--Davide King (talk) 06:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Davide King, I would support merging pages "Left-wing populism" and "Right-wing populism" into the article "Populism". The concepts left-wing and right-wing are not scientific. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 06:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Гармонический Мир: What do you mean "The concepts left-wing and right-wing" aren't scientific? Left-wing populism (30,703 bytes) and Right-wing populism (146,669 bytes) are clearly "wo different, distinct, and notable concepts" and Populism is 137,164 bytes; it would be too big to merge all of it, which is one another reason why I oppose this merging.--Davide King (talk) 14:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Davide King, aren't scientific means aren't materialistic.

And pages "Left-wing populism" and "Right-wing populism", in my opinion, need to be shortened.

Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 16:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Гармонический Мир: I don't think that's a good reason to get rid of it or not discussing them. I also disagree and actually think Left-wing populism should be expanded to better explain its differences from right-wing populism, have a Definition or even History section like in Right-wing populism, rather than just describing it by country or political parties. Anyway, I suggest you to open a discussion there about it.--Davide King (talk) 00:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Davide King, we can discuss something without creating a special article about it (for example, Mexico's participation in the Spanish Civil War). Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 00:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Гармонический Мир: I have sympathy for you and I don't necessarely disagree, but I think the issue is that, like left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism, left-wing populism and right-wing populism are considered by reliable sources as "wo different, distinct, and notable concepts" and thus worthy of having their own article.--Davide King (talk) 00:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Гармонический Мир: I don't think "materialism" is really a relevant criterion here since we're talking about a social topic, where lots of things under discussion are social constructs and fuzzy contentious abstract concepts. I get your point that what exactly constitutes left and right in a political sense is a bit fuzzy and contentious, but there are notable, scholarly senses of the terms that are used in the relevant fields and that's good enough for encyclopedic purposes. --Pfhorrest (talk) 00:23, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Pfhorrest: I agree with everything you said.--Davide King (talk) 00:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• Pfhorrest, strict definitions of "right-wing" and "left-wing" politics do not exist. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 00:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Гармонический Мир: I don't think there's a strict, or even single, definition for any political philosophy, yet Misplaced Pages uses a definition on what reliable sources generally agree with. There're "lots of things under discussion are social constructs and fuzzy contentious abstract concepts", yet they're still discussed about and have some generally agreed definition that we put on Misplaced Pages as that's what reliable sources generally agree with. Also, it's my understanding that Misplaced Pages doesn't represent the truth, or any objective truth, but rather verifiabilty based on reliable sources; and isn't a dictionary.--Davide King (talk) 02:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Velociraptor888:To be clear, although I proposed the merger, I actually prefer the status quo of separate articles. The merger is a proposed compromise between the status quo and the months of ongoing attempts to make it so there is no article called Right-libertarianism in one way or another. My preferences, in descending order, would be:

1. Maintain the status quo of two separate articles on Left-libertarianism and Right-libertarianism, as equal sub-articles of Libertarianism.
2. Merge the two articles into one article discussing the differences across the spectrum of Left and right libertarianism, akin to similar comparison articles like Negative and positive rights, still serving as a sub-article of Libertarianism.
3. Merge the two articles into a section of Libertarianism, akin to how the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on Libertarianism does it.

On a tangential note, I just noticed when Googling for that last link that Debates within libertarianism exists, which should maybe be part of this conversation. --Pfhorrest (talk) 08:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Pfhorrest: I support maintaining the status quo, per your reasons stated here. Also as stated here, "it would be too big to merge all of it, which is one another reason why I oppose this merging"; and I agree with Velociraptor888's reason that these are clearly "wo different, distinct, and notable concepts" and thus worthy of two articles.

Debates within libertarianism should probably be moved to Debates within libertarianism in the United States since issues such as abortion, capital punishment, foreign affairs, LGBT rights and immigration are non-issues for left-libertarians, especially anarchists. Perhaps we could create Libertarian schools of thought akin Anarchist schools of thought. There're really many libertarian schools or libertarian or libertarianism articles that start or end with these words.--Davide King (talk) 14:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• I wouldn't be opposed to turning Libertarian communism into an article that include anarcho-communism, council communism, left communism and libertarian Marxism as well as moving Anarcho-communism's Anarcho-communism#Early precursors and Anarcho-communism#Joseph Déjacque and the Revolutions of 1848 to Libertarian communism and talk about how it was the first form of libertarianism. Indeed, it's mainly in th 19th century that both communism and socialism became libertarians; before they were mainly based on the state, compulsion, or religious notion, although some libertarian thoughts were always present. I think this could be discussed. Also, it's my understanding that while anarcho-communism is the most prominent libertarian communist current and that libertarian communism is also used to refer specifically to that, it's not the only libertarian form of communism. Just like libertarian socialism arose within the anarchist movement opposing state socialism and being used as synonym for anarchism but later expanding into including non-anarchist libertarian socialism and libertarian Marxism and communism.--Davide King (talk) 14:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Davide King, if we keep the article "Right-libertarianism", then there will always be those who want to rename it. We will spend time on such discussions instead of improving the articles. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 15:10, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Гармонический Мир I understand your concerns, but that's not a good reason to do that (just like I appreciate @Pfhorrest: and attempts at compromise, but disagree with the proposal). We have had and still have an asburd number of posts of people asking Fascism to be referred to as a left-wing ideology, or Nazism as a socialist ideology, but we don't do that just because "there will always be those who want to it". Reliable sources say that Fascism is a right-wing ideology, mainly associated to the far-right; that Nazism isn't socialism but a form of German fascism; and that Left-libertarianism and Right-libertariaism are "wo different, distinct, and notable concepts" and thus worthy of havig their own articles.--Davide King (talk) 15:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Fascism/Nazism is another issue. I don't support the views of pro-capitalist libertarians, but I can't say that they are fascists. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Гармонический Мир I never said they're fascist; I meant to say that just because "there will always be those who want to rename , it's not a good reason to delete or merge it.--Davide King (talk) 21:30, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• IMO the issue with many of these "two word" titles is that they are both redundant, and also just two word sequences with no consistent meaning. It's like we have an article on "dogs", and then articles on all of the breeds of dogs. Then somebody creates Big dogs and Small dogs articles. Each person who works up an organizational scheme for categorizing dogs based on size has a different meaning for "big" and "small". But more importantly, they are just covering dog material that is already in the other articles. So it is relevant that there could be a lot of material on big dogs, nor that there are a log of google hits on the "big dog" two word sequence. My thought is that the only thing that really needs covering is the terms themselves and usage of the terms. This could be vial vastly reduced articles, or merging each into a few sentences in the main libertarianism article. North8000 (talk) 20:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• @North8000: Social democracy, social liberalism, conservative liberalism, etc. are all "two word" titles. Just because it's a word, it doesn't mean that what it means has no relevance or notabily; and they point is that they aren't just a term, they're real thing; it's just the left and the right have a different understanding of libertarianism, just like populism, of which we also have Left-wing populism and Right-wing populism and similar sub-articles, so I don't understand the relavance of your dogs example. Perhaps the issue is that there're a consisent meaning, it's just that you disagree with it. As I stated here, you seem to understand right-libertarianism as "hat could be termed centrist or mainstream libertarianism, i.e. fiscal conservatives and cultural liberals who identify as libertarian", when this is what's discussed in Libertarianism in the United States and right-libertarianism refers to a similar but different and more specific thing.--Davide King (talk) 21:30, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• I support merging pages "Right-libertarianism" and "Left-libertarianism" into the article "Libertarianism". That seems to be the only way to get rid of the POV article Right-libertarianism. PhilLiberty (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

• @PhilLiberty: It was already established here that there was nothing wrong with Right-libertarianism, so supportting the merge based on that premise is false.--Davide King (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

• I oppose merging left-libertarianism with right-libertarianism as they are two obviously distinct schools of thought. Although I would be open to discuss merging left-libertarianism with libertarian socialism. Grnrchst (talk) 11:07, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Grnrchst: Thanks for your comment. I'd oppose that for the simple fact that left-libertarianism is broader than that and has been used to refer to philosophies that may not fit libertarian socialism (indeed, the whole left–right libertarianism isn't based on socialism–capitalism but on egalitarianism regarding natural resources). Just like anarchism is the main wing of libertarian socialism or social anarchism is the main wing of anarchism, libertarian socialism is the main wing of left-libertarianism but by no means it.--Davide King (talk) 14:38, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Davide King: I agree with your assessment. As I said, I'm open to discussing it, I wasn't necesarrily proposing it. Grnrchst (talk) 15:26, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Leftovers

Hypothetical question: If left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism were to be theoretically merged into libertarianism, what content/sourcing would we be excluding for it to fit? Put another way, what sourcing/content specific to each of the left-/right- variants would not fit within the main article? My understanding is that these two variants should function as summary style splits from the parent article, but I'm not seeing what granularity we gain when the articles are separate. czar 01:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Libertarism

(Not about Misplaced Pages's articles, but about the concepts themselves.) If you return to the origins, these concepts should be called left libertarism and right libertarism. "Libertarianism" is neologism. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Гармонический Мир: Thank you for your comment. I agree with you, but the problem is that libertarian, or libertarianism, is literally the English translation of and from the French libertaire, or libertarisme. This is unique to English and the English Misplaced Pages. Other Misplaced Pages such as the French, Italian, Portuguese or Spanish ones can use libertarisme and libertarianisme (French), or libertarismo and libertarianismo (Italian, Portuguese and Spanish). Hence, we have left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism, which I believe is still the best compromise and solution and which is what many reliable sources use. David Goodway (2006) and Peter Marshall (2008) use left-libertarianism to refer to the original libertairisme (English: libertarianism) specifically to distinguish itself from what they call right-libertarianism, i.e. modern American libertarianism which is within the liberal tradition but isn't called liberalism because in the United States the word liberal mainly refers to what in Europe we call social liberalism.

1. Sources: Goodway, David (2006). Anarchist Seeds Beneath the Snow: Left-Libertarian Thought and British Writers from William Morris to Colin Ward. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. p. 4. "'Libertarian' and 'libertarianism' are frequently employed by anarchists as synonyms for 'anarchist' and 'anarchism', largely as an attempt to distance themselves from the negative connotations of 'anarchy' and its derivatives. The situation has been vastly complicated in recent decades with the rise of anarcho-capitalism, 'minimal statism' and an extreme right-wing laissez-faire philosophy advocated by such theorists as Rothbard and Nozick and their adoption of the words 'libertarian' and 'libertarianism'. It has therefore now become necessary to distinguish between their right libertarianism and the left libertarianism of the anarchist tradition".
2. Marshall, Peter (2008). Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism. London: Harper Perennial. p. 565. "In its moderate form, right libertarianism embraces laissez-faire liberals like Robert Nozick who call for a minimal State, and in its extreme form, anarcho-capitalists like Murray Rothbard and David Friedman who entirely repudiate the role of the State and look to the market as a means of ensuring social order".

I think these were also some of the sources PhilLiberty deemed biased as they were "used only (or primarily) by opponents of libertarian capitalism", which simply isn't true.--Davide King (talk) 00:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• I agree, but the term libertarism also has its own history. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 00:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Гармонический Мир: Well, there's Libertarianism#Etymology which discuss this; what would you add to that section? As of now, Libertarism redirects to Left-libertarianism. Would you prefer it redirects to Libertarianism instead? I would support this since it was the original libertarianism and thus should redirect to the main article. Maybe also starting the lead like Libertarianism, or libertarism (French: libertarisme)? By the way, Libertarianism lead should be reverted back to this.--Davide King (talk) 01:06, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, it would be nice to write in the preamble of the page "Libertarianism" about an alternative name libertarism with reference to reliable sources. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 01:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Гармонический Мир: What do you think about this one?--Davide King (talk) 01:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• I think that it's worth also mentioning such currents as geolibertarianism (Georgism) and left-wing market anarchism. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 07:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Davide King's proposal

Libertarianism

Extended content

Part of a series on Libertarianism Concepts Abstention Academic freedom Age of consent reform Anti-authoritarianism Anti-capitalism Antimilitarism Anti-statism Artistic freedom Civil liberties Class struggle Cognitive liberty Counter-economics Crypto-anarchism Decentralization Decriminalization of sex work Departurism Drug liberalization Direct action Economic freedom Egalitarianism Evictionism Expropriative anarchism Federalism (anarchist) Free association (Marxism and anarchism) Free love Free market Free-market environmentalism Free migration Free trade Freedom of assembly Freedom of association Freedom of choice Freedom of conscience Freedom of contract Freedom of information Freedom of religion Freedom of speech Freedom of thought Gift economy Homestead principle Illegalism Individualism Individualist feminism Individual reclamation Liberty Libertarianism (metaphysics) Localism Natural law Natural rights and legal rights Night-watchman state Non-aggression principle Non-interventionism Participatory economics Propaganda of the deed Property is theft! Refusal of work Reproductive rights Right to die Right to privacy Right to sexuality Self-governance Self-ownership Single tax Social ecology Spontaneous order Squatting Stateless society Tax resistance Voluntary association Voluntary society Workers' councils Workers' self-management Issues Abortion Affirmative action Anarcho-capitalism and minarchism Capital punishment Criticism Foreign intervention Immigration Intellectual property Internal debates LGBT rights Objectivism Political alliances Political parties Theories of law War on Drugs Philosophers La Boétie Locke Franklin Burke Paine Jefferson Bentham Godwin Hodgskin Warren Emerson Stirner Spooner Proudhon Andrews Bakunin Thoreau Spencer Herbert George De Cleyre Goldman Gandhi Mises Paterson Hayek Rand Friedman (Milton) Bookchin Hess Rothbard Chomsky Nozick Machan Block Friedman (David) Van Dun Konkin Hoppe Lottieri Huemer Brennan Politicians Bastiat Gladstone Acton Cleveland Coolidge Goldwater Paul Korwin-Mikke Johnson Milei Hannan Polis National variants South Africa Spain United Kingdom United States Historical background Age of Enlightenment Anarchism Aristotelianism Liberalism classical radical Related topics Abolitionism Anti-collectivism Anti-communism Anti-fascism Anti-socialism Austro-libertarianism Center for Libertarian Studies Civil libertarianism Classical liberalism Conscientious objector Constitutionalism Cultural liberalism Economic liberalism Freeman on the land movement Fusionism Geolibertarianism Georgism Green libertarianism Libertarian conservatism Libertarian Democrats Libertarian socialism Libertarian Republicans Libertarian science fiction Libertarianism in South Africa Libertarianism in the United Kingdom Libertarianism in the United States Objectivism Public choice theory Small government Sovereign citizen movement Technolibertarianism Libertarianism portal Anarchism portal Politics portal v t e Part of a series on Individualism Principles Autonomy Civil liberties Do it yourself Eremitism Free love Freethought Human rights Individual Individual rights Individual reclamation Individuation Laissez-faire Libertine Liberty Methodological individualism Negative liberty Open border Personal property Positive liberty Private property Self-actualization Self-ownership Self-sufficiency Subjectivity Philosophers Antiphon Aristippus Camus Diogenes Emerson Godwin Goldman Hayek Hess Hipparchia Igualada Ingersoll Jefferson Jung Laozi Locke Mandeville Marsden Mencken Mill Mises Montaigne Nietzsche Nozick Onfray Popper Quelle Rand Rothbard Sade Schopenhauer Smith Spencer Spooner Stirner Thoreau Tucker Voltaire Warren Wilde Yang Ideologies Autarchism Anarchism Individualist anarchism Egoist anarchism Left-wing market anarchism Social anarchism Anarcho-capitalism Egoism Ethical egoism Rational egoism Existentialism Hedonism Humanism Individualist feminism Equity feminism Liberal feminism Liberalism Classical liberalism Libertarianism Left-libertarianism Libertarian socialism Right-libertarianism Minarchism Mutualism Objectivism Subjectivism Voluntaryism Principal concerns Anti-individualism Authoritarianism Collectivism Conformity Dogmatism Group rights Herd mentality Indoctrination Mass society Mobbing Social engineering Statism Tyranny Tyranny of the majority Theocracy Totalitarianism v t e Libertarianism (from Template:Lang-la, meaning "freedom"), or libertarism (from Template:Lang-fr, meaning "libertarian"), is a collection of political philosophies and movements that uphold liberty as a core principle. Libertarians seek to maximize political freedom and autonomy, emphasizing freedom of choice, voluntary association and individual judgement. Libertarians share a skepticism of authority and state power, but they diverge on the scope of their opposition to existing economic and political systems. Various schools of libertarian thought offer a range of views regarding the legitimate functions of state and private power, often calling for the restriction or dissolution of coercive social institutions. Libertarianism originated as a form of left-wing politics and refers to anti-authoritarian and anti-state socialists such as anarchists and more generally libertarian communists and libertarian socialists. Left-libertarian ideologies seek to abolish capitalism and private ownership of the means of production, or else to restrict their purview or effects, in favor of common or cooperative ownership and management, viewing private property as a barrier to freedom and liberty. Left-libertarian ideologies include anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, egoist anarchism and mutualism, alongside many other anti-paternalist, New Left schools of thought centered around economic egalitarianism. Right-libertarian ideologies such as anarcho-capitalism and minarchism co-opted the word libertarian in the mid-20th century to instead advocate laissez-faire capitalism and strong private property rights such as in land, infrastructure and natural resources. Boaz, David (30 January 2009). "Libertarianism". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 21 February 2017. ibertarianism, political philosophy that takes individual liberty to be the primary political value. Woodcock, George (2004) . Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements. Peterborough, Ont.: Broadview Press. p. 16. ISBN 9781551116297. for the very nature of the libertarian attitude—its rejection of dogma, its deliberate avoidance of rigidly systematic theory, and, above all, its stress on extreme freedom of choice and on the primacy of the individual judgement. Boaz, David (1999). "Key Concepts of Libertarianism". Cato Institute. Retrieved 25 January 2017. "What Is Libertarian?". Institute for Humane Studies. Retrieved 16 February 2017. Long, Joseph. W (1996). "Toward a Libertarian Theory of Class". Social Philosophy and Policy. 15 (2): 310. "When I speak of 'libertarianism' I mean all three of these very different movements. It might be protested that LibCap , LibSoc and LibPop are too different from one another to be treated as aspects of a single point of view. But they do share a common—or at least an overlapping—intellectual ancestry." Kropotkin, Peter (1927). Anarchism: A Collection of Revolutionary Writings. Courier Dover Publications. p. 150. ISBN 9780486119861. It attacks not only capital, but also the main sources of the power of capitalism: law, authority, and the State. Otero, Carlos Peregrin (2003). "Introduction to Chomsky's Social Theory". In Otero, Carlos Peregrin (ed.). Radical Priorities. Chomsky, Noam Chomsky (3rd ed.). Oakland, California: AK Press. p. 26. ISBN 1-902593-69-3. Chomsky, Noam (2003). Carlos Peregrin Otero (ed.). Radical Priorities (3rd ed.). Oakland, California: AK Press. pp. 227–228. ISBN 1-902593-69-3. Vallentyne, Peter (March 2009). "Libertarianism". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2009 ed.). Stanford, California: Stanford University. Retrieved 5 March 2010. Libertarianism is committed to full self-ownership. A distinction can be made, however, between right-libertarianism and left-libertarianism, depending on the stance taken on how natural resources can be owned. Carlson, Jennifer D. (2012). "Libertarianism". In Miller, Wilburn R., ed. The Social History of Crime and Punishment in America. London: Sage Publications. p. 1006. ISBN 1412988764. "There exist three major camps in libertarian thought: right-libertarianism, socialist libertarianism, and left-libertarianism. ocialist libertarians advocate for the simultaneous abolition of both government and capitalism." Fernandez, Frank (2001). Cuban Anarchism. The History of a Movement. Sharp Press. p. 9. "Thus, in the United States, the once exceedingly useful term 'libertarian' has been hijacked by egotists who are in fact enemies of liberty in the full sense of the word." Rothbard, Murray (2009) . The Betrayal of the American Right (PDF). Mises Institute. p. 83. ISBN 978-1610165013. One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, 'our side,' had captured a crucial word from the enemy. 'Libertarians' had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over. Hussain, Syed B. (2004). Encyclopedia of Capitalism, Volume 2. New York: Facts on File Inc. p. 492. ISBN 0816052247. In the modern world, political ideologies are largely defined by their attitude towards capitalism. Marxists want to overthrow it, liberals to curtail it extensively, conservatives to curtail it moderately. Those who maintain that capitalism is a excellent economic system, unfairly maligned, with little or no need for corrective government policy, are generally known as libertarians.

• That sounds very good to me and I have proposed at Talk:Libertarianism that it be implemented. --Pfhorrest (talk) 05:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Pfhorrest: First of all, I'd like to personally thank you for your kindness, support and help in linking my proposals and reasons to the talk pages. In the Final thoughts section, I've actually proposed something similar to what @The Four Deuces: proposed for Libertarianism, namely having Libertarianism being only about the original libertarianism, mentiong only in the lead that the word libertarian was co-opted (as it has been stated for a long time until this IP edit and which I re-added in my lead proposal) and moving the American libertarianism section to Libertarianism in the United States, perhaps also to Liberalism in the United States, Economic liberalism and Laissez-faire and similar articles in which it may have a place since it's part of the liberal tradition rather than some full new philosophy which is what was the case with 19th century libertarianism and wasn't just a renaming (like libertarian for liberal in the United States), being even more important due to starting libertarian/anarcho-communism (at the time, communism, just like socialism, in that it was more communitarian than individualist). However, I wasn't really serious about it (it was more of a proposal that I thought would still be better and make more sense than what was otherwhise proposed, with all due respect) for exactly your same reasons and concerns, even if it wouldn't be necessarely inaccurate to do that. As I stated above, I'm for an improved status quo. Anyway, The Four Deuces seems to be using left-libertarianism only in the third sense as described here:

  In its oldest sense, it is a synonym either for anarchism in general or social anarchism in particular. Later it became a term for the left or Konkinite wing of the free-market libertarian movement, and has since come to cover a range of pro-market but anti-capitalist positions, mostly individualist anarchist, including agorism and mutualism, often with an implication of sympathies (such as for radical feminism or the labor movement) not usually shared by anarcho-capitalists. In a third sense it has recently come to be applied to a position combining individual self-ownership with an egalitarian approach to natural resources; most proponents of this position are not anarchists.

• Source: "Anarchism". In Gaus, Gerald F.; D'Agostino, Fred, eds. (2012). The Routledge Companion to Social and Political Philosophy. p. 227.
• Left-libertarianism as understood by The Four Deuces should be mentioned and dicussed in a Left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism section to create in Libertarianism in the United States. I'm not sure, but I think Jennifer D. Carlson (2012) also use left-libertarianism in that sense but adds socialist libertarianism ("There exist three major camps in libertarian thought: right-libertarianism, socialist libertarianism, and left-libertarianism. ocialist libertarians advocate for the simultaneous abolition of both government and capitalism."). In my understanding, socialist libertarianism isn't another way to spell and refer to libertarian socialism, but more similar to liberal conservative and conservative liberalism, i.e. libertarian socialism is more of a broad term that is mainly used vis-à-vis authoritarian/state socialism and include anarchism, libertarian Marxism and communism, mutualism, revolutionary syndicalism and others whereas socialist libertarianism could be considered to be the most individualist wing of socialism. That's why I believe Socialist libertarianism should simply be a redirect to Left-libertarianism as it's the socialist wing of broad left-libertarianism as described there.
• I'm also not opposed to create Libertarian (political typology) (or even Libertarian capitalism), provided it's a new page and not a substitute for either Left-libertarianism or Right-libertarianism. Does it actually warrant a page or simply a disambiguation though? I would say I'm an inclusionist, so I wouldn't have a proiblem with it and perhaps that could also be a start for other ideologies' typology in which we describe that spoefic ideology typology/voter demographics.--Davide King (talk) 08:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Pfhorrest: I also agree with the inclusion of geolibertarianism (Georgism) and left-wing market anarchism in both Libertarianism and Left-libertarianism. The latter should also be more prominely discussed in Libertarianism in the United States, whose History section needs to be much amplied and strctured like the Libertarianism's History section. I would consider geoism (geolibertarianism/Georgism) part of the broad left-libertarianism as part of the non-socialist left-libertarian wing because it's close to what's referred to as left-libertarianism in the United States and because, while the philosophy nor Henry George himself not necessarely being socialist, both have been supported and worked within the socialist and broad labour movement, which saw George as one of their own. See Michael Hudson's "Has Georgism Been Hijacked by Special Interests", which I remember reading not long time ago, as an example. Either way, I believe we should first resolve the Right-libertarianism issue, so that the discussion can be moved to the rightly page which needs improvement, i.e. Libertarianism in the United States.--Davide King (talk) 09:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• You're more than welcome and I agree with basically everything you've said here, though you've said it all far more thoroughly and with better sources than I could. You're impressively knowledgeable about all of this and I really hope your wiki-beaurocratic troubles get sorted out soon because I would love to see someone like you contributing to the encyclopedia in full force. --Pfhorrest (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• BTW, I see above that you can't reply again now, but if you don't end up getting unblocked soon, I'd love to stay in touch with you off-site. I'm not sure I've ever met anyone who concurs with my politics so much and knows even more about it than me. It's trivially easy to find my email address, so if you'd like to keep in touch you can reach me that way. --Pfhorrest (talk) 02:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• I think we should not create new pages without a strict need. I support merging pages "Right-libertarianism" and "Left-libertarianism" into the article "Libertarianism". Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 09:09, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Гармонический Мир: Well, I think it should be based on notability, which I think it does. Just like populism, libertarianism is a broad philosophy that has different meanings and ideas besides some similarities and overlaps; and left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism are terms used to describe the two most well-known tendencies within it, not much different/unlike from Left-wing populism and Right-wing populism.--Davide King (talk) 09:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• The problem here is that a rigorous definitions of left- and right-libertarianism cannot be given. And, for example, geolibertarianism can be attributed both to the first and second. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 09:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Гармонический Мир: Right-libertarianism was nominated for deletion back in 2007 but the result was to keep it, more recently a requested move was recjected and one definition would be that of the philosophy within libertarianism which support the private ownership of both land and capital, i.e. of natural resources and of the means of production. In the United States, it may also be used to refer to cultural conservatives libertarians whereas left-libertarianism would refer to those who reject the private ownership of natural resources. As I put it in my left-libertarianism's lead proposal, "In its classical usage, it was a synonym for anti-authoritarian varieties of left-wing politics such as anarchism. In the United States, left-libertarianism refers to the left-wing of the modern libertarian movement and more recently to political positions associated with academic philosophers Hillel Steiner, Philippe Van Parijs and Peter Vallentyne that combine self-ownership with an egalitarian approach to natural resources".
• Source: "Anarchism". In Gaus, Gerald F.; D'Agostino, Fred, eds. (2012). The Routledge Companion to Social and Political Philosophy. p. 227. "In its oldest sense, it is a synonym either for anarchism in general or social anarchism in particular. Later it became a term for the left or Konkinite wing of the free-market libertarian movement, and has since come to cover a range of pro-market but anti-capitalist positions, mostly individualist anarchist, including agorism and mutualism, often with an implication of sympathies (such as for radical feminism or the labor movement) not usually shared by anarcho-capitalists. In a third sense it has recently come to be applied to a position combining individual self-ownership with an egalitarian approach to natural resources; most proponents of this position are not anarchists".
• Although some right-libertarians may support a geoist single tax, which maintain both the private ownership of both land and capital, geolibertarianism is part of the non-socialist wing of left-libertarianism due to its opposition to private land ownership, which right-libertarianism support. Henry George has also been described as left-libertarian in the third sense.--Davide King (talk) 11:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• For example, geolibertarians may call themselves left-libertarians. But nevertheless geolibertarianism supports the reduction of the government economic functions. That is, it's not clear where to attribute geolibertarians – to left- or right-libertarianism. Similarly, agorists may call themselves left-libertarians, but nevertheless agorism is a variant of anarcho-capitalism. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 12:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Гармонический Мир: As stated somewhere else by @Pfhorrest: libertarian socialism supports the reduction of the government of economic functions; they simply believe that can't be done within capitalism because the state is its apparatus, they're interconnected and state capitalism isn't some capitalism's perversion but its natural result; and you can't abolish one whithout removing the other. Left-libertarianism is understood in broad terms (see The Routledge Companion to Social and Political Philosophy's definition) and so are other philosophies like socialism. Obviously, many supporters would understand socialism to mean and refer only to democratic and libertarian socialism, yet Socialism also includes so-called authoritarian and state socialism. I'd consider the latter two (just like so-called Marxism–Leninism and socialist states) nothing more than state capitalism and that to be a fact, but it's my understanding that Misplaced Pages doesn't necessarely work by facts but rather by reliable sources and verifiable informations, so there isn't much I can do about it. That's why I believe Left-libertarianism and Right-libertarianism warrant their own article, which I believe should be in broad terms, perhaps also referring to the libertarian left (the left opposed to authoritarianism and statism in left-wing politics) and the libertarian right (the right opposed to government economic and social interventions), which would be something broader than libertarian socialism and so-called libertarian capitalism.--Davide King (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• I partially agree with you. But usually the left-wing is called those who are for the expansion of the economic and social functions of the government, and the right-wing those who are for the reduction. If we follow this classification, agorists and geolibertarians are right-wing. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 20:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Гармонический Мир: I'm surprised you use this definition. That's ironically used non-ironically by Americans to classify anarchism as a far-right ideology and Stalinism and fascism being on the far-left, which is just plain wrong. I usually use the definition that is in the lead of Left-wing politics (support of the lower classes, egalitarianism and expansion of freedom for all) Right-wing politics (support of the ruling class, inequalities, tradition, hierarchies and authority). I personally believe that only the socialist left is the left (you aren't really that much left if you merely want to improve the status quo), but that's my own bias and I respect and use the broader definition as written on Misplaced Pages. That's why I also consider anarchism to be the literally antithesis of right-wing politics.--Davide King (talk) 20:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, but the government is used to social support of the lower classes in the modern world. There is no other working mechanism for such a support yet. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 21:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Гармонический Мир: I think one difference is that libertarian socialists distinguish between government and the state whereas American libertarians think of it as the same thing. Libertarian socialists are opposed to the state and instead advocate a form of self-government whereas American libertarians aren't opposed to the state (after all, the state is an important tool in protecting things dear to them like property rights) but rather to government, more specifically to government regulation of business (indeed, the same government "used to social support of the lower classes in the modern world", as you said). Even these American libertarians that advocate for the dissolution of the state, such as anarcho-capitalists, merely advocate its privatisation, or in practice a return to the city-state vis-à-vis the modern, centralised nation-state. Also, libertarian socialists are opposed to state power but not to create alternative and non-coercive institutions which would take the state's place. Libertarian socialists such as anarchists support "self-managed, self-governed societies based on voluntary, cooperative institutions" in place of the state, hence a stateless society, or more specifically "distinct institutions based on non-hierarchical or free associations".--Davide King (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• I have a few general comments on which articles are required. I think we should determine this before deciding what names should be used. First there is no need to have a separate article for the general topic and libertarianism that is part of the left, since they would essentially cover the same topic. The Rothbard version would be one of several types in the main libertarian article and like the other types would also have its own main article. Also, since libertarianism that is part of the left and the Vallentyne version of Rothbard's libertarianism are separate topics, they should not be combined into a single article. So I would suggest the following articles. Note these are topics, not necessarily what they would be called.

Libertarianism, an ideology that developed in the 19th century,

Pro-capitalist libertarianism, an ideology that developed out of 19th century libertarianism,

Left libertarianism, a form of pro-capitalist libertarianism, and

Libertarian (political typology), a voting demographic that supports smaller government.

TFD (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• But don't forget about Occam's razor: "Entities should not be multiplied without necessity". Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• I don't think my suggestion does that. TFD (talk) 15:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• The Four Deuces, the topics you have listed can be placed in one article. Why an article about pro-capitalist libertarianism if article Anarcho-capitalism already exists? Why an article about 19th century libertarianism if article Libertarian socialism already exists? About people who support a small government you can write in the main article or in the article "Anarcho-capitalism". Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 16:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• As I said, "Note these are topics, not necessarily what they would be called." If pro-capitalist libertarianism=anarcho-capitalism, then we have one article whatever it is called. And it's not an article about 19th century libertarianism but about "Libertarianism, an ideology that developed in the 19th century." In the same sense, we say the U.S. was founded in 1776 but that does not mean we cannot speak about the country today. In any case, libertarianism is broader than libertarian socialism, since it includes pro-capitalist libertarianism as well. I would not put the political demographic under anarcho-capitalism because it's about a group of voters most of whom have not interest in anarcho-capitalism. They don't for example necessarily subscribe to theories of self-ownership or anti-war positions for example. TFD (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• @The Four Deuces: Please, correct me if I'm wrong. By your proposals, I'd say pro-capitalist libertarianism isn't part of libertarianism but rather of liberalism, thus it shouldn't be part of Libertarianism but rather it should be part of Liberalism (maybe Classical liberalism, Economic liberalism, or Laissez-faire) and Libertarianism in the United States; just because the word libertarianism is used doesn't make it true (see National Socialism). The same would be true of anarcho-capitalism, which in my understanding isn't really considered part of anarchism but rather of liberalism. While true that liberalism supports the state, albeit at its lowest a minimal one, it could be argued that so does anarcho-capitalism because in practice it advocates the privatisation of the state rather than its abolition like anarchists. Anyway, I don't generally disagree with your proposal (Libertarianism should be mainly the one that developed in the 19th century and continues today within the anarchist and libertarian socialist tradition); I'd even say I agree with you. However, I'm personally more of an inclusive user and I'm not opposed in having Left-libertarianism and Right-libertarianism articles in broad terms, perhaps also expanding them to discuss the libertarian left (the left opposed to authoritarianism and statism in left-wing politics) and the libertarian right (the right opposed to government economic and social interventions), which would be something broader than libertarian socialism and so-called pro-capitalist libertarianism.--Davide King (talk) 20:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• @The Four Deuces: I believe where we differ is that I prefer right-libertarianism over pro-capitalist libertarianism (why have both Pro-capitalist libertarianism and Left libertarianism articles, when the latter would be only about a form of pro-capitalist libertarianism? Shouldn't they be in the same article? And didn't you consider them a tiny minority, or did I misunderstood you? Apologies in the case) and I prefer left-libertarianism to be broader than that. Sources:

1. "Anarchism". In Gaus, Gerald F.; D'Agostino, Fred, eds. (2012). The Routledge Companion to Social and Political Philosophy. p. 227. "In its oldest sense, it is a synonym either for anarchism in general or social anarchism in particular. Later it became a term for the left or Konkinite wing of the free-market libertarian movement, and has since come to cover a range of pro-market but anti-capitalist positions, mostly individualist anarchist, including agorism and mutualism, often with an implication of sympathies (such as for radical feminism or the labor movement) not usually shared by anarcho-capitalists. In a third sense it has recently come to be applied to a position combining individual self-ownership with an egalitarian approach to natural resources; most proponents of this position are not anarchists".
2. Goodway, David (2006). Anarchist Seeds Beneath the Snow: Left-Libertarian Thought and British Writers from William Morris to Colin Ward. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. p. 4. "'Libertarian' and 'libertarianism' are frequently employed by anarchists as synonyms for 'anarchist' and 'anarchism', largely as an attempt to distance themselves from the negative connotations of 'anarchy' and its derivatives. The situation has been vastly complicated in recent decades with the rise of anarcho-capitalism, 'minimal statism' and an extreme right-wing laissez-faire philosophy advocated by such theorists as Rothbard and Nozick and their adoption of the words 'libertarian' and 'libertarianism'. It has therefore now become necessary to distinguish between their right libertarianism and the left libertarianism of the anarchist tradition".--Davide King (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• @The Four Deuces: I'd put your Pro-capitalist libertarianism in Libertarianism in the United States, where I also propose to add a Political spectrum section which specifically discuss the left-libertarianism you propose ("a form of pro-capitalist libertarianism") as well as perhaps talking about how it differs from the libertarian spectrum outside the United States (i.e. pro-socialist libertarianism vis-à-vis pro-capitalist libertarianism, whereas in the United States they're both a form of pro-capitalist libertarianism).--Davide King (talk) 21:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• Rothbard's libertarians placed themselves in the tradition of 19th century libertarianism (in particular individualist anarchism, which is pro-capitalist) which they saw as the true heir of the levellers, radicals and Jefferson and Jacksonian Democrats. Hence the libertarian Ludwig von Mises Institute's book Liberty and the Great Libertarians lists readings by such 19th century libertarians as William Godwin, Josiah Warren, Max Stirner, Henry David Thoreau, Lysander Spooner, Henry George, Benjamin Tucker, Peter Kropotkin and many others. They also deliberately not only adopted the names of libertarianism and anarchism, but also symbols such as the black flag and the A. A lot of their theories can be found in earlier libertarian writers. Now their detractors claim that they are not true libertarians, because their version merely supports existing elites. But that doesn't mean that their sharing the same name is some sort of bizarre coincidence. TFD (talk) 22:58, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• @The Four Deuces: The only thing I disagree with is describing 19th century individualist ancarchism as pro-capitalist. Market socialism is a thing and I believe they supported a liberal socialist free-market economy. As I argued in this collapsed comment, not all liberals supported capitalism and many favored labour over capital (or otherwhise, they wanted to put capital at the service of labour rather than viceversa; the labour theory of value and all that), so I wouldn't say individualist anarchism was pro-capitalist, unless capitalism is used to mean free market rather than actually existing captalism, but don't think capitalism should be defined as such, just like I don't believe socialism or communism should be defined as state ownership of the means of production. I would describe them as socialists, at a time when socialism was a broad term to descrive supporters of labour vis-à-vis capital, before more modern definitions of socialism. Theoretically, it could also be considered, or result in, a form of social ownership since there would be free access to the means of production and capital to labour with, as opposed to concentrated capital. In Individual Liberty, Benjamin Tucker even saw Adam Smith as a father of socialism, stating: "The economic principles of Modern Socialism are a logical deduction from the principle laid down by Adam Smith in the early chapters of his "Wealth of Nations," – namely, that labor is the true measure of price. Half a century or more after Smith enunciated the principle above stated, Socialism picked it up where he had dropped it, and in following it to its logical conclusions, made it the basis of a new economic philosophy". I personally agree with David McNally's (1993) critcism of market socialism and that may not be considered socialism in Marxist terms, but I don't think Marxism owns an egemony over it and I don't remember Marx or Engels arguing other forms of socialism weren't true socialism; instead, they used words like bourgeois/conservative/utopian socialism.--Davide King (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• I think it may be a matter of semantics. In early America, capitalists had small enterprises and farms, whereas today, the economy is dominated by large corporations often with significant political power. In early America, the common man could obtain his own farm and workers could realistically aspire to becoming partners or setting up their own small businesses and hence become capitalists themselves. But both forms are normally described as capitalist.

I don't see the relevance of your comment on Adam Smith. Marx adopted the labor theory of value from Ricardo, who got it from Smith. Marxist retained the theory while neo-classical liberals abandoned it. But socialists obtained a lot of their theories from classical liberalism. And of course modern perceptions of Marx particularly in popular media are often see through the lens of modern Communism.

TFD (talk) 23:58, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• Indeed, it's a matter of semantics. You describe early America really well, but by capitalism I mainly mean industrial capitalism and I wouldn't consider these self-employed workers as capitalists. Do they employ other people and do they receive income from owning the workplace? Do they make a profit from the employment of other people, extracting their labour's value? Or do they equally share profits and wages? Wage labour/system isn't present only in capitalism, wage slavery is. Indeed, individualist anarchists wanted the worker to receive the full fruct of their labour. They opposed usury, interest and profit and viewed them as exploitation. They wanted to socialize capital and its effects. They were "fervent anti-capitalists no contradiction between their individualist stance and their rejection of capitalism". Source: Brown, Susan Love; Carrier, James G., ed. (1997). The Free Market as Salvation from Government: The Anarcho-Capitalist View, Meanings of the Market: The Free Market in Western Culture. Oxford: Berg, pp. 104, 107. I wouldn't phrase it as "workers setting up their own small businesses and hence become capitalists themselves"; I would describe them as producers, neither worker nor capitalist, or also both a worker and a capitalist at the same time. The free association of producers.

Stirner was anti-capitalist, but he wasn't opposed to socialism per se; he said he was opposed to the "sacred socialism". Source: Roudine, Victor. La lotta operaia secondo Max Stirner. p. 12. My literal translation from Italian to English would be: "I'm not at all against socialism, but against sacred socialism; my selfishness is not opposed to love ; neither is he an enemy of sacrifice, nor of self-denial ; and even less than socialism, — in short, it is not an enemy of real interests; it rebels not against love, but against sacred love, not against thought, but against sacred thought, not against socialists, but against sacred socialism". Stirner has had just as much influence a major influence on anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism, with the latter especially being based on his union of egoists, just as much, if nore more, influed he has had on individualist anarchism. According to anarchist historian Max Nettlau, "On reading Stirner, I maintain that he cannot be interpreted except in a socialist sense". I'm not saying that he was a socialist, he was againt dogmas and "sacred thoughts"; just that his philosophy, if we can call it that, fits well with anarchism/libertarian socialism, especially anarcho-communism economically. He didn't call himself an anarchist, yet I think he's rightfully considered within that tradition. One can be both an individualist and communist; one can be an individualist anarchist and support anarcho-communism or anarcho-syndicalism. The difference is whether there should be any collective organisation or not; whether supporting revolutionism or evolutionism; market socialism, decentralised planned socialism, or communism; and so on.

I put that quote because individualist anarchist identified themselves as socialists and viewed themselves as such. Tucker specifically called his philosophy anarchistic socialism and especially distinguished it from state socialism, even stating, "The anarchists of the Liberty magazine are socialists only in the economic sense; in the political sense, they are arch-individualists." Some took part in the Socialist International and most were part of the broad labour movement. Unlike Tucker, Lydander Spooner even opposed wage labour, "All the great establishments, of every kind, now in the hands of a few proprietors, but employing a great number of wage labourers, would be broken up; for few or no persons, who could hire capital and do business for themselves would consent to labour for wages for another."

I'd dare saying that one could be both a (political) liberal and a (economically) socialist; as you said yourself, "socialists obtained a lot of their theories from classical liberalism." It was the liberals who first talked about the class stuggle and Marx has aknoledged that. Liberalism and socialism weren't so far away as they may be today, as you say, "the economy is dominated by large corporations often with significant political power"; and liberalism wasn't merely an apology for the status quo as it's now. Ricardian and Smithian socialism is a thing too. I'm not saying that Smith or such people were socialists, just that individualist anarchism isn't pro-capitalism. Indeed, it's my understanding that anarcho-capitalism isn't reject by anarchists merely because it uses capitalism in its name but because it actually advocates it; and that individualist anarchism would still be well within the libertarian socialist, or otherwhise anti-capitalist tradition and movement. Now back to left-libertarianism.

Left-libertarianism has been used to refer to anarchism/libertarian socialism and that's why I believe Left-libertarianism to be fine as it is, including the anarchist and non-socialist wing of left-libertarianism as well as left-libertarianism in the United States (agorism, left-wing anarchism, Steiner–Vallentyne school, etc.) and the libertarian left. See David Goodman (2006), Peter Marchsall (2008), Saul Newman (2010) and The Routledge Companion to Social and Political Philosophy (2012). @The Four Deuces: I apologise for writing so much but I'm enjoying this dicussion and I find both it and your comments useful and helpful.--Davide King (talk) 03:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• There were some colonial capitalists who enjoyed the surplus value provided by their workers, such as Ben Franklin and Samuel Adams and small farmers employed farm hands. But workers had mobility within their firms or could realistically hope to set up their own. I would classify it as early capitalism rather than pre-capitalism. And it was a system that individualist anarchists could support. TFD (talk) 06:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• @The Four Deuces: I agree and actually think what you said of this is pretty much true. I just disagree with putting individualist anarchism as "pro-capitalism"; in the anarchist sense, I think it could be considered socialism, or otherwhise anti-capitalism, in line with anarchism, hence why it's recognised as school of thought, unlike anarcho-capitalism (whose opposition to it isn't merely conteining the word capitalism in its name). Perhaps it could be "petty bourgeois socialism, a socialism contruscted from the standpoint of small commodity producers which sought to improve society not by abolishing commodity but, rather, purifying commodity exchange." But still socialism, or anti-capitalism, as I understand it.--Davide King (talk) 13:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• @The Four Deuces: This diagram perfectly explains how I personally see it.--Davide King (talk) 15:34, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

  

• Davide King, I would attribute agorism to right-libertarianism. Agorism's ideological predecessors are Ludwig Mises and Murray Rothbard. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 05:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Гармонический Мир While many anarcho-capitalists may support agorism, I wouldn't consider agorism to be anarcho-capitalism in itself; it's more a of a tactic that can be adopted by different people and libertarian trends. I would still consider it part of American left-libertarianism, along with geolibertarianism and left-wing market anarchism. Konkin characterised it as a form of left-libertarianism within left-wing market anarchism. The Routledge Companion to Social and Political Philosophy (2012) includes it in the broad left-libertarianism definition. "Later it became a term for the left or Konkinite wing of the free-market libertarian movement, and has since come to cover a range of pro-market but anti-capitalist positions, mostly individualist anarchist, including agorism and mutualism, often with an implication of sympathies (such as for radical feminism or the labor movement) not usually shared by anarcho-capitalists."

• Davide King, agorists are against public ownership and social security programs. Plus, I met agorists who even support "voluntary" slavery. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 06:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Гармонический Мир Libertarian socialists are also against public ownership and social security programs; they want to abolish the state and capitalism, they support social ownership and an economic system that would support the needs of each individual, not one like capitalism that requires social security programs in the first place due to the inevitabily inequality. While I don't doubt that experience you had, it's my understanding that Misplaced Pages is based on relaible sources and verifiability and not anecdotes, even if they may be true. The source above includes agorism in the broad left-libertarianism.--Davide King (talk) 06:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Davide King, according to Minick Th. (2011) Agorism 101 the end result of agorism is anarcho-capitalist society. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 08:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Гармонический Мир As I said, there're indeed agorists who are anarcho-capitalists, but agorism is within American left-libertarianism, the range of pro-market but anti-capitalist positions. It's like that communism issue; the word communism is used to refer to Marxism–Leninism, so I wanted the text to use the latter term, but the source uses communism and there isn't much we can do about it. The Routledge Companion to Social and Political Philosophy (2012) includes it in the broad left-libertarianism definition, so it should be included.--Davide King (talk) 13:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Davide King, agorists have a rather specific understanding of anti-capitalism. For them, "anti-capitalism" is a society based on private ownership, in which wage labour and even "voluntary" slavery are permissible. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 14:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Гармонический Мир Oh, I agree with you on that. However, I have to say that while being personally a market and commodity exchange abolitionist, I have a different understanding of that. Wage labour is synonym of wage slavery only under capitalism; collectivist anarchism and other schools of anarchism may also support wage labour; and the difference would be that, with no capitalist, there would be no one to take the worker's surplus value. Also, socialists and communist don't oppose the private ownership of goods (personal property); they oppose the private ownership of both land (natural resources) and capital (indutry). They differ in whether capital should be owner and self-managed by the workers themselves, whether it should be owner cooperatively or collectively, or whether it should be common ownership. What they all have in common is that of social ownership in that the whole society have free acess to capital and the means of production. Indeed, one argument is that the market isn't free "under conditions of private ownership of productive property" because "the class differences and inequalities in income and power that result from private ownership enable the interests of the dominant class to skew the market to their favor, either in the form of monopoly and market power, or by utilizing their wealth and resources to legislate government policies that benefit their specific business interests." So to have actually free markets, there needs to be some form of social ownership. Whether self-management or market socialism are a form of self-managed capitalism or worker/labour capitalism, what Marx called petty bourgois socialism, is a matter of debate between these socialists. Anyway, back to agorism and left-libertarianism, I have sympathy for you but Misplaced Pages is based on reliable sources and we have to rely on that, so we include free-market anti-capitalism as one tendency.--Davide King (talk) 15:21, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Response from Pfhorrest

User:Davide King has put forward on his talk page a proposal for the lede of this article (as part of a larger proposal for resolving the ongoing dispute over Right-libertarianism), which sounds good to me and I would like to second here on the actual article talk page. The collapsed content below is copied directly from his talk page:

Extended content

Part of a series on Libertarianism Concepts Abstention Academic freedom Age of consent reform Anti-authoritarianism Anti-capitalism Antimilitarism Anti-statism Artistic freedom Civil liberties Class struggle Cognitive liberty Counter-economics Crypto-anarchism Decentralization Decriminalization of sex work Departurism Drug liberalization Direct action Economic freedom Egalitarianism Evictionism Expropriative anarchism Federalism (anarchist) Free association (Marxism and anarchism) Free love Free market Free-market environmentalism Free migration Free trade Freedom of assembly Freedom of association Freedom of choice Freedom of conscience Freedom of contract Freedom of information Freedom of religion Freedom of speech Freedom of thought Gift economy Homestead principle Illegalism Individualism Individualist feminism Individual reclamation Liberty Libertarianism (metaphysics) Localism Natural law Natural rights and legal rights Night-watchman state Non-aggression principle Non-interventionism Participatory economics Propaganda of the deed Property is theft! Refusal of work Reproductive rights Right to die Right to privacy Right to sexuality Self-governance Self-ownership Single tax Social ecology Spontaneous order Squatting Stateless society Tax resistance Voluntary association Voluntary society Workers' councils Workers' self-management Issues Abortion Affirmative action Anarcho-capitalism and minarchism Capital punishment Criticism Foreign intervention Immigration Intellectual property Internal debates LGBT rights Objectivism Political alliances Political parties Theories of law War on Drugs Philosophers La Boétie Locke Franklin Burke Paine Jefferson Bentham Godwin Hodgskin Warren Emerson Stirner Spooner Proudhon Andrews Bakunin Thoreau Spencer Herbert George De Cleyre Goldman Gandhi Mises Paterson Hayek Rand Friedman (Milton) Bookchin Hess Rothbard Chomsky Nozick Machan Block Friedman (David) Van Dun Konkin Hoppe Lottieri Huemer Brennan Politicians Bastiat Gladstone Acton Cleveland Coolidge Goldwater Paul Korwin-Mikke Johnson Milei Hannan Polis National variants South Africa Spain United Kingdom United States Historical background Age of Enlightenment Anarchism Aristotelianism Liberalism classical radical Related topics Abolitionism Anti-collectivism Anti-communism Anti-fascism Anti-socialism Austro-libertarianism Center for Libertarian Studies Civil libertarianism Classical liberalism Conscientious objector Constitutionalism Cultural liberalism Economic liberalism Freeman on the land movement Fusionism Geolibertarianism Georgism Green libertarianism Libertarian conservatism Libertarian Democrats Libertarian socialism Libertarian Republicans Libertarian science fiction Libertarianism in South Africa Libertarianism in the United Kingdom Libertarianism in the United States Objectivism Public choice theory Small government Sovereign citizen movement Technolibertarianism Libertarianism portal Anarchism portal Politics portal v t e Part of a series on Individualism Principles Autonomy Civil liberties Do it yourself Eremitism Free love Freethought Human rights Individual Individual rights Individual reclamation Individuation Laissez-faire Libertine Liberty Methodological individualism Negative liberty Open border Personal property Positive liberty Private property Self-actualization Self-ownership Self-sufficiency Subjectivity Philosophers Antiphon Aristippus Camus Diogenes Emerson Godwin Goldman Hayek Hess Hipparchia Igualada Ingersoll Jefferson Jung Laozi Locke Mandeville Marsden Mencken Mill Mises Montaigne Nietzsche Nozick Onfray Popper Quelle Rand Rothbard Sade Schopenhauer Smith Spencer Spooner Stirner Thoreau Tucker Voltaire Warren Wilde Yang Ideologies Autarchism Anarchism Individualist anarchism Egoist anarchism Left-wing market anarchism Social anarchism Anarcho-capitalism Egoism Ethical egoism Rational egoism Existentialism Hedonism Humanism Individualist feminism Equity feminism Liberal feminism Liberalism Classical liberalism Libertarianism Left-libertarianism Libertarian socialism Right-libertarianism Minarchism Mutualism Objectivism Subjectivism Voluntaryism Principal concerns Anti-individualism Authoritarianism Collectivism Conformity Dogmatism Group rights Herd mentality Indoctrination Mass society Mobbing Social engineering Statism Tyranny Tyranny of the majority Theocracy Totalitarianism v t e Libertarianism (from Template:Lang-la, meaning "freedom"), or libertarism (from Template:Lang-fr, meaning "libertarian"), is a collection of political philosophies and movements that uphold liberty as a core principle. Libertarians seek to maximize political freedom and autonomy, emphasizing freedom of choice, voluntary association and individual judgement. Libertarians share a skepticism of authority and state power, but they diverge on the scope of their opposition to existing economic and political systems. Various schools of libertarian thought offer a range of views regarding the legitimate functions of state and private power, often calling for the restriction or dissolution of coercive social institutions. Libertarianism originated as a form of left-wing politics and refers to anti-authoritarian and anti-state socialists such as anarchists and more generally libertarian communists and libertarian socialists. Left-libertarian ideologies seek to abolish capitalism and private ownership of the means of production, or else to restrict their purview or effects, in favor of common or cooperative ownership and management, viewing private property as a barrier to freedom and liberty. Left-libertarian ideologies include anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, egoist anarchism and mutualism, alongside many other anti-paternalist, New Left schools of thought centered around economic egalitarianism. Right-libertarian ideologies such as anarcho-capitalism and minarchism co-opted the word libertarian in the mid-20th century to instead advocate laissez-faire capitalism and strong private property rights such as in land, infrastructure and natural resources. Boaz, David (30 January 2009). "Libertarianism". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 21 February 2017. ibertarianism, political philosophy that takes individual liberty to be the primary political value. Woodcock, George (2004) . Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements. Peterborough, Ont.: Broadview Press. p. 16. ISBN 9781551116297. for the very nature of the libertarian attitude—its rejection of dogma, its deliberate avoidance of rigidly systematic theory, and, above all, its stress on extreme freedom of choice and on the primacy of the individual judgement. Boaz, David (1999). "Key Concepts of Libertarianism". Cato Institute. Retrieved 25 January 2017. "What Is Libertarian?". Institute for Humane Studies. Retrieved 16 February 2017. Long, Joseph. W (1996). "Toward a Libertarian Theory of Class". Social Philosophy and Policy. 15 (2): 310. "When I speak of 'libertarianism' I mean all three of these very different movements. It might be protested that LibCap , LibSoc and LibPop are too different from one another to be treated as aspects of a single point of view. But they do share a common—or at least an overlapping—intellectual ancestry." Kropotkin, Peter (1927). Anarchism: A Collection of Revolutionary Writings. Courier Dover Publications. p. 150. ISBN 9780486119861. It attacks not only capital, but also the main sources of the power of capitalism: law, authority, and the State. Otero, Carlos Peregrin (2003). "Introduction to Chomsky's Social Theory". In Otero, Carlos Peregrin (ed.). Radical Priorities. Chomsky, Noam Chomsky (3rd ed.). Oakland, California: AK Press. p. 26. ISBN 1-902593-69-3. Chomsky, Noam (2003). Carlos Peregrin Otero (ed.). Radical Priorities (3rd ed.). Oakland, California: AK Press. pp. 227–228. ISBN 1-902593-69-3. Vallentyne, Peter (March 2009). "Libertarianism". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2009 ed.). Stanford, California: Stanford University. Retrieved 5 March 2010. Libertarianism is committed to full self-ownership. A distinction can be made, however, between right-libertarianism and left-libertarianism, depending on the stance taken on how natural resources can be owned. Carlson, Jennifer D. (2012). "Libertarianism". In Miller, Wilburn R., ed. The Social History of Crime and Punishment in America. London: Sage Publications. p. 1006. ISBN 1412988764. "There exist three major camps in libertarian thought: right-libertarianism, socialist libertarianism, and left-libertarianism. ocialist libertarians advocate for the simultaneous abolition of both government and capitalism." Fernandez, Frank (2001). Cuban Anarchism. The History of a Movement. Sharp Press. p. 9. "Thus, in the United States, the once exceedingly useful term 'libertarian' has been hijacked by egotists who are in fact enemies of liberty in the full sense of the word." Rothbard, Murray (2009) . The Betrayal of the American Right (PDF). Mises Institute. p. 83. ISBN 978-1610165013. One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, 'our side,' had captured a crucial word from the enemy. 'Libertarians' had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over. Hussain, Syed B. (2004). Encyclopedia of Capitalism, Volume 2. New York: Facts on File Inc. p. 492. ISBN 0816052247. In the modern world, political ideologies are largely defined by their attitude towards capitalism. Marxists want to overthrow it, liberals to curtail it extensively, conservatives to curtail it moderately. Those who maintain that capitalism is a excellent economic system, unfairly maligned, with little or no need for corrective government policy, are generally known as libertarians.

--Pfhorrest (talk) 05:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with user Davide King's proposal. But I think that it's worth also mentioning such currents as geolibertarianism (Georgism) and left-wing market anarchism.

P.S. Can any of the administrators consider Davide King's unblock request?

Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 07:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• Agreed about those inclusions as well. --Pfhorrest (talk) 08:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• This is basically opening 2 or 3 forks from a long-running discussion and making competing proposals. May I suggest that all interested parties join the main discussion? And somebody can relay Davids thoughts. North8000 (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Since Right-libertarianism is a sub-article of this article and all the discussed changes would impact its relationship to this article and the sibling sub-article Left-libertarianism, the main discussion should be happening here. --Pfhorrest (talk) 23:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't agree, for the reasons described above and....A brand new idea to start tying in other articles IMO should not be a justification to start a fork (and float competing ideas) from a very substantial discussion that has been evolving for months. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:15, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

It's not the merge proposal that prompts me to move the discussion here. I've been trying to move the discussion to here ever since the discussion at Talk:Right-libertarianism turned toward seriously considering repurposing the entire article from its current place in the organizational structure. Even without the merge proposal, changing from the current structure of Libertarianism with sub-articles Left-libertarianism and Right-libertarianism should happen here at the parent article. For most of these months I've just been against the various ever-changing proposals that have been floated over there; the merge proposal is just an idea for a change I could actually get behind. Without it, we're just back the same impasse we've been at, but that should still be involving everyone here, not just right-libertarians who hate that name. --Pfhorrest (talk) 23:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

That's a not-nice and inaccurate characterization. I see neutral knowledgeable people there just trying to figure out the best thing to do.North8000 (talk) 23:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

North's general thoughts

My efforts on libertarian articles over 10 years have been more as a facilitator than someone with strong opinions on the topics being discussed. This expanded into be a sort of mediator years ago when there were range wars at Libertarianism. The decision back then for the article is I think a good one for all of the libertarian articles which to cover all significant aspects of libertarianism. Contentious articles are usually fueled by some real-world contest/battle being played out in Misplaced Pages. Thank goodness I don't think that we have that here. I think that most or all participants want to simply do the best thing. The biggest challenge, probably uniquely strong here is that people have learned this topic and sources have covered this topic through fundamentally different frameworks and even different languages amongst the English languages. The latter refers to the words "libertarianism" and "liberal" having very different (but partially overlapping) meanings in the US vs. Europe. So here are some of those different lenses:

• Fundamentally different English languages spoken in Europe vs. the US on political science terms like "libertarianism" and "liberal"
• The numerically largest form of libertarianism is a large vague phenomena in the US, with 23% of Americans identifying as libertarians and 27% with libertarian voting pattern. It is not useful to try to define it as a philosophical strand. Operating in areas of libertarian where it is useful to dedine them primarily as philosophical strands creates a lens or bias. Even less useful to apply a foreign lens to it. For example, defining US libertarianism as being a pro-capitalism ideology is like defining European conservative ideology as one that is anti-canibalism.

It's pretty cool that we have so many conversations going on regarding coverage of libertarianism. It also presents a challenge that if we're talking about a zillion things at once we might not get anything done. Possibly the work we were doing at Right-libertarianism is now jammed up. Perhaps we should focus on a large scale general outline for libertarianism articles, while putting the above described "lenses" aside.

1. Top level article: Libertarianism
2. Keep and enhance articles about the strands of libertarianism with genuine unique names that have more or less consistent meanings.
3. Deprecate all of the other "two word" libertarianism articles into short articles about those terms and who uses those terms. So, if you have a "dogs" article, and 200 articles about the breeds of dogs, the "big dogs" article would be about the meanings and usage of the term "big dogs", not duplicate coverage about 100 breeds of dogs that somebody considers to be big.

Use this just as a general guide, there will be exceptions and special cases. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@North8000: Numerical numbers are worthless. For over one hundred year, libertarian has been used in relation of anarchism and libertarian socialism; and it continues these days in most countries. We could also just easily say that 90% of Americans are liberals because conservatism, liberalism and modern liberalism are all variants of liberalism. I also don't understand your example in "defining US libertarianism as being a pro-capitalism ideology is like defining European conservative ideology as one that is anti-canibalism." While not all libertarianism is a "pro-capitalism idelogy", some libertarianisms indeed are. Could you also more clear and give example of articles about "the strands of libertarianism with genuine unique names that have more or less consistent meanings" as well as the "two word" libertarianism articles" you keep referencing to, but without giving any example? Because there may be some that could be merged into a Libertarian schools of thought articles, but Left-libertarianism and Right-libertarianism aren't some of them. Could you also please make more political pertinents examples? Should we also delete democratic socialism, social democracy, social liberalism, classical liberalism, conservative liberalism, national conservatism, social conservatism, liberal conservatism et all other "two word" political related articles? Should we merge all of them in socialism, liberalism and conservatism articles? Most of these "two word" libertarianism articles don't refer to Libertarianism but rather to a specific strand of it, hence they have their articles. However, we could put them all in Libertarian schools of thought. Articles like Consequentialist libertarianism, Natural-rights libertarianism, Neoclassical liberalism and Neo-libertarianism are all short and could be included in the Libertarian shools of thought. I just disagree with deleting or merging Left-libertarianism and Right-libertarianism.--Davide King (talk) 10:37, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I think that I should reword my proposal for more clarity and fine-tuning, but your question points to a misread of something important that I did include. The likely fate of targeted articles isn't limited to "merge";just as likely would be to reduce the articles to be primarily about the term and it's usage. The reductions will invariably be material that is duplicated from other articles that are in the main plan anyway. Regarding the specific ones that you ask about, my proposal would just be setting the criteria framework between the two possibilities. Persons who know those terms/topics better than I (typically the main editors at those articles) would make the decision based on those criteria. North8000 (talk) 18:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the "I don't understand your example". "Anti-canibalism" is not a defining aspect of European conservatism, they merely tacitly accept anti-canibalims as the norm. If another strand of conservatism somewhere in the world advocates cannibalism, is not a reason to define European conservatism ideology as "anti-canibalism". Analogously, common American libertarianism tacitly accepts capitalism. Analogously, the fact that a different strand of libertarianism may oppose capitalism is not a reason to say that "pro-capitalism" or "anti-canibalism" are planks of the common US version. North8000 (talk) 19:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

The use of the "right" prefix

As we have seen, the term "right-libertarianism" is rather controversial. The proper context needs to be provided for readers regarding those who employ it and their reasons for doing so. This cannot all be accomplished in the lede. I have attempted to remedy this situation and user Davide King has repeatedly reverted my edits. In the current last sentence of the lede, a new employment of the term "libertarian" is described. The sources provided do not employ "right" as a prefix, but just "libertarian". JLMadrigal @ 11:44, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@JLMadrigal: Please, stop editing it and discuss it here. It isn't "rather controversial" in reliable sources. I just added the sources that use right-libertarian. You also don't seem concered with Left-libertarian ideologies include anarchist schools of thought alongside many other anti-paternalist, New Left schools of thought centered around economic egalitarianism as well as American left-libertarianism such as geolibertarianism, left-wing market anarchism and the Steiner–Vallentyne school. They generally don't refer as left-libertarian either. We decided to make Libertarianism broad (there's already Libertarianism in the United States for what you're searching for) and therefore we use left-libertarian and right-libertarian, even if both may call thesmelves simply libertarians. This is a categorisation supported by many reliable sources and since Left-libertarianism and Right-libertarianism are still here to stay, they should be mentioned in the lead that way.--Davide King (talk) 13:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Since this use of the term "right" is at odds with common use - which typically implies nationalism, religiosity, and restrictions on personal liberties (which the ideology in question vehemently opposes) - it is inevitably confusing to the average reader. Thus a clear explanation of such nuanced usage is required early on. JLMadrigal @ 04:52, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@JLMadrigal: Ugh, how many times I have to repeat you that the term doesn't imply that but merely that it's to the right of the libertarian movement; whether you agree or not with socialism on the left and capitalism on the right, that's the way political scientists have put it. You're also again conflating libertarianism in the United States with right-libertarianism as a whole; not all libertarianism in the United States is right-libertarian, so I don't see your issue beside "I don't like it". Also the same is done with left-libertarianism and left-libertarians but I don't see you moaning about that.--Davide King (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Request for Comment Regarding the Use of the Prefix "Right-" to Describe Proponents of Libertarian So-Called "Capitalist" Economics

A discussion that has been taking place for quite some time, and that had been nearly settled - originally on the "right-libertarian" talk page, and now on this discussion site - has stalled due to two editors (one of which was recently banned from editing - no doubt for similar conduct). It involves the confusing use of the term "right-libertarian" to describe an ideology that is admittedly not identified with the political right. Self-described "left-libertarians" have a nuanced definition of "capitalism" that distinguishes it from the "free-market" with which the group in question identifies. The "right-libertarian" page was to be renamed with a term that is more understandable, and this page was to incorporate a clarification of the usage of the term. JLMadrigal @ 20:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

• I'll take the question as to be whether to call the form of libertarianism common in the US and other similar forms that at least tacitly accept capitalism "Right-libertarian". IMO the answer should be NO. The first reason is that it violates wp:CommonName. It is not called that where it is practiced, and it is also not the common name where it isn't practiced. The only place that term is used is in a small circle of writers who are centric on forms of libertarianism which reject capitalism and define forms of libertarianism which accept capitalism through the lens of their own form. The numbers of participants in capitalist-accepting form of libertarians are huge. Polls have it that 27% of the US votes that way, and 23% self-identifies as such. For the practitioners, "right-libertarian" is not only not the common name, it is an oxymoron, naming it after a political group (the "right") which about 1/2 of their ideology is diametrically opposed to. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 21:58, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

• @North8000: No one is saying, nor me nor anyone else, to rename Libertarianism in the United States to Right-libertarianism in the United States. I already explained that not all libertarianism in the United States is right-libertarian and that JLMadrigal is conflating libertarianism in the United States with right-libertarianism as a whole and viceversa. I'm honestly tired of this when there're clearly reliable sources that support the current consensus and other users that also found no issues with it back in July.--Davide King (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
• @North8000: Once again, what you're referring to when you say "Polls have it that 27% of the US votes that way, and 23% self-identifies as such" is already discussed in Libertarianism in the United Statesǃ Libertarianism in the United States refers to that; right-libertarianism refers to another thing, hence why they're separated.--Davide King (talk) 22:26, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

• I think that a lot of discussion at the right-libertarian article has established that the current topic is the form which is most-practiced in the US. My point in brining up the numbers/prevalence here is realted to my CommonName argument. If I'm not mistaken, I think that you would agree with this statement(?) North8000 (talk) 22:34, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

• @North8000: There's no consensus to do what you and JLMadrigal support. @Pfhorrest: and I are opposed to that. Whatever our differences, Pfhorrest, @The Four Deuces: and I seem to agree on right-libertarianism. All the users that opposed the move back in July also agree with this position; @Velociraptor888: also opposed your proposals. You're clearly in minority, but JLMadrigal acts like it's a majority in support of its own proposal. I think you and JLMadrigal simply have a wrong understanding of the matter. Despite being more prominent and known than left-libertarianism in the United States, right-libertarianism is still a minority within libertarianism in the United States, whose majority is closer to classical liberalism or a more radical variant of it, exampled by the Libertarian Party, rather than Nozick's minarchism or Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism. Right-libertarianism refers to the Rothbard–Nozick libertarianism that has expanded worldwide and not just to libertarianism in the United States as you may think. This would include many libertarian parties that have been founded worldwide but that called themselves libertarians because they saw their own country's classical liberal party as not liberal and anti-statist enough. Also I repeat that while self-identification is important, it's not everything, especially when libertarianism is so broad to identify two or more vastly different libertarians as libertarian. Nazis identified themselves as national-socialists, but political sources and reliable source refers to them as German fascism. Many populists also don't identify with either the left and the right, but that doesn't stop political scientists and reliable sources from identifying and labelling them as right-wing populists instead. I think Libertarianism should be like Populism, with a main article like this and two sub-articles like Left-libertarianism (Left-wing populism) and Right-libertarianism (Right-wing populism). Misplaced Pages bases itself on reliable sources and verifiabily, so self-labelling isn't enough to justify the removal of a prefix, especially when it's done to distinguish different strands of libertarians. All of JLMadrigal's proposals are biased in favor of its own brand of libertarianism because, besides a minority in the United States, left-libertarians don't label themselves as such either, but it doesn't care. Indeed, all of this was a compromise so as not having to decide who was the true libertarian (so Libertarianism includes both and we also have Left-libertarianism and Right-libertarianism that refers more to a specific strand of libertarianism).--Davide King (talk) 23:50, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
• I repeat that you're confusing right-libertarianism for libertarianism in the United States and viceversa. Your numbers don't mean much, especially when it's been established by a similar poll that many people who identify as libertarian don't even know what the word means. Misplaced Pages works by reliable sources, not merely numbers or polls like that. Either way, I repeat that what you're referring to when you say "Polls have it that 27% of the US votes that way, and 23% self-identifies as such" is libertarianism in the United States; right-libertarianism doesn't necessarely refer to that.--Davide King (talk) 23:50, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

• As I recall, @Гармонический Мир:, @PhilLiberty:, @Work permit: and @The Four Deuces: also oppose keeping the current title for the right-libertarianism page, and seek clarification of the usage of the term in this article. JLMadrigal @ 06:04, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about that, besides PhilLiberty, who has also made other questionable and POV-pushing edits. Either way, you didn't include the ones who rejected the move and found nothing wrong with the current title back in July.--Davide King (talk) 11:20, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
• JLMadrigal, I need to make a clarification. I'm not opposed to term right-libertarianism. I'm opposed to Left- and Right-libertarianism being separate articles. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 12:12, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

• I’m away for the holiday weekend so can’t comment at length but I wanted to point any editors new to here to the extensive rebuttals to North and Madrigal’s arguments above.

Also this RFC seems improperly worded (you’re supposed to neutrality frame the debate and Madrigal has not done so) and in the wrong list (this should be under political science or philosophy, not economy companies etc). —Pfhorrest (talk) 04:18, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

• Since the core of the debate is the nuanced interpretation of the word "capitalism", and whether an economic interpretation of free markets can be readily separated from it, I am soliciting experts in the field of economics. While political views of the libertarians in question regarding personal liberty clearly fall to the left on a standard political chart, and while such positioning clearly disallows positioning it to the right, further supporting revision of the title, the main issue is economic more than political. Libertarians in general - including those described - tend to be apolitical or antipolitical, and seek nonpolitical (primarily economic) solutions to social problems. JLMadrigal @ 06:30, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Pfhorrest: I absolutely agree about the way this RfC has been worded. I would also say that this isn't a decision that can be based merely on personal thoughts and opinions but rather on what reliable sources say. As far as I'm aware, reliable sources support the current naming and consensus. @JLMadrigal: This comment clearly show your bias in seeing capitalism as the free market when this isn't supported by facts nor by the Capitalism lead.--Davide King (talk) 11:20, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
• I also reitarate my results:

1. Right-libertarianism — common name (Google Scholar results 38.500; left libertarianism is at 32.700)
2. Libertarianism (common U.S. meaning) — more approprate as a proposal for Libertarianism in the United States, which is prefered due to not having disambiguation and consistency with similar articles such as Conservatism, Liberalism, Modern liberalism and Progressivism in the United States (Google Scholar results 44.900, but conflated as they're about what's talked in Libertarianism in the United States)
3. Libertarianism (U.S. usage) — as above (Google Scholar 10.200)
4. Libertarianism (common U.S. usage) — as above (Google Scholar 28.600)
5. Modern libertarianism — biased as modern libertarianism include much more than that (Google Scholar 32.700)
6. Libertarian capitalism — the less worse title, but still less common than right-libertarianism, although it could be a separate article discussing laissez-faire capitalism (Google Scholar 32.700)
7. Contemporary libertarianism — biased as contemporany libertarianism include much more than that (Google Scholar 30.900)
8. Mainstream libertarianism — biased as it's only the mainstream in the United States (Google Scholar 14.400)
9. American libertarianism — already redirects to Libertarianism in the United States and rightfully so; still, the article should be about this form internationally and nore just in the United States (Google Scholar 35.600)
10. American-style libertarianism — not the worst option; indeed the International Alliance of Libertarian Parties is what I'd describe as American-style libertarianism since the parties themselves were based off the American Libertarian Party; still biased as American libertarianism also includes left-libertarianism (Google Scholar 3.810 as American-style libertarianism and 16.300 as American style libertarianism)
11. Negative-rights libertarianism — it seems to overlap with Natural-rights libertarianism (Google Scholar 3.960 as negative-rights libertarianism; 23.000 as negative rights libertarianism)
12. Laissez-faire libertarianism — it'd be like calling socialism Social-ownership socialism, or calling communism Common-ownership communism (Google Scholar 19.500)
13. Free-market libertarianism — see above (Google Scholar 26.100)
14. Center-north libertarianism — found not a single use of this term (Google Scholar 107; not one that actually refers to it)
15. Libertarian (political typology) — the article isn't about a voter demographic; it should be a separate article and titled Libertarian (U.S. political typology) to clarify it what type of libertarin it refers to (Google Scholar 18.000)
16. Libertarian — should just redirect to Libertarianism; we also already have Libertarianism (disambiguation), if you want this proposed page to be similar to a disambiguation page that explains the terms (Google Scholar 166.000; false results as it can refers to anything related to libertarianism).

All in all, all these terms are mainly related to Libertarianism in the United States (hence why some of them may have much higher results when searching on Google) and not refer to the specific concept of right-libertarianism (not all Libertarianism in the United States is right-libertarianism). So I'd give only right-libertarianism "good idea" and all the rest "bad idea". And surprise, surprise, right-libertarianism has the most results on Google Scholar, even more than names that referred to libertarianism in broad terms.

Right-libertarianism is the common name; other names proposed here either refer to libertarianism in the United States or are biased and irrelevant in comparision. Although I can respect North8000's opinions and proposals while disagreeing with them, JLMadrigal's are based in I don't like it rather than reliable sources. JLMadrigal is only concerned about right-libertarianism and isn't concerned with left-libertarianism, which is just as oxymoronic as right-libertarianism, since libertarianism originated as a left-wing philosophy and movement that has now over 150 years of history, which for JLMadrigal don't matter.--Davide King (talk) 12:01, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

When we were headed towards a resolution, it was simply that, and very different than my opinions at the beginning of that lengthy discussion. This RFC isn't about that, it is a narrower question regarding the "right-libertarian" term. North8000 (talk) 12:36, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

What resolution? There can't be no resolution without also considering the users who saw nothing wrong with the title back in July, or Velociraptor888, who also saw nothing wrong with the title and opposed the merge; nor without considering all the reliable sources that support it. So what's this new discussion even about? It's simply JLMadrigal again not liking that we use right-libertarian; but not caring about the same being applied to left-libertarian.--Davide King (talk) 12:58, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

We had settled on Option 16 "Libertarian". "Libertarianism" describes a range of political philosophies, while "libertarian" describes those who identify with the most common use of the term, and typically don't have a political agenda - other than freedom from politics and politicians. These are distinct topics. Although we had a majority, the title dispute is more a question of having an accurate and understandable title and article. While so-called "left-libertarians" have strong opinions on the way things should be, minarchists and anarcho-capitalists tend to concur that markets left to themselves tend to autocorrect - thus tend to oppose politics in general. JLMadrigal @ 13:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

"We" who exactly? That surely doesn't include me or all other users that see nothing wrong with the term. It wasn't a decision based on reliable sources (what Misplaced Pages is based on, along with verifiability) but merely on personal opinions. Anarchists and other left-libertarian and libertarian socialists also tend to oppose politics in general; and classical liberals also tend to concur that markets left to themselves tend to autocorrect, so what's your point?--Davide King (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Libertarianism is about libertarianism in broad terms, including both left-libertarianism, right-libertarianism and libertarianism in the United States; Left-libertarianism is about anarchism/libertarian socialism, socialist libertarianism and other anti-capitalist and egalitarian, if not socialist, left-leaning philosophies such as Georgism, the Steiner–Vallentyne school and American left-libertarianism such as Carson–Long and other left-Rothbardian libertarians; Right-libertarianism is about Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism and Nozick's minarchism (whether you agree with this doesn't matter as that's what reliable sources refer to); and Libertarianism in the United States is about American libertarianism in broad terms, including classical liberals (fiscally conservative/economical liberal and cultural liberal/progressive), left-libertarians such as the Steiner–Vallentyne school and Carson–Long and other left-Rothbardian libertarians; centrist/mainstream libertarians; and right-libertarians, the libertarians that are culturally conservative. What do you disagree with any of this, JLMadrigal?--Davide King (talk) 13:56, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Here is the tally: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Right-libertarianism#Results

We had decided that "libertarian" is a common political typology used by voters, pollsters, and individuals, and that "libertarianism" refers more generally to the range of political ideologies and agendas so identified. We decided to keep and rename the article, with few changes, and keep a "right-libertarianism" page for the purpose of disambiguation. JLMadrigal @ 14:09, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

That tally doesn't include mine and other users that already saw nothing wrong with right-libertarianism. I'm not opposed to a libertarian political typology such as Libertarian (political typology) or Libertarian (U.S. political typology), or a Libertarian disambiguation page. What I'm opposed to is renaming Right-libertarianism or deleting/merging Right-libertarianism and Left-libertarianism.--Davide King (talk) 14:22, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Case in point. You describe "right-libertarians" as "the libertarians that are culturally conservative". That is Libertarian conservatism, which already has its own article. JLMadrigal @ 15:11, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

No, I was saying that in the United States right-libertarianism refers to culturally conservative libertarians such as with paleolibertarianism whereas outside of the United States it refers to Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism and Nozick's minarchism.--Davide King (talk) 15:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

That tally was conducted in a method completely made up and independent of Misplaced Pages procedures and does not at all reflect consensus as Misplaced Pages policy means it. There has been clear ongoing dispute here this entire time and you can’t just pretend there was consensus because you want to announce that you’ve won. —Pfhorrest (talk) 17:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

@Pfhorrest: 100% this. Now JLMadrigal has been spamming this message to many users, but as perfectly told and explained by Pfhorrest before:

So JLMadrigal can take all the users it wants, but what matters is what reliable sources say, not our own personal opinions, especially in such a contentious situation. I'd be happy too if this wole thing just dropped. You're free to create a libertarian political typology such as Libertarian (political typology) or Libertarian (U.S. political typology), or a Libertarian disambiguation page; perhaps we should do the same for other ideologies too. That's why we have Libertarianism and Libertarianism in the United States, that was a perfect compromise/solution. And JLMadrigal continues to show its bias in saying that he term is primarily used in a derogatory way and by self-described "left-libertarians" which just isn't true and was already established when a move was rejected back in July 2019. Or when it says that regarding the use of the term "right libertarian" to describe libertarians that do not oppose free markets, and that do not make a clear distinction between laissez-faire capitalism and advocacy of free markets, conflating free markets and capitalism, ignoring all the anti-capitalist and socialist, free-market history. Or the ice on the cake, when it says that he individuals described in that article, and in the poorly-titled right-libertarianism article do not typically identify with the political right - or the political for that matter. The Right- in right-libertarianism doesn't refer to right-wing politics, although some reliable sources see it as part of it and not in contradiction with principles as stated in Right-wing politics, like seeing hierarchy and inequality as natural or inevitable, etc.; it mainly refers to the right-wing of the libertarian movement and that's what many reliable sources refer too. Futhermore, it's also wrong to say that they don't identify with the political right; on certain issues, whether culturally, economically or socially, some libertarians do (Hans-Herman Hoppe and Lew Rockwell). Later in his life, Rothbard himself became associated to right-wing populism with his paleolibertarianism. I already explained why self-labelling isn't always everything.

This is no longer good faith but an I don't like based on ideologic grounds; and it doesn't seem to stop until it gets what it wants, hence why this whole diatribe has been going on and on for months and months; and it continues even now, when as far as I'm aware sources support the current consensus.--Davide King (talk) 05:29, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Sourcess overwhelmingly call the topic of the article libertarianism. There are Misplaced Pages issues with trying to use that name. We are trying to figure out how to name the article given those challenges. North8000 (talk) 13:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Sources that differentiate between types of "libertarianism" overwhelmingly call this type "right-libertarianism". Again, like "association football", which is overwhelmingly just called "football", except when distinguishing it from other types of "football", where it is overwhelmingly called "association football". But please, try to find any other sourced name for this type of libertarianism as distinguished from others. --Pfhorrest (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@North8000: Could you please clarify that and what exactly kind of libertarianism are you referring to? If you're referring to right-libertarianism, it's already stated in the lead that This position is contrasted with that of left-libertarianism, to which it is often compared, hence the name; and that reliable sources call it that name (the common name, as can be seen in the Google Scholar research above); reliable sources also refer to certain libertarians, who may simply label themselves libertarians (then again, many so-called left-libertarians also simply call themelves libertarians too, so why the double standard?), as right-libertarians. Nazis call themselves National Socialists, but reliable sources refer to them as fascists and we do the same on Misplaced Pages too; we also note that they simply call themselves libertarians and wikilink to Libertarianism in the United States. Once again, you seem to be confusing Right-libertarianism with Libertarianism in the United States. Sourcess overwhelmingly call the topic of the article libertarianism; that's correct and that's why we have Libertarianism in the United States; Right-libertarianism doesn't refer just to libertarianism in the United States, but to the expanding of a certain strand of American libertarianism that has expanded worldwide and which I believe should be talked about more in the article, yet we're still discussing this when, as told by Pfhorrest, this isn't following Misplaced Pages's guidelines or procedures; and we could have used all this time to improve the article. If you're referring to libertarianism as Libertarianism, then you seem to ignore all its pre-20th century's history.--Davide King (talk) 21:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Davide King: This topic has fractured all over the place and has also jumped out of the article in question. The "what I'm referring to" is a broader chicken-and-egg question about whether the article should exist and what it's topic should be. And, on that topic, I was going by the "consensus on the early phases" from the extensive work at the article, a finding that was different than what I had suggested. For better or worse, the current phase is an RFC on whether or not to title that article "right libertarianism". I don't consider this RFC to be any big solution, it's just one question. My comment above had the narrow purpose of showing that your implied claim that going by sources supports use of the "right libertarian" term is not correct. If one is going to raise the "use in sources" aspect of article naming, it is simply "use in sources", not "use in sources vastly narrowed by selective qualifiers". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@North8000: That could be because Misplaced Pages's guidelines weren't followed. I don't understand why all the users who opposed the move back in July 2019 and also saw nothing wrong with the current title shouldn't be considered. Right-libertarianism is the Rothbard–Nozick school. Then show me your sources and let's compare them. And what do you mean by vastly narrowed by selective qualifiers?--Davide King (talk) 00:03, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

What I meant is that wp:RS = nearly everything that is published. That would mean all references to what is the topic of the article. And I think that it's a reasonable guess that about 99.99% of all mentiopns of such call it one-word "libertarianism" or "libertarian". Answering your question the "vastly narrowed by selective qualifiers" might be "just writers that are also talking about left libertarianism and seeing it through the lens of giving it a name that distinguishes it from left libertarianism". To use my earlier analogy, for someone who writes about cannibalism, they'd probably want to name the article on Europen culture as "non cannibalistic culture" and to only use sources who are trying to make that distinction. :-) North8000 (talk) 03:35, 10 December 2019 (UTC).

@North8000: I still don't get your anti-cannibalism example; honestly, @Pfhorrest: gave better examples, sorry. Anti-capitalism has been a defining feature of libertarianism until the 1970s, when capitalism was being positvely used as free market. Libertarianism literally originated as a communist ideology that rejected all authority and hierarchies, including that of market and property, although then it became used to refer to anarchism as a whole. So yeah, I would still say anti-capitalism is a defining aspect of libertarianism. The problem is that libertarianism is also used to refer to liberal ideologies that are opposed to American liberalism and thus libertarian is simply a renaming on that, so that's why you see classical liberals like Locke or Smith wrongly called libertarians or libertarian theorists when in the rest of the world they're simply called liberals because libertarian still means anarchism, anti-capitalism, libertarian socialism and social anarchism. You and JLMadrigal simply have an American-centric view of libertarianism, when this is the English Misplaced Pages, not the American Misplaced Pages. Do you disagree with any of the sources in the article? Do you have better ones or that disagree with the current ones? Show them.

Anyway, why don't you actually show some of these sources? You can't just say that it's a reasonable guess that about 99.99% of all mentiopns of such call it one-word "libertarianism" or "libertarian", it would be original research. As stated by Pfhorrest, sources differentiate between types of libertarianism and don't call them all just libertarianism exactly to distinguish each one, so I don't see what's the problem with all that; only in the United States do left-libertarians call themselves as such but in the rest of the world they simply call themeslves libertarians, so why you and JLMadrigal seem only concerned about right-libertarians not being called libertarians when the same is also done for left-libertarians?--Davide King (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Davide, doing a good job at responding to all of that would require a book rather than a post. So just a few notes instead. First I need to correct you on one item. "wp:original research" is what Misplaced Pages calls it when you put normal conversation into article space. Elsewhere (such as in article talk pages) it's just called normal, fully legitimate conversation.

Libertarianism is an English word which has different (but overlapping) meanings in the US vs Europe. The vast majority of people who self-identify as such are in the US (roughly 70 million people) and thus the vast majority of use of the term in wp:RS's (for numbers think every printed and on-line US newspaper and magazine, or think about numbers of usage of the word "liberal" in European publications) is single-word libertarian or libertarianism. This is not an argument for a US-centric view, but it is an argument against a Eurocentric view / analyzing/describing it through a European lens, which IMO is the basis of most of the statements and arguments in your post. BTW one compromise might be to keep the title but make it just an article about the term. Who uses it, and what the meanings are in that usage. Many arguments could support that. In addition to the above, an additional argument would be that anything beyond that would be duplication of material that is already in other articles. North8000 (talk) 13:24, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

@North8000: Still, I'm curious to see your sources. That's exactly why we have both Libertarianism and Libertarianism in the United States. Numbers don't mean much, especially if they're based on polls, one of each was how over 20% self-identified libertarians don't know what the word means. You also seem to not include all the anarchists and libertarian socialists who are libertarians too and have been ever since the 19th century, still are today; and this isn't Eurocentric either. One could just as easily say that 80–90% of Americans are liberals, including conservatives, liberals, libertarians et all; or I could just as easily argue that this should be mainly about the anti-capitalist, libertarian and socialist left because in the United States it's still well within the liberal tradition, just opposed to social liberalism. So why do you think mine is through European lens rathn just through factual lens? I still think you see libertarianism as what we describe in Libertarianism in the United States. Anyway, what's the point in making about the term? We don't do the same about Liberalism or any other ideologies, I just don't see how this is so different, but I stay open minded and to listen your proposal. How would that version look like? What would you remove, what would you add in terms of sections? Could you make a saandbox about it? Thank you.--Davide King (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

P.S. @North8000: The American sources that refers to libertarianism in the United States rather than libertarianism in broad terms and outside it, we use/add them to Libertarianism in the United States rather than here, beside the United States section; furthermore, there're many sources that don't use the way you describe it, so I don't see the issue with that. Conservatism and Liberalism are about the ideology in broad terms and we have Conservatism in the Unted States and Liberalism in the United States to talk about it through American lens, so I don't see why with Libertarianism and Libertarianism in the United States should be any different.--Davide King (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Again, lots of big topics there. I'll make a few comments and then try to respond more thoroughly on your questions about my compromise proposal. The context of me bringing up numbers here are one of the areas where they are relevant in Misplaced Pages which is prevalence of use in wp:RS's being a guiding factor in naming and article naming. Regarding the purpose of making it an article about the term, one short term purpose is of course, a compromise to settle this debate. But I also see it as a part of a big picture solution to optimize coverage of libertarianism in Misplaced Pages. The thought process starts with considering libertarianism to consist of philosophies,ideologies, phenomena, happennings, organizations, and including those over history. And so I'd advocate that the primary and "most legitimate" coverage about libertarianism be centric on those things. I'll call those the "group 1" articles. Then there are articles where the topic or term is really a mere "lens" looking at all of those things. Whether it be an attempted taxonomy scheme, (e.g. right-libertarian), talking about a concept of a fusion between philosophies or between philosophies (most of the compound names like Libertarian Republican, Libertarian Socialist) where the only thing that is unique to the article is the "lens".....everything seen through the lens is already in one of the "Group 1" articles. So the latter articles would acknowledge that they are about the lens, not everything that is seen through the lens. For the "right libertarian" article, we'd start by looking at the sources that really, really really use the term which I suspect will be authors trying to create some organizational and terminology system to deal with the herd of cats that libertarianism is. Then the article would cover their efforts, terminology, and varying definitions of the terminology. But not cover the "group 1" topics seen through the lens. I think that a good analogy is if we had a dogs article, and articles on each breed of dog, and then made a "big dogs" article, it would acknowledge that "big dogs" it's just an organizational lens with varying meanings. North8000 (talk) 22:46, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

@North8000: Could you please show me a table or a sandbox about it? For instance, what articles would you put in group 1 and other groups? Still, I don't get your dog example; why not just make a political one? Libertarianism should be like Populism, with Libertarianism being its main page as it is now, Left-libertarianism and Right-libertarianism like Left-wing populism and Right-wing populism and all other Libertarian articles, if they're notable, otherwhise we can merge all them in Libertarian schools of thought or something like that, so we would have Libertarianism, Left-libertarianism, Right-libertarianism (which could inslude also Libertarianism in South Africa and Libertarianism in the United Kingdom since it's mainly about American-style libertarianism exported there), several notable Libertarian articles like Libertarian paternalism or Libertarian socialism and the others Libertarian articles like Natural-rights libertarianism, Neo-libertarianism, etc. or merge the latter into Libertarianism in the United States or Libertarian schools of thought. One thing to note is that Libertarian socialism is within Libertarianism whereas Libertarian Democrat, Libertarian Republican, Libertarian conservatism, etc. are mainly within Libertarianism in the United States.--Davide King (talk) 07:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

What I had in mind was to propose a framework which is a more thorough version of that in my most recent post. (BTW I've been sporadically / vaguely talking about it at the libertarian project for about 6 years but that is a lonely place....thanks for being here to start to change that, even if we disagree) At the individual articles we'd let the editors most knowledgeable on the topic apply the framework. So my idea does not include per-ordaining the outcome for any particular title/article. I'm planning to propose that more thoroughly but don't know when to do that given that we are in the middle of this RFC.North8000 (talk) 14:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Neologism tag. Do not remove until resolved.

I have inserted a neologism tag on the top of the article to inform readers about the RFC and the controversy surrounding the use of "right-libertarianism". Do not remove this template until the issue is resolved. JLMadrigal @ 02:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term (see use–mention distinction). An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy.

Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Misplaced Pages. The term does not need to be in Misplaced Pages in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic, or use the term within other articles.

In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title.

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary#Neologisms

JLMadrigal @ 13:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• That all pertains to articles about neologisms. This is not an article about a neologism. "Right-libertarian" is not a neologism, but even if it were, this is not an article about that term, you just object to the use of the term in this article, despite its use in reliable sources. --Pfhorrest (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• The term "right-libertarianism" is a neologism - a relatively new term used to describe a POV about a topic through the lens of that POV. None of your so-called "reliable sources" describe the use of the term. They all take it as a given. Furthermore, if you read the template guide, you will note that this template can refer to an article title or sections within an article. BTW, you can't remove templates without consensus. JLMadrigal @ 00:49, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• According to Google Ngrams, the term "right-libertarian" is almost exactly the same age as the Libertarian Party (1972 vs 1971). What a coincidence, since the term was only coined to refer to the new kind of "libertarianism" that that party promotes, and prior to the rise of that there was no need to distinguish between left- or right-libertarianism. ("Left-libertarian", in contrast, is a much newer term, but I don't see you complaining about the use of that term on this article, or anywhere else). --Pfhorrest (talk) 03:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• Ahh, so you concede that "libertarian" is the most common term to describe the ideology in question, and that the use of the term "libertarian" has already been expanded to include advocacy of a free marketplace - or as leftists call it, "capitalism". The only folks who "need" to use the "right" prefix advocate economic collectivism, AKA command economies, which have categorically been demonstrated to be anathema to economic liberty, AKA a "libertarian" society. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/command-economy.asp

So which template do you prefer? JLMadrigal @ 11:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• That's some pretty bad-faith strawmanning you've got going there, and a nice demonstration that you haven't actually been reading anything I've been saying for all of these months. Nobody has contested that both kinds of libertarians (left and right) generally just call themselves "libertarians"; the question at hand is how to distinguish the two kinds from each other, given that they both use the same name, and the only terminology for distinguishing them I've seen in any sources is "left-" and "right-". Also, if you check the Ngrams for "Libertarian", you'll notice that that that term is way, way older than the Libertarian Party or the works of Rothbard etc, further emphasizing that it has never been exclusive to their ideology and that what's now called "left-libertarianism" to distinguish it from them is the original sense of the term.

In other words, Ngrams for "libertarian", "right-libertarian", and "left-libertarian" highlight the evolution of the terminology and ideologies we've been trying to get through to you this whole time: "libertarian" was for a century or more a term for a kind of socialism, until in the mid-20th century it was coopted for a kind of capitalism, immediately after which the original libertarians started calling that new kind "right-libertarianism" to distinguish it from themselves, and then eventually a decade or more later started calling themselves "left-libertarians" to distinguish themselves from the increasingly popular association of "libertarianism" with right-libertarianism.

Also, you've apparently not heard anything I've tried to teach you about what left-libertarians believe, as you continue to mischaracterize them and their disagreements with right-libertarians. All libertarians, left and right, favor free markets and oppose command economies. But "free market" ≠ "capitalism", and "command economy" ≠ "socialism". Left-libertarians support free markets but oppose capitalism, and support socialism but oppose command economies. Right-libertarians, as you demonstrate, generally can't tell the difference between them, and if they can, think that if capitalism is an inevitable result of a free market then that's fine, if the only way to socialism is a command economy. Left-libertarians don't think that's true: they aim for a free market without capitalism, and socialism without a command economy. I've said all of this several times before here, to you specifically. It would be nice if you listened for once. --Pfhorrest (talk) 19:10, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• I was just going to write that you clearly misrepresented Pfhorrest and that Pfhorrest didn't concede what you were referring to, but Pfhorrest already replied about it and also made other points I fully agree with. Just one thing I would like to add is that there's prominent trend within libertarianism that rejects free markets and property as authority/hierarchy and advocate some form of decentralised, non-compulsary and voluntary planned economy. Indeed, libertarian was coined to mean a form of anarchism that was opposed to markets and property as unjust or unnecesary authority and hirerachy. By the 1890s, it was associated to all anarchism, but mainly with social anarchism (rather than individualist anarchism, although individualist anarchists also used it). It's only certain American libertarians who regard themselves as individualist anarchists that use the term in that relation.--Davide King (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• I trust that you know this subject better than me, but I think at least for the purposes of this discussion (or the intended meaning of my previous comment), a free market just means "non-compulsary and voluntary", or the opposite of a command economy; it doesn't have to be propertarian, which seems to be the distinction you're making. I am curious if you know of better terminology for an economy that is not a command economy but isn't necessarily propertarian. --Pfhorrest (talk) 01:55, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

• Well, that's not really the definition I know being used, but I understand what you're saying and I don't disagree with anything you have said, just that there're forms of libertarianism that reject the market, whether free or not. I would consider propertarian mainly right-libertarianism since most forms of libertarianism are based either on use and possession property rights or on communism. I would redirect you to Decentralized planning (economics). In such a society, I think the law of value would no longer exist and the sell or exchange of commodities wouldn't either, just like money. There would be calculation in kind based on its use value rather than exchange value and production would be based on use and not on profit, or to be sold and exchanged on a market.
• This is why Marxist–Leninist et similia states are seen as state capitalists, or simply capitalist, i.e. they all retained the capitalist mode of production and capitalist social relations, whether their form of capitalism was liberal or statist. This is also because socialism and communism are seen as synonymous by its proponents, with socialism being lower communism (like Lenin and Amadeo Bordiga argued) but still communism (no state, no classes, no money, no law of value; the only difference is that distribution would be based on contribution whereas in communism, with the higher development and efficiency, it would be based on needs. I think it was Stalin and his supporters who first widened the definition so as to say the Soviet Union had achieved socialism (I don't remember any Marxist–Leninist et similia state arguing that it had reached socialism, let alone communism; I think only Stalin did that with the 1936 Soviet Constitution and in Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR), so in their view socialism still includes the law of value and commodity exchange (if others did too, their socialism was based on the Stalinist definition, which critics would argue is just state capitalism).
• Anyway, another thing I wanted to say but forgot to add in my previous message is that both individualist and social anarchists largerly agree on the ends; their main arguments and debates was on the means and whether their means would reach their ends. Just like most anarcho-syndicalism or collecvist anarchists, many mutualists advocate communism as their ends but differ in their means and so on.--Davide King (talk) 04:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Allrightythen. I hope we can at least agree on a template for the dispute. "The factual accuracy of part of this article is disputed. The dispute is about a generalized use of the term "right-libertarianism" to describe all libertarianism that is not "left-libertarian"." Does that describe the dispute? JLMadrigal @ 14:23, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I think that it's proper. Plus it will give us a nudge to resolve this particular debate. North8000 (talk) 14:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@JLMadrigal: @Pfhorrest: @North8000: I think it actually needs to be justified. Is the dispute based on Misplaced Pages guidelines or simply a POV? JLMadrigal ad North8000 has so far not being able to put up reliable sources or arguments to justify the change from a long-standing consensus. For what it's worth, this was already discussed years ago and I'm sure I can find similar discussions as well. It's also based on a false premise as right-libertarianism isn't used to describe all libertarianism that is not "left-libertarian" but mainly anarcho-capitalism, minarchism and conservative/right-wing variants. Many libertarian philosophies may not fall in either or they may be considered part of both by various sources. The Steiner–Vallentyne school may as well be the right-wing of left-libertariaism or the left-wing of right-libertarianism, so it isn't so easy; and the concepts of left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism are easily found, compared and discussed in reliable sources.--Davide King (talk) 19:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

David, I thought I had made the point to the sky-is-blue point. Prevalance of use in wp:RS is the standard, which is pretty much everything that is published. Libertarianism, and mentions in sources exists in massively greater numbers in the US, and in those sources, and they don't use the term right libertarian. They use "libertarian". If you want me to provide you with the 10 or 100 examples of which word gets used in wp:rs's but I thought that it would be obvious. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:41, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

OK, here's a start. I used google to look for sources and, ignoring Misplaced Pages and it's mirrors, here we go from the top of the list. So this is a sampling of the first sources, NOT a selection:

• Source #1 https://www.britannica.com/topic/libertarianism-politics/Contemporary-libertarianism 3200 word Encyclopedia Britannica which discusses libertarianism, overall, but witha focuse onthe US style. "Libertarianism" used many dozens of time. "right-libertarian" used 0 times, "right-libertariianism" use 0 times.
• Source #2 https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/key-concepts-libertarianism "Libertarian" and "libertarianism" used many times, "right-libertarian and "right-libertarianism used zero times.
• Source #3 https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/key-concepts-libertarianism "Libertarian" and "libertarianism" used many times, "right-libertarian and "right-libertarianism used zero times.
• Source #4 https://www.lp.org/platform/"Libertarian" and "libertarianism" used many times, "right-libertarian and "right-libertarianism used zero times.
• Source #5 https://www.iep.utm.edu/libertar/ Wide-ranging, multi-thousand word article. "Libertarian" and "libertarianism" used many times, "right-libertarian and "right-libertarianism used zero times.
• Source #6 https://www.libertarianism.org/ Home page of libertariianism.org web site. I just hopped around a bit inside of it. "Libertarian" and "libertarianism" used many times, "right-libertarian and "right-libertarianism used zero times.
• Source #7 https://www.theadvocates.org/definitions-of-libertarianism/ "Libertarian" and "libertarianism" used many times, "right-libertarian and "right-libertarianism used zero times.
• Source #8 https://www.cnn.com/2016/05/27/politics/libertarianism-libertarian-party/index.html "Libertarian" and "libertarianism" used many times, "right-libertarian and "right-libertarianism used zero times.
• Source #9 (not a wp:rs) https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2014/aug/29/libertarian-ideology-natural-enemy-science "Libertarian" used many times, "right-libertarian and "right-libertarianism used zero times.
• Source #10 https://oxfordre.com/politics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-86 Wide-ranging multi-thousand word article. "Libertarian" and "libertarianism" used many times, "right-libertarian and "right-libertarianism used zero times.
• Source #11 (not a wp:rs) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIa35LlpqAc "Libertarian" and "libertarianism" used many times, "right-libertarian and "right-libertarianism used zero times.
• Source #12 (not a wp:rs) https://rationalwiki.org/Libertarianism 10,300 word article. "Libertarian" and "libertarianism" used I'd guess 100 times, "right-libertarian use 2 times.
• Source #13 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/libertarian (just a definition) "Right libertarian" not used
• x #xx Book listing
• Source #14 http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/libertarianism.html "Libertarian" and "libertarianism" used many times, "right-libertarian and "right-libertarianism used zero times.
• Source #15 https://prospect.org/power/libertarian-delusion/ "Libertarian" used many times, "right-libertarian and "right-libertarianism used zero times.
• source #16 https://reason.com/2016/06/09/libertarianism-yes-but-what-kind-of-libe/ Wide-renging multi-thousand word article. "Libertarian" and "libertarianism" used many times, "right-libertarian and "right-libertarianism used zero times.
• Source #17 https://fee.org/articles/who-is-a-libertarian/ "Libertarian" and "libertarianism" used many times, "right-libertarian and "right-libertarianism used zero times.
• Source #18 https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Libertarianism Wide-ranging multi-thousand word article. "Libertarian" and "libertarianism" used I'd guess 100 times, "right-libertarian" used once.
• Source #19 https://wiki.mises.org/Libertarianism Says that it uses material from Misplaced Pages
• Source #20 http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialSciences/ppecorino/INTRO_TEXT/Chapter%207%20Freedom/Freedom_Libertarianism.htm "Libertarian" and "libertarianism" used many times, "right-libertarian and "right-libertarianism used zero times.

North8000 (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Then I googled "Right-libertarian". The first 5 hits were Misplaced Pages articles. Then there was a blog with someone giving their explanation of "right-libertarian". The next 14 had no use of the term "right libertarian" they were hits on libertarianism with the word "right" (as in "rights") also somewhere in the title or early in the article.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:09, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@North8000: Thank you for your response. However, you fail to understand that most of these sources refer to Libertarianism in the United States (they would be used there, or here when talking about libertarianism in the United States), that's why they use simply libertarianism because that's the most prominent view; but alas that's libertarianism in the United States, not libertarianism as a whole. So yeah, both you and JLMadrigal seem to confuse Libertarianism for what we have in Libertarianism in the United States. Also, Google searches aren't the most indicative; Google Scholar is. Left-libertarianism refers to libertarian socialism and egalitarian libertarianism whereas right-libertarianism refers to anarcho-capitalism, minarchism and other more conservative/right-wing variants. In the United States, left-libertarianism refers to free-market anti-capitalism whereas right-libertarianism refers to culturally conservative libertarianism.--Davide King (talk) 21:30, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

No, I know all of that and I'm not confusing anything. In fact, you are making my point rather than refuting it. The subject of the article the the form of libertarianism that is far more present in the United states. And the relevant question is: do wp:rs's predominantly use "right-libertarian" to refer to it? And wp:rs's means practically every publication that refers to the subject. And the result was a resounding NO. Of the perhaps 1,000 references to the subject form of libertarianism, sources used "right-libertarian" 3 times and something else the other 997 times. .003 fails the test by miles for prevalent usage in sources. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:44, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@North8000: How does that make your point? Maybe the problem is the way Right-libertarianism currently is; it should be more globalised, for instance merging Libertarianism in South Africa and Libertarianism in the United Kingdom into it. Libertarianism in the United States and Right-libertarianism aren't exactly the same thing, although there's some overlap. The thing is that so-called socially liberals and fiscally conservatives libertarians are really just liberals who call themselves libertarians due naming issues; and they make the majority of libertarianism in the United States. So your questions are wrong because I have never said that sources refer to libertarianism in the United States as right-libertarianism. Reliable sources refer to right-libertarianis as a set of philosophies that includes anarcho-capitalism, minarchism and other coservative/right-wing variants. Even if what you said is true, we include many articles about topics that the average person may have never hear about, but that doesn't mean they should be deleted. I disagree that wp:rs's means practically every publication that refers to the subject; not every publication is reliable, although sources defined as not reliable may be used in certain cases.--Davide King (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm here more to contribute than to "win", and so I won't repeat my assertions, including the onest that we seem to have started going in circles on. But I will address a few narrower points in your post. For better or worse, wp:RS includes nearly every published source. One could debate that should not be so. But for the purposes of addressing article naming, it's I think a fine guide in additional to being the official guide. It's really talking about prevalence in the hundreds of millions of mentions in every day sources, not looking for the handful of people who are trying to come up with names to divide libertarianism into. Second, I've not been advocating deleting the article. My original idea, and the one that I proposed again would be to reduce it to an article about the term. In the extensive work done in talk the group decided to rename the article (but not what to rename it to) and so I was following that consensus rather than my original idea. But with that decided-on part seemingly forgotten, that "article about the term" is looking good again. Finally, just in case I didn't do a good job of saying it, I really think that you are seeing this through two lenses. One lens is European in the sense that you keep asserting that, where European English conflicts with elsewhere that the European meaning is the correct one. E.G that American libertarians is an incorrect name for liberals. I think that that second lens is subtler......that of European academics trying to come up with names trying to group philosophies, and who see libertarianism as something that is thoroughly defined as philosophies (as it is in Europe) vs. across the pond where it is a giant vague phenomena which isn't, other than having a few general tenets. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:07, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@North8000: As stated by Pfhorrest, that wasn't really following the guidelines, so I don't think there's any actual consensus to rename it. Either way, if you don't want to merge and make it mainly about the term as it is now, then I don't see what other compliants or chages you want to apply. I think the issue has been solved by removing part from Libertarianism in the United States that made me wrongly appear like it was the exact same thing (so now it seems to be only JLMadrigal that wants to delete or rename the page, or that has problems with right-libertarianism). I think both Left- and Right-libertarianism needs a new, from the scratch History section that isn't copied from other articles specifically about them (for instance, the Alliance of the Libertarian Left and its predessors, the history of the libertarian spectrum, what movements identified as left or right did, etc.) and maybe a section that talks about the libertarian left and right in general terms, perhaps discussion their relation with the New Left and the New right, respectively. Either way, I'm not using or seeing through any lens, I'm simply what what reliable sources have been saying, namely that American libertarianism, liberalism and conservatism are all part of the liberal tradition/school, although by no means all libertarianism is (some strands of left-libertarianism are well within the anarchist/libertarian socialist one, which already came out from liberalism itself and has been strongly beenn influenced by it but ultimately rejected it or went beyond it). I also think this discussion should be at Talk:Right-libertarianism since that seems to be the main issue. We can't remove left-libertarian and right-libertarian refernces and namings as long as there're articles about them, so why should we simply remove right-libertarian from the lead liek JLMadrigal is proposing? And I think they both should remain.--Davide King (talk) 14:55, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm away for the holidays so barely able to participate here but some quick comments.

The new template is far less objectionable but still not correct. There isn't a dispute about factual accuracy but rather about neutral phrasing. Also, as Davide already pointed out, nobody's claiming that right-libertarianism is just anything that isn't left-libertarianism, just that there are left and right sides of a spectrum of libertarian views.

Also as Davide points out above, there really was no consensus as wiki policy means the term to rename the article. If anything, there was a more proper consensus months ago to not rename the article.

Everything else I have to say is just stuff I've already said a million times before. It doesn't matter if almost all sources talking about "football" mean soccer, that doesn't mean that the article Football should be about that rather than about the whole varieties of things called football, or that there's anything wrong with the name "Association football" to distinguish soccer from other varieties of football, if that's what reliable sources making such a distinction, as we need to do, predominantly use. --Pfhorrest (talk) 20:46, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

The principal problems with the term "right-libertarianism" are that it is not commonly used, and that it implies identification with the political right (social conservatism) - which the described brand of libertarianism certainly doesn't. JLMadrigal @ 12:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@JLMadrigal: Not only is that false but it's just further proof you don't understand the topic. There're indeed libertarians who identify with the political right or work within it and who are indeed social or cultural conservatives. That doesn't mean all libertarianism is, it's just a faction/variant/whatever you want to call it.--Davide King (talk) 14:38, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

In politics, (= talking about government) social conservative advocates increased governmental controls in social areas. This is the opposite of libertarianism. North8000 (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@North8000: ncreased governmental controls in social areas That's not exactly what they advocate. I suggest you check out Paleolibertarianism (Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Lew Rockwell et all) to better understand what I'm talking about and referring to.--Davide King (talk) 15:00, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Divide, as mentioned above, the brand of libertarian that identifies with the political right already has an article, Libertarian conservatism. The term "right-libertarianism" as used in this article, and the misnamed "right-libertarianism" article, however, is inappropriately used to describe all self-identified libertarians except for those who still oppose property. JLMadrigal @ 23:52, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Libertarian conservatism is just an ideology, Right-libertarianism is a set of philosophies. You continue to not understand the topic despite Pfhorrest and I being clear about it; you have a bias towards capitalist private property. Many left-libertarians support property, they just have different views towards it and advocate different property rights, so what you wrote isn't only misleading but outright wrong. Even Marx and Engels wrote: “You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.” Communists simply want to socialise property in both production and distribution; socialists mainly production (i.e. non-capitalist property norms, or usufruct). So the division isn't necessarely between propertarians and anti-propertarians.--Davide King (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Most libertarians don't want some Marxist bureaucracy dictating what types of property they can and cannot have. On the contrary, they just want to be left alone, and can see through collectivist propaganda. JLMadrigal @ 03:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

You continue to demonstrate that not only do you have no idea what you’re talking about but you can’t even understand attempts to explain to you what other people think.

But I guess I’ll give it another try anyway. Anti-propertarian libertarians —- who are not all left-libertarians or all libertarian socialists — are not necessarily collectivist, are anti-bureaucratic, and are definitely not dictating anything to anyone. Rather, they think that nobody should have the authority to dictate who may or not make use of (certain kinds of) things: which is to say they should not have enforceable claims to (certain kinds of) private property. A claim to private property is a claim that you get to dictate who may or may not use something. In the absence of all governance, everything is free for everyone to use, because nothing is prohibited. Propertarians want certain things prohibited that anti-propertarians think should remain permitted. Like walking across some parcel of land, which in the absence of all governance would be permitted of anyone, but a propertarian would have permitted only to one person, designated its owner, and his guests, but prohibited to everyone else. —Pfhorrest (talk) 05:48, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

That may all look good on paper, Pfhorrest, but hindsight is 2020. In a free-for-all situation, no one can stop a polluter from contaminating (reducing the value of) his property. Thus collectivist countries are cursed with an abundance of every form of contamination - and the bureaucracy necessary to collectivize property. No one can even build a structure with any confidence that his investment will pay off. P2P transfers of property, on the other hand, only require agreements between the immediate parties concerned. I understand Marxist idealism better than you think. But in the realm of libertarianism, antipropertarians have become an anomaly. JLMadrigal @ 13:28, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

You’re arguing that anti-propertarianism is a bad idea, which you’re free to do, but that’s different from misrepresentating what anti-propertarian libertarians believe. They are not necessarily in favor of “collectivism”, and they are against bureaucracy, and definitionally against “collectivized property” because they are against property in general. You can argue that that would lead to pollution etc and so would be a bad idea, but that’s the idea they support nevertheless. Your argument is formally akin to saying there’s no such thing as anarcho-capitalism because capitalism is a form if statism: and real anarchists would say yeah, capitalism is un-anarchist, but would not deny that there are people who are anti-state but pro-capital, just that those people’s ideas are bad. But it’s nevertheless the idea they support. —Pfhorrest (talk) 16:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

As correctly pointed out by Pfhorrest, you seem to believe as a ever lasting, natural fact in the tragedy of the commons, even when Elinor Ostrom was awarded the 2009 Nobel Prize in Economics for demonstrating how local communities were able to without top-down regulations or privatization. You seem to be taking it as a given that there must be a bureaucracy necessary to collectivize property. You seem to see it only through the lens of capitalist property rights, even when there're many other non-capitalist or anti-capitalist property rights. One could just as easily say that there must be a bureaucracy necessary to privatise property; indeed, that's exactly what we have. Not only just a burueacracy but a full-on state to protect all these rights; you simply cannot possible consider the fact that the propertyless people are coerced into this; you don't consider the state protecting private property rights as using "force" against the propertyless people. One could just as easily say that communism is the true advocate of freedom and property because it actually gives property to everyone; not only that but also the free access to the means of production. You also probably see collectivized property as the forced collectivisation in the Soviet Union. Later in his life, Engels argued that a program should be presented that foresees the development of agricultural cooperatives because "when we gain the power of the state, we will not be able to think of violently expropriating small owners, with or without compensation, as will instead be done with large owners. Our task will be to direct their individual production and their private property into a cooperative regime, without using force, but with example and help". You also seem to believe that from the start everything is or should be private property whereas even liberals like Locke argued that originally it was the commons; that God gave the Earth's resources to mankind. Indeed, what Locke was trying to do is to justify private property. Communists believe common property (free access) should be the norm; you and capitalists believe that it should be private property, even when many other people are actually propertyless. Even then, most communists and socialists aren't actually opposed to individual property, provided there's free access and one own it only for as long as one uses it. You simply assume that a bureaucracy is the only way to manage that; you just cannot think or imagine anything else, ignoring all thinkers and philosophies that have actually proposed solution to problems. You're free to think so, but you aren't free to use that as arguments; Pfhorrest is more neutral and knowledgable, so I suggest you to actaully read and reasearch the topic and then come back because otherwhise it merely looks like an "I don't like it".

Either way, I'm glad you started discussing again back at Talk:Right-libertarianism because that's where it should be discussed. I believe the template here is misleading and it should be removed because the issue seem to be mainly with using right-libertarianism, but as long as Right-libertarianism and Left-libertarianism are here I don't see why we shouldn't use the current wording.--Davide King (talk) 14:25, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

When one person owns something, he has an incentive to care for it and improve its value. When two people own something, the incentive is diminished by 50%. The greater the number of owners, the greater the tragedy. Simple math. Simple economics. Nevertheless, today's libertarians accommodate all views - even collectivism which is rapidly becoming akin to the flat earth minority. These "true believers" are certainly not half of libertarians anymore. They have become the fringe. JLMadrigal @ 01:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, that certainly doesn't always happen in real lfe, does it? Or was that not real captalism, or not true libertarianism or private propertarianism? Honestly, after this comment I'm done here. You're ideologically blind. I hope Pfhorrest can reply you though.--Davide King (talk) 10:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! "Ideologically blind" is the greatest compliment I could ask for. Most libertarians today are also ideologically blind. They don't push ideological agendas - as does the political left - and right. They just want politicians and utopianists to leave them alone. JLMadrigal @ 17:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he meant "blinded by your ideology", not "blind to ideologies", though in effect those are the same -- just like everyone has an accent and those who think they "don't have an accent" are just ignorant of their bias toward their own accent, likewise everyone has an ideology, and those who think they "don't have an ideology" as just ignorant of their bias toward their own ideology. In the case of right-libertarians like you: you "just want politicans and utopianists to leave you alone", except to defend what you consider to be your property, despite others' claims to the contrary. --Pfhorrest (talk) 18:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I count myself among the bulk of libertarians, who despise the political right (social collectivism) and the political left (economic collectivism), along with the influences of political ideologies (politics) in general, in favor of natural market processes and social interactions. I strive to be politically blind in the same way that markets are colorblind, &c. One can be more ideological or less ideological in the same way that one can be more religious or less religious, &c. JLMadrigal @ 19:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

That "natural market processes and social interactions" is where the bias gets baked in -- for you, or for anyone else who appeals to such a thing, even when those people disagree with you. What processes and interactions are "natural"? You have one idea of that, other people have other ideas, and both of those opinions constitutes an ideology. I expect your answer will be "uncoerced", but that just pushes the problem back further -- things that you think are "natural and uncoerced", others will see as the artificial product of coercion (like private ownership of the means of production). "Ideologically neutral" is really just a euphemism for "correct and undistorted", and of course everyone feels like their ideology is neutral, correct and undistorted, otherwise they would think differently -- just like everyone thinks their accent is the neutral, correct and undistorted accent, but nevertheless other people still disagree about that. --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• This discussion is now far away from the purpose of the Talk page, which is to discuss potential improvements to the article; it is not a forum for general discussion of the article subject. - Ryk72 21:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• This is directly relevant to improvement of the article because it's about whether what Madrigal things is a neutral point of view actually is or not. --Pfhorrest (talk) 00:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

This Talk page is WP:NOTAFORUM for general discussion of the article subject. Focus on content, sources and policies & guidelines. Do not discuss other editors or their beliefs. - Ryk72 01:09, 31 December 2019 (UTC)}}

We are focusing on content. Other editors and their beliefs are directly relevant to that, as the neutrality of this (and related) articles is the principle point of contention, so recognizing bias and how to avoid it is an important part of settling whether the article is actually neutral or not. --Pfhorrest (talk) 03:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing - Libertarianism & Anarchism

On review of the sourcing used in the article, I notice that there are a number of instances taken from sections or chapters of sources which have a primary topic of "anarchism". e.g. The Routledge Companion to Social and Political Philosophy; The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought. Those sources also appear to have separate sections on "libertarianism", which are not used. Why is this so? - Ryk72 21:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I also notice a number of other sources whose primary topic is "anarchism", not "libertarianism". Some of these do not seem particularly reliable. e.g. Cuban Anarchism, which is explicitly a "tribute" to Cuban Anarchists. - Ryk72 21:24, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ryk72: Thanks for your comments. As established by other sources, libertarian and libertarianism have been used as a synonym for anarchism and libertarian socialism. As for the source, left-libertarianim has also been used as a way to describe 19th century, classical libertarianism (i.e. anarchism) that is now classified as left-libertarianism and in that case it's referring to this; it just calls it left-libertarianism to distinguish it from right-libertarianism and then use the term left-libertarianism to refer to modern libertarian ideologies that are seen as part of this broad left-libertarianism. I don't know if I explained it well, let me know.--Davide King (talk) 21:36, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Appreciate the reply. I'm not certain, unfortunately, that that does explain things well. That the terms "libertarian" or "libertarianism" were used as a euphemism for "anarchism" may well be true; but to combine this with sources which primarily describe "anarchism", and ignore the portions of those sources which describe "libertarianism" (whatever that may be), and then use this combination as the basis for the article seems like synthesis. Probably worth discussing the use of the Routledge source in a separate section; which I've started, below. - Ryk72 00:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ryk72: Thanks again for your concers and comments. Anarchism and libertarianism, especially left-libertarianism, are interrelated. As far as I understand it, even if it use left-libertarianism in that case, it supports that phrasing and it's using left-libertarianism simply to distinguish it from right-libertarianism but I don't think there's really any controversy that libertarianism began as a left-wing and anarchist, communist thing/movement that by the late 19th century came to involve all anarchism, by the 20th century also libertarian communism/Marxism and non-anarchist libertarian socialism and by the mid-20th century also what has been called right-libertarianism (anarcho-capitalism, minarchism et all). I admit I'm not an expert with source/sourcing, so I could be wrong but I think the reason why is that is that libertarianism in that case is referring to what we have in Libertarianism in the United States. So what we do for Liberalism and Modern liberalism in the United States, the same is done for libertarianism, i.e. sources may simply say liberalism or libertarianism but it's made clear which tradition they're actually referring to.--Davide King (talk) 14:38, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

If a source says that Roquefort was developed in France, it is not for us to say that this applies to all cheese. It does not matter whether we personally consider there to be a controversy that libertarianism began as a left-wing and anarchist, communist thing/movement... or not; what matters is what reliable sources say, and we do not (yet?) have a reliable source which says such. We are, however, wandering blithely past the sections of sources which deal with "Libertarianism", in order to source the content of this article to sections of sources which do not (directly?) deal with "Libertarianism". That is not what policy says we should do. - Ryk72 04:15, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Lead - Routledge etc

The lead section contains the following text Libertarianism originated as a form of left-wing politics such as anti-authoritarian and anti-state socialists like anarchists, especially social anarchists, which is currently sourced to The Routledge Companion to Social and Political Philosophy. p. 227. "In its oldest sense, is a synonym either for anarchism in general or social anarchism in particular." The source text appears in a "Terminological Note" at the end of the Chapter on Anarchism.
I see a multiple issues in using this source to support this text. i) We ignore the section of the source which covers "Libertarianism". (discussed in the Talk section above); ii) this is a terminological note, not the core of the source; iii) the source text discusses "left-libertarianism", not "libertarianism"; iv) the source discusses the etymology of the term "left-libertarianism", not the history of "libertarianism" (that is, it discusses the word, not the thing; we engage in form of reification when we conflate the two).
Thoughts? - 00:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

The source has been replaced with a reference to the same work. p. 223. "In the meantime, anarchist theories of a more communist or collectivist character had been developing as well. One important pioneer is French anarcho-communists Joseph Déjacque (1821–1864), who appears to have been the first thinker to adopt the term "libertarian" for this position; hence "libertarianism" initially denoted a communist rather than a free-market ideology." This source also has issues i), iv) and v) this is a passing mention in a source primarily about another topic. For mine, issue iv) appears to be significant, and I will make edits to bring the source and article content into alignment. - Ryk72 01:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages former featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Misplaced Pages former brilliant prose
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Conservatism articles
• High-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism 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
• B-Class sociology articles
• Mid-importance sociology articles
• B-Class history articles
• Low-importance history articles
• WikiProject History articles
• B-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• B-Class United States History articles
• Unknown-importance United States History articles
• WikiProject United States History articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• B-Class Human rights articles
• Low-importance Human rights articles
• WikiProject Human rights articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press